Sunday, June 8, 2014

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.



Saturday, June 7, 2014

Offending our prejudices (Ezekiel 5:5-17)



Commenting on Ezekiel 5:5-17, Robert Jenson challenges a dominant Christian prejudice pertaining to the limitations of God’s sovereignty over the affairs of men. He writes:
Is an immanent connection between Jerusalem’s sin and her coming disaster compatible with the proclamation that the Lord himself takes the field to punish her?
Jerusalem is punished by inevitable consequences of sin and is punished by God in person. These are compatible on one condition: if the statutes and ordinances that make the moral order do not obtain independently of God (as often in other religions) or do not function merely as a mediation of divine order from afar (as in yet other systems) but simply are the Lord’s own willing and acting among his creatures.
The supposition that God can be wrathful when rebelled against, and even jealous of his people’s love, further offends our prejudices. We may try to escape by the popular supposition that God in the Old Testament could be wrathful and that the New Testament changes all that. But this notion cannot survive the slightest acquaintance with the texts. Paul is not outdone by Ezekiel: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness” (Rom. 1:18), which he latter catalogues in truly wrathful detail. And for depictions of divinely ordained destruction of the wicked, the New Testament book of Revelation tops all competition.
Modernity expected God to be disinterested; and if a judge, then a disinterested judge, on the model of one behind the bench of a British or American courtroom. But the biblical God is precisely not disinterested; his boundless personal investment in his creatures is his most determining characteristic. His law is not something he devises and administers, it is his active personal will, which thus defines also who and what he himself is. And therefore when it is flouted he must be personally offended. He is a lover and therefore jealous, for there cannot be an actual lover who is not jealous—the great climax of the Song of Songs, “love is strong as death, jealously fierce as the grave,” strictly and knowingly parallels love and jealousy. Christian theology dare not retreat a step from these claims, for as the gospel construes our situation, our only hope is God’s personal stake in the good he wills for us.
How we are to work out the metaphysics is another matter. In the dominant inherited tradition, deity is defined by a set of characteristics—many beginning with “omni”—that add up to an immunity to temporal created events. But if God can in history be moved to wrath by our deeds, and if his wrath can then be “satisfied” by his acts in time, he cannot be timeless or changeless in any naïve sense of these notions. …We must indeed think that God remains himself, come what may in his history with us, but this cannot be because he is unaffected by us or because time is meaningless for him.1




1.  Robert W. Jenson, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible:Ezekiel [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009], pp. 62-3


Monday, May 26, 2014

Jesus the Prophet (Matthew 13:53-14:13)


As noted in a previous post, Matthew 13:53—14:13 comprises the first subsection of the distinctive narrative section that extends from 13:53 to 17:27. This subsection is identified as section "A" in that post. (It is really only for mnemonic reasons that the literary structure of this narrative section is often presented as extending from chapter 14 to chapter 17. A closer examination of Matthew’s gospel shows that this narrative section actually begins at the end of chapter 13, specifically verse 53, which notes the end of a lengthy discourse section: “And when Jesus had finished these parables…”.)

(For quick reviewing purposes Matthew 13:53—14:13 can be found here.)

In this section Jesus is found visiting his “hometown” for the first time since the beginning of Matthew’s gospel, immediately after his baptism (2:23; 4:13). So far, Matthew has told us nothing about Jesus and his childhood relationship with the people back home in Nazareth, but there is nonetheless much to be gleaned from this encounter in chapter 13.

At this point in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is clearly honored enough in his hometown to be teaching his Jewish brethren within “their synagogue.” But by the end of this section Jesus is dishonored, and the reason why is because of his prophetic authority. Matthew illustrates this in various ways.  

First, instead of focusing upon his teaching in the synagogue, Matthew focuses on the people being “astonished” (ἐκπλήσσεσθαι) by him. The last time anyone Matthew records anyone as “astonished” (ἐκπλήσσεσθαι) is immediately after Jesus’ discourse on the Law (i.e. Sermon on the Mount) at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry of healing (7:28-29).

In 7:28-29, the people were astonished because Jesus was like Moses in his giving of the Law, except Jesus was giving the Law in a way that was greater than the Pharisees, and teaching with more authority than their scribes. However, at the end of chapter 13 the situation that Jesus encounters in Nazareth is different. Instead of simply teaching greater things than their scribes, Jesus is performing “mighty works” (δυνάμεις) which none of their scribes could perform. These “mighty works” were, of course, nothing new to Jesus’ ministry. He had been performing these works all along (11:20-23). Just like Jesus’ earlier report of his ministry to John (11:5-6), the blind were receiving sight, their lame walked, their lepers were cleansed, their deaf heard, and their poor had the gospel preached to them. Yet unlike John’s positive response to this news, the people of Nazareth were astonished because they knew who Jesus’ family was—who his father, mother, and siblings were—but they did not know from what source Jesus’ mighty works had come. Certainly they did not come from his family or even from the teachers of Israel!

Apparently there was too much pressure for Jesus’ “hometown” to accept him as having greater authority than anyone they knew—even their religious authorities—and they were offended (ἐσκανδαλίζοντο) by this. Like Jesus’ parable in the previous chapter, they received Jesus like the “rocky ground” received the seed sown by the Sower. They received Jesus with joy initially, yet because they had no “root” in them, they “fell away” (σκανδαλίζεται; 13:20-21). These aren’t the only instances when Jesus spoke about “falling away” or being “offended” (Greek: σκανδαλίζω). Earlier, Jesus had told the disciples of John that those who are not “offended” or “caused to fall” (σκανδαλισθῇ) by him are, in fact, blessed by him (11:6). So in comparison, this portrait of Jesus’ hometown is clearly not a blessed one. Instead, Matthew’s portrayal of Nazareth is more like a cursed “household” which refuses to honor its own family members who prophecy on behalf of Yahweh (13:57). The fact that Jesus is hated as a prophet in the same way that adulterous Israel hated the prophets of Yahweh—like Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah—is significant. It’s also significant that this the first passage within Matthew’s gospel that Jesus explicitly likens himself to a “prophet” (13:57).

Placing this label of “prophet” upon himself also makes perfect sense within the larger context of John the Baptist’s death. After we learn that the people of Jesus’ hometown are caused to fall by Jesus’ “mighty works” (δυνάμεις), Matthew segways onto a brief discussion about Herod hearing rumors about Jesus’ ministry in Nazareth. Apparently Herod heard about these same “miraculous powers” (δυνάμεις) that Jesus had done in Nazareth and elsewhere (14:1-2). But Matthew doesn’t merely tell us about Jesus’ fame reaching Herod; instead he focuses on something which at first glance appears out-of-place and off-topic: he focuses on John the Baptist’s death and it’s relationship with Herod’s wife, Herodias.

At first glance, Matthew’s focus upon Herodias appears to be beside the main point of Jesus’ ministry, but really it highlights Jesus’ place within this gospel, within Matthew's story of Jesus as Israel. Back in chapter 11, when Jesus told the disciples of John about those who are blessed for not stumbling by his “mighty works,” we learned that John was in prison anticipating the coming of the Messiah; but he was still alive then. Here in chapter 14 we hear about John again, but we learn that John has been murdered because Herod’s wife summoned John’s head to be served to her on a platter. Like the Queen’s murderous plot against Elijah for prophesying against her “house,” Herodias wants to destroy John for prophesying against her “house.” But Matthew’s main point is not actually about John or Elijah. It’s still about Jesus, but by recalling John the Baptist’s ministry, Jesus’ ministry is clearly likened unto Elisha’s. It’s only when we find out that Herod thinks Jesus is John the Baptist—as though John was raised from the dead—that we also can see Jesus is to be likened very closely to Elijah and even more importantly, his successor, Elisha. (This typological association is even more explicit by the time we arrive at 16:14.)

Just as the ministry of Elijah foreshadowed the ministry of Elisha, so the ministry of John would foreshadow the ministry of Jesus. Like Elisha, Jesus would carry the prophetic mantle of the prophet before him and perform more “mighty works.” Indeed, throughout the following narrative section (i.e. chapters 14-17), the mighty works of Jesus make far more sense in light of Jesus as a type of Elijah and Elisha. Like Elijah before him, Jesus’ life is in danger from the King and Queen; he then flees to a mountain, then to the wilderness, and then to a widow in the region of Tyre and Sidon, like Elijah. Yet the parallels with Elisha, his successor, are even more striking.

Like Elisha, who is the only explicitly “anointed” prophet of the Old Covenant, Jesus is explicitly called the “Annointed One” by Peter (16:16 c.f. 1 Kings 19:16). Jesus also multiplies loaves of bread for his disciples, which is like Elisha, who was the only prophet in the Old Testament to do that particular miracle! Like Elisha, Jesus crosses the waters connected with the Jordan and is met by a school of disciples who “worship” him (Matt. 14:32; 2 Kings 2:14-15 LXX). When his disciples are tormented by the waves surrounding them, Jesus tells them “do not be afraid,” which is the same thing Elisha tells his disciples when they are tormented by surrounding armies (2 Kings 6:15-17). As the Shunammite woman prostrated herself before Elisha seeking help for her child, so the Canaanite woman prostrates herself before Jesus, and for the same reason (15:25; c.f. 2 Kings 4:27).

In an indirect manner, Jesus is also portrayed as a type of Elisha because of his disciple, Peter.1 Peter is highlighted as a type of chief disciple, similar to Gehazi, Elisha’s chief disciple. Like Gehazi with Elisha, Peter fails to understand his master’s mission, and he foolishly sets himself up as an obstacle between Jesus and other disciples. He is, in fact, the only disciple within the gospels to be singled out as both a chief disciple and a man of “little faith” (14:31). In this light, the resemblance between Peter and Gehazi is unmistakable.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Jesus is like Elisha in the way he forms a community of disciples around him. Unlike Elijah, who, like John the Baptist, attracted a lot of attention but not a lot of disciples to follow in his footsteps, Jesus accomplishes the opposite. Jesus attracts most of his disciples in chapters 14-17 of Matthew’s gospel. Like Elisha, Jesus ministers throughout the land of Israel, gathering, nourishing, and sustaining a new community of disciples in a time of great spiritual famine. But his ministry as the greater Elisha has only been alluded to briefly in this first subsection, when Jesus first hears news that Herod thinks he is the resurrected John the Baptist (14:1-3, 13). By his relationship with John's suffering as a prophet, Jesus suffering for the kingdom is foreshadowed, and by his relationship with Elisha's prophetic ministry, the rise of a new and greater Israel is anticipated. 










Saturday, May 24, 2014

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