Gospel Obsessed

Let me begin by saying that I have started up posting again on this topic not in order to throw a grenade and then ease back into derelict non-posting. Yes, I think the public debate, and the debate I am witnessing within the evangelical church, has inspired this as the next post, but I do not want to ignite, confuse, and divide. I desire to teach God’s will on this matter for the good of his church, and for the greater good of all peoples. I offer this as a means for some of you to see some resources that have been helpful for me recently on the issue of homosexuality itself and also the issue of the legality of gay marriage. I will link to some articles, and one section on The Gospel Coalition site where many of these articles can be found, regarding these issues.

Let me be upfront. I support the historic and evangelical interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexual behavior. I have not found any argument, theological or exegetical, compelling enough to re-understand the Bible and the world God has made regarding homosexual behavior. No new lexical, grammatical, historical, theological, scientific, or other data has come to the fore that radically changes what I believe to be the clear Biblical teaching on sexual purity and sexual sin. But, I acknowledge many Christians, even evangelicals, are confused, are torn between the poles of compassion and conviction, and some brothers and sisters seem open to new arguments being levied that might make a case that sexual boundaries are wider than we once thought. How come? Why do Jesus-loving people disagree on something as significant as what defines sexual purity and sin? Let me suggest that all interpretation is a result of how one approaches the Bible in the first place. So, before I list some helpful web articles on this issue, let me list out some of the assumptions I bring with me to the table, that set the trajectory of my interpretations. I hold the historic interpretation, because I hold to a historic approach to Biblical interpretation.

1. I believe the Bible is verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired. I believe the move from original manuscripts to our modern manuscripts was so stable that what we have now in terms of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is a text I can, with integrity, call God’s Word – free of error in what the author was affirming as true.

2. I believe that while some of the Bible was mechanically inspired (God simply used the human author as a stylus to convey direct revelation apart from the experience, training, and gifting of the writer), most of the Bible was not mechanically inspired. I take that to mean that the assumptions, cultural perspective, values, theological vision, and biases of the human author that directly shaped the text were part of the process of revelation and are to be respected as true along with the final product of the text itself.

3. Whatever the Bible affirms in principle form is the only truth that text can ever have. The Bible’s meaning and relevance do not evolve. Application can evolve and vary from situation to situation, but the meaning cannot. One must decipher what is the principle and what is a possible application when studying Scripture, but once the principle is ascertained, that is the eternal truth of that passage.

4. Given the above, the Bible’s teaching on volitional homosexual behavior is as clear as incest and adultery. In fact, if one were to try and make a case for the widening of sexual purity laws, it would be a much easier case to make for polygamy and pedophelia. Both are unthinkable by the vast majority of westerners. But, that is the social response. In terms of exegesis, they are less clear as boundaries in Scripture. Homosexual behavior is much more directly addressed in the Bible, certainly as clear as incest and adultery. Yes, the issues, contingencies, and results might differ from incest and adultery, but the clarity of the boundary marker is the same. Different sins have different realities within them, but we must respect the clarity of the  boundary, nonetheless.

Now, some resources:

What the Bible really still says about homosexuality.

Why the arguments for gay marriage are persuasive.

An open letter to the church from a lesbian.

OT Law and the charge of inconsistency by Tim Keller

10 theses about Christianity and Homosexuality.

Homosexuality, Christianity, and the Gospel.

Various Gospel Coalition Articles.

Here are two recent books to help us grow and engage the message from this morning on disciple-making. Remember, this is not about being master disciple makers out of the box. This is about one faithful step forward toward a gospel lifestyle.

I mentioned on Sunday that I would get resources to you to help understand, communicate, and defend the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a solid list of books:

1. The Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas & Mike Licona. This is a great lay level resource with loads of content which features the minimal facts approach in full force.
2. Resurrection iWitness by Doug Powell is a great presentation of the above material, but in an interactive format that would engage adults and children.
3. In Defense of Miracles is a great book that deals with the larger arguments against the miraculous (including a section on the resurrection)
4. The Case for Easter This is Strobel’s book addressing it and I think the church may have handed these out over Easter last year – not sure.
5. Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright. Very long and technical, but good for those who want top notch scholarship.

The truth of the resurrection has led many, including the disciples in John 2, to believe the full gospel truth about Jesus. So, may we be a people who embrace this truth as a lead truth.

OK, onto some less controversial waters. If you haven’t already, check out the comment thread in the previous post. I want you all to see the way some of us are processing this. Great points were made, and I learned more about political terms

It is Olympics time. Many of us are trying to catch as many of the events as possible. Rebecca and I are having a hard time not being jealous of the Americans that get to be over there in London. We. Love. England! We are die-hard Anglophiles. Back to the point. If I were an Olympic sprinter, I would have two complementary habits. I would pray before a race, then once the gun went off I would run as hard as I could. That, in a nutshell, is a disciple of Jesus, called to mission. We pray to an all powerful God who must do His work or everything is in vain. But, we must then act in accordance with his Word with boldness. Prayer and boldness are not contradictory. Prayer fuels boldness. We pray and also we are bold to act. God must work. But, our work must happen as a sign we have truly connected to God. This is Philippians 2.12-13, isn’t it?

I loved and was very challenged by how much Mavuno prays. You may have thought that they are an action church, a go get em church, take no gospel prisoners church…and they are. But, all of that assumes the power of God which they feel grounded in because of their committed and passionate prayer life as a church. One of their most influential leaders gets up at 3 AM every morning, to pray and ponder. Yes, you read that right – 3AM. That ain’t gonna happen with me, I’ll tell you right now. But, I was convicted. I can certainly get up an hour earlier. Mavuno moves in prayer. God uses our prayers. We don’t manipulate God. The interchange in prayer is real, truly relational, and how it works is not fully apparent to us – but I do know this — God has always blessed the life and work of prayer warriors. Commitment to prayer and the actual habit of prayer are life savers for people and movement churches in a few respects.

1. Even when churches pray for things, or because of things, that are not always correct or even for God’s glory, by being in prayer constantly, God sanctifies those motives and those plans. By being in prayer, we get convicted when we want something for selfish reasons, or the direction of our desires is shifted toward God’s plan. Often, prayer is simply God getting us close to him, in dependence, love, and wonder, and then he shapes us by that prayer life. Mavuno does not always get what they initially pray for. Sometimes their motives might come under conviction. But, by being prayerful, all of that gets worked out, sanctified, and shaped towards God’s perfect design and the for His glory.

2. Prayerful churches are missionary churches. When churches become self centered and lose their commitment to making disciples of all peoples, you can always see the drop in prayer life. Praying people are brought close to God’s heart, and therefore to God’s mission. This is true for groups of people. If we want to grow as a missionary church, we have to be prayerful. If we are prayerful, we will desire and also act to make disciples, locally and globally.

3. Theology and prayer must go together. Theology and doctrine will ruin you without worship. I love theology. This is going to be a thoughtful church with a thoughtful approach. But, if we do not have theology turn into doxology at the drop of a hat, if we do not pray our theology and have our theology make us pray, then the flame of the gospel will die here. Let us pray so that our minds will be fully liberated to know God, not as an abstract truth, but as the all glorious and infinite God of Holiness and Beauty who loves us with infinite love.

E.M. Bounds, a Civil War chaplain and writer of great works on prayer and ministry, reportedly once said to some troops: pray and keep your gun powder dry. In other words, pray and know that God is the prime mover, but then also be responsible and act!

As a church, let us be prayerful for our place in God’s mission and then let us allow the Spirit of God to motivate us to act in boldness for that mission.

Sorry I missed the last few days. Busy days!

OK, to go along with the last post about a more empowered and centralized leadership culture, I wanted to talk about something I observed in Kenya that created the hospitable ecosystem for this reality. In fact, what I want to address today I think is the back story to why a lot of churches run the way they do. Do churches have cultures and systems driven by suspicion or trust in leadership? Congregations may trust specific godly people but do they trust in the idea and the office of leadership? Do they trust human authority?

Let me get down to the nitty gritty. There are a lot of people in the American church, and in our church, that have been burned by church leadership. They have been burned by the leaders themselves. They have been  burned by the decisions those leaders have made. They feel burned by the authority and actions those leaders manifested. Some people have had to leave beloved former churches over very hurtful experiences. I get how those experiences have affected many people’s view of a certain kind of leadership style and also a certain kind of governance model. If you are reading this and these descriptions kind of fit you, hear me out. I validate what you are feeling. I validate that you had truly bad experiences with certain churches and their leaders. I don’t want to dismiss that at all. I could probably name the movements, networks, churches, and leaders that some of you wince at. You know, I love it that you have found the Bible Church to be a place that is different. A place that you can rest in. I hope that never leads us to pride or the thought that we are better than other churches. But, I am glad that BC makes grace that clear and that we want to be a church that is not about power grabbing and celebrity and simply being awesome for the sake of being awesome. We will continue to be that by God’s grace, BUT…

Here is the deal. While I understand and validate those experiences and consequent feelings, if this rings true for you, may I ask you as your pastor to consider something I think will be a huge blessing to you and to the leadership here…and yes, to me. This is a big ask. I would ask that you consider a process (not a overnight transformation) of seeking to move on and to find healing. I would ask that you not conflate proper Biblical accountability, and healthy church life, with a certain type of governance, full of protections, counter balances, and pressure valves. May I suggest what happened at a former church or amidst other leaders had very little to do with centralized leadership vs. decentralized, or one governance model vs. another, but had everything to do with character, maturity of leadership, and other issues that no human method or document can ultimately promote, control, or keep in check? This is a big ask. This will require some thinking, re-thinking, and some wrestling even, maybe a conversation with me. So, what I am asking you for is not to condone a governance model, but that you seek God to enable you to trust not only specific people, but the very idea and office of leadership and authority. The rest tends to be gravy. I think we know this. Once that trust sets in, systems follow. Maybe we hold onto those negative feelings because the pain we feel is so connected to a system that by not letting go we keep our passion going to protect our claim on a system that seems to protect us from more pain. That was a long sentence. Bottom line, some of us are in a bit of a catch 22. Not sure, but I find myself in those catch 22′s. So, the next step may be a step of faith…

Back to Kenya. Our Kenyan family is good at this. Well, isn’t it native to their culture? Yes and no. Within the United States one can find church that have this culture. Godly people lead, they lead well, and people trust and depend on their leadership and allow the systems to reflect this. But yes, there is something to other non-American cultures that allow them to trust leaders in a way we don’t. Also, we Americans not only have our own struggles with negative experiences, but we have American democracy, don’t we? That is a whole book length implication, so I will leave that one there. But back again to Kenya. I took it seriously when you told me as a church that these partnerships were such actual partnerships that we as an American church wanted to learn from them. So, I learned from them. I learn as multi-national man who has felt the tug of different cultures within my story, and the wonderful blessings but also curses each culture brings to the table. I would love for us all to learn from Mavuno’s trust in leadership. They have a trust model. I would love for us to move from a model that is sometimes hampered by suspicion to a model freed by trust.

Those are some of my bolder reflections. I offer them with conviction and love.