The De-Conversion Playbook

Michael Kruger provides a very helpful overview and analysis of the "de-conversion playbook" followed by numerous post-evangelical leaders as they seek to justify revisionist readings of Scripture and draw still-evangelical Christians to follow their lead into progressive enlightenment.  Kruger's penetrating analysis centers on Jen Hatmaker's recent interview with Peter Enns and Jared Byas.

Kruger's conclusion:

In the end, there’s no doubt Hatmaker’s de-conversion story will be persuasive to our postmodern world.  And I am sure some will adopt her newfound theology as a result.

But, upon closer examination, it is rife with problems.  While claiming to be non-judgmental, she declares the fruit of those who believe in traditional marriage as “rotten.”  Despite her insistence that the Bible should be read without certainty, she offers all sorts of dogmatic claims about what the Bible teaches. While claiming her views are due to a deep study of Scripture, she offers only simplistic explanations for the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, while disregarding 2000 years of church history.

Yes, we should not settle for pat answers.  But, sometimes the Bible does give clear answers. And when it does, we should be willing to listen and receive them.

"Dignitary Harm" and the Debate over Religious Freedom

Albert Mohler reviews a new two-views book on religious liberty and LGBTQ concerns.  Especially important is the discussion of "dignitary harm."

Jen Hatmaker Veers Away from Biblical Teaching

Justin Taylor offers summary comments and links to four articles that respond to Jen Hatmaker's recent decision to speak out in favor of same-sex marriage.

Tim Kaine's Careless Hermeneutics

Trevin Wax responds to Tim Kaine's reckless reading of the Bible.  Kaine's approach provides a classic illustration of how not to read--not just how not to read the Bible, but how not to read, or even to think.  No doubt Kaine would cry foul if anyone handled his words in this kind of sloppy, manipulative way.

The Old Testament and Homosexuality

What are we to make of the Old Testament stipulation that homosexual activity is a capital offense (e.g., Leviticus 20:13)?  John Piper offers a tremendously helpful summary of reasons why Christians believe that homosexuals should NOT be killed for their conduct. 

Swift Change

Kevin DeYoung points out how rapidly President Obama's and Vice President Biden's positions on gay marriage have changed:  just six years ago, the conversation was entirely different.
.

Fumbling the Ball

Al Mohler has some thoughtful analysis of Tim Tebow's recent decision to withdraw from a speaking commitment at First Baptist Church of Dallas.
.

What Will the President Do?

President Obama could prove Russell Moore wrong, but if he doesn’t speak up to defend religious diversity and freedom in America then he’s proving Moore right.

Moore contends that the recent fracas over the White House’s invitation of Pastor Louie Giglio to give the benediction at the upcoming presidential inauguration, followed by Giglio’s withdrawal of his acceptance of that invitation due to a firestorm of criticism from strident left-wing voices, signals that we’ve come to the place today where we basically have a state church. 

Giglio, an evangelical Christian and founder of the Passion Conferences, preached a sermon in the 1990s in which he articulated a Bible-based message on sexuality, including the idea that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s will.  Moore points out that such a stance on sexual ethics is not only in line with historic Christian teaching but with the moral vision of Islam and Judaism as well.  Thus the day has come in which a faithful Christian or Jew or Muslim cannot pray at a presidential inauguration:  the new state religion forbids it.

So far President Obama has been silent on this controversy, but Presidential Inaugural Committee spokeswoman Addie Whisenant indicates that the committee hadn’t known of Mr. Giglio’s remarks when he was selected to participate in the inauguration, and “they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural.”  She added that as the committee works to “select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

In other words, they are determined to find someone whose religious stance not only affirms homosexual conduct now but who has never articulated a Bible-based or faithful Muslim or Jewish stance on sexuality.  That is the new standard that people who pray in public must meet, and that's also a key premise in the doctrinal statement of the state religion our current administration is establishing.

UNLESS President Obama steps up and speaks out in favor of allowing the millions of Americans who accept Christian teaching to remain present in the public square.  Unless he replies to Giglio and says, “I know you’re getting raked over the coals, and I know we don’t agree on everything, but I appreciate your excellent work fighting against human trafficking and I want you to participate in the inauguration.”

The ball is in the President’s court.  What will he do?  Will he tolerate the new intolerance, or will he affirm and endorse the classic American concept of tolerance that allows and even protects religious diversity in the land?  Will he stand up to his inaugural committee and others in the administration, or will he sit quietly by as this moment passes (his moment to affirm religious freedom) and look forward to an inauguration with prayers only from people who march in lock-step conformity to the new state-approved religion?

.

Chick-fil-A and Culture Wars

Amidst the ongoing “culture wars” and the ever-escalating clash of conservative and liberal value systems and political agendas in our polarized times, and as we charge ahead to a November election, I’d like to offer followers of Jesus a challenge.

But before I do, let me say what I’m not saying.  I’m not here to advocate supporting any political party or some particular legis­la­tive initiative, nor do I intend to tell anyone how to vote.  Instead, I’d like to encourage you on an entirely different wavelength.

Now about the culture wars—and I’m thinking of last week’s fracas over Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s com­ments about homosexuality, as well as the vigorous push-back by pro-gay voices.  We could discuss what Mr. Cathy said, and we could debate what a corporate executive should and shouldn’t say publicly when it comes to his/her beliefs (when do you speak for yourself, and when do you represent the company?).  And we could discuss the range of reactions to his comments, from the reasonable to the ridiculous.

And, of course, we could discuss what the Bible says on the topic—namely, that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s will (so, e.g., Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; see www.robgagnon.net for some careful attention to the Bible’s teaching).  Scripture’s message is quite clear, so those who regard the Bible as God’s inspired and authori­tative Word should have all the guidance they need when it comes to the question of homosexual activity.  But that’s not my topic.  I’m approaching the situation from another angle.

I want to probe beneath the surface of these recurring cultural scuffles and examine the implicit (and sometimes explicit) vision for Western society held by many professing Christians—namely, that what we really want to see is a world adhering to traditional, con­servative morality; and that what’s really bringing ruin upon humanity is how people are straying away from such practice.  If only we could do something to bring about (or return to?) a moral utopia here and now in which popular culture truly embraced God’s standards of sexual morality!

But is that God’s vision?  And is that the church’s mission in God’s world?  Here’s my challenge:  don’t set your heart on establishing a morally tidy culture.  Don’t let your imagination settle for that dream.  After all, such a vision is way too small—plus, that goal is way off target from where the Lord has directed his church. 

After all, even if we could somehow persuade every person in North America to abide by conservative morals and affirm tradi­tional marriage and practice sexually purity, if in the process we failed to win their hearts and minds to authentic faith in Jesus Christ, we would have won the battle but lost the war. 

I’m reminded of debates from over a century ago about the social gospel when D. L. Moody raised a valid question:  what good is polishing brass on a sinking ship?  What eternal gain would there be in producing a squeaky clean society if people did not also, first and foremost, come to see their sin and grieve over their rebellion against an all-holy Creator and run to the Savior for amazing mercy and forgiveness and life and adoption into the forever-family of the Heavenly Father? 

Someone might answer that question by saying there would be gain—it would be positive to help people at least lead moral lives even if they don’t embrace Jesus.  But would it?  That kind of “good” influence actually does great harm:  it gives the spiritually lethal impres­sion that by performing well and acting uprightly and doing good deeds and staying clean, people can tip the balance of divine favor to their advantage.  And such human-centered, pride-fueling theology is a heresy the New Testament resoundingly rejects (e.g., Eph 2:8-9; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:24; 2 Tim 1:9).

Are we at risk of giving the world the impression that our grand passion in life is to tell people, “Clean up your act”?  Don’t get me wrong:  societal rejection of godly morality in our day is a serious problem with far-reaching conse­quences (e.g., unstable relationships, rampant lone­liness, disintegra­tion of marriage, broken families, impoverished children).  We want to love people away from those traumas.  BUT we don’t love them truly, genuinely, unless we point them to the eternal Lover of their souls.  Frankly, social reform pales in impor­tance compared to the heart response of faith, of trust, in Jesus Christ, who came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10; John 3:16).  And yet, when God goes to work transforming believers from the inside out, good deeds follow—including moral purity! (e.g., Gal 5:6; Eph 2:10; James 2:14-26; Matt 28:18-20 [“disciples” are taught to obey]).  First things first.

.

Lady Gaga, "Born This Way"

Lady Gaga has taken a bold stride into the “nature-nurture” debate with her new hit single, “Born This Way.” The song debuted at the Grammys last month where she was carried on stage in a giant egg and then hatched herself to make a statement: born this way.

The song’s agenda isn't subtle: “No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered … don't be a drag, just be a queen.” After all, “God makes no mistakes, I’m on the right track baby, I was born this way.” Elton John has declared that the song may be “the new gay anthem” (ew.com).

And yet, a few questions come to mind. First, what are the boundaries of the “born this way” rationale? If you go down the road that says, “This is just the way I am,” where else might it take you? What kinds of views or actions might Lady Gaga herself consider unacceptable even if her best friend insisted, “I was born this way”? “But Gaga, my dear, I was born with a natural, ‘God-given’ desire to swindle you out of millions! Surely you can support me in this—that’s what friends are for!”

Secondly, it seems she’s dodging a couple key issues. One is the interplay of nature and nurture in the complex story of our development. For Lady Gaga, it’s nature—end of discussion. But human civilization hasn’t been debating this delicate distinction since time immemorial for no reason. Is it likely that all the intricate theological, sociological and psychological reflections of centuries were suddenly resolved at the 2011 Grammys?

Another evaded point is this: even if from birth we’re prone to act or think or feel in certain ways, that doesn’t necessarily mean those ways are good for us or others. Frankly, mature adulthood (for the Christian or anyone else) involves restraining various natural impulses: cruel words held back for the sake of friendship; sloth denied in order to keep earning a living; saying no to impulse buying; and so on.

As for God’s guidance on the subject of sexual activity, here are a few key points (of course, I realize that these claims only carry weight for those who respect the authority of Scripture, so I don’t expect Lady Gaga or Elton John to be won over—apart from the heart-changing intervention of the Lord, toward which we should pray!):

• Romans 1:26-27 indicates that homo­sexual activity is contrary to God’s will. Other biblical texts could be noted as well, both Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9). It’s not a topic on which the Bible is silent.
• “One flesh” intimacy is reserved for husband and wife in marriage (Mark 10:6-9). Outside of marriage, God’s good will for people is sexual abstinence. Embracing singleness in Christ is a beautiful expression of trust in his wisdom and love (1 Corinthians 7:7, 32-35).
• Gay neighbors are like all our other neighbors in this sense: they need Christ, and they need to see the love of Christ in our kind and truthful way of relating to them.
• Check out ChristopherYuan.com for the story of a changed heart and deliverance from the gay lifestyle.
• Dr. Robert Gagnon (Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Seminary) provides extensive, serious engagement with these issues from a biblical foundation (robgagnon.net).

.