The Immorality of Truth: A New Irony

For quite some time, the liberal media has sought to separate sex from its ethical and moral anchor, and the result of their largely successful campaign to do so has been the normalization of all types of sexual deviancy that our culture once considered taboo. Furthermore, the attempts of the secular left to marginalize any objection to this new sexual ethic have resulted in a slate of appellatives that can now be readily applied to the objectors: homophobe, bigot, and fundamentalist are three labels that quickly come to mind.

But yesterday, I found that Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald has a new moniker for those who dare raise the moral question with regard to homosexuality in particular. . . .we are now immoral!

Pitts' Friday column in the Herald addressed comments made last week by General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint cheifs of staff. Having personally heard General Pace's comments, I knew it would not be long before the press picked up on this opportunistic fodder and sent it through the rapidly-revolving cooling-unit. Calls have been made for the General's resignation, the end of the don't ask-don't tell military policy, and for a public apology...all in response to Pace's simple statement below:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Still, of all the strong objections given to the General's comments over the past week, I found Leonard Pitts' to be the most peculiar. To be sure, Pitts resorts to the typical lines of response as well:

Name-calling: "People like the general--in other words bigots, often wrap their objections up in claims of fundamental right and wrong where sexual orientation is concerned.

"Categorical Fallacy: "It is immoral to be Jewish? Immoral to be male? Is it immoral to hail from Idaho? How then, can it be immoral to be gay?

"Misrepresentation of the Opposition: "At this point, of course, someone is frantically pointing to an obscure Old Testament passage as his or her authority for the immorality of homosexuality. Thing is, the Old Testament also requires the death penalty for disrespectful children, forbids the eating of meat cooked rare, and obligates the man who rapes a virgin to by her from her father and marry her."

For the record, this "bigot" doesn't need Leviticus. I have Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. While the proscription of punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus is certainly bound within the Mosaic Covenant, the over-arching principle of Biblial sexual ethics remains a universal, and thus, trans-covanental stipulation. And for the life of me, anyone who equates ethnic nationality, gender, and geographic location with sexual behavior makes such an absurd argument that nothing else need be taken seriously.

Still, I was intrigued by the one unconventional approach taken by Pitts: that of referring to those who object to the homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds as themselves immoral. How on earth does a man with the intelligence and eloquence of a Pulitzer-prize winner manage to make such a leap? I found the steps in his column:

1. Re-define Morality: "Morality, it has always seemed to me, has less to do with commonalities of existence then with how you treat other people." There you have it! Morality is now no longer about knowing right from wrong. It is about how I "treat" my neighbor. I smell a false-dichotomy!

Would it be morally reprehensible, for example, for me to walk by my neighbors house while it was going up in smoke, with my neighbor inside? Certainly it would. Why then, is it not considered equally reprehensible to refrain from warning someone that their behavior places them at an astronomically-high risk for the worst kinds of Sexually Transmitted Diseases . . .the "terminal" kind? Why is it not considered immoral to confront a lifestyle that has led so many to depression and suicide?

And regarding the military; why would we consider it "immoral" to prohibit any behavior that might result in a breakdown of discipline? The don't ask...don't tell policy is there for the same reason the "no women in combat" rule is there (oh wait, the politically correct have done away with this one already, haven't they?) Sexual tension..whether heterosexual or homosexual..is the absolute last thing you want on a battlefield!

To say that morality has little if anything to do with "commonalities" and is all about how people are treated is to say we can all have different understandings of what "kindness" and "equality" and "tolerance" mean, yet still treat each other with these virtues. But if the above-described vision of "morality" can find its way into the mainstream, then you can be sure that the "immoral" label will be attached to any evangelical who dares to question sexual behavior prohibited by Scripture.

2. Change the Subject. "Team Bush misled the nation into war against the wrong enemy. It hospitalized wounded Americans in squalor and filth. It left the people we 'liberated' without electricity, gasoline, or medical services for months turning to years because of its failure to plan. How moral is that?"

From my vantagepoint, the jury is still out on the conflict in Iraq. As such, Pitts' claims regarding this war may indeed end up having merit. But even if his assessment of the war is correct, such an assessment changes nothing with regard to the subject matter he seeks to address.

This approach of "who are you to judge us?" is in reality nothing more than a cleverly disguised ad hominem attack. Suppose I am arrested for the armed robbery of a convenience store? Suppose that to answer for my crimes I am dragged before a judge who is corrupt? Suppose, as my defense, I say something like this:

I may be a thief, but how moral is it of you to sit up there behind that bench and judge me? How many times have you taken payoffs in exchange for 'not-guilty' verdicts? How much of the taxpayer's money have you wasted sitting through hours of court hearings only to let someone guilty go free? What about that pedophille you released just last month because of a technicality?

Could all of that be true of a judge who gives me the maximum sentence? Sure. Do I still deserve punishment? Absolutely.

On a similar note, let's just assume that Pitts' claims against the current administration are true. Let's assume the President really is a liar. Let's assume General Pace intentionally placed our wounded soldiers into abhorrent medical conditions. With all these things assumed, what has changed regarding homosexuality?

Not a thing!

In the end, Pitts accuses General Pace of holding to a "visceral" view of immorality. Upon further investigation, it appears that Mr. Pitts' view of morality is itself quite "visceral." If our culture has reached the point of referring to truth as "immoral," then perhaps the viscera is the only foundation on which we can seek to build a common understanding of right and wrong. But making absolute statements based on your "gut-instinct" seems to me the least-likely of ways to perpetuate a civilized society.

Ironic as it may sound to many on the left, I believe I'll find relief from all this "immorality" in the text of Scripture!

_____________

Read Leonard Pitt's article here: http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/43139.html

A Word from One who Left

Without a doubt, the Southern Baptist Convention presently stands at a crossroads. As an Associational servant, each and every day I observe both the best and the worst of our denominational culture. And while I am one of the few young guys who still see the glass as "half-full," I am well-aware that many young leaders within the SBC are simply emptying their glasses and looking for another well.

Their reasons for leaving are many...admittedly, some are simply whiners who despise all things institutional. Such persons will never be pleased, and we should never be surprised to see this type of individual jump ship. Still, there are others who are leaving; the kind of creative, competent people who are essential to our continued success and Kingdom impact. These don't usually make a lot of noise when they jump off the wagon. In fact, most simply say nothing. They just dissapear. But today, I heard from one of them, and I think you should hear from him too.

I was reading an online essay by Nathan Finn, a current Ph.D. student and staff member at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, entitled The Varieties of SBC Conservatism. I commend this article to you, and give the link to it below so that you can benefit from the wisdom of this soon-to-be Doctor. It is articulate, consistent, sagacious, and in some sense may even prove to be prophetic. Yet it wasn't Finn's article that caught my attention so much as one of the comments left on his thread.

For some time I have been seeking to put to words the sentiment I hear from many young pastors within the SBC. The annonymous comment below sums up this sentiment well:

· A handful of reasons why we are leaving:
We are leaving because we are more committed to winning souls in the world than winning a majority position in a denominational arena.
We are leaving because we have the ability to hold different theological positions and discuss those positions, without hating one another for them.
We are leaving because it is more important to us to worship with a pure heart and serve with clean hands than to judge others in their worship and service.
We are leaving because we understand that when Christ returns he will not be riding on a Donkey or even on an Elephant for that matter.
We are leaving because we want to distance ourselves from tongues seemingly set on fire by Hell that must be heard in annual meetings or on daily blogs to feel righteous.
We are leaving because the Kingdom has come, the fields are white, and many SBC workers have become more preoccupied with who THEY are and less with who HE is.

Well said.

For more than 150 years, the SBC has been used by God to extend His Kingdom in mighty ways, and I still believe our potential is great. But if our desire is to continue this legacy well into the 21st Century, we had better pay attention to voices like the one above!

________
Read Nathan Finn's post here: http://nathanafinn.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/the-varieties-of-sbc-conservatism-a-blog-essay/

The Death of a Man of God: What Really Matters

Anyone who knows me well knows that John Piper is one of the foremost influencers of my theology and ministry. For more than a decade, I have been blessed and mentored from a distance by this man of God through reading his books, listening to his sermons, and having the opportunity on a few occassions to meet him personally.

One of the reasons John Piper is such a blessing to many is because of his father Bill, a Greenville, South Carolina itinerant evangelist. I learned today that Bill Piper passed away, and a funeral will take place in my hometown to memorialize him.

Interestingly, this news came to me at the same time that I was pondering my own future. At 35, I still, God willing, have much more to do in advancing the Kingdom of God. But at my age, it is easy to get caught up in the "professional" side of what I do . . .wondering, for example, what I will be doing in five or ten years . . . .still in associational work? Back in the pastorate? Teaching in a seminary?

John Piper's recent blog entry memorializing his dad just reminded me today that none of those things really matter. What does matter is the legacy of faith I leave for my family. I read with tears the following words that Piper wrote in memory of his father, and prayed that one day, when I leave this world for the next one, similar words might be spoken of me by my sons:

An exerpt, with what I consider the most moving parts highlighted:

The doctor in his green frock came at 12:40 and listened with his stethoscope to four different places on Daddy’s chest. Then he pulled back the sheet and said, “I must apply some pain stimuli to his nail base to see if he reacts. Then he used his flashlight to test Daddy’s eyes. “The nurse supervisor will come and get the information we need about the mortuary.” Thank you.
Alone again, I felt his cheeks. Finally cool after the fevered and flushed fight. I felt his nose, as though I were blind. Then I felt mine. I thought, very soon my nose will be like your nose. It is already like your nose.

The nurse came. No thank you, an autopsy will not be necessary. Mackey Mortuary on Century Drive. My name is John, his son. My cell phone is . . . . “You may stay as long as you like.” Thank you. I will be leaving soon.

Now I just look at him. Nothing has changed in his face here in the darkness of this dim light. Just no movement. But I have watched his chest so long—even now, was that a slight rise and fall? No, surely not. It’s like sailing on the sea for days. On the land the waves still roll.
He has four-day’s beard and dark eyes. I lift an eyelid to see him eye to eye. They are dilated.

Thank you, Daddy. Thank you for sixty-one years of faithfulness to me. I am simply looking into his face now. Thank you. You were a good father. You never put me down. Discipline, yes. Spankings, yes. But you never scorned me. You never treated me with contempt. You never spoke of my future with hopelessness in your voice. You believed God’s hand was on me. You approved of my ministry. You prayed for me. Everyday. That may be the biggest change in these new days: Daddy is no longer praying for me.

I look you in the face and promise you with all my heart: Never will I forsake your gospel. O how you believed in hell and heaven and Christ and cross and blood and righteousness and faith and salvation and the Holy Spirit and the life of holiness and love. I rededicate myself, Daddy, to serve your great and glorious Lord Jesus with all my heart and with all my strength. You have not lived in vain. Your life goes on in thousands. I am glad to be one.

I kissed him on his cold cheek and on his forehead. I love you, Daddy. Thank you.

What a legacy!

So often those of us whose profession it is to ready souls for eternity are drawn toward the temporal . . .the advanced degree, the denominational recognition, the numerical growth of a church, the celebrity that certainly accompanies minsitry as much as it does any other profession . . . .in light of eternity, none of that matters. And on the Day of Judgement, if these things are brought up at all, I suspicion they will only have been barriers to what we should have been doing and a justification of God's judgement on us. God, grant us the grace to treat temporal things for what they are . . . .temporal.

Help us to live with eternity in view, that such things might be said of us as are now said of William Piper!

Read more at http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/

William Wilberforce and Pastors who Change History

To all of my non-pastor readers: I ask you to please excuse the following post, and indulge me a bit as I share a moment of comeraderie with my brothers-in-arms. And although this post is for the purpose of encouraging pastors, I encourage you, as a non-pastor, to read on. Perhaps what is written will help you to pray more intelligently for your pastor as he seeks to make the difference I am convinced he can make!

Every month in North America, approximately 1500 pastors leave the ministry. . . .for good. The casualty rate among those called to ministry is high. 4 of 5 who graduate from a theological seminary this spring will no longer be in ministry by 2012. While many of these casualties are explained by moral failure, many more are simply the result of discouragement, depression, and exasperation. Many pastors simply feel as though their ministry makes no difference.

The worst kept secret in Christendom is that the Pastorate is often a thankless job. Furthermore, those who enter ministry with dreams of striking it rich have altogether lost their concept of reality. Everyone knows that if money is what you seek, ministry is, generally speaking, NOT the place to find it. So while there are a few co-dependent golddiggers lurking in a few seminaries, most called to ministry understand the sacrifice they are making. Still, a few years into ministry, they feel as though something is missing. They signed up for this because they wanted to make a difference in people's lives. They wanted to transform their church and its surrounding area through the power of the Gospel, and after years of waiting for such, many seem to think to themselves "this simply isn't what I thought I signed up for."

As an associational servant and 15-year ministry veteran, I have heard these thoughts from a few pastors. Many more exist, I am sure, who feel the same way, and simply choose to conceal their pain. And as I think back over my own experiences, many have been the times when I have thought in regard to my own ministry: "What good am I accomplishing?"

These experiences came to mind as my wife and I decided to take in the new movie "Amazing Grace" during its opening night last weekend. The film chronicles the road to the abolition of slavery in Great Brittain as it was led by William Wilberforce. While Wilberforce had always been an opponent of slavery, it was after his conversion to Christianity in 1785 that his distaste for the barbaric practice became empassioned. Together with then Prime Minister William Pitt, Wilberforce faced in Parliament a super-majority of politicians who were themselves the beneficiaries of the slave trade. The first time he instroduced his abolition bill, it went down in flames, by a vote of 163 to 88. For the next sixteen years, Wilberforce faced defeat on this issue.

During this trying time, Wilberforce leaned on the advice of Anglican pastor John Newton. Prior to his own conversion, Newton had himself traded in human life; profiteering from the slave trade as the owner of a slave ship that transported newly captured human commodities to the British Isles. Later in life, it was Newton's own conviction over the sheer evil of his own actions that led him to encourage Wilberforce to continue the battle in Parliament. The results of Wilberforce's determination came in 1807, as slavery was abolished in Great Brittain.

In addition, Wilberforce took great encouragement from the writings of another abolitionist pastor by the name of John Venn. Parliamentary records show that during the height of the debate over abolition, Wilberforce actually took Venn's sermons on human rights into Parliament and read them to this legislative body as a way of saying "this is why the slave trade must be outlawed."

Last Friday night, as I watched the cinematic version of these events, it occurred to me that two relatively unknown pastors were faithful in discipling a young member of Parliament, and changed the world as a result. Venn's name is obscure even in the annuls of history, and Newton is known more for "Amazing Grace" than for his relationship with Wilberforce. But there is no slavery in Great Brittain because these two men were faithful in carrying out one of Paul's most impassioned pleas to Timothy:

And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (-2 Timothy 2:2 ESV)

Paul knew that the Gospel would only permeate culture if it were replicated, and it would only be replicated if entrusted to those who would commit themselves to passing on the Faith once delivered to others. A few simple things are required for this:
1. A genuine conversion; Timothy himself had to be taught, and had to accept the Apostolic teaching.
2. An evangelistic passion; Once converted, you want to share this life-changing experience with others. As John Newton said to William Wilberforce, "I'm a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior."
3. A mind for equipping others; You don't just want to be an evangelist. You want others to be evangelists, which means you are not satisfied until those you have led to Christ are actively sharing Him with others.

These three simple things will result in the transformation of a community, a city, or even a nation. Accompanying that transformation will be the jettisoning of cultural evils like slavery, racism, abortion, sexual deviancy, murder, and social injustice.

The problem is that many pastors, in moments of discouragement, are tempted to judge their ministries based upon those moments: the low-attendance on Sunday, the low offering in the plate, the seeming cultural insignificance of his local church. When we focus on such things, we lose sight of what really matters to God; namely, whether or not we are doing what He has called us to do. Faithfulness to the task of equipping faithful men with the tools neccesary to impact their spheres of influence with the Gospel IS success to God! So if you are a pastor who wonders whether he is making a difference, don't ask yourself about church attendance, or budgetary limitations, or building prominence. Ask yourself how your present actions, your schedule, your priorities, and your passions line up with what Paul commands of us all in 2 Timothy 2:2. Are you growing in your relationship to Christ? Are you in turn passing on what you are receiving to faithful men? Are these faithful men in turn passing that on to others? If the answers to these questions is "yes," then take heart. God is pleased with your ministry.

This year, the sons and daughters of former British slaves are celebrating 200 years of freedom because two men of God were faithful to their calling of equipping one young member of Parliament, and discipling him well. When I think of this as the Director of an Association of 56 Baptist Churches I have to ask: If two faithful pastors can have this effect, what kind of impact could 56 of them make?

My prayer is that this will be read by pastors who are discouraged; who are tempted to voluntarily become one of the 1500 who will leave the ministry in March 2007. I pray you will commit yourself afresh to your calling, because your faithfulness to that calling will change the world!

Missions in the Country: Not what it Used to Be!

Over the past decade, the church has witnessed an increasing emphasis on urban ministry, and rightly so! Demographic studies reveal that masses of people are now moving back into our nation’s largest cities. In addition, the phenomenon known as “globalization,” the growing affinity that world class cities have with each other that makes New York City culturally more like Bejing that neighboring New York state suburbs, makes apparent the necessity of strategically targeting the city. Missiologists are correct when they say that if we can reach the cities, we will eventually reach the world!

But can we reach the cities by urban evangelism alone? While a cursory glance at the demographic landscape might suggest an affirmative answer, a deeper look at what is happening in the countrysides of North America puts to bed the notion that our rural and town and country churches have no place in reaching the world with the Gospel of Christ.

In my capacity at the Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, I am witnessing these happenings first hand. Our association is comprised of 56 churches and church plants. Of that number, 19 are located in rural or town and country areas where rolling fields, silos and farms still outnumber tall buildings and bustling highways. Still, these areas have experienced much more change over the past several years than is immediately apparent, most of which has been caused by new residents who have moved into these areas. Want to take a guess where most of these new residents work? If you guessed the city, you guessed correctly! If we reach the cities, we reach the world. At the same time, reaching the city means reaching those who work there. Bottom line: Our rural churches are just as crucial as our suburban and urban churches are when it comes to reaching the city!

Regrettably, the appropriate focus of church growth literature on urban and suburban areas has resulted in town and country churches being largely neglected. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that most of our rural churches were started when the area around them was . . . .well, rural! Although the landscape still looks the same, the mindset of rural residents has changed dramatically over the past several years. Marty Giese, who has pastored churches in rural areas for over three decades, even suggests that the term “rural” may in fact be misleading. While it may still accurately reflect the geographic surroundings, it no longer describes the worldview and culture of many who now live there. As an alternative to the terms “rural” and “urban,” Giese suggests the use of the terms “agrarian” and “cosmopolitan.” Such terms can be used to accurately describe the mindset of the different kinds of people who now live in the country.

One real-life example of these differing mindsets would be my own home. I live in northwestern Howard Country Maryland, an area referred to by locals as “Western County.” Having grown up in a rural area, I am taking full advantage of living in an area that is largely still zoned for farming. I own chickens and my neighbors own horses. But while the area where we live is still rural, few of us now living in that area are “agrarian.” My next-door neighbor is a contractor for the Defense Department, specializing in anti-terrorism. Simply put, he doesn’t think like a farmer. While he lives in the country, his worldview is very cosmopolitan.

Another solemn reminder of this cultural clash comes by observing the influx into the countryside of the kind of societal ills that once only plagued the cities. Domestic violence, drug abuse, and a host of other “urban” problems are now just as prominent in our rural areas, and I have heard many of our pastors who minister in these areas testify to this fact.

The question then is how Pastors of churches in these changing rural environments can empower their congregations to more effectively reach the changing communities around them. Ephesians tells us that the pastor’s calling is to “equip” his people to minister effectively in their context. This calling, coupled with the above-described reality means that pastors in rural areas now bear an especially weighty responsibility! They must serve as a “cultural interpreter” between their congregation and the community. They require the capacity to lead their churches through the changes necessary to be effective, and they must be able to mobilize their people for outreach in this new context.

With this reality in view, denominational entities such as our Association should be about the task of helping equip and empower churches in the country. Regrettably, this is likely not the case for most denominational agencies. Two things currently impede denominations ability to provide what is needed. One of these is an appropriate focus on the cities that unintentionally minimizes those in rural areas. The other is that the methods currently used to equip rural pastors and churches are almost identical to those utilized a half-century ago. The cities aren't the only areas that require a new approach to ministry, and it is high time denominations who serve rural churches realize this.

For our part, this realization has resulted in a renewed focus on ministry and mission in "cosmorural" areas. Initiating this emphasis is a conference that we are sponsoring together with two neighboring associations called "Leading the Rurban Church." Our hope is that this conference will better equip our town and country pastors for this task. Dr. Marty Giese, a veteran rural pastor and author of a recent book on rural church ministry, will lead our sessions, and help us to learn from each other.

Our calling is to reach the world, and one of the reasons Associations and other denominational entities should exist is to combine our collective resources to do this more effectively. Currently, the best way for us to evangelize the world is to evangelize the city. But ironically, one of the best weapons we may have to accomplish this just might be our “country churches.”

What I Learned about Sex Education: From CMT

I knew that eventually, my eldest son and I would have to have "the conversation." But I never expected that conversation to be initiated by a Carrie Underwood video!

Although most Christian parents seek to shield their children from being exposed to adult themes too early, all of us slip up from time to time, usually by simply not paying attention. My slip up came a few weeks ago, on a laid-back Saturday morning. While helping my wife in the kitchen, the Saturday morning video line-up was playing on Country Music Television, giving us what any honorable red-neck would consider to be the ideal musical background for our activities.

Somewhere in that lineup was Carrie Underwood's newest video, which illustrated a story-driven song about her seeking revenge for the two-timing nature of her ex. My wife was unconsciously humming, and having seen the video before, I was lamenting the uneccesary pain she inflicted on the guy's ride (It really is a shame what she did to that truck!). Simultaneous to this, but unbeknownst to us, my oldest son was in the living room, hearing words that made no sense to him. A few seconds later, he rounded the corner into the kitchen to ask "Daddy, what is a 'tramp' and what does it mean to 'cheat'?"

Needless to say, that moment awakened me to the fact that my vigilance level needs to be ratcheted up a knotch or two when it comes to my kids. At the same time, I realized that children are being exposed to sexuality earlier than ever before. When 8-year-old girls are wearing shorts to school with "juicy" written across the backside, something is definitely wrong with our culture!

Over the next couple of weeks, my son and I had off-and-on conversations about sex, and through these conversations, I'd like to think I have learned a few things regarding how and when parents should talk to their children.

1. Bring it up sooner rather than later. My oldest is six. By most standards in the past, that would be way too early to have a conversation about sex. The problem is that in our current culture, by the time they are this age they have likely already been exposed to sexual themes, and been informed regarding sexuality by many other venues. And no matter how hard we try to shield them from this exposure, it simply cannot be avoided.

While conservatives rightly contend that sex education should be the responsibility of parents, often those same conservatives wait entirely too long to bring up the subject matter in their own homes. Let's face it: in most Christian households, by the time parents decide its time to talk about sex, the kids already know more than they do!

The first communication on this subject should come from Mom and Dad. If we seek to overcome the evil influence of our culture in this area, we have to beat it to the punch!

2. Communication about sex should be overwhelmingly positive. Clearly, the Biblical mandate concerning sex is that it only occur between one man and one woman who are married to each other. Unfortunately, this is the extent of most communication given to the children of evangelicals. To be sure, this boundary line should be marked clearly, but it should also be seen against the backdrop of God's overall intention regarding sexuality.

When educating their children, parents need to be clear from the start that sex is a gift from God. It is a good thing; in fact, it is a GREAT thing! It feels incredible and is designed to be the physical glue that ties husband and wife together in an even more intimate bond. Rather than portraying sex as something young men do to "lose their virginity," or as something that "de-flowers" our daughters, parents should celebrate this wonderful gift of God, and communicate their desire for their children to eventually have a fulfilling and God-glorifying sex life with their future spouses. Such is the background against which God's marital boundary around this gift can not only be clearly understood, but willingly embraced.

The marital bond should be portrayed by parents as something sacred, meaning that boys and girls learn respect for the opposite sex in light of their anticipated marriage. My son should learn to anticipate all the things he will one day share with his wife, and this same realization should result in the appropriate level of respect he should give to girls who may one day be someone else's wife.

3. Don't be crude, but do be frank. As a child, I was told that babies are created when a mommy and daddy "love" each other enough to create one. That being the extent of the conversation, I spent my early elementary school years trying hard to avoid "liking" a girl too much, lest she end up pregnant!

Parents should not only talk openly with their children about sex as a gift, but they should be accurate in describing what exactly sex is. This doesn't mean using crude language, or going into graphic detail with your six-year old. It does, however, mean clearly stating that sex is a physical activity. The conversation might even sound like this:

God designed a man's body and a woman's body so that they fit together. When this fit happens, it creates a really, really good feeling that God intended a husband and wife to feel for each other. God also created our bodies in such a way that when a man and woman have sex, their bodies together can make a third body, which is where babies come from.

A conversation like this isn't crude, but it is clear enough that a young child can understand what "sex" is. Such knowledge is not only useful for sex education, but also in the context of certain theological discussion. How can a young child actually believe in the virgin birth if he or she doesn't know what a "virgin" is? Contrary to the "sanitized" Sunday School definition of the term, a "virgin" is not neccesarily an unmarried woman! The present culture no longer allows for such a shallow understanding of this term.

Rest assured, if your kids first hear about sex from the culture, it will likely be crude. Our conversations about this subject don't have to be crude, but if our children are going to be properly equipped, they do have to be clear.

4. Parents should set the example for their kids regarding sex. Obviously, this statement is not intended to mean what it could mean! There are certain actions between husband and wife that without question should remain in the bedroom. Nevertheless, what happens in the bedroom often spills over into the other rooms of the house. In practical terms, this means that children should see mom and dad holding hands, hugging, kissing, flirting with each other, chasing each other around the house, and generally enjoying each other's company. Frankly, for this to happen in front of the kids with authenticity, mom and dad need to have a great sex life.

Young boys should be aware that dad is attracted to mom, and to mom alone! They should see in dad the sexual rewards that come from years of fidelity to one woman. By contrast, young girls should witness mom enjoying the kiss, the touch, the flirting. Once married, a woman should never hesitate to express herself in this way to her husband, and young girls will be much more likely to enjoy this good gift of God as married women, if a strong Biblical precedent is set by mom! Sure, from time to time kids will retch at watching mom and dad in this way, but isn't that part of the fun?

Perverted forms of sex abound in our culture. And as is the case with most other social issues, the problem isn't sex. The problems are the perverted forms of sex. Our children need a healthy, God-centered, Biblical model of sexuality, and they need it sooner than other children have in the past. If they don't get it from us, they will get the alternate version from someplace else.

The Real Shame of the War on Terror: A Rant

The current situation in Iraq is, from my perspective, the epitome of irony. On the one hand, the vitriolic ideological battles at home between the President and the new congress have put to bed any notion of “bipartisanship.” But on the other hand, I find it nauseating that while we fight about the war at home, those actually fighting the war itself are often forgotten.

This shameful fact was graphically demonstrated in a recent article in People magazine. While running on the treadmill last week, I came across an article about Ty and Renee Ziegel, a young couple who are coping with the very real results of warfare. While congressional democrats opposing Bush’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq are careful to note their concern for and support of our troops, many troops and their families, like the Ziegel’s have to search a bit to find any support.

Engaged when Ty was deployed to Iraq, the couple spent months apart from each other. Then, in late 2003, Ty became the victim of a roadside bomb that while thankfully sparing his life, also left him without a left arm, and barely recognizable. The touching article talked about Renee’s commitment to her fiancé, and their subsequent wedding, and I confess that this moving story about the love between these two moved my own emotions.

But two paragraphs later, my sentimentality quickly turned to anger when I read that Renee is still forced by their financial situation to work part-time. While this supplementary income, in addition to Ty’s army pension, keeps the young couple afloat, her part-time work keeps her from her husband’s side . . . the place where she really wants to be.

Immediately, I thought of all our “elected officials,” who from the day they enter office, are the beneficiaries of six-figure salaries and the best health care plans money can buy . . .all at taxpayer expense mind you. A President can send over 21,000 soldiers into battle, and will be taken care of for the rest of his life. A congressman can cut off funding to those same 21,000 soldiers while still enjoying his publicly funded healthcare and retirement. But those actually doing the fighting, even those severely injured, require the part-time employment of their spouse in order to make ends meet. This is the travesty of all travesties!

Whether you are a supporter or dissenter regarding the conflict in Iraq, all of us have a solemn responsibility to do what we can to ensure that those protecting our freedoms abroad are taken care of. When politicians are making a “career” out of a job that was never meant as a career, while at the same time career soldiers are having to seek second jobs and apply for government assistance in order to stay financially soluable, something is wrong.

The Old Testament prophets Hosea and Amos spoke sternly to those with wealth and power who took advantage of those in a lower socio-economic class. In the New Testament, James has equally strong words to the rich. It appears that such words now need to be spoken on the floor of the United States Senate, the floor of the House, and the Oval Office.

Thoughts of the wounded, the grief-stricken survivors of those who have been casualties of war, and the financial strains of both of these groups should riddle with guilt the conscience of every lawmaker in congress . . . every time they cash their exorbant paychecks.

What is the right thing to do? I’m sure this sounds radical, but it is right nonetheless. The public should, if it is possible, reach into the chambers of the House and Senate, reach into the confines of the Oval, reach into the recesses of the Supreme Court, and take away the big salaries. Take away all the health benefits . . . .and give it to soldiers like Ty Ziegel.

Political office was never intended as an avenue of personal gain. Furthermore, it is not the legislature, the judiciary, or the executive branch that guarantees our freedom. Congress retains the ability to make law at the pleasure of the people because of the soldiers. The President executes his office in security because of the soldiers. Judges adjudicate without duress because of the soldiers. And this nation is free because of the soldiers.

To get closer to home: I am called to preach the Gospel, and to do so “in season and out of season.” I could have been born in the Sudan, or in another nation where preaching the Gospel carried severe penalties. I could be preaching today under the threat of the persecution of me and my family. But I am not. I am preaching without fear of persecution or aggression. And I am doing it because of men like Ty Ziegel. That he and Renee are struggling to make ends meet after the sacrifice he made for his country is an embarrassment to this nation. Men like Ziegel should never worry again about putting food on the table. All expenses should be paid . . .courtesy of those of us who benefit from his sacrifice. And such expenses should be allocated, courtesy of those we place in office to do the right thing.

Personally, I believe that history will judge that this war was indeed just. While the road to freedom in Iraq has been far from perfect, the service of our military forces has been exemplary, and there is now a democracy in, of all places, the middle east! But any soiled reputation our country wears for not taking care of our own, we deserve!

Saddam, Sin, and Reflections on the Death Penalty

No one can doubt that 2007 was ushered in with a torrent of big news. The death of former President Gerald Ford was certainly at the top of that list, and I look forward to writing soon regarding what we can learn from the late President's life. But perhaps one of the biggest news stories of 2006 came at the end of the year, when the world was informed that Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq, had been executed for crimes against humanity. Since his execution, the public has debated about everything from the war itself to the possible culpability of the United States in the very crimes of which Hussein was convicted. For the church, Hussein's execution proved to be an appropriate moment to re-engage in our internal debate concerning the Biblical validity of the death penalty.

Certainly, followers of Christ, in good conscience, stand on both sides of this debate. But Saddam's execution seemed to bring about a more pensive inquiry regarding whether capitol punishment is ever justified. Among others, Benjamin Cole indicated on his website that he was re-thinking his position on this issue, admitting that "For the past two years I have waged an internal debate about the political and societal benefit of capital punishment." This is a shocking statement, primarily due to the fact that a Texan is questioning the death penalty. That fact in and of itself should be headline news!

Despite appeals to many different texts in Scripture, a proper hermaneutical approach to this issue can only begin with Genesis 9, the first place in Scripture where the death penalty is both mentioned and (I believe) commended. A chief opponent of the death penalty, the late John Howard Yoder himself states that this text "is perhaps the most important text in the Bible on the subject of God's will concerning the death penalty."

Delving further into this text, this able and articulate Catholic theologian suggested that verse 6 is representative of the oral lore of the time, and as such, was never intended as a legislative document, but instead a descriptive statement of how things were in "primitive, ancient societies."

With due respect to Dr. Yoder, his approach here not only liberates "its original meaning from the deposit of interpretations which have already been laid over it by centuries of readers," but also liberates the verse rather efficiently from its historical and literary context. If one accepts the authority and reliability of the Old Testament account (as Yoder did), one would be forced to believe that there were no longer any ancient societies in existence at this time because they had all been destroyed in the previous worldwide deluge.

A proper contextual reading of this text understands its words to be confined to God's covenant with Noah, one of four covenants that are declared in the Old Testament to be "everlasting." Therefore, unlike the dietary and civil laws of the Mosaic covenant, which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God's covenant with Noah, along with His covenant with Abraham, David, and Jeremiah, is still in full force. Similarly, while under the covenant with Moses the death penalty was to be used for sorcery (Exodus 22:18), Idolatry (Leviticus 20:2), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-27), and adultery (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), the covenant with Noah stipulates only one crime that is punishable by death: murder.

Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. (Genesis 9:6, NASB)

But the rationale is also given for this command:

For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6, NASB)

In short, the death penalty is to be used, not as a tool of revenge by any one individual, but by mankind as expressed in human government as a tool of justice to punish those who unjustly take the life of another human being. The importance of this principle is not tied to human life exclusively, but to the Image of God that is stamped upon each human life.

The death penalty is an action that speaks strongly and soberly to the image of God. Far from being a symbol of disrespect for life,iIt is a powerful statement of how valuable human life is to our Creator. It is so valuable, and the unjust taking of it so serious, that ones life could, and should, be taken from him if he dares violate the sixth commandment.

This principle is further strengthened by the witness of the New Testament. Both Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-14 affirm that human government was instituted by God. Even Paul, in Acts 25:11, stated to Felix that if "I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die." While we have no comprehensive exposition of Paul's views regarding the death penalty, there is ample evidence in this verse alone to demonstrate the apostolic belief that some crimes are worthy of death.

Still, asking whether there is Biblical foundation for general governmental authority in administering the death penalty is different from asking whether our own government should have the authority to administer this punishment. What therefore, gives a government the authority to take the life of one of its citizens? The following are my best, and admittedly feeble reflections on the minimum requirements:

It must be Affirmed with True Authority. Any government that presumes the right to execute one of its own citizens must understand the basis for such a right. This understanding grows out of two things: a fundamental respect for human life, and a solid conviction about why executions are sometimes neccesary. While even President Bush has staked his belief in the death penalty on his belief that it is an effective "deterrent," the Scriptures make no mention of any such rationale. Capitol punishment is not for the purpose of "deterrence." It is for the purpose of making a powerful statement about the image of God. In that same spirit, it is diffucult, if not impossible for any government to make a bold statement about human life while simultaneously promoting a culture of death.

That said, it is difficult to see how a nation that murders over 1 million unborn children every year through abortion, and talks incessantly and exclusively about the pragmatic issues of capitol punishment without regard for its true purpose, could possibly presume the moral authority to execute one of its own.

It Must be Administered with Equity. Genesis 9:6 includes no exception clauses, no "degrees" of murder, and no appeals to gender, faith, or race. If you kill someone in cold blood, the punishment is death, period. Admittedly, the way in which the death penalty is meeted out in our present culture bears little if any resemblance to this model. Any casual observer of our legal system can easily see that often, the punishment for murder is less related to the crime, and more related to the color of one's skin, or the size of one's checkbook. Racially and economically-motivated justice is no justice at all!

Even faith-based exceptions must be dismissed if God's model of capitol punishment is to be followed. In 1998, Karla Faye Tucker was executed by lethal injection for the brutal 1983 stabbing of Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton, much to the consternation of many well-known preachers, including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. These two televangelists strongly opposed Tucker's execution solely on the grounds that she was gloriously saved in 1984. Indeed, unlike many "jailhouse conversions," Karla Faye's faith demonstrated itself consistently for the next 14 years, and from a spiritual perspective, she was a very different person from the depraved prostitute who committed the gruesome crime.

Regardless, while her debt to God was dealt with at Calvary, her debt to society remained. Zaccheus, who himself was born again in Luke 19, acknowledged a societal debt after his conversion. He did not claim that he was not the same person who defrauded people, and therefore should not be required to pay. Instead, his newfound faith compelled him to make things right with his fellow-man, just as the coming cross and resurrection would make things right with God.

Appeals to faith, discrimination against minorities, and the favoring of the wealthy all take place in our current system, and consequently leave our society without the moral fortitude to carry out an execution with equity.

It must be Observed with Sorrow. After the execution of Saddam Hussein, one commenter to a political blog asserted her joy at his death. "He is not even human to me, so his death doesn't bother me in the least."

But Saddam Hussein, while a cruel, mass-murdering dictator, was human! While his atrocities no doubt further marred the image God had stamped on his personhood from conception, the imago dei remained nonetheless. To execute murderers for their crimes is proper. But to refer to them as "less than human" or "worse than an animal" is not only to debase a fellow human being, but also to spit in the face of God Himself, in whose image each human was created.

Furthermore, the celebration, partying and applause that often accompanies executions should bring shame to any people. Executions should never be turned into events of celebration, but should instead be times of deep sorrow. It is a serious thing indeed that sin has so infiltrated our society that a man must sometimes be cut off in his sin. When a human life is unjustly taken by a murderer, believers, standing firm on the principles of God's Word which demand his death, should mourn with bitter tears the sinfulness of an action that can be societally rectified in no other way.

But regrettably, our nation is often the victim of both weak judicial rulings, and the heated emotions of a populace.

Our cultural dilemma, as I see it, is this: How can we stand for the death penalty, which God has clearly commanded in Scripture, and expect it to be done by a government that has repeatedly demonstrated itself as unqualified to administer it? Some suggest that because inequity and weak arguments permeate both the rationale for and administration of executions, that executions should be banned. The answer, however, is not to throw out what God has commanded as neccesary for the continuation of a civil society. Instead, the answer is to reform our system of justice, which itself is fast becoming a proponent of all that is uncivil.

When a convicted pedophille in Vermont receives only 60 days in jail as his punishment, it is apparrent that our justice system has lost its moral authority. In short, the misappropriation, abuse of, and misunderstanding of the death penalty is not an indictment on the clear teaching of Scripture. It is instead an indictment on our unclear, overcomplicated, easily-manipulated, morally relevant and always vascillating system of justice.

As a nation, we have long since lost the moral high ground. As such, we have a long way to go to become the kind of just society that can administer the death penalty as God intended. But the problem isn't the death penalty itself. The problem, ironic as it may sound, is an "unjust" system of justice, and when rightly administered, capitol punishment will bring punishment to the murderer, justice to the victims, civility to society, sorrow to humanity, and glory to the Creator of all life.

Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

It has been a pleasure to participate in some very vital discussions this year, as well as to interact with so many of you who honor me by making your presence known at joelrainey.com. I look forward to more analysis, dialogue, discussion, debate, and "iron-sharpening" exercise in 2007. For now, I'm off to spend two weeks with my wonderful family for the holidays. I pray God's blessings on you, and wish you the best in the coming season!

Waiting for Christmas

All of us find that certain Biblical commands are easier to obey than others. Personally, I have never struggled with the "active" commands of Scripture . . . ."GO" "TEACH" "BAPTIZE" "PREACH" are divine calls to which I almost always respond in the right way. But recently, I have been struggling in my efforts to obey the more "passive" commands of Scripture. God created me with a high-D personality and leadership style hard-wired into my consciousness. As such, commands like "WAIT" "BE QUIET" and "BE STILL" are more difficult for me. But this week, I have found a model for such patience in Luke 2.

The story of Simeon is one of those tales that, if televised, would likely be relegated to the Hallmark Channel and never seen as a "Christmas classic." While most pastors will spend the perfunctory amount of time in the first part of Luke 2 this Christmas, this second part of the chapter is often overlooked. Still, Simeon's ability to wait on God amazes me. Verse 25 states that he was "righteous" and "devout," and that this righteous devotion was manifest in the way that he waited. His life really matched what he professed to believe. God had told him years earlier that he would not die before bearing witness to the Messiah with his own eyes, and with strong faith, Simeon clings to this promise . . . .by waiting!

Within one month of Jesus' birth, Simeon experiences God's fulfilled promise. Joseph and Mary, two blue-collar, lower-middle-class parents, bring their newborn son into the temple in Jerusalem according to the custom of the law. At this point, Simeon has been waiting for decades, and his excitement over being able to finally see the Christ-child is evident to anyone in the temple that day. As he takes the infant in his arms, he exclaims:

Now Master, You can dismiss your slave in peace according to your Word. For my eyes have seen your salvation. (Luke 2:29-20 HCSB)

This was the last thing Simeon was waiting for before his death, and throughout decades of waiting, he never gave up. God loves faith like that . . . .faith that hangs on . . . .faith that is willing to wait. But we aren't part of a culture that sees value in waiting. We want instant gratification. In a society dominated by drive-thru lanes, microwaves, TiVO, and 24-hour service, waiting isn't a virtue, its a weakness! If you are waiting, its because you weren't assertive enough, or didn't demand enough.

Perhaps this is why it is such a struggle for guys like me to submit to God in this way. But if I am able to wait, I learn that God keeps His promises. Simeon waited for decades. But in truth, Simeon's people had been waiting for several millenia! The promise Simeon saw was made as early as Genesis 3:15, and restated in Genesis 12, Genesis 17, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 53, Zechariah . . . .you get the picture. God allowed centuries to pass before making good on His promise. But in the end, He always keeps them.

But waiting on the fulfillment of God's promise isn't something we do naturally, which is why Luke emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in Simeon's life no less than three times in this passage. The Holy Spirit was on him. The Holy Spirit revealed truth to him. The Holy Spirit guided him. And the Holy Spirit helped him to wait.

Without the Holy Spirit, we can't wait. We will jump the gun. We will try to get ahead of where God is working. And we will fail. The Old Testament is full of accounts of men who would not wait on God's promises and failed. For Abraham, it was the conception of Ishmael by Hagar. For Saul, it was the consulting of a medium. For Moses, it was simply striking a rock in anger. But the result of refusing to wait is always the same: sin, shame, hurt, and devastation.

But there are others who did wait on God: Elisha, Job, Nehemiah, Paul. Elisha was protected by an unseen yet innumerable army (2 Kings 6), but not before being faced with the army of Aram. Job was given back double what was taken from him (Job 42), but not before he lost everything most precious to him. Nehemiah saw the completion of the walls around Jerusalem, but not before facing strong opposition from the Samaritans. Paul was able to witness the spread of the Gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire, but was also forbidden by God from entering Asia.

Life doesn't give us a lot of green lights. More often than not, God doesn't say "you can have it now." Most often, he says "you must wait," and then uses the process of waiting to make us into the kind of people He wants us to be . . . .and this drives me crazy!

I'm an active guy. I like to move. I like to work. I like to play. And I like doing all of these things with intensity. Waiting has never been on my list of favorite things to do. But this Christmas, God is working on me by having me wait. Perhaps this is true for some who are reading as well. If so, know that if you give up, you will never know how truly close you were to seeing the fulfillment of His promises to you.

Picture Simeon getting up on the morning of Jesus' dedication, murmuring to himself "I've been waiting on this for 40 years. Is it ever going to happen?" Meanwhile, the Messiah is in town, and his parents are on their way to see Simeon at this very moment.

God's promises and God's answers are closer than you think, because God is closer than you think. If you refuse to wait on Him, you might very well forfeit everything. So this Christmas, be still, be quiet, and wait on the Lord. You won't be sorry!

Proud of my Trustee Chairman!

"Trustees . . . ." Simply the mention of the term has seemed to polarize Southern Baptists in recent days. Over the past year, much has been made of alleged theological agendas and dissension within the trustee system at the International Mission Board, and this discussion has widened to the extent that many view with suspicion anyone who currently helps administrate the "system" within Southern Baptist life.

This mistrust and cynicism toward SBC leaers was hightened just weeks ago when Georgia pastor Bill Harrell publicly stated his desire to deal with what he perceived as two of the most viable threats to Southern Baptists: worship styles and Calvinism. Once again, the blogosphere set fuses ablaze. But just today, the chairman of my trustees at the North American Mission Board cut the fuses loose, and eloquently calls us back to our main task!

Admittedlly, I am a bit partial to Bill Curtis. After all, he is a fellow South Carolinian! Yet his open letter to Southern Baptists speaks to an issue that transcends our home state, and speaks to the very heart of why we cooperate:

Despite our temptation to major on the minors, I’m absolutely convinced that we all know the biggest problem facing Southern Baptists: the reality that there are so many lost people in the world and so few of us are doing anything about it. I’m sure Bill Harrell would agree. As chairman of trustees for the North American Mission Board, let me take a moment to review some indicators of the severity of our problem in North America:
• SBC baptisms are at their lowest levels in 12 years;
• 73 percent of SBC churches are plateaued or declining;
• 11,740 SBC churches reported zero or one baptism in 2005;
• 55 percent of SBC churches baptized no youth between the ages of 12-17 in 2004;
• From 1991-2004, the number of unchurched adults in America increased from 39 million to 79 million;
• Every county in North America is at least 50 percent unchurched (statistics available from NAMB).
It is my understanding that the conservative resurgence was undertaken, ultimately, so that we could have confidence that our agencies and seminaries would equip pastors and churches to fulfill the Great Commission. And in a resulting spirit of unity, we could tackle our biggest problem.
Therefore, I’m calling upon all Southern Baptists — pastors, agency leaders, and laypeople — to consider adopting the following framework for our continued cooperation in evangelism. I offer these suggestions in a spirit of humility and with the sincere desire that our convention successfully refocus on the priority of the Great Commission”

Bravo to Dr. Curtis! You can read his open letter in its entirety here:

http://www.baptistcourier.com/1009.article

As you read Bill Curtis' letter, you will find a brother who called Bill Harrell personally before writing this response, in submission to Matthew 18. You will find a pastor strong in his own convictions, but respectful of the differring perspectives of his fellow Southern Baptists within the parameters of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. You will find true humility that does not seek to arrogantly instruct, but instead pleads with his brothers and sisters as equals. And you will find a Trustee chairman who hasn't lost sight of why we are Southern Baptists! God help all of us to assume such a mindset and spirit!

October 31: Is there More to this Day than Halloween?

Tonight as I sit and write, parents are walking their children around a mall, or church parking lot, or to neighbors houses in the effort to fill their Halloween bags with candy. As I contemplate the meaning of October 31, non-profit organizations all over the country are raking in the money by hosting haunted houses and scaring the living daylights out of people who, ironically enough, are paying big money to have the daylights scared out of them.

As is usually the case on October 31, churches are taking advantage of the season by sponsoring “trunk or treat” outreach projects, or taking their youth through a “judgment house.” I find it strange that at this time of year, the church pays so much attention to a holiday that has nothing to do with its history and heritage, and so little attention to the historical event that continues to define us to this day. 489 years ago today, a Catholic monk named Martin Luther nailed a 95-point statement of concern to the door of a church in Wittenburg Germany. This single gesture ignited a movement that resulted in the recovery of the Biblical Gospel, the empowerment of the laity, the uncovering of the true church, and probably most important, the escape from something more terrifying than anything our imaginations could invent on Halloween.

Luther had a word for this terror. He called it Anfectung. Although there is no English word that corresponds exactly to the German phrase, we know that Luther was expressing the deepest kind of darkness that one experiences when his worst moments of terror, depression, doubt and despair combine. Born in 1483, young Luther aspired to practice law, but in 1505 after a near-death experience, he fled to a monastery, and would spend the next decade struggling with doubt about the condition of his own soul.

Living under the constant fear of God’s judgment caused Luther to confess with regularity the slightest offense to his spiritual guide Johann von Staupitz. Staupitz, who served as the chaplain of the University of Wittenburg where Luther taught Theology, eventually grew tired of Luther’s perpetual appeals for forgiveness and said to him “God is not mad at you. You are mad at God.”

Eventually, Luther would come to agree with Staupitz’ assessment. Indeed, Luther admitted later on that he in fact hated God, and came to realize shortly afterward that this hatred was but one part of a fallen will that sought to rebel against the Creator. Ironically, it was through his assignment teaching Psalms and Galatians that Luther finally began to develop a different picture of God. He discovered that Jesus, in dying on the cross, took our iniquity on Himself, and subsequently, the penalty for such iniquity. In short, Christ took our anfectung, that terror of God's wrath which the human soul rightly dreads.

But it was a prior trip to Rome coupled with his studies in the Scriptures that brought Martin Luther to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was not interested in taking away anfectung, but instead profiting from it! Luther had traveled to Rome because he wanted to see Roman Catholicism at its best. What he found was a cultic center of ecclesiastical power that disappointed him greatly.

This selling of “indulgences,” or offerings by which one could supposedly free himself and others from purgatory, found its way to Wittenburg in 1517 by way of the charismatic Johann Tetzel. Commissioned by the Pope himself to finance the building of St. Peter’s Bascillica in Rome, Tetzel stood in the square of the city and with confidence offered his hearers the opportunity to free themselves and their relatives from purgatory, from damnation . . .from anfectung. His words, while eloquent, stirred anger in Luther:

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!

At the end of that same month, October 31, 1517, Luther responded to Tetzel’s message with his 95 theses, and the course was set for an ecclesiastical tidal wave that would eventually be called the Protestant Reformation. Lasting more than three generations, this ecclesiological shift has given us the Scriptures in the language of the people, a theologically informed laity, freedom of religion, and most importantly, the recovery of the Biblical Gospel. Though it was not his original intent to separate from Rome, Luther’s subsequent studies brought him to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism proclaimed a false Gospel.

Likewise, Protestants today rightly deny the existence of a priestly class. We rightfully challenge the legitimacy of a papal office, and contend that the existence of the papacy itself only illustrates the soteriological and ecclesiological confusion that is propogated when church councils and tradition are seen to carry authority equal to the Scriptures themselves. We rightfully declare that salvation comes not by the imposed sacramental “works” of the church, but instead by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone! Modern Protestantism owes its affirmation of sola Scriptura, sola Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, and sola Deo Gloria to the legacy left us by Martin Luther.

But such theological axioms by themselves aren’t much of a legacy, unless they demonstrate efficacy in removing the anfectung from which Luther so desperately wanted deliverance. The dread Luther felt prior to his conversion was legitimate, warranted, and deserved. Human beings are born separated from God, become actual transgressors from the moment we are volitionally able to choose, and are as a result the enemies of our Creator. Being the enemy of the One who just gave you the last breath you took is certainly a position in which one should rightfully feel dread. But as Luther discovered, through the substitutionary death of Christ, God has become “both just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21)

While the masses are taking in the latest in the “Saw” trilogy, watching old “Nightmare on Elm Street” flicks and growing sick from eating too much candy, followers of Christ should recognize that for the church, October 31 represents much more than fear. To the contrary, this day represents the beginning of a young Monk’s discovery that God, by himself, without human effort, takes away sin, and the appropriate fear of God’s judgment that accompanies such sin.

Halloween is known by our culture as a time to be filled with fear, with dread . . .with anfectung. But the legacy left us by men like Luther and those who followed serve to remind us every October 31 that God has not given us a spirit of fear! Most on this night will celebrate with “trick or treat.” I’m thanking God for the recovery of the Gospel that made my conversion, and the removal of fear, possible

Homophobia: What I learned from Tyra Banks, and Shirley Phelps

When I sit down to watch television, my usual fare includes bulletts, buildings blowing up, car chases, and the like. Suffice it to say that while channel-surfing last night, putting down the remote to watch the Tyra Banks show felt a little weird, and this morning, I'm still seeking to shake off the excessive estrogen.

Nonetheless, the subject of "hate" permeated the show, and the contents were not only intriguing, but surprisingly educational. As I went to bed last night, I did so having come to the conclusion that everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE on that show was a homophobe!

The commercial teaser that caught my eye was of a funeral protest conducted by the infamous Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas. The Phelps family and their congregation are known worldwide for their "God hates fags" epithets, as well as their loud eccentric behavior, and their recent attempts to disturb the mourning families of fallen soldiers via their loud and arrogant protests.

But the show didn't begin with the Phelps'. Tyra's first guest was Kevin Aviance, the man referred to as "one of New York's most influential transvestite, drag, and transgendered performers." Aviance made headlines in June of this year after he became the victim of violence at the hands of between four and seven men, who beat him severely, robbed him, and broke his jaw simply because he was gay. Aviance is a charismatic stage presence, and a talented performer, even if in pumps while performing. His recent experience as a victim of violence prompted subsequent discussion on the show of how hate fuels such violence. And of course, his emotional words were followed by an even more emotionally charged conversation between Banks and members of the Phelps family.

Overall, the show was about as insightful as spending time in a chat room. But as it went off the air last night, I came to the realization that there really is such a thing as homophobia, and that homophobia has more than one side to it. Speaking to the persecuted church of the first century, Peter lays out instructions for how they were to proclaim their faith in the face of "other-than-Biblical" worldviews and lifestyles:

"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." (1 Peter 3:15-16, NASB)

Two things are necessary in order for this Biblical command to be obeyed: A strong conviction of the truth (which Tyra Banks sorely lacks), and a strong sense of humility in speaking that truth (which the Phelps family sorely lacks).

The very etymology of the term "homophobia" indicates that it does not mean what many in the prevailing culture think it means. When referencing the homosexual community, the term simply means that we are "afraid" of them, that we avoid them . . . .and maybe even hate them. Such things can rightly be defined as homophobia.

When men like Aviance, created in the image and likeness of God, are beaten and abused, the church should be the first to condemn such sinful action, and press for prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.

Conversely, feigning "love" for homosexuals while being afraid to speak the truth to them regarding the destructive nature of their behavior demonstrates an ultimate lack of love, and is therefore another form of homophobia. When followers of Christ are called "homophobes" simply because they state that homosexual behavior is sinful, such action not only demonstrates a reticence by our culture to consider what God has to say on the subject, but also the colossal ignorance of a culture that doesn't even know what the word means. In short, Banks exhibits homophobia by her fear of the truth, and the Phelps family is a family of homophobes because while they speak the truth, they do not do so in reverence, and in the good conscience of Christlike behavior. As Charles Spurgeon said over a century ago, anyone who can talk of hell without tears in his or her eyes is not fit to proclaim the Gospel.

The Phelps are very sure of themselves when they state that God hates America, and that Katrina, September 11, and the casualties of the Iraq war are instruments of God's judgment on us because of our acceptance of things like the gay lifestyle. Such statements sound a lot like Amos, Isaiah, and others who correctly interpreted Old Testament historical events as God's judgment on the nation of Israel. But two very distinct differences are worthy of note here: Our nation is not Israel, and the Phelps are not Old Testament prophets!

Present-day believers living under the New Covenant have what Peter calls a "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19) than those before us who were compelled to wait on God to raise up a prophet. As a result, we can only know what God has clearly revealed in His Word. While part of that perspicuous revelation includes the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that recent tragic events are the result of God's judgment. We simply don't know why God sent Hurricane Katrina, why He allowed September 11 to happen, or why He allows continued violence in Iraq that results in the death of thousands of our brave soldiers. Statements of epistemological certainty concerning events like these are presumptuous at best, and blasphemous at worst.

Such statements are the result of a homophobic hatred of the homosexual community that is not conducive to our obedience to Scripture, or to their repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. But the other side of homophobia was also expressed last night. While Tyra Banks was rightfully confronting the Phelps, she was simultaneously affirming Aviance's destructive lifestyle.

Such an approach fails to see that there is a difference between "acceptance" of all people created in God's image, and "affirmation" of a lifestyle that will only serve to further marr that image. Contrary to the ignorant meanderings of secular culture, and many churches within mainline and emergent circles, God could not have been any more clear regarding His view of homosexual behavior. To be sure, the truth must be spoken with reverence and humility. But genuine reverence and humility are only present when they coincide with the truth. And the truth is that homosexuality, while sinful, isn't the real issue. It is a symptom of a sinful nature that can only be cured by the blood of Jesus.

Where should we go to find the kind of balance needed to avoid the above extremes? As always, Jesus. In John 4 we see the epitome of this kind of balanced approach. Had Jesus taken the approach of the Westboro Baptist Church, he would have likely greeted the woman at the well like this:

"Hello you harlot! I'm God and you are going to burn in hell if you don't repent!"

While these words would have been true, Jesus demonstrates in this encounter that He isn't merely interested in exposing people to the truth, He also wants to draw them to such truth. So, rather than speak without regard for reverence or humility, He begins the conversation by asking her for something to drink. He came to her where she was, struck up a conversation with her, and broke every Jewish social norm in the process, because He cares more about souls than perception.

Contrast this approach with a statement made last night by one of the Phelps daughters, who said she had no desire to make friends with unbelievers. Or why don't we make this a bit more personal: What would you think if you saw your pastor sitting at a bar talking with a homosexual couple? How would you perceive your pastor were you to encounter him on a street corner sitting on the sidewalk talking to crack-addicts? If we want to speak the truth (and we should) the first step in that process is to meet people where they are . . .to love them enough to be their friend, even if this new friend never comes to faith in Christ, and never repents.

Pehaps, in retrospect of last night's program, this is why so many believers don't make friends with unbelievers: Those unbelievers might never become believers. They might die without Christ and leave us with the horrifying realization that a good friend has gone to hell. That's hard stuff! Sure, its easier if we just keep our distance. But that isn't our calling.

But Jesus doesn't make friends just for the sake of making friends. Before this initial conversation is over, we hear this phrase:

"Go call your husband and come here."

She responds, likely with her eyes to the ground; ""I have no husband."

And Jesus then begins to speak the truth. We can't be afraid to love them, nor must we fear telling them the truth.

Kevin Aviance, and the thousands of men and women like him, are human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Like the rest of us, they were born dead in their trespasses and sins, and this sinful nature has manifest itself in their lives via homosexuality. The only answer to this dilemma is that which answers all other dilemmas; the message of the cross and resurrection spoken with conviction, humility, and love. Anything less is just plain homophobic!

Can Joshua go to Memphis? A Call for Peace

In may of this year, over 30 Southern Baptists drafted a statement known as "The Memphis Declaration." Last week, another Southern Baptist group, quite large in number, met in Florida and unveiled principles of affirmation at an event called "The Joshua Convergence." Since that unveiling, the vitriol between what appear to be two factions within the SBC has grown exponentially. Yet when I read these two documents, I cannot for the life of me perceive differences so great between these groups as to merit the kind of war that so many seem ready to fight.

For weeks preceeding the Joshua Convergence, implicit salvos have been tossed toward "the Memphis group," and those who signed the document. It has even been suggested that those who were a part of this group are politically-correct, closet moderates who want to turn back the progress that has been made since the 25-year-old Conservative resurgence began. Calls have been issued for signers of the Memphis Declaration to "come out of the closet." While I certainly cannot speak for every signer, I will speak for myself. The following are "for the record," and I invite any and all to ask any question they desire regarding anything they read here. As soon as time permits (I do have a day job) I promise to answer every one of them to the best of my ability. Please know that each word is prayerfully written in a spirit that desires reconcilliation among brothers. My hear breaks to see the kind of division that has risen as a result of the events of the past several months.

1. I am a signer of the Memphis Declaration. Though I did not attend the Tennessee meeting, I agreed to have my name placed on the list of supporters. I did not do this because I wanted to attack any individual, nor did I want to make any overtly political statement,and I do not believe this declaration makes any effort to do either of these things. I do however, believe there is a move afoot in our Convention to narrow the parameters of cooperation among conservatives. I believe that many who fully affirm the BFM 2000 are marginalized, and in the case of the International Mission Board, now barred from service because they hold to minority Biblical interpretations that are NOT outside the bounds of our common confession.

The Declaration, as best as I understand it, makes no accusations toward any person. In fact, it is a very introspective document, and my support was added only after much introspection on my own part. (See http://joelrainey.blogspot.com/2006/05/spiritual-authority-and-memphis.html)

Since the release of this document, I have heard many make accusations toward certain signers, but I have yet to hear anyone pose a Biblical argument against the document itself. If anyone can point me to ANY part of this document that is clearly unBiblical, I will contact Marty Duren immediately and ask for my name to be removed. If you cannot find anything unBiblical in the document itself, I ask you not to mallign those of us who signed it simply because we signed it.

2. I am in basic agreement with the principles of affirmation released at the Joshua Convergence, and find no contradictions between these principles and the Memphis Delcaration. The one article with which I take issue is that which deals with holiness, and suggests that abstention from alcohol is one mark of holiness. #3 below will elaborate this point.

3. Regarding alcohol, I am a tee-totaller by conviction and practice. I wrote the policy in my association that forbids funded church planters from consuming alcohol as a beverage, and I preach that the wisest thing to do is to abstain. These are my deeply-held beliefs. At the same time, I see no Scriptural evidence for claiming that one ascends to a higher level of holiness because they give up this particular liberty. Though I believe abstention is the best prevention against alcoholism, I have no basis in the Word of God for judging my brother who chooses to drink in moderation. This is NOT an advocation of drinking, as I do not personally condone the practice. It IS however, an advocation of Romans 14:13-23.

4. I thank God for the Conservative Resurgence. Because of men like Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, W.A. Criswell and others, I am a two-time graduate of an SBC seminary I would have NEVER attended 25 years ago! I have NO desire to return to the days when our Convention sent an "unclear sound" regarding our understanding of the nature and authority of Scripture. Many men like those named above worked hard to reform our denomination, and as a result, I was able to attend a seminary where the Scriptures were honored. As a result, I received a quality evangelical education that most of these men only dreamed about. I will never forget what their service provided me!

5. I am an inerrantist, who fully affirms the BFM 2000, as well as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I do not, however, believe the BFM 2000 is inerrant. Are there statements that could have been better worded? I believe so. Are there statements which could be interpreted differently by two individuals? Of course. The BFM 2000 was written by our best theologians, but even our best are not perfect, and even our best are unable to draft a confession of faith that perfectly combines the specificity a theologian desires with the ambiguity that is sometimes necesary when trying to accomodate various points of view on non-essential issues.

I further believe this statement should serve as an instrument of accountability for those who are employed by SBC entities because our churches, on a national level, have stated that these are their deeply held and cherished beliefs. But when we spend the kind of time exegeting the BFM that we do exegeting Scripture, we have crossed the line into creedalism. One must also remember, that the SBC does not only exist at national, but also at state and local levels. Again, it is the CHURCHES at those levels who should decide which statements should be employed as accountability instruments for their denominational employees. As an associational servant, I wish that all of our churches fully affirmed the BFM 2000. Still, it is my responsibility to serve ALL of our churches, regardless of whether they affirm this document.

6. I consider myself to be a straightforward, grab-the-bull-by-the-horns, Bible-centered, expositional, no-holds-barred, hell-fire, Jesus-is-the-only-way, unconcerned-about-popularity, evangelical Baptist preacher. As the first "post-Mohler" graduate of Southern Seminary to pastor one particular and historic Kentucky church, I was malligned, misrepresented, mischaracterized, and unduly judged by several fellow pastors who saw me as only a "narrow-minded fundamentalist." When God's Word speaks, by His grace I will speak, loudly at times, and without apology. Conversely, if the Bible doesn't address an issue, I try my best to shut up about it in the pulpit.

7. I consider it not only sinful, but also a complete waste of time to address personalities, and therefore have done my very best to speak only of positions and actions. I believe it is wrong for someone to automatically assume the worst about our SBC leaders. I also believe it is wrong for someone to imply that one is "liberal" or "against our leaders" or "seeking power" simply because they take issue with something one of our leaders has said or done.

8. I believe that all of the following are godly men who have served their churches and/or denomination well: Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Marty Duren, Jerry Vines, Frank Page, Johnny Hunt, Bobby Welch, Wade Burleson, James Merritt, Tom Ascol, and Jerry Rankin. This list of faithful men is certainly not meant to be exhaustive, nor is it meant to suggests any sort of category or hierarchy of godliness. I also believe that all of the above-named men, in addition to myself, the Apostle Paul, and the rest of humanity all the way back to Adam, are fallen sinners who are constantly in need of God's sustaining and sanctifying grace. This means that all of us will, from time to time, say and do things that are displeasing to Jesus Christ.

9. Having thoroughly read both the Memphis Declaration and the Joshua Convergence statement, I believe that to divide into warring factions behind these two banners is tantamount to Burger King seeking to put a Home Depot out of business. These statements address two different issues, and I would venture a guess that if all would stop beating their plowshares into swords for a moment and read both documents, the Joshua faction would find agreement with the repentant spirit, and the Memphis faction would find agreement with the need to continue standing for truth.

10. I fear that if we continue the current and very foolish exchange of words between each other, many of us will violate the standards of 1 Timothy 3, which insist, among other things, that we be "uncontentious" (v.3) and as a result render ourselves unfit for the office to which we have been called.

11. Finally, I do believe there is still a "battle for the Bible." I just don't believe that with regard to the SBC, it is an "internal" battle. There is, as there always has been, a spiritual war for the truth of the Gospel. Unfortunately, we seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time shooting at each other.

Many years ago, the British Navy arrived on the Atlantic coast near what is now Quebec. They were told to wait until reinforcements arrived and then begin attacking the city. Growing bored with the wait, the commander of the British fleet decided to do a bit of target practice, and so he ordered his gunmen to fire the ships cannons with the goal of destroying all the statues of the saints, which sat on top of a nearby cathedral. By the time reinforcements arrived, most of the ammunition was used up, and there were insufficient military resources for the British to soundly defeat the French. Two hundred years later, Quebec is still a french city, because the British decided to "fire on the saints" instead of the enemy.

Cooperative Program giving has slipped in a very noticeable way, 85% of our churches are plateued or declining, over 3500 churches close their doors for good every year in our nation, and North America is the only continent on the planet where the Kingdom is not advancing. We can't keep fighting each other. We MUST place these petty differences aside (and YES, I do believe our differences are largely petty) and work together to see the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.

For Southern Baptists, I think this can now only begin in one way. Joshua needs to take a trip to Memphis . . . .and Memphis needs to welcome him with open arms!

Further resources:

www.joshuaconvergence.com

http://www.sbcoutpost.com/the-memphis-declaration/

Boxers or Briefs: an Example

After writing the post below, I came across a great example of the "boxer-wearing evangelical" here:

http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2006/signs-that-you-attend-a-reformed-baptist-church/

If you can't laugh at this, not only are you a brief-wearer, but your briefs are probably two sizes too small! Enjoy!

Boxers or Briefs? A Theological Reflection

My apologies to my female readership for the frankness of the metaphor, but I honestly could not think of a better comparative picture for the thoughts that have been running through my head this week.

For the past several weeks, I have been immersed in missions work here in central Maryland, and have been consequently unable to contribute to the rowdy online discussion that is the blogosphere. Nevertheless, I have been able to take some time to read much of what is being said out there regarding first, second, and third order doctrinal issues, and as I observe the way in which various bloggers are addressing these issues, I have come to the conclusion that some wear boxers, and others wear briefs. Some are tight-fisted, gut-wrenched, red-faced, and stressed-out about everything, as if the rise or fall of the evangelical world depends on everyone else coming to their understanding of what it means to be a "conservative." Others are just as theologically sound, but not angry about it.

What I aim to do in the next few paragraphs is draw a distinction between the two. But before I do, a word of clarity is in order: If you are here looking to justify belief in an self-contradicting Bible, women pastors, the notion that being gay is cool with Jesus, the idea that one can enter the Kingdom without a personal relationship with the King, or any other clearly unBiblical idea, I'm afraid you have come to the wrong place. My purpose here is to distinguish within evangelicalism between those who are able to hold to sound doctrine without blowing a gasket, and those who can't.

To be totally transparent, I have to admit that I had a lot of fun with this, so don't take it more seriously than I intend it . . . .but do take it seriously enough. Below are, in my opinion, the marks of a "boxer-wearing" evangelical:

1. He can accept, and even embrace "mystery." Brief-wearing evangelicals have a very hard time with uncertainty. They feel that they must be able to answer every question regarding their faith. Ask them about the problem of evil, and they will have an answer. Ask them about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and they will have an answer. Ask them about puzzling texts in the Bible, and they will have an answer . . . because they MUST have an answer. Brief-wearing evangelicals confuse certainty with omniscience, and live with the understanding that to say "I don't know" only reveals that they haven't spent as much time in the Word as they should have.

Boxer-wearers, on the other hand, know that "I don't know" is sometimes an appropriate answer, especially when it is the honest one. They are certain of Christ's literal and physical return, but at the same time, they aren't losing any sleep over the fact that they keep waffling back and forth between respective eschatological positions. While there are some issues on which they are certain, they recognize that others have been debated for centuries, and that if Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and others didn't settle it, the likelihood that our generation will settle it is pretty miniscule.

This doesn't mean that boxer-wearing evangelicals don't think about such things. But at the end of the day, boxer-wearers apply the truth of Isaiah 55 to their own feeble minds, and conceede that compared to God's wisdom, all the human wisdom in the world is tantamount to the kind of collective ignorance one might find in an internet chat room.

2. He can hold a position without holding it against people. Brief-wearing evangelicals seem to always gravitate from issues to personalities. For example, a few years ago, John R.W. Stott announced his temporary advocacy of annihilationism. Many brief-wearers responded by not only rightfully taking issue with Stott's position, but also by anathematizing Stott from their libraries. Similarly, the vitriolic debate now taking place in the blogosphere regarding SBC issues is largely caused by a shift of focus from positions to people. I for one have been dissapointed to see substantive issues worthy of debate within the SBC largely reduced to divisions regarding whether one loves or hates Paige Patterson.

A boxer-wearer understands the differences between people, personalities, and positions. He is the kind of person who can hold strongly to a complimentarian view of gender issues, while simultaneously sitting across the table from a female with "Reverend" behind her name without either being intimidated, or himself trying to intimidate her. He can flatly (and rightly) reject Stott's annihilationism while still showing great appreciation for Stott's overall work and contribution to the church. The boxer-wearing landmarkist doesn't assume that the non-landmarkist has a weak ecclesiology. The boxer-wearing non-Calvinist doesn't assume that his 5-pointer brother is unevangelistic.

Those holding positions in opposition to the boxer-wearer leave the dinner table with the impression that he is very sure of himself, but he is also a very nice guy! In short, boxer-wearers see certain positions as unhealthy, but they don't see those who hold such positions as the enemy.

3. Their Orthodoxy is Humble. Joshua Harris was the first person I heard use the term "humble orthodoxy," and I have adapted the phrase into my own vocabulary since first hearing it months ago.

Brief-wearers have no problem with honesty, but they struggle with humility. Areas of disagreement with others regarding non-essential issues (for example, one's interpretation of the Baptist Faith and Message) includes not only confidence in one's own position, but also a sense of condescension toward those who disagree. Brief-wearers not only prefer briefs. They see briefs as superior. Boxers are liberal!

By contrast, boxer-wearers are able to take a firm stand on secondary and tertiary issues, while at the same time enjoying friendship with those with whom he differs. The boxer-wearing abstentionist can have lunch with someone who orders a beer. He can enjoy Christian friendship with someone who differs with him on the mode of baptism, and can even share membership in the same church with someone who has an opposing view of election.

Which one are you? Honestly, there are days when I am both. And I suspect, if each reader would be honest with himself, he would come to the same conclusion. I'm working hard at becoming a boxer-wearing evangelical, because I want to maintain the balance between conviction and cooperation; between certainty and humility.

This doesn't mean that I think the recent issues being debated are not worthy of good, robust argument. It does mean that we need to relax a bit!

Southern Baptists in particular have argued about a number of things over the past several months: landmarkism, Calvinism, alcohol, blogging, glossolalia, censorship, et. al. None of these issues is unimportant, but the vitriol I have witnessed of late brings me to the conclusion that maybe what some of us need is a good old-fashioned pair of cotton boxer-shorts. . . .

. . . .speaking of which, I think the dryer just buzzed!