Archive for the ‘Hermeneutics’ Category

This is Part 2 an article which appeared in the September / October 2011 edition of Voice magazine and is reproduced with the permission of its author, Dr. Kevin Zuber.

Dr. Zuber is Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute and a teaching elder / pastor at Grace Bible Church Northwest.

________________

Preface (by Dave James)

There were several catalysts in the process that ultimately led to the formation of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity. One of the first was a very late-night conversation with Dr. Jimmy DeYoung in 2007 (which I’ll get back to in a moment).

It was after midnight and we were returning to Hungary after speaking at the first prophecy conference ever held in Serbia (to the best of our knowledge). We were still rejoicing in the fact that the Lord had allowed us to be a part of something that had far exceeded everyone’s expectations. The organizers of the conference (one a Serbian Baptist pastor and the other an elder in a Brethren Church) had set up the locations for the meetings based on their hope that we might have as many as 100 people or so attend the conference. After the meeting on Saturday, a last-minute change of venue for the Sunday meetings was necessitated by the fact that around 500 had come out to hear the messages. By the last meeting on Sunday, it was estimated that close to 800 were in attendance that evening – approximately 10% of the evangelical population of the entire country of Serbia!

Back to the conversation: The question we were asking ourselves was, “Where is the next generation of prophecy speakers going to come from? Who is teaching and training them.” This also led to the observation that dispensationalism, in general, seems to be in rapid decline after over 50 years of being the most widely-held view within conservative evangelicalism.

In this article, Kevin Zuber deals with this specific issue and some of the significant implications flowing out of this shift away from Pre-Trib Pre-Mil Dispensationalism and toward Covenant Theology and its attendant “supersessionism.” As Dr. Zuber explains in the article:

[supersessionism is] the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

________________

Article by Kevin Zuber

feed

This article appeared in the September / October 2011 edition of Voice magazine and is reproduced with the permission of its author, Dr. Kevin Zuber.

Dr. Zuber is Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute and a teaching elder / pastor at Grace Bible Church Northwest.

________________

Preface (by Dave James)

There were several catalysts in the process that ultimately led to the formation of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity. One of the first was a very late-night conversation with Dr. Jimmy DeYoung in 2007 (which I’ll get back to in a moment).

It was after midnight and we were returning to Hungary after speaking at the first prophecy conference ever held in Serbia (to the best of our knowledge). We were still rejoicing in the fact that the Lord had allowed us to be a part of something that had far exceeded everyone’s expectations. The organizers of the conference (one a Serbian Baptist pastor and the other an elder in a Brethren Church) had set up the locations for the meetings based on their hope that we might have as many as 100 people or so attend the conference. After the meeting on Saturday, a last-minute change of venue for the Sunday meetings was necessitated by the fact that around 500 had come out to hear the messages. By the last meeting on Sunday, it was estimated that close to 800 were in attendance that evening – approximately 10% of the evangelical population of the entire country of Serbia!

Back to the conversation: The question we were asking ourselves was, “Where is the next generation of prophecy speakers going to come from? Who is teaching and training them.” This also led to the observation that dispensationalism, in general, seems to be in rapid decline after over 50 years of being the most widely-held view within conservative evangelicalism.

In this article, Kevin Zuber deals with this specific issue and some of the significant implications flowing out of this shift away from Pre-Trib Pre-Mil Dispensationalism and toward Covenant Theology and its attendant “supersessionism.” As Dr. Zuber explains in the article:

[supersessionism is] the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

________________

Article by Kevin Zuber

In October, 2010 many in the evangelical world were focused on the third Lausanne Conference in Capetown, South Africa. The Lausanne Movement begun in 1974 by Billy Graham, John Stott and others in Lausanne, Switzerland has had only three such major conferences in its over sixty-year history.

The purpose of the movement was ostensibly to unite and focus the efforts of global evangelicalism for the task of global evangelization. The preparations for the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in Capetown included papers from several study groups; one such group was the Lausanne Theology Working Group. This group produced a document entitled “The Whole Church Taking The Whole Gospel to The Whole World.” This document was published on the Lausanne website¹ and in the January 2010 issue of Evangelical Review of Theology (vol. 34, no. 1, p. 4-13).

In one startling paragraph of that paper the members of the Theology Working Group at first affirmed the unity of the church: “We give thanks that the one Church that God has called into being in Christ is drawn from every nation, tribe, people and language,” but they then went on to assert that “no single ethnic identity can any longer claim to be ‘God’s chosen people.’” The theologians of the Lausanne Movement who produced this document further argued “God’s election of Old Testament Israel was for the sake of the eventual creation of this multi-national community of God’s people.” In other words, they assert that the purpose of the election of Israel was for the creation of the Church! This, of course, is a denial of God’s purposes for the ethnic descendants of Abraham and of a future for the nation of Israel.

The statement also asserted, “It is vital that we strongly affirm, therefore, that while there are multiple ethnicities within the one church by God’s clear intention, no single ethnic group holds privileged place in God’s economy of salvation or God’s eschatological purpose” [italics original]. And just in case the theological and practical thrust of that assertion was not clear enough the paragraph concluded, “For this reason, we strongly believe that the separate and privileged place given to Jewish people today or to the modern Israeli state in certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, should be challenged, inasmuch as they deny the essential oneness of the people of God in Christ.”

Many readers of this publication will recognize immediately that in this statement is a fairly obvious assertion of “covenant theology,” and an affirmation of “supersessionism,” or “replacement theology.” That is, the theology that denies that God has a future program for the nation of Israel and denies that the promises God has made to the ethnic descendants of Abraham—the Jewish people—will be kept fully and literally.

Why is this important?

Why should we be aware of this statement and what might be its import?

We might begin by observing that the general drift of wider evangelicalism is decidedly in the direction indicated by this statement, namely toward supersessionism.² Many, both inside the Lausanne movement and those close to it, when made aware of this statement and this paragraph found it unobjectionable and many endorsed it. This might have been surprising since, as noted, one of the professed purposes of the Lausanne movement was to create unity for the evangelistic enterprise of the church and this statement is obviously dismissive of a certain segment of evangelical Christianity. But authors of the statement and its subsequent defenders clearly felt that they were on a sufficiently solid theological footing when they choose to advocate for a particular supersessionist biblical/theological position and chose to dismiss those who hold to “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism.” The authors of the document certainly believed that the advocates of “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism” were insignificant enough as a group that they could be dismissed without significantly impacting the unity of the movement or the cause of global evangelization.

In short, it would appear that the authors of the statement believed that most of the Lausanne movement, and the wider evangelical public would agree with them in this dismissive marginalization of dispensationalism and the theological tradition that holds to a future for ethnic Israel. Sadly, I would have to agree with them in that theoretical estimate; that is, the proponents of “certain forms of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism” have been by and large marginalized by the wider evangelical community. The fact that this paragraph went largely unnoticed and its implications largely dismissed cannot be due simply to the relatively obscure place of publication. The very fact that it was written, published and originally endorsed by the leaders of the Lausanne Movement demonstrates that they and others believed that it reflected (or would reflect when published) the viewpoint of a considerable majority of its adherents. In short, they determined that it was safe to advocate for supersessionism and to dismiss dispensationalism.

The broader picture

Again, why should this matter to us? At this point I want to try and bring into focus the broader picture. That is, I want to widen the focus and by that to enable us to see an even more alarming trend—namely, the marginalization of the dispensational theological tradition and the rise of supersessionism. To be clear, I am asserting here that the statement of the Lausanne Theology Working Group is by no means an isolated aberration but merely one more example that dispensationalism, grounded in the Old Testament covenantal promises to Abraham and his descendants, established in promises to David and the nation of Israel, is a theological position that is an “endangered” position,³ whereas supersessionism is finding a wider and growing support. I have several reasons to think this.

Some authors such as Craig Blaising, have suggested that the view that “God’s covenanted promises regarding Israel’s future… were transferred by God to the institution of the church” and that “the church was seen as the new Israel,”⁴ is a view that is “increasingly being rejected by Christians as not accurately representing the message of Jesus, his apostles, or Scripture generally.”⁵ Other authors, however, suggest otherwise. For instance, Barry E. Horner has documented the rise in church history and in the history of Christian thought and has clearly demonstrated the pervasiveness of this view of supersessionism throughout church history and in current Christian thought.⁶ While it might be true that premillennialism and dispensational eschatology reached in the twentieth century something approaching (at least among North American evangelicals) a degree of “popular theological hegemony” there are reasons to think that that status is very much in question in the early years of the twenty-first century. In short, certain trends seem to be indicating that supersessionism is on the rise and dispensationalism is on the wane.

For instance, as a very general indication of this development it can be observed that three of the latest major evangelical systematic theologies, Wayne Grudem’s,⁷ Millard Erikson’s,⁸ and Robert Reymond’s⁹ each advocate some degree or form of supersessionism.¹⁰ It is not a stretch to argue that these systematic theologies represent something of a consensus of a “broad evangelical theology.” And if that is so, then they indicate supersessionism is far from vanishing but is in fact becoming more and more the viewpoint of the academically oriented and theologically minded evangelicals. Furthermore, as these texts are assigned and read in evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges they are more likely to move students in a supersessionist direction.

Furthermore, I have seen a growing weariness, even resistance to the study of eschatology and in particular the study of the details of premillennial dispensationalism.¹¹ It may be fatigue from the best-selling Left Behind series or the influence of post-modern relativism.¹² In any case, many of my students and their friends in other Christian colleges and universities¹³ have decided that eschatology is just not that important.¹⁴ And the students are not alone in this regard. Many lay people are of the same opinion.

____________

Support the ministry of ABI by becoming an International Ministry Partner

A few weeks ago I posted an ABI blog outlining the tremendous international ministry opportunities the Lord has set before us. I noted that as each trip gets closer I will send additional updates and see if there might be those who would be interested in giving toward one or more of these important missions trips.

In order to be able to maintain ABI’s international ministry we need the help of the many friends who receive the ABI updates and who believe in what we are doing. The focus of this blog update is my upcoming trip to South Korea and the Philippines.

To date, about $1500 of the needed $2300 for travel and expenses for this trip has already been given and we hope that you might consider helping us cover the remaining $800 by the end of October (I leave for S. Korea on October 21). A possible scenario might be the following: 1-$200 gift, 2-$100 gifts, 5-$50 gifts, and 10-$25 gifts. And even a number of $10 gifts would go a long way in helping us reach the full amount.

If you would like to partner with us for this or a future trip, please just send me a quick email at dave@jamesjournal.org, so I can keep our total of gifts and pledges updated on the ABI website. Information concerning where and how to send your support can be found on the ABI Support page.

South Korea: Word of Life Bible Institute

Last month, after many years of planning, the Word of Life Bible Institute in Korea is now open! The ongoing story of Word of Life in that part of the world continues to be a testimony to the faithfulness of God and his servants. Because of their location on the visa-free Korean island of Jeju they can receive students from anywhere in the world.

During my 2-week stay, I will be teaching the Gospel of Matthew to students from 5 different countries, as well as preaching and ministering in other ways.

Steve Nichols, the regional Director for WOL in northeast Asia writes:

Over 60% of the world live in Asia and over half of these have yet to hear the gospel.  This fall WOL Bible Institute opened a new campus on Jeju Island in Korea. This site is only a two hour direct flight from Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei and Hong Kong.

For this first term there are 23 guys and 10 girls from Korea, Japan, China, the United States and Canada. Most of these students are seriously considering and preparing for where the Lord would have them serve in future ministry.

Top Bible teachers come in each week as guest lectures to teach and train them to “rightly divide the word of truth” so they will be able to influence and make a great impact to reach the unreached and train a new generation of Christian leaders in this part of the world.

This is an historic and important year for WOL Korea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it begins laying the foundation for sending trained leaders back into the Peoples’ Republic of China. It is a special privilege and  honor to be a guest teacher for this class – and you, too, can have a strategic role in this unique ministry opportunity.

Philippines: WOL Bible Institute, Pastors Conference on Hermeneutics

Word of Life Philippines began in 1973, with the Bible Institute opening its doors in 1981. Since then, many hundreds of students have studied the Word of God to reach this diverse nation of over 7,000 islands.

After my two weeks in South Korea, I will be traveling to WOL Philippines to teach the course, “Current Theological Issues.” There is a saying concerning religious trends in Christianity that says, “As go the schools, so go the churches.” But in today’s world with quick travel and instantaneous communication everywhere, we can now see that, “As goes the U.S., so goes the world.” I was invited to teach this course specifically because the churches in the Philippines are being increasingly impacted by the many negative theological influences coming out of America.

In addition to this 15-hour class, ABI will be joining Word of Life as it hosts a two-day pastors conference on biblical hermeneutics: “Rightly Dividing the Word.” One of the great evangelists of this generation, Wendell Calder, will open the conference. ABI cofounder Paul Barecca and I will be teaching 3 sessions each for the remainder of the conference.

I will be returning to the Philippines in January to teach a course on Hermeneutics and Bible Study Methods in a new masters-level program that is being started by Overseas Instruction in Counseling (OIC). I will be sending an ABI update concerning that trip in about a month.

You couldn’t watch or listen to the news for more than a few minutes this week without hearing about the Florida pastor’s plan to burn Korans on the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

After it was reported that General Petraus had expressed his concerns that this could very easily put American soldiers and expatriates at risk in Afghanistan and other countries, I wrote an email to Pastor Jones asking him to reconsider his plans – both as a brother in Christ and as a fellow leader in ministry.

I don’t know if he actually received or read my email. But given that both the State Department and the White House have found it necessary to weigh in on this, my words seem fairly insignificant anyway.

It is now being reported that others are also planning to burn copies of Islam’s holy book, even though Pastor Jones may be ready to change his mind. (Although even as late as 6:00 PM on Friday evening, Fox News is reporting that it still isn’t certain exactly what he is finally going to do.)

I’m quite sure that even though emotions might be running high on the eve of 9/11, there are probably few, if any, ABI readers who would remotely consider such a plan as being anything but ill-conceived and misguided for any number of practical reasons. But the bigger question is whether or not there are biblical principles that should guide and inform our thinking about this. Does the Bible have anything to say about what we can and should do concerning such religious materials – things that arguably contribute to the kind of evil worldview that spawned those horrific events nine years ago?

In the Old Testament we find multiple examples of God’s clear instructions to burn and destroy everything related to the worship of false gods. However, the historical context (Israel’s conquest, settlement and rule over Canaan) and God’s purpose for commanding such actions are equally clear – and we, as Christians, are not at all in a similar situation. On the other hand, there is an incident in the New Testament that does give insight into what is almost certainly the right strategy for us in this age.

In Acts chapter 19, we find an extended report concerning Paul’s two-year ministry in Ephesus (a city in the region that would later be at the heart of the Ottoman empire). As you may recall, at the end of those two years, Paul and his ministry team found themselves in an extremely dangerous situation. The entire city was in an uproar and they were out for blood. Crowding into the city’s amphitheater, the angry mob dragged Gaius and Aristarchus in with them as they shouted religious chants against them for two hours nonstop.

Do you remember what it was that ultimately sparked this riot? A religious book-burning!

But, who was it that was burning whose books? It was a group of men who had responded to the proclamation of the gospel – men whose hearts had been completely changed through faith in Christ – men who consequently burned their own religious books (worth a small fortune)!

I wonder if there might be a lesson there…

feed

ABI Quick Survey: What is your opinion of the July 15 CT article by Mark Galli?

A couple of days ago, I published a blog (copied below) concerning an article written by Mark Galli for Christianity Today.

If you have read the comments following the article on the CT website, you have seen mixed responses from the readers. The majority have been negative, but some have expressed their support, suggesting that his perspective was appropriate and helpful.

I hope you will take a moment to participate in our brief survey to express your views (which we will publish in about a week).

Click here to take the survey

Click here to read the Mark Galli article

_______________________________________

Christianity Today Senior Managing Editor Mark Galli’s recent article sparks controversy.

Christianity Today’s identification as “A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction” will almost certainly be called into question once again by many readers because of a July 15 article by Mark Galli in which he calls God “such a drama queen.”

He reduces God to being little more than a totally-out-of-control diva:

“So  what we have, for better or worse, is a melodramatic God. He yells and  throws dishes, and walks off in a huff, slamming the door behind him—and  then he turns around and gives his life for us.”

The article requires no comment other than to ask, “What next?”

Click here to read the article

(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2 column article format: Click here to download)

According to an April, 2009 article on MSNBC, a Washington Post/ABC poll released that month became the first to indicate that the number of Americans supporting same-sex marriages (49%) is now greater than those who oppose it (46%). Although the two numbers are within the typical poll margin-of-error of each other (±3%), there does seem to have been a significant shift in attitudes over the preceding 5-year period, when a Post/ABC poll put the percentage in-favor at just 32% in 2004.

Between 1982 and 2007, Gallup reported a significant shift in attitudes toward the acceptability of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. In 1982, only 34% indicated that homosexuality “is an acceptable alternative lifestyle” with 51% indicating that it is not. However, in 2007 the numbers had more than reversed with 57% of Americans stating it is acceptable and only 40% indicating their belief that it is not.

On the other hand, one encouraging statistic is that over 80% of evangelicals still oppose gay marriage, with a statistically negligible shift since 2004 (according to a 2008 Pew Research Center poll). However, the pressure is on evangelicals because in the mainline churches only 40% oppose same-sex marriage – essentially the same as the Post/ABC poll results for the general population.

The “Homosexuality-Neutral” View of Scripture

Coinciding with the increasing social pressure to accept the homosexual lifestyle, is additional pressure by those who take this a step further by seeking to defend their views on biblical grounds. In most cases, the passages which have been historically understood to condemn homosexual behavior are interpreted as being at most “homosexuality-neutral” (my term). In other words, it is argued that these passages were not intended to address the issue of loving homosexual relationships, but rather inappropriate sexual behavior in general, that in some cases simply happened to involve homosexual acts.

The following quote, from the ReligiousTolerance.org website, seems to capture this view of homosexuality in the Bible as commonly held by the average liberal / progressive Christian. (reference)

To many — not all — liberal/progressive believers, the Bible is silent on loving, consensual same-sex sexual behavior. God accepts persons of all sexual orientations and approves of sex that is consensual, non-manipulative, safe and within a loving, committed relationship. Liberals and progressive have a range of beliefs concerning save, consensual, and casual sex by heterosexuals, bisexuals or homosexuals.

However the Bible condemns:
• Male rape of other men.
• One of two behaviors:
–- Either men engaging in ritual sex in Pagan temples, or
–- Men having sex in a woman’s bed.
• People having sex that violates their sexual orientation. For example:
–- Heterosexuals having sex with a member of the same sex.
–- Homosexuals having sex with a member of the opposite sex.
• Men sexually abusing children. The passage also condemns young victims of sexual molestation.
• People engaging in bestiality: having sex with non-humans.

Some gay Christians would contend that the Bible condemns only promiscuous homosexual behavior (not homosexuality in general), just as it condemns heterosexual promiscuity.

Passages Cited as Affirming Same-sex Relationships

Beyond arguing against traditional interpretations of certain passages, some Christian gay groups also cite other passages which they claim affirm same-sex relationships. One such group is Gay Christianity 101, which contends that the relationship between David and Jonathan was explicitly homosexual (reference):

Did God bless David and Jonathan, a same sex couple in romantic, committed, sexual partnership? The Bible devotes more chapters to their love story than any other human love story in the Bible. What does God intend us to learn from that dramatic emphasis?

Many gays believe that Jonathan and David were same sex lovers, based on the way God presents their story in scripture and based on the Hebrew words used to describe their relationship.

Although Gay Christianity 101 acknowledges that this is not the view of even most gay Christians, it is the one, as a gay-friendly ministry, they hold and promote. After presenting six other possible interpretations, it is concluded that a seventh one best fits the text. (reference)

David loved Jonathan. In reminiscing about Jonathan, David describes Jonathan’s love to him as “wonderful, passing the love of women-wives.”

To make David’s statement refer to platonic friendship, ‘I was closer to Jonathan than to any of my close female friends’ is a woefully inadequate understanding of the text.

Because Jewish men in David’s time did not have close, platonic friendships with females to whom they were not related by blood or marriage, it better fits the text to accept David’s statement at face value.

The romantic, emotional, sexual love between Jonathan and David was more wonderful than the romantic, emotional, sexual love between David and his wives.

It is also suggested by some that Ruth and Naomi had a sexual relationship as did Daniel and Ashpenaz (both in a brochure on the state of Connecticut’s website, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 13). Other passages which are said to involve homosexuals who are not condemned (and therefore at least implicitly affirm them), include Matthew 8 and Luke 7 concerning the Roman centurion, and Acts 8 concerning the Ethiopian eunuch.

_________________

In the remainder of this article (and at least one subsequent article), it will be demonstrated that the attempts to find homosexuality-compatible interpretations fail to adequately handle the relevant passages, while the historical condemnation of homosexuality has solid biblical support.

Arguments for the Neutrality of Scripture Regarding Homosexuality

GENESIS 19 AND THE CITY OF SODOM

In dealing with the exegesis of 19:5, the author of an article titled “Bible Abuse Directed at Homosexuals” makes the following argument:

The key verb here, transliterated ya,da (or yadha’ ) , is usually translated as “know.” This verb appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, where it generally means “to know a fact” or “to know a person well.” It has an obvious sexual connotation in only ten of these cases, all of which involve heterosexual relationships.

The translation, then, could have the following meanings:

* Gang rape the angels (a common way to humiliate men – especially enemies – at the time);
* Engage in consensual homosexual sex with them (possibly what the NIV translators intended with “have sex with them”);
* Interrogate them. (The city had in the recent past been sacked, and the strangers might have been spies sent to check out the fortifications which provided some protection for the trade routes that passed the city.)

In choosing the proper meaning, consider this. In Biblical times, travel was slow and dangerous, and safe places to rest were few. Travelers could only pray for the hospitality of strangers – an important theme in the Bible. And Jews, having been ill-treated travelers in Egypt, had particular reason to be hospitable, and emphasis on it permeates Jewish law. For many reasons, hospitality, once offered, could not be breached.

Gay Christianity 101 also endorses the inhospitality view (reference):

For almost 1800 years after the events in Sodom, Jewish prophets in the Bible and Jewish authors outside the Bible, understood this story to be about inhospitality, not homosexuality. Sodom is mentioned 48 times in the Bible and never in those 48 passages is homosexuality given as the cause of God’s judgment. Isn’t that interesting? Have you given that astounding fact the weight it deserves in your thinking about this true story?

Some contend that rather than the sin of the Sodomites being homosexuality in general,  it was that they intended to homosexually rape the angels (who appeared as men) as a means of humiliating them as their enemies. (reference)

Most feel that Genesis 19 is totally unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior.

It is obvious that Lot wanted to protect the angels from the city mob. The people of Sodom, having recently been under attack by foreigners, might have been worried that the angels were really military spies. Alternately, the mob might have wanted to humiliate the strangers with homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape.

Furthermore, concerning Sodom, Gay Christian 101 states what it calls “six surprising facts” (reference):

1. Genesis 19 never mentions homosexuals in Sodom.

2. Genesis 19 never mentions a homosexual act being committed in Sodom.

3. Scripture never mentions a same sex relationship in Sodom.

4. Scripture never tells us that the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals.

5. Scripture never tells us that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality.

6. Sodomite, in scripture, never refers to homosexuals. Every time sodomite is used in scripture, it refers to cult, shrine, temple prostitutes who worshiped the Canaanite fertility goddess.

A BIBLICAL RESPONSE

Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah are first mentioned in Genesis 10:13, with the second reference in chapter 13:10-13, where the men of these cities are characterized as being “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.” In other passages in Genesis (7:19; 15:1; 16:10; 17:2, among others) where the Hebrew is translated “exceedingly” by the NKJV the context indicates that the word carries the force of “beyond measure.” That the lack of hospitality, even to the point of actual ill-treatment, would be described as “wickedness beyond measure” seems very unlikely.

And while it is true that the author of Hebrews writes, “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels” (Hebrews 13:2), it seems immediately apparent that the problem in Sodom was not simply that of not being hospitable. Even if their treatment of strangers went so far as to warrant a rebuke in that Near-Eastern culture, the suggestion that God would have utterly destroyed these cities for this reason just does not seem to merit serious consideration.

The suggestion that the passage could possibly refer to the men of Sodom simply wanting to interrogate the angels just doesn’t seem plausible as a cause for inviting God’s judgment. For a country on a war-footing, having genuine concerns about the motives of foreigners who just showed up could hardly have been considered outrageously wicked behavior. Also, there is nothing in the text that indicates there was concern that these foreigners might be spies in the first place. And of course they had made no initial attempts to hide as they planned to spend the night in the town square (19:2).

Furthermore, the men of the city threatened to treat Lot worse than they intended to treat these strangers, which is clearly a threat of violence (19:9). But even if the treatment that the strangers would receive as captives under interrogation would have been sufficient to warrant judgment by God, this is ultimately a moot point. God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah prior to the angels entering the city.

The passage certainly rules out the possibility that the men of Sodom were hoping for a consensual same-sex encounter with the angels (who were obviously thought to be men). But even though gang-rape is fairly clearly in view, neither was this intended detestable act the reason for their coming destruction. Again, God’s stated intent, prior to their arrival, was to wipe out the entire society – because of a lifestyle so wicked and so prevalent that fewer than even ten decent people could be found.

Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently Canaanite – a culture known to be one of the most morally reprehensible in history. The Canaanite fertility cult involved both heterosexual and homosexual encounters with male and female shrine prostitutes. With this in mind, consider this question: Is it reasonable to think that the “beyond-measure” wickedness of these cities could have somehow excluded sexual debauchery as at least a significant part of the basis for their annihilation?

Additionally, the overall flow of the narrative seems to suggest a direct connection between the incident with the angels and Sodom’s societal wickedness. What they were demanding was not something new to them. And certainly it must be asked if such an utterly wicked warfare tactic like gang-rape could even be considered if sexual debauchery were not already characteristic of the entire culture. And, as we know, all the men of the city came out and surrounded Lot’s house.

At this point, it could be argued that we’re still not talking about loving, monogamous same-sex relationships – but about a culture that was characterized by adulterous relationships, both hetero- and homosexual. However, I think there is one more element of the story that specifically pinpoints homosexual behavior itself as the ultimate trigger for the execution of God’s wrath (independent of whether or not it was occurring in a “loving, monogamous” relationship).

The inescapable problem with the homosexuality-neutral view of Genesis 19 involves Lot’s daughters. No one on either side of the debate would defend rape of any kind as morally acceptable. So, whether the rape would be against Lot’s daughters or against the angels (again, who were thought to be men) is another moot point in and of itself.

This means that there had to be some incredibly significant reason why Lot would be willing to allow even his own daughters to be brutally raped by an out-of-control mob rather than turn over the two angels to them. (And nothing indicates that Lot had any reason to think his guests were not men.)

So, what was this additional factor that struck terror in Lot’s heart as he contemplated this no-win situation? Could it be that Lot so clearly understood that homosexuality is such a detestable abomination in the Lord’s sight that he was unwilling to allow the sin of a homosexual encounter to be added to the sin of rape?

Earlier it was noted that not even ten righteous people were to be found in Sodom. But the obvious implication is that there was not a single person in Sodom who was not guilty of whatever specific sin (or category of sin) was in view. Given the overall wickedness of the Canaanite culture – which even included child sacrifice – what could have been the unique sin of Sodom and Gomorrah among all of the Canaanite cities?

And there is yet another factor that hasn’t been noted concerning Genesis 13:13:

But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.

The word translated “men” does not simply mean “people” in the generic sense – it literally means “men,” i.e., “the males of Sodom.”

So, it appears that the “exceedingly” wicked sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was uniquely committed by the men of those cities – and it involved all of the men. As bad as it would have been for the men to gang-rape their enemies, or worship their gods through encounters with male shrine prostitutes – the overall situation was worse than that. The society was dominated by male homosexuality. And the seriousness of this situation brought the complete destruction and utter desolation of those cities as God hurled fire and brimstone – annihilating every man, woman and child – and everything that had life. Only the judgment of the Flood exceeded the judgment that God brought upon Sodom and Gomorrah on that day.

In the next article in this series, we will examine other passages to see if the biblical record as a whole supports the view that homosexual behavior, independent of the context in which it occurs, is the sin that incurred God’s wrath in Genesis 19.

(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2 column article format: Click here to download)

Bruce Waltke is one of the most well-known Old Testament scholars in the Reformed tradition of this generation. Known by many as a conservative, his comments made in a recently-released 2009 interview may have created one of the most significant theological firestorms to sweep through the evangelical community in recent memory.

(This issue has generated a tremendous number of articles, blogs and comments and because of the sheer volume it has become very difficult to trace everything back to the primary sources for the information I have reported below. However, I do believe that the picture I have presented is accurate.)

________________

“Bruce Waltke: Why Must the Church Accept Evolution?”

On March 24, the Science and Sacred blog of the Biologos Forum posted a 2009 interview in which Dr. Waltke made definitive statements defending theistic evolution, while simultaneously marginalizing and potentially alienating all who still hold to a literal six-day-creation view of Genesis. In the video titled Bruce Waltke: Why Must the Church Accept Evolution? Dr. Waltke makes the following statement*:

…if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.

(Quoted in an April 9, 2010 article on the Christianity Today website and on many other sites)

* I have not been able to locate the video anywhere on the internet as it has apparently been taken down everywhere. However, that this is an accurate quote is corroborated by many websites.

At the time the video debuted, Dr. Waltke had been a professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) for more than 20 years, but his resignation from the seminary was reported on April 6. Biologos reports that on March 29 he was asked by the seminary to request that the video be taken down. Miscellanies: a Christ-centered blog reported a clarification by Dr. Waltke on March 31 in which he continues to affirm that Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans descended.*

*Although I have not yet found the original, that this is accurate is also corroborated by other websites carrying the same statement.

Although some early reports indicated that RTS had essentially forced his resignation, Dr. Waltke and seminary Chancellor and CEO Robert (Ric) Cannada have subsequently issued a joint statement that this is not true. Dr. Waltke tendered his resignation because of the harm the video was causing RTS and his resignation was accepted as being in the best interests of RTS. (for a post of Bruce Waltke’s statement, click here; for Ric Cannada’s statement, click here).

On April 30, the board of Knox Theological Seminary approved the appointment of Dr. Bruce Waltke as Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. (the KTS statement) (Knox Theological Seminary is a ministry of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, a member of the PCA.)

This “Will Make Us A Cult”

The Alliance for Biblical Integrity holds to Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) and I will deal with some of the specific scientific and exegetical issues in the evolution / creation debate at some point in the future. However, in this article, I am limiting my comments to the general theological and philosophical problems of evolution, including those associated with marginalizing Young-Earth Creationists by suggesting we may eventually be viewed as a cult.

To be fair, Dr. Waltke has stated that he would have given the video a different title and that the interview was edited in such a way to make him appear to be making stronger statements than he intended against those who don’t agree with his views on theistic evolution. The following has been posted on a third-party blog as being copied from a statement on his Facebook site:

I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

However, the statement concerning the problem of being labeled a cult does not seem to simply be an off-the-cuff remark in an unguarded moment. And even if he might state it differently in retrospect or if this was not his intention, his comments do reflect a widely-held view that YEC is only held by those on the anti-intellectual fringe of conservative evangelicalism. Of course, this has been the consensus of the scientific establishment for as long as anyone can remember. But Dr. Waltke’s words seem to imply that we legitimately run the risk of this becoming the common consensus—which would necessarily include that of the evangelical community in general.

It seems surprising that Dr. Waltke would use the word “cult” so loosely and imprecisely. “Cult” is almost exclusively reserved for groups that deny the deity of Christ, yet it seems unlikely that he is suggesting that rejecting theistic evolution is somehow even close to being equivalent to such heresy. So why even use this term—even if to stress his concern that those who continue to hold this position run the risk of losing credibility? At the very least, the term is unnecessarily inflammatory.

The reasoning behind Dr. Waltke’s statement is also puzzling. Ultimately, a primary reason for us to be concerned about being labeled a cult for any reason must be that the gospel message we proclaim will be rejected as a result. But who would reject our gospel over the question of beginnings if not those who already reject it on other grounds—including many in the scientific community?

Will Theistic Evolution Really Help The Cause Of The Gospel?

Is it reasonable to expect that Muslim intellectuals will accept the deity of Christ if—or because evangelical Christians accept theistic evolution? Will Hindu biologists accept the concept of the triune personal God of the Bible if—or because evangelical Christians reject Young-earth Creationism? Will liberal Protestants return to the biblical gospel of personal redemption through faith in Jesus Christ alone if—or because evangelical Christians embrace their view of Genesis 1-11 as merely a collection of myths? Will even one materialistic evolutionist recognize that he has been wrong about God’s existence if—or because evangelical Christians recognize that they have been wrong about Darwin’s theory?

The answer to these questions seems intuitively obvious. These groups all rejected the biblical gospel long before the evolution / creation debate became a scientific issue, a social cause, a cultural phenomenon or a political football. And if anything, the deepening rejection of the gospel within academia has tracked right with the movement away from a literal view of creation – and not even pretending to slow down at theistic evolution on its way to atheistic evolution. Despite Dr. Waltke’s long years of ministry and work in the rigorous field of theological academics, his comments seem oddly naive.

From a scientific perspective, don’t the twin issues of the resurrection from the dead and life-after-death pose least as much of an obstacle as evolution? Concerning the case for the resurrection, the only evidence consists of historical records. Concerning the case for life-after-death the only arguments are purely philosophical / theological. There is no empirical evidence that the spiritual realm exists, apart from a few spurious claims to the contrary. Anecdotal reports of common near-death experiences do not constitute scientific proof. But even if such proof did exist, it would not produce a rush by the scientific community or anyone else to trust in Christ for salvation, because lack of evidence is not the real issue.

Another significant issue is that of Adam and Eve. In a post-video follow-up, Waltke states:

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

I don’t see how Dr. Waltke’s present position will give him much more credibility as long as he continues to maintain that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Sooner or later, he will have no choice but to abandon one view or the other. Apart from the scientific problems, the virtually insurmountable nature of the logical and theological problems can readily be seen by anyone who thinks through the issue. (These will be discussed later.)

Is Theistic Evolution The Only Credible View?

Apparently, Dr. Waltke has not always thought so. In an article on biblical cosmogony in the Jan.-Mar. 1975 edition of Bibliotheca Sacra, Dr. Waltke asked the question:

Why has the new generation turned from the theologian to the scientist for the answer to his nagging question about the origin of the universe? (“The Creation Account in Genesis 1-3″)

In the quote from the video, and in the subsequent clarification, one cannot deduce for sure that Dr. Waltke has completely ruled out the possibility that the Genesis account can be taken literally. However, he does seem to be very close to that position—particularly in light of his resignation from RTS.  This leads us to wonder what has happened over the last 35 years that has caused him to change his views regarding evolution if his high view of Scripture hasn’t changed, as well—something which he also maintains.

Although Dr. Waltke has made it clear that he holds to theistic evolution (as opposed to naturalistic evolution), it is not at all clear that he held to any form of evolution in 1975. In explaining his position in this article, Dr. Waltke refers to a lecture he gave as a guest speaker in a course on genetics at Southern Methodist University, during which he appeared to defend the literal creationist position. His basic thesis was that evolution, like creationism, is a faith position which cannot be scientifically proven.

During the questioning session that followed the lecture, the basic thesis was accepted by both professor and students, but their next question was, “Why should we accept your faith position instead of ours?”

Now the author is not suggesting that by this one experience he has refuted the hypothesis of evolution, but he is maintaining that all answers which attempt to explain the origin of the universe are essentially faith positions. The question that the LORD asked of Job is asked of every man: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

The following is an excellent statement that he made in the same article under the section, “The Importance of Cosmogony.” (If Dr. Waltke’s views haven’t fundamentally changed since 1975, it seems odd that after 20 years it would only now be in the best interests of RTS for him to leave the school.)

But it may be asked, “What difference does all this make?” It is important because the question of cosmogony is closely related to one’s entire world view. Someone has said that our world view is like the umpire at a ball game. He seems unimportant and the players are hardly aware of him, but in reality he decides the ball game. So likewise one’s world view lies behind every decision a person makes. It makes a difference whether we come from a mass of matter or from the hand of God. How we think the world started will greatly influence our understanding of our identity, our relationship to others, our values, and our behavior. Because the question of cosmogony is important for understanding some of the basic issues of life, intelligent men throughout recorded history have sought the answer to this question. Just as the knowledge of the future is crucial for making basic choices in life, so also the knowledge of beginnings is decisive in establishing a man’s or a culture’s Weltanschauung (“world view”). No wonder the Bible reveals both.

Because of man’s limitation as a creature, he must receive this knowledge by revelation from the Creator. Moreover, because of the noetic effects of sin, he needs to be reborn before he can comprehend that revelation.

Scientists now regularly state that evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact—and it would appear that Dr. Waltke has become persuaded that this is true. However, the problem he cites above has not changed, and in fact, it cannot change. As he notes, “The answer is beyond the range of empirical proof” and this is because it involves events that happened in the past.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that God has created the universe such that macro-evolution can actually occur without his ongoing intervention. That macro-evolution could happen and that it actually did happen are two entirely separate issues. The only way there can be a necessary relationship between the two is if God does not exist—and that is precisely the starting point for atheistic evolutionists.

But this begs the question for theistic evolutionists, as well. If theistic evolution is true, then either evolution requires God’s intervention or God unnecessarily chose to be involved. However, this presents a conundrum. The evidence and arguments required for theistic evolutionsists to maintain that God is necessary at some point in the process are essentially the same ones used by Young-earth Creationists. So, what is the advantage when trying to persuade anyone either of God’s existence or of the truth of the Gospel? If the arguments are essentially the same, then on what grounds do Young-earth Creationists run the risk of being labeled a cult any more than the theistic evolutionist who also maintains the view that Christ arose from the grave to be alive forevermore—a view that most scientists would claim to be decidedly “unscientific.”

Irreconcilable Practical and Theological Problems

Ultimately, theistic evolution creates far more problems than it solves. This is not simply an issue of whether or not a given passage should be understood figuratively or literally. Below are just a few of the many questions and problems raised by the theory of theistic evolution.

If theistic evolution is true in general…

• Wouldn’t death have been a part of life for the millions of years prior to the fall of Adam and Eve?

• Wouldn’t biological decay have occurred over the eons, as well?

• Wouldn’t have all the forces of nature that we observe today been at work also—i.e., destructive weather and geological phenomena?

• What, exactly, were the effects of the Fall, if death, destruction and decay had been an inherent part of the creation from the beginning?

• How could God pronounce that all he created was “good,” if death, destruction and decay had been an inherent part of the creation from the beginning?

• How could it be determined scientifically which parts of the evolutionary process were immediately and necessarily guided by the hand of God, and which ones could have happened without God’s direct intervention?

• How would the answer to the previous question fundamentally differ from the arguments used by Young-earth Creationists?

If Adam and Eve were created instantaneously millions to billions of years after the initial creation…

• How can it be explained that Adam and Eve were placed in an environment that was already marked by death, destruction and decay?

• Were Adam and Eve created to live forever in such an environment?

• Did God also at that time create the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or are these simply metaphorical?

• What, exactly, did Adam and Eve do to bring about their spiritual and physical death, if these things are only metaphorical?

• Why did Moses include the details about cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Garden—and how should we understand this passage, if these things are only metaphorical?

If instead of Adam and Eve being independently created, lower life forms had evolved into hominids over the millennia…

• Would it be proper to say that Adam and Eve were animals prior to God breathing into them the breath of life so that they became “living souls?”

• Would it be reasonable to assume that only two such animals had evolved or that these were the only two among many which became living souls—which would be required for them to be the only progenitors of the human race?

• Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that there were many such hominids at that time, who were biologically identical to humans and looked exactly like humans, but really were not?

• What would have prevented procreation between humans and biologically identical hominids—or is it possible that this actually happened?

• What happened to all of these pre-human animals?
__________________

These are not absurd questions. And because of these and many others that could be posed, it doesn’t seem that theistic evolution could possibly be more acceptable to unbelievers than Young-earth Creationism. When carefully considered, it actually seems that theistic evolution could be viewed by naturalistic evolutionists as even more foolish and logically inconsistent than YEC.

I understand there are some significant difficulties that remain to be addressed by YEC from a scientific perspective. However, theistic evolution introduces at least as many problems because science and biblical theology must still be reconciled—which is obviously not a burden for naturalistic evolutionists.

Unfortunately, I don’t to see how either Dr. Waltke’s position on theistic evolution or his comments are in any way helpful to conservative evangelicals and the cause of Christ.

feed

(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2 column article format: Click here to download)

Homosexuality and the Believer’s Identity in Christ

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12–13, NKJV)

There are many things that distinguish Christianity from the religions of the world, not the least of which is the believer’s identity in Christ. In other religions, philosophies and worldviews, one’s identity – how we view and value ourselves, and how we are viewed and valued by others – is inseparably tied to an endless list of things like ethnicity, gender, appearance, physical and mental abilities (or disabilities), skills, talents and anything else that we think helps us to order the world around us. We use these to identify ourselves and others, while also usually comparing ourselves to others.

However, in Christ our unique identity as individuals is properly found only in and through our relationship with Him. For those of us who have trusted in Christ for salvation, we are first and foremost children of God. As such, we are heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:16–17, NKJV)

Through faith in Christ and his finished work on the cross, God mercifully forgives our sin and graciously gives us the free gift of eternal life.

But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:22–23, NKJV)

Whatever we may have been through our physical birth has been transformed through our spiritual rebirth.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17, NKJV)

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 homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11, NKJV)

A Manufactured Complexity

Unfortunately, more and more within the church are asking, “What does this have to do with homosexuality?” And unfortunately, more and more are answering, “Very little, if anything.” However, this has not been the historically-accepted view – and with good reason: God has clearly and unambiguously condemned homosexuality in the Scriptures as sinful. And yet, that this is true is being increasingly challenged – even by some who would identify themselves as part of the evangelical community.

These challenges to the historical view seem to fall primarily along two lines of reasoning. The first has to do with the issues of physiology that I mentioned in the first article in this series. This challenge ultimately seeks to discredit the accuracy and authority of the Bible on the basis of ignorance on the part of the biblical writers. And in reality, it is simply part of the tired, yet oft-repeated argument that the Bible was written by people in ancient societies who lacked the cultural sophistication and scientific knowledge that we now possess. Therefore, we have wrongly condemned something that the Bible wrongly condemns.

The second line of reasoning is arguably more insidious because it superficially gives the impression that the inspiration and authority of the Bible is being kept intact. In this case, it is argued that it is not the accuracy of the text that is being challenged, but rather, the historical interpretation of the text. In other words, the contention is that for centuries even scholars have misinterpreted the passages which mention “homosexuality.” It is maintained that the inherent meaning of certain words has been misunderstood or that there has been a failure to understand the cultural context. Therefore, we have wrongly condemned something that the Bible doesn’t really condemn.

However, I believe that both lines of reasoning unnecessarily introduce layers of complexity to an issue which is not nearly as complex in general as it is often made out to be (even though it may be somewhat complex in certain instances). Whether intentional or not, the apparent complexity introduced by both the quest for the “homosexual gene” and for obscured meanings in the biblical text must be ultimately viewed as being driven by the pursuits of those whose hearts are darkened by sin and who seek to suppress the knowledge of the truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18–19, NKJV)

Scientific Evidence and the Word of God

Although, I presented some fairly well-documented evidence of the scientific complexity in the first article, my point was to demonstrate that genuine awareness of these issues does not require that we abandon God’s Word in dealing with them. We need to understand that evidential complexity does not necessarily equate to spiritual complexity. While it may be true that humans are psychologically complex, this doesn’t mean that solutions to psychological problems must necessarily be equally complex. Biblical solutions, though often not easy to implement because of our sin nature, don’t involve complicated concepts or convoluted methods.

Yet, when we encounter such complex scientific evidence for the first time, it can be a faith-shaking experience. This can happen, for example, when we start getting into the issue of creation versus evolution. And of course, whole ministries have been established for countering the claims of the scientific establishment that the evidence unequivocally proves evolution to be true.

However – and this is an extremely important point – the issue is not the evidence itself. Everyone has access to the same evidence. It is not as if the evolutionists have access to one set of evidence and creationists have access to different set. The real issue is the interpretation of the evidence. Therefore, the task of those who trust the Bible as God’s inspired, infallible and inerrant Word is to reconcile what may appear to be contradictions between the Scriptures and the evidence.

However, apparent contradictions are not reconciled by simply ignoring the evidence. That is dishonest. But neither are they reconciled by ignoring clear biblical texts nor by irresponsibly re-interpreting those texts. True reconciliation occurs when both the Bible and the evidence are properly interpreted. This is the essence of the task of apologetics. And it is a central part of the ministry of The Alliance for Biblical Integrity as we seek to apply a biblical hermeneutic to the tough issues and difficult questions that threaten to weaken the church in this generation.

Sorting It All Out

In future articles I will address how to apply biblical principles to the physiological issues and potentially-related temptations which I noted in the first article. However, in the next article I will begin to examine the biblical passages that directly address the issue of homosexuality and respond to some of the exegetical challenges that form the basis for the second line of reasoning used by an increasing number of opponents of the historical view.

This is the first in a series of articles on the topic of “Homosexuality and the Bible.” However, the series will not necessarily be presented in consecutive blogs.

A Faltering Consensus

The consensus among conservative evangelicals is that the Bible provides the final and authoritative word on all aspects of life. Historically, there has also been broad consistency in how the Bible has been understood and biblical principles have been applied to a variety of moral issues, including homosexuality. However, this consensus seems to be slowly dissolving in the face of seismic shifts in the views of society toward homosexuality and those who engage in homosexual behavior. As society as a whole closely tracks with the downward spiral into the spiritual and moral abyss of homosexual behavior, very explicitly described by Paul in Romans chapter one, the church is following remarkably close behind. Behaviors and lifestyles that would have been broadly condemned as sinful by virtually the entire evangelical community just a generation ago are being increasingly viewed as acceptable and normal.

This naturally raises the question as to how this is even possible when the Bible seems to so consistently and unambiguously condemn such practices, and goes so far as to clearly warn of eternal consequences for those who would choose a homosexual lifestyle. Part of the answer may be related to some of the complexities that have not often been acknowledged or considered (or at least openly addressed in my experience) by many conservative evangelicals. When the hard questions aren’t asked or dealt with sufficiently, God’s people can find themselves ill-equipped to respond biblically when challenged—or they can find their faith shaken when they first become aware of some of the more difficult issues.

Note: Although some may find parts of this article to be controversial, my purpose is to show that an awareness of some of the more difficult biological issues surrounding gender and sexuality do not require us to abandon the historical, conservative evangelical position concerning homosexuality.

A Complex Issue

Perhaps the first complication involves the definition of homosexuality itself. Historically, homosexuality has been viewed as a choice and defined in terms of being a learned behavior rather than being an inherent aspect of someone’s nature . In other words, by definition, in this view, a homosexual is someone who engages in homosexual behavior. It is what someone does, not who someone is.

In this historically-prevalent view, homosexuality is considered to be unnatural, learned and morally wrong. This is consistent with the sense of justice which says that God would only condemn and judge evil behavior—things that we might choose to do, rather than those things over which we have no control – such as our gender, for example. On the other hand, those who may experience feelings of same-sex attraction, but choose to not act upon these urges are not generally considered to be homosexual and of course they are not guilty of sin if these feelings do not go beyond the realm of temptation. In essence, this view presumes that everyone is naturally a heterosexual at birth and that homosexuality is a life-style choice, often thought to stem from homosexual experiences while growing up, either through sexual abuse by older children or adults, or because of curiosity and experimentation.

However, a search of the internet for the phrase, “scientific studies on homosexuality” shows that opinion remains divided on the answer to the question, “Are homosexuals made or are they born?” Some studies seem to indicate that genetics may play a role in sexual orientation and that homosexuality has a biological basis, while other studies suggest it does not or are inconclusive.

For example, when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors” (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996). (NART website)

And there are apparently additional issues that I had never even thought about until doing some research for this series. These do concern matters of physiology and biology, and should at least be taken into account as we seek to develop informed convictions in this matter. Though rare, some people are actually born with what is termed “ambiguous genitalia” which include characteristics of both male and female sexual organs – or internal sex organs of one sex, with external sex organs of the opposite sex. In this situation, at the chromosomal level most are still either males (XY chromosomes) or female (XX chromosomes), with no particular “sexual identity issues”. But in terms of social interaction and personal relationships, such physiological ambiguity can understandably present some very difficult emotional challenges, let alone spiritual ones.

In some very rare cases there are abnormalities such that there is a male / female mix at the chromosomal level. In less rare cases, the “intersexed” person is either a male or female at the chromosomal level, but primarily have the external genitalia of the opposite sex. In the latter case, even though, again, there may not be a conflict between their chromosomal sexual identity and their psychological sexual identity, there is a conflict between their chromosomal sexual identity and their physical appearance.

Such physiological factors seem to raise some important practical questions:

Biblically, with whom may a person with these congenital defects enter a marriage relationship and engage in sexual relations?

Are such people alone free to choose a partner of either sex?

Or must they marry someone who is of the opposite sex at the chromosomal level, even though they are essentially the same sex at the external physical level?

Or are they required to live a life of celibacy to remain morally pure?

Admittedly, very few of us will never encounter such a person and some may feel it is misguided to bring such rare occurrences into the discussion. However, especially for those of us in ministry, we have a responsibility try to find biblical answers to life’s questions that sometimes turn out to be more complex than we may have supposed. We must be able to give godly counsel to fellow-believers concerning their life-decisions in this area. Perhaps because of my background in science and engineering, as I have pondered this and many other issues in light of the Scriptures, I am frequently reminded of the care required to avoid repeating some of the blunders of the past—as happened with Galileo, for example.

And beyond these cases of physically inter-sexed individuals, there seem to be other situations that also require biblical wisdom and spiritual maturity to handle appropriately. In my experience, there seem to be “degrees” of masculinity and femininity such that these rather subjective areas are not defined by rigid boundaries marked off by our identity as either a male or female (even assuming no physiological abnormalities). Even when chromosomes are not an issue, hormones and other factors seem to be. Some men seem to have more effeminate characteristics and mannerisms, while some women seem to be “less feminine” in any number of ways. And there seems to be an unbroken continuum between the two, such that these characteristics may be more or less pronounced in any given person apart from any personal intent or desire to appear or act in a way that is gender-ambiguous.

When both biological and environmental factors are taken into consideration, it is not difficult to understand how and why some may experience genuine internal conflict and have to deal with truly unwanted sexual urges and temptations. And this is undoubtedly not limited to the issue of homosexuality, but to sexuality in general.

Furthermore, it seems that all of us have different areas of weakness and tendencies toward particular types of sin to varying degrees. Some struggle with anger, while others struggle with honesty. Some struggle with worry, while others struggle with fear. Some struggle with laziness, while others struggle with lust.  And while it is not too difficult for us to sympathize with those with whom we share common struggles, it can be difficult for us to understand how others can genuinely struggle with things that are not a particular problem for us. But the fact is that any struggle in any area can lead to moral failure if we fail to withstand the temptations that inevitably come.

Certainly there are those who simply choose to fulfill their sexual desire in sinful ways that are condemned by the Bible. There is a troubling and growing trend within the more conservative evangelical community that has existed for a long time within the broader liberal church—that of changing attitudes toward homosexuality. This behavior and lifestyle is being accepted on various grounds, including the argument that the Bible does not label as sinful committed same-sex relationships. In the next article in this series I will be looking at the relevant biblical texts to discuss whether or not such a position is biblically defensible.

On the other hand, we need to recognize that difficult genuinely physiological gender-related situations do exist, even though we may them awkward, distasteful or even repulsive. We all know of a few men who don’t exactly fit the mold of what is commonly considered to be “manly.” We all know a few women who are less feminine than others. Yet, during the twenty-five years I have been a believer, I don’t recall some of these particular issues ever being addressed or even mentioned in any context.

I think we have an obligation to both respond biblically to clearly sinful behavior, as well as to provide godly instruction and biblical counsel when fellow-believers experience problems that cannot be merely condemned as matters of choice alone. The sufficiency of Scripture allows us to confidently tackle the tough issues of life with neither fear nor apology. In a future article, I will delve into the matter of ministry to those who have particular struggles in this area.

This video is from a service at MorningStar Ministries (founded by Rick Joyner) in Fort Mill, South Carolina. A Google search on “Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey” quickly shows that although recently posted, it has received a lot of attention across the internet. It marks just one of the latest in a long string of “manifestations of the Holy Spirit”  – which are clearly neither biblical, nor the work of the Holy Spirit, whatever the real explanation.

(Note: I am working on a higher quality video that I hope to post in the near future.)

MorningStar is a fairly well-known Charismatic ministry, particularly known for its emphasis on “miraculous healings.”

From the MorningStar website, in their statement of faith, we find the following concerning the present work of the Holy Spirit through spiritual gifts:

On the Present Ministry of the Holy Spirit
We believe that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) and that His ministry in and through the church by the Holy Spirit has not changed from the beginning. We accept, acknowledge, encourage and seek all of the biblical gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit as present and vital for the church to accomplish her full purpose today.

Hebrew 13:8 is commonly cited as a proof-text that the miraculous sign gifts are still in operation today. However, this is both a misunderstanding of the verse and, I would suggest, is a disingenuous use of the verse because all Christians recognize that this can only refer to his unchanging character and not to the ministry of Christ.

Jesus’ character was the same both before and after the incarnation, yet his earthly ministry was completely different than his ministry in the Old Testament before he became a human through the Virgin Birth. His ministry in and through the average believer was significantly different before and after his crucifixion and after the day of Pentecost. His ministry after the day of Pentecost, in the present age, is significantly different than what his ministry will be during the Millennium after his return and when he will be ruling and reigning from the Throne of David in Jerusalem. Therefore, even if God were continuing to give the miraculous sign gifts today, Hebrews 13:8 does nothing to support this view.

feed