Imitators (from Opus imperfectum)

"Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

We were made in the image of Christ for the purpose of being made imitators of his will and manner of living. We were not created to be like his majesty, were we? For he indeed was able to imitate our flesh, but we cannot imitate his divinity. But in this we are his image: whatever seems good to him also may be good among us, and whatever seems bad to him may also appear bad among us. But whoever is eager to boast, while the Lord is eager for humility, is not the image of Christ. And whoever is a lover of wealth in this world while the Lord loves poverty drives away the image of Christ from himself. For he is not a true disciple who does not imitate his teacher, nor is it a true image which is not like the original.1

1.  Ancient Christian Texts: Opus imperfectum (Vol. 2) [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010], p. 290

There Are Gay Christians

In the opening headline of a recent blog titled "Some Things To Consider If You Think Being Gay Is A Sin," the author says that “there are gay Christians.”

A few friends have asked me to comment on this (on Facebook), but my response was too long for the comment box, so I decided to blog about it publicly. My comments below will assume one's familiarity with the blog post linked above, so if you have not read that, I suggest you do before reading and commenting below. 

First of all, I found it interesting how the author's opening statement declares something categorically in a way that might be factually true, but still remains undefined. What does he mean by "gay"? He also never defines what being “gay” means to him as he explains it so categorically. Instead he seems to let the reader define his or her own terms. Does he mean “same sex attraction” or one who actively practices sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex. Or both? How should Christians define it? He doesn’t make his distinctions clear enough to make a wise decision regarding the inclusion of “gays” within the Christian church. (He seems to be treating all "gays" as excluded, which is not true. See this book as one great example.) He seems to be accepting all definitions, and I certainly cannot endorse that perspective with a clean Christian conscience. I am definitely willing to admit that Christians can have same-sex attraction (as seen by the admissions of Sam Alberry in this lecture and in his book, "Is God Anti-Gay?"), but I have a problem with those who practice it or treat it as though it’s “natural” and therefore an acceptable lifestyle.

As a headline, I think it’s true enough that “there are gay Christians,” but again, I’m not sure the author would make the distinction that I do, between Christians (inwardly & outwardly) who have (and struggle with) same-sex attraction and Christians (outwardly) who practice same-sex intercourse. The author insists that we remember that "gays" are real people. I think that is important to keep in mind. It is precisely because they are real people we are dealing with that I think this distinction of mine is helpful. 

When someone “realizes” they are attracted to the same sex, but is also a practicing Christian, it is easier to minister to them as Christians who have an inappropriate and sinful disposition than it is to minister to them after accepting the propaganda that they have some innate “gayness” which they suddenly realized. That argument of suddenly realizing one's inborn "gayness" is, to me, like someone suddenly realizing they are gluttons or drunkards, and then arguing that they suddenly “realized” they were born that way. And what do you know?, suddenly it becomes convenient to believe that there are thousands of others who are born that way too!! Therefore it must be acceptable to be a glutton or a drunkard and a practicing Christian. That, to me, is absurd reasoning. This does not mean that the people who believe such absurdities are somehow intellectual bafoons. Absurdity from a Christian worldview, after all, is a consequence of sinful reasoning, not unintelligent reasoning. 

However, if a Christian realized he or she is attracted to the same sex, I would argue that such is an attraction which can be genuine and controlled by one's own self in a godly way despite whatever “natural” or hormonal or psychological tendencies there may be to desire the same sex. That can be counseled. That can be helped. That person can be loved and worshiped alongside as a Christian who struggles with something that God does not desire for their choice of lifestyle, and that is a principle which all Christians struggle with to some degree. Sexual sin is very common among all Christians, and does not make someone a non-Christian per se. It may make them a backsliding Christian. It may make them a covenant-breaking Christian, which may eventually lead them into becoming apostate, but that does not necessarily make them a non-Christian from the outset of their epiphany to (or acceptance of) same-sex attraction.

The author also claims that Matthew Vines’ new book on gay people provides a “conservative evangelical” approach to this subject, and that conservative Christians should be willing to reexamine what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Well, in my mind, some of what Vines has to say about kindness and respect toward kind and respectful homosexuals might be helpful. But I don’t know his exact views because I haven’t read his book. I have only read conservative evangelical reviews of his book, and as far I can tell, his views appear to be pretty typical sloppy exegesis of Scripture. To his credit, it is sloppy biblical exegesis which appears to have the best of intentions.

I want to address this portion of his blog a bit further. Even if, as the author claims, “many people affirm monogamous same sex marriage without discarding the Bible,” that does not mean their meticulous faithfulness to a monogamous relationship is pleasing to God (which is what the author assumes). The typical “alternative biblical understanding” is that all the Old Testament passages “against” homosexual practices are either “against” pagan homosexual practices (cultic prostitution, pagan sexual rites, etc…) or abusive or adulterous homosexual relationships. From these typical claims, the author of this blog wants conservative Christians to consider this as a possibility and file it under “secondary theology,” allowing Christian charity to “leave room for disagreement.” Well, I think there is something extremely valuable about learning to leave room for disagreement, but I’m not willing to file this issue under “secondary theology” precisely because the Law of God and the Apostle Paul are explicitly opposed to the practice of same-sex relationships (both cultic, abusive, adulterous, and “Christian”; see ESV translation of Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-7; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:8-10).1 According to Scripture, the practice of same-sex intercourse is not a "secondary" theological issue in the eyes of God or his apostles, and therefore we should be cautious about accepting this blogger's opinion about it being that way. (And don't just take my word--as a blogger--for granted. Look at the Scriptures yourself!)

The author then says something just as ambiguous as his opening statement. He says, “Please consider that we treat our gay brothers and sisters differently than everyone else, and even if you’re right – this behavior is wrong.”

I think this opinion of his is important to consider because Christians don’t often think that their own behavior, and especially their own private thoughts, are wrong. After all, they have thought them through, and they have grown up with others who have thought them through and reached the same conclusions. Therefore it must be right!

I would agree with this author’s statement had he been a little more clear about  what he means by “this behavior.” I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that treating gay “brothers and sisters” (i.e. Christians) “differently than everyone else” is clear enough. What does he mean by “differently”? If what he means by “differently” is that they cannot be treated as a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, then I agree; Christians should examine themselves and consider treating them as brothers and sisters caught up in the sinful spirit of our age, but who still might very well be immature Christians. I am very serious about this, so I am going to repeat myself to be extra clear. Same-sex attraction is a real temptation among Christians, and Christians would be wise to treat those who struggle with same-sex attraction as Christians. I'm not saying this is limitless. I'm not saying this is the one answer to solving all possible uncomfortable circumstances between "gay" and "anti-gay" Christians. What I'm saying is that (1) they are "gay" in the sense that they struggle with same-sex attraction, and still consider themselves to be Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians, and (2) a mature Christian would be wise to treat them as Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. That way, homosexual practice doesn’t ever need to be condoned as a lifestyle or propped up on some glorious pedestal of respectability. At the same time a healthy self-examination of one’s self can restrain unnecessary hatred and foolishness toward a “weaker brother,” and as long as a Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christian is struggling with same-sex attraction, I would consider them the "weaker brother" (as St. Paul uses that description). According to Scripture, the immature Christian is the “weaker” brother; and according to Paul (and Jesus), causing a weaker brother to stumble and fall short of entering the kingdom of heaven is wrong. There is no black or white “law” to deal with every particular temptation and sin of particular people, which is why a “stronger,” more mature Christian should be willing to examine himself, hold firmly to God’s Law which does not favor same-sex attraction, and still love and counsel individuals according to their particular temptations and sins. In that way they can still treat "gays" as Christians who need greater strength in their walk with Christ.

The author then makes this claim: “We’d rarely—if ever—treat these people the way LGBTQ people get treated, and that should be a deeply concerning realization. The fact that one group, and only one group, has been effectively marginalized from the church (you know, that thing that’s supposed to represent Jesus here on earth) should cause us tremendous sorrow.” 

It's not uncommon for me to get slightly irritated by emotional arguments like this. Everyone pack your bags! We're going on a guilt trip! Again, first things first. 

It is not true that "one group, and only one group, has been effectively marginalized from the church." Isn't this blogger aware that pedophiles, zoophiles, rapists, kidnappers, murderers, and baal-worshipers have also been marginalized from the church? This guy can't be serious about gays being the "only" ones marginalized. If he really believes that, he's naive. 

Secondarily, although it is very true that LGBTQ people are treated sinfully by others in a way which accompanies “marginalization” by the Christian Church, that most certainly does not mean that I, as Christian, should be “deeply concerned” or "tremendously sorrowful" about the sinful choices of the LGBTQ community any more than the sinful choices of the Christian community. I am deeply concerned about them both. If God’s Word teaches all men what sin looks like throughout history, and God's Law defines what sin is (I John 3:4), then I don’t have to favor one community over another if they’re both treating each other sinfully in light of Scripture (i.e. in light of God's Word and His Law). And let’s not joke around about this either. Within the LGBTQ community there are plenty of professing Christians and other "religious" people who hate—and I mean hate—other Christians who disagree with their choice of lifestyle; and that hatred is just as categorically wicked as the non-peaceful Christians who hate their Christian brothers that struggle with same sex attraction. All sinful treatment of "gays" and "anti-gays" needs to stop, not just by those within the visible Church.

Last, but not least of importance, is this author’s claim that “Jesus was a traitor to the culture wars of his day.”

In context, that is said in a way which is supposed to make Christians consider what the “real” culture wars of our day are not (not what they actually are). Immediately we are supposed to associate “anti-gay” with the Pharisees who were against Jesus’ gospel of peace. We are supposed to think of Jesus crucified wrongly for his acceptance of all people, including gays. We are supposed to believe that because Jesus was a traitor to the culture wars of his day, that we also must have that same missional disposition toward whatever ways our culture is at war. This means Christians should not war over being gay and Christian. They should, instead, be “deeply concerned” about those who are anti-gay. 

My response to this is pretty simple. Culture wars vary from culture to culture, but the Law of God abides forever. Jesus' gospel was a gospel of peace, but Jesus was also God, and God's Law is Jesus' Law. In that Law, God calls the practice of homosexual behavior an “abomination” worthy of the death penalty in a criminal court (which is only applicable, for obvious reason, if persons were tried in a civil court that acknowledges God’s Law as morally binding). That, of course, is another touchy subject altogether! However, both Jesus and his apostles clearly endorsed it--thousands of years after the law was given--as having contemporary moral application: Matt. 15:3-6; Luke 23:39-43; Acts 25:11; Rev. 13:10. Moreover, within Scripture itself, God never rescinds his own view about the immorality of that behavior. The "Law" as a ministration of death for Israel, through which mankind could receive new life and draw near to God with a particular altar in a particular temple with a particular priesthood and particular sacrifices has indeed expired, but certainly not the moral character of God, which permeated all those Scriptures and gives us the very standard by which the sacrificing of Jesus himself is considered satisfactory for God's justice. 

This leads me to believe that when Jesus began his earthly ministry of peace, crying out “Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” that he was serious about repenting from those things which could keep fellow believers out of the kingdom of heaven. As I have already mentioned in passing, in I Cor. 6:9-10 St. Paul says “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Do not be deceived, Paul says. Do you not know, Paul asks. These statements imply that Christians can deceive themselves about homosexuality, even though they ought to know better. Christians are susceptible to believing the foolish lies of the world, just as much as non-Christians are. 

But Paul doesn’t just end with that clear denunciation of such homosexual behavior. He then addresses that Christian congregation with these words of comfort: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Paul recognized that there were some among the saints in Corinth who once were practicing homosexuals, but no longer practiced that lifestyle because they were baptized. Also, by implication, his warning to them assumes that some of them might still be tempted to endorse such sins again. But Paul says that they shouldn’t be tempted to if they want to inherit the kingdom of God. 

Do you (the reader) want to inherit the kingdom of God? If you are a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction, I suggest that you heed Paul's admonition to the saints in Corinth, and ask Jesus for stronger faith to obey His Word. Ultimately, your own relationship with Jesus, or lack thereof, will determine your inheritance, so don't pretend that Jesus would have brushed this issue off to the side as some sort of "secondary theology." Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and if you are a Christian, his words should be as good as the word of Jesus. You should seek strength from your Savior to trust, even as Paul said, that "such were some of you."






1.  Of course, I would readily encourage studying the Greek and Hebrew texts instead of an english translation of them, but I consider the ESV to be a considerate and generally accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why I recommend reading these passages in the ESV.

Faith as more than simple belief

Faith is more than simple belief because it involves commitment of a kind that is possible only between persons. I can believe that the ground beneath my feet is solid enough to build a house on and then construct one on the basis of that belief, but although I might say that I have "faith" in the ground, there is no relationship between us. For example, it would be unreasonable for me to pray to the ground in the hope that it might protect me from earthquakes. The ground does not have a mind or a will that would justify such behavior on my part, and no reciprocal relationship with it is possible. Faith in God, however, involves two-way communication, which means that there is something present both in us and in God that makes such dialogue meaningful. That something is what we call "personhood," and so it is with the personhood of God that our analysis of how we know and experience him must begin.1 

1.  Gerald Bray, God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology  [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012] p. 106

"The Deceived Belief Must Be Genuine" (more from Greg Bahnsen's doctoral dissertation)

We have maintained that deceived people believe false propositions, and we have elaborated a basic characterization of belief. It will turn out on the analysis being developed here that self-deception actually involves two beliefs which are in conflict. This will be defended in chapter 4. What can be observed here, however, is that the conflict that exists within the self-deceiver can be adequately described as a conflict between two beliefs, and need not be portrayed as a conflict between knowledge and belief. That is, rather than saying that the self-deceiver knows one thing and believes contrary to it, it will be sufficient simply to say that the self-deceiver believes something and yet believes something contrary to it. The contrary belief in either case will be false. However, there is no need to maintain that the other belief to which it is contrary is true and held on good evidence; that is, there is no need to say that it is knowledge (a true belief held on good evidence) to which the false belief is contrary in self-deception. What the self-deceiver takes to be true (i.e., believes) need not actually be true. What is at issue is not whether the self-deceiver holds a false belief in conflict with a true one. It is equally appropriate in self-deception that the conflict be between a false belief and another false belief, for it is the conflict-state that constitutes the condition for self-deception. As long as the self-deceiver actually believes a proposition to be true, it can be objectively false and still serve to set up or generate a conflicting (and similarly false) belief. Our analysis of self-deception need not become complicated, then, with a mixture of knowledge and belief. A person can deceive himself about a belief which he holds whether or not that belief actually has good supporting reasons and turns out to be true or not. Those are extraneous matters here. The important thing is that the self-deceiver believe some proposition and then (falsely) believe something which is incompatible with it.1

1.  Greg L. Bahnsen, A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception (USC Doctoral Dissertation [Philosophy], June 1978), p. 147-8. Underlines for emphasis are original. 

What Is Self-Deception? (Greg Bahnsen's Doctoral Dissertation)

"Self deception involves an indefensible belief about one's beliefs. That is, S perpetrates a deception on himself when, because of the distressing nature of some belief held by him, he is motivated to misconstrue the relevant evidence in a matter and comes to believe that he does not hold that belief, although he does. When he holds a belief that is discomforting, the self-deciever simultaneously brings himself to believe that he does not hold it, and toward the end of maintaining that unwarranted second-order belief he presses into service distorted and strained reasoning regarded the evidence which is adverse to his desires. He not only hides from himself his disapprobated belief, but when he purposely engages in self-deception he hides the hiding of that belief as well."1

1.  Greg L. Bahnsen, A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception (USC Doctoral Dissertation [Philosophy], June 1978), p. 48 

JOHN WYCLIFFE: BREAD REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION

SHOWING THAT THE BREAD REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION

[INQUIRY]  I pray you, now, to explain how it is that the bread remains bread after consecration, for many declare that if they had believed thus, they would never have observed the ceremony as they have done.

On a subject of this nature, we must attend to the words of Scripture, and give them absolute credence. And the words of Scripture tell us that this sacrament is the body of Christ, not that it will be, or that it is sacramentally a figure of the body of Christ. Accordingly we must, on this authority, admit, without reserve, that the bread, which is this sacrament, is veritably the body of Christ. But the simplest layman will see that it follows, that inasmuch as this bread is the body of Christ, it is therefore bread, and remains bread, and is at once both bread and the body of Christ. Again, the point may be illustrated by examples of the most palpable description. It is not necessary, but, on the contrary, repugnant to truth, that a man, when raised to the dignity of lordship or prelacy, should cease to be the same person. The man, or the same substance, would remain, in all respects, though in a certain degree elevated. So we must believe that this bread, by virtue of the sacramental words, becomes, by the consecration of the priest, veritably the body of Christ, and no more ceases to be bread, than humanity ceases, in the instance before supposed; for the nature of bread is not destroyed by this, but is exalted to a substance more honoured. Do we believe that John the Baptist, who was made by the word of Christ to be Elias, (Matt. 11) ceased to be John, or ceased to be anything which he was substantially before? In the same manner, accordingly, though the bread becometh the body of Christ, by virtue of his words, it need not cease to be bread. For it is bread substantially, after it has begun to be sacramentally the body of Christ For thus saith Christ, “This is my body,” and in consequence of these words, this must be admitted, like the assertion in the eleventh chapter of the gospel of Matthew, about the Baptist: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.” And Christ doth not, to avoid equivocation, contradict the Baptist, when he declares, “I am not Elias.” The one meaning that he was Elias figuratively, the other, that he was not Elias personally. And in the same manner it is merely a double meaning, and not a contradiction, in those who admit that this sacrament is not naturally the body of Christ, but that this same sacrament is Christ’s body figuratively.

Concerning the assertion made by some hardened heretics, that they would never have celebrated the ordinance had they believed this, it would, indeed, have been well for the church, and have contributed much to the honour of God, if such apostates had never consecrated their accident, for in so doing they blaspheme God in many ways, and make Him the author of falsehood. For the world God created they straightway destroy, inasmuch as they destroy what God ordained should be perpetual—primary matter—and introduce nothing new into the world, save the mendacious assertion, that it pertains to them to perform unheard of miracles, in which God himself certainly may have no share. In fact, according to their representations, they make a new world. What loss would it have been, then, if heretics, so foolish, had never celebrated an ordinance, the proper terms of which they so little understand, and who are so ignorant of the quiddity of the sacrament they observe and worship?

With regard to the points touching the truth of the belief, that this sacrament is bread, let heretics be on the watch, and summon up all their powers; for He who is called Truth, teaches us (Matt. 6) to pray that he would give us our daily, or supersubstantial bread. And according to Augustine, on this passage in our Lord’s sermon on the mount, by daily bread, Christ intends, among other happy significations, this venerable sacrament. Are we not, then, to believe, what would follow, viz. that if the sacrament for which we pray is our daily bread, then in the sacrament there must be bread? In the same manner the apostles recognised Christ with breaking of bread, as we are told in Luke 24. And Augustine, with the papal enactment, De Con. Dist. III. non omnes, tells us that this bread is this venerable sacrament. Or are we to doubt its following, that the apostles having known Christ in the breaking of this bread, therefore that seeming bread must have been bread? Our apostle, likewise, who takes his meaning from our Lord, calls this sacrament the bread which we break, as is manifest in 1 Cor. 10, and often again in the following chapter. Who then would venture to blaspheme God, by maintaining that so chosen a vessel could apply erroneous terms to the chief of the sacraments,—especially with the foreknowledge that heresies would take their rise from that very subject? It is impossible to believe that Paul would have been so careless of the church, the spouse of Christ, as so frequently to have called this sacrament bread, and not by its real name, had he known that it was not bread, but an accident without a subject; and when he was besides aware, by the gift of prophecy, of all the future heresies which men would entertain on the matter. Let these idiot heretics say, and bring sufficient reason to prove their statements, what this sacrament, which their falsehoods desecrate, really is, if not the holy bread. As was said above, Christ, who is the first Truth, saith, according to the testimonies of the four evangelists, that this bread is his body. What heretic ought not to blush, then, to deny that it is bread?

We are thus shut up, either to destroy the verity of Scripture, or to go along with the senses and the judgment of mankind, and admit that it is bread. Mice, and other creatures, are aware of this fact; for according to philosophers, they have the power of discerning what is good for them to eat. Oh, if believers in the Lord will look on, and see. Antichrist and his accomplices so strong as to have power to condemn and persecute even unto death, those sons of the church who thus yield their belief to the Gospel, yet certain I am, that though the truth of the Gospel may for a time be cast down in the streets, and be kept under in a measure by the threats of Antichrist, yet extinguished it cannot be, since he who is the Truth has said, that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but that his words shall not pass away!” Let the believer, then, rouse himself, and demand strictly from our heretics, what the nature of this venerable sacrament is, if it be not bread; since the language of the Gospel, the evidence of our senses, and arguments that have in their favour every probability, say, that so it is. For I am certain, that even heathens, who make their own gods, are perfectly aware of what they are in their own proper nature, though they pretend that a portion of divinity is bestowed upon them supernaturally by the highest God of all. The believer, therefore, hesitates not to affirm, that these heretics are more ignorant, not only than mice and other animals, but than pagans themselves; while on the other hand, our aforementioned conclusion, that this venerable sacrament is, in its own nature, veritable bread, and sacramentally Christ’s body, is shown to be the true one.^[1]

---

^[1] De Wycliffe, J. (1845). Tracts and Treatises of John de Wycliffe. (R. Vaughan, Ed.) (pp. 138–141). London: Blackburn and Pardon.