Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2013


For the next two weeks, my sermon series on Colossians will be in the portion of the household code dealing with slaves and masters. Later, we’ll explore Philemon. But this is not the only household code in Scripture that addresses the subject. We find them in Ephesians 5-6 and Titus 2. The subject appears in 1 Timothy 6, 1 Peter 2, 1 Corinthians 7 and some other places. It is important for us to remember that in Philippians 2 Jesus is called a slave who obeyed to the point of death, death on a cross.

It is hard for us to grasp all of this. Thankfully legalized slavery has been abolished in most of the world. We are still fighting human trafficking. We have a very different set of experiences than the original audience of the Scriptures.  So let’s look as this, at times with help from John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Christian Life. (I am a bit uncomfortable with his reliance upon James Jordan at times. Some theonomists have fallen into what I think is the dangerous false doctrine of kinism).

Slavery was common in most of the ancient world. Not race-based slavery, but slavery. In the Old Testament we see that the Patriarchs owned slaves. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers (which as man-stealing was punished by death in the Old Testament, and was affirmed as a heinous sin in the New Testament).

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Any conversation about homosexuality inevitably will turn to what the Bible says. There are bound to be many misunderstandings about what the Bible says, and attempts to say that it doesn’t really say what it says. This is where Peter Hubbard turns his attention in the 4th chapter of Love Into Light.

It is just a chapter, so it is a survey that focuses on a few key texts. There are whole books devoted to this singular topic. This is intended to hit the highlights.

“Real Bible study is an act of corporate execution as we die to our preferences and together stand in the counsel of the only Person Who embodies and defines life.”

Studying the Bible is painful for all of us because it doesn’t say what we wish it would. Each of us may have a different topic with which we disagree with the Bible. But, as he notes here we have to wrestle with it or we have made ourselves to be autonomous.

Many, like Matthew Vines, will accuse us of misinterpreting the Bible. They will accuse us of mishandling them to issue a blanket, absolute condemnation of something the Bible never condemns. I think Hubbard makes a good point about this.

“Who wants to misinterpret the Bible at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people who feel condemned to lives of shame and loneliness? Who has the time and the desire to dream up sexual prohibitions that God hasn’t created?”

In other words, those with whom we disagree seem to paint us in the worst possible light: homophobes, bigots etc. I understand the desire to avoid guilt and shame. I ran from God for awhile, wanting to enjoy activities that the Bible says are immoral. We all have those things, and they are pretty important to us at the time.

The first charge made is that the prohibitions against homosexuality were temporary. Some of the prohibitions are found in Leviticus with a number of other immoral sex acts (Leviticus 18). People like Jay Bakker and Jack Rogers say it was wrong for the Israelites, but not for us today. Jay, like many today, will point out that Leviticus mentions they shouldn’t eat shellfish, wear clothing made of wool and cotton, getting tattoos and other such far less important things. The argument is that we have evolved past things.

Okay, some of those things were about how Israel was set apart ceremonially from the nations around them. What you won’t find is a penalty for eating shellfish. At most, you wouldn’t participate in corporate worship as being ceremonially unclean.

The penalty for all those sexual acts (which they neglect to mention include incest and bestiality) is death. This are how Israel was set apart from the nations morally. This was a severe penalty. We are talking about two fundamentally different things. Are we to assume that we have evolved enough to say that incest and bestiality are okay too? Or are they the only permanent prohibitions in that exact context? See how misleading their argument is?

Hubbard argues (the above was mostly mine) that Jesus affirmed and fulfilled the Old Testament. He fulfilled the ceremonial laws in such a way as to render them obsolete (read Hebrews for example). He fulfilled the moral law for us, but not in a way that renders it obsolete. We see that the New Testament affirms the Old Testament prohibitions on numerous sexual sins, including homosexuality. That brings us to one of the controversial texts in this debate: 1 Corinthians 6:9.

That passage includes an original term by Paul- arsenkoite. It is a debated term, claimed to mean “male prostitute.” How does Hubbard respond? “The Apostle Paul coined this term from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. He was pointing back to Leviticus 18:22.”  It is the combination of arsenos  and koiten. It is not connected to rape, or prostitution, but of having intercourse with another man as if he were a woman. He is restating the OT prohibition against homosexuality.

Another claim is that the prohibitions are misunderstood. The claims regarding 1 Corinthians 6:9 is such a case. Another is Sodom and Gomorrah. They, supposedly, were judged for being inhospitable. Yes, they were that. But the original story in Genesis 19 makes clear that they wanted to engage in homosexual activity with the men. As Jude 7 notes, they were immoral. That it manifested itself in attempted homosexual rape is pertinent. Both Philo and Josephus interpret this to mean it refers to homosexual acts, not simply sexual violence.

A third claim is that such prohibitions are rooted in ignorance. Mel White is one man who puts this forth, as though the homosexuals then were very different from the loving, committed homosexuals today. This argument is a form of chronological arrogance, for there were committed gay and lesbian relationships in Paul’s day. It assumes we are more enlightened and wiser than those blood thirsty primitives. If only they understood that some are homosexual by nature. Romans 1, they claim, refers to those who are heterosexual but engage in homosexual activity. The point of Romans 1 is not to isolate homosexuality, but to show homosexuality as one of the results of exchanging the truth for a lie. Sin manifests itself in many ways, as Paul mentions in Romans 1. Homosexuality is one of them.

Others, like Luke Timothy Johnson, place our experience above Scripture. The commands of Scripture, he argues, are fallible. Paul was subject to his personal prejudices and preferences. It assumes that the Bible is merely a human document and that it also is fallible when it says that the Spirit inspired Scripture. The Scriptures are authoritative, my experience is not. I am to judge my experience by Scripture, not Scripture by my experiences.

In fact, it would appear that the claims are merely projections of their own arguments which take texts out of context, misunderstands the words used and are filled with ignorance of history as well as Scripture. If we have the opportunity to talk through these texts with a homosexual or an advocate for them, we can use the material here to address those concerns and show that the problem is not the Scriptures or our fundamentalist interpretation.

Read Full Post »


Suppose a homosexual comes to faith in your church, what next? Perhaps you had some constructive conversations and they realize the issue is SIN, and not “just” homosexuality. They come to see that Jesus has born their sin, all of it. What next?

That issue of change is the next subject of Peter Hubbard’s Love Into Light. The process of change that he talks about isn’t peculiar to homosexuals. He applies the biblical concepts of gospel transformation to homosexuals. But he is also honest about what changes to really expect.

He begins in an unexpected place though. He talks about misdiagnosis, about misunderstanding the real problem. For years the high incidence of depression and suicide among homosexuals were connected to being “in the closet” unable to express who they really are. That has changed in many ways. They are counseled to live out their homosexuality in full view of the world. Yet, the high rates of depression and suicide seem to persist. Perhaps the problem wasn’t being closeted. Though they are gaining cultural power, these emotional problems they were promised would diminish remain.

“… this link is no longer clear since sexual expression and social acceptance do not always alter the levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicide. So maybe the ‘cure’ (sexual expression) is actually part of the ‘disease’.” Ritch Savin-Williams, homosexual professor and researcher

This does not mean that the “antidote” is heterosexuality. This is where many get lost. They think that change means becoming heterosexual. That might not be God’s plan for a repentant homosexual.

“Jesus is not our get-out-of homosexuality plan, but “the way and the truth and the life.” Real change is not simply a reaction t our latest problems, but a miraculous step toward our new eternal identity.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »


In the second chapter of Love into Light, Peter Hubbard shifts his attention from the gospel to the heart. He does this as he grapples with the ever-elusive cause of SSA.

One of the battles going on in our culture is the cause of homosexuality. Slogans on both sides of the fray over-simplify and mislead. “Born that way” is not scientifically tenable. “Choose to be that way” doesn’t really capture the experience of many homosexuals.

What is often told to young people is that you should experience the fulfillment of their desires. Most teens are curious and confused, especially if they have been exposed to porn or abused. Strange thoughts enter their minds. While it is usually not a good idea to act on all the odd thoughts that come into one’s head it supposedly is good to do that with sex. Soon these desires become labels (the subject of a later chapter).

The APA has found that “no findings have emerged to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” In other words, the “professionals” have no earthly idea.  The 2010 Swedish Twin Registry study only found that 10% of identical twin pairs with one homosexual had two homosexuals. Genetics is not the (complete) answer. If it was, then you would expect something closer to 100% of identical twins to have the same orientation.

“Our hearts are constantly interpreting information, expressing feelings, and making decisions.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Where I live now isn’t like where I lived immediately before this. It isn’t about geography, or the population. There are many differences between here and there. One significant difference is its view of homosexuality.

There homosexuality was still in the closet. We knew someone whose son is a homosexual in a long term relationship with another man. Everyone pretty much knew, but they were considered “friends” for the sake of other family members. I really don’t recall seeing any homosexual couples expressing affection while I lived there.

Where I live now is known, so I’m told, as a popular place for lesbians to live. In the last month I’ve seen 2 different couples expressing affection. First, I was picking my family up at the airport and 2 reunited women had a few kisses. I was hoping my kids didn’t notice because I’m not sure I’m ready to have that conversation that HGTV wants to make me have. Last night 2 younger women made out briefly in the restaurant I went to.

In some communities, particular lifestyles are still closeted. In others, people are quite open. In the church, some sins are still closeted. Peter Hubbard considers this question after realizing that in all the years of testimonies he’d heard, he couldn’t remember anyone including SSA as part of that testimony.

Hubbard has a few theories in the first chapter of Love Into Light: The Homosexual and the Church. He also refutes each of these theories with the gospel.

Possibility #1: Homosexuals are not like us; they are “abnormal.” The church has often made this argument. We shouldn’t wonder why people don’t want to confess this particular sin in our congregations. They are (often for good reason) afraid they will be rejected.

“He couldn’t wait any longer for me to reject him, so he rejected himself for me.”

I’ve had people admit to having an abortion, giving up a child to adoption and addiction to pornography. Not homosexual porn however. I’ve had women admit to me that they’d been sexually abused. But no men (at least with me as their pastor).

I have had a few people admit to profound sins. One recognized at the end of our counseling session that they had crossed the Tiber so to speak. Fearing I’d never look at them the same way, and always have questions about them, they left the church. Right there, right then. One hung around for awhile, but I wonder if they were trying to get me to reject them in the months that came. Or perhaps they assumed I was rejecting them as a result of that confession when other issues were in play. People expect to be rejected and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


I think what really stood out to me was the recommendation of D.A. Carson found on the front cover.

“If you are a high schooler, read this book carefully and thoroughly, and then loan it to your parents.”

The book he was referring to was Bible Study: A Student’s Guide by Jon Nielson. Nielson’s goal was to equip & encourage students to study the Bible. What I’ve found in over a decade of pastoral ministry is that too few people in the pews know how to study the Bible. This means that many churches are failing to train students, their SS teachers or small group leaders how to study the Bible. It is easy to hand them a study guide, we use those, but not train them how to do it.

As our men’s ministry considered what to study this year, they chose to study this book. Many of them felt a proper conviction that they needed to better understand how to study the Bible to better lead their wives and family.

There is the background for why he wrote the book, and why I read it. Now, how is the book?

Nielson starts with a number of truths concerning the Bible that need to be grasped as we begin to study the Bible. He starts with the doctrine that “The Bible is God Speaking”. He tackles the doctrine of Inspiration. If we don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God (He spoke it), we have no compelling reason to read and study the Bible. It is just an interesting story and confusing moral advice. But if God is speaking…. that changes everything. So he explains dual authorship and inspiration in an understandable way, and then gets into the implications of what we believe. He stands opposed to the post-modern notions of deconstructionism and for authorial intent as fundamental to meaning.  Since the Bible is God speaking, our goal in studying it is to hear God speaking to us through the Scriptures.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


I tend to reserve trips to the movie theater for big action pictures. There are some movies that don’t translate as well onto the small screen.

I suspected that Matt Damon’s newest movie, Elysium, was one of those movies. It certainly benefited visually from the big screen. It was an interesting movie on a few levels. That doesn’t mean it was a great movie. It had a few flaws.

Elysium was written and directed by Neill Blomkamp who made District 9. It shares much with that movie. It shares the same feel, that jittery camera feel at points, as well as the lighting (very bright) as well as the themes of alienation set in a science fiction context. In this instance, that alienation sets the context rather than being the point.

This time there are no aliens, but it is about the haves and have nots. This is a class warfare movie rather than a race relations movie. The haves live on Elysium, a huge space station with a comfortable and beautiful environment that hovers above the Earth. While there is a President, the focus is on Jodie Foster’s combination of Hilliary Clinton and Janet Nepolitano as Director of Homeland Security Delacourt. Yes, the use the phrase. She is a schemer with ambitions to be President, taking the place of the non-Caucasian currently occupying the office. Interesting huh? Reaching? I’m not sure.

They are there because the Earth of 2154 is now polluted and over-populated. Los Angeles is like a desert (the result of global warming?), and people live in decrepit skyscrapers and other hovels. We are introduced to Max and Frey as children. The nun who cares for them in the orphanage says he has a “special future.” But Max continues to steal from others and we meet him as an adult who is a convicted felon out on parole trying to keep his job.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »