Defending Traditional Marriage

I have decided to address the issue of homosexual marriage now because our nation stands at a crossroads. The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling soon. So let me point out a few facts that seem to have been lost in much of the public discourse. First let me point out that the Bible is very clear regarding the issue. Marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman for life. 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly indicates that God’s condemnation of homosexual behavior was more than just an Old Testament legal restriction. Since the restriction is repeated in the New Testament it remains a moral law that continues into the church age. There can be no doubt that homosexual marriage is inconsistent with Christianity. It is a sin. The church therefore cannot condone such unions. Any church that performs or condones homosexual marriages has jettisoned the scriptures as their ultimate source of authority and become apostate.

The question then becomes whether the State should recognize homosexual relationships as marriage. The answer is no. The State has no compelling interest in recognizing such relationships. This would be clear had those who affirm homosexual unions not muddied the water by declaring that the government should not dictate whom we may “love.” This language has muddied the water because the State has no real interest in whom any of us love. If the issue was about love, the government would not get involved at all. Why does Washington care if I love one person more than another? The answer is that they do not care at all. So why is government involved in marriage at all?  The answer is that the State has a compelling interest in maintaining a stable and prosperous society. For this reason governments have privileged marriage above all other social arrangements. The state has historically encouraged marriage because it benefits society. The statistics are undeniable. Marriage is the single most powerful tool we have to keep women and children from falling into poverty. Marriage also has a powerful civilizing influence on men. Married men focus their energies on building the community and providing for their families. Unmarried men tend to engage in anti-social and even predatory conduct.

So what does this have to do with the issue at hand? The answer is that the compelling concerns that cause government to regulate and encourage marriage do not exist in homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships do not produce children. Granted, homosexuals do sometimes have children, but in every case a third party must be involved. The homosexual relationship itself is not the source of procreation. As for the civilizing effect marriage has on men, homosexual men simply are not known for monogamy. Homosexual men tend to have many sexual partners, it is simply a part of the lifestyle. 78% of homosexual men report having more than 100 partners. 28% report having more than 1000 (https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity). This accounts for the fact that HIV and AIDs have remained a largely homosexual problem rather than spreading to the general population.

The government has no compelling interest in mandating homosexual marriage. The church has no Biblical basis for recognizing homosexual marriages. So why do so many see this as a crucial issue for our day? Because the issue has been sold as a matter of civil rights. Shouldn’t homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? The answer is that they already do. Any homosexual man who wants to marry a woman can do so. The truth is that a homosexual union simply is not a marriage as it has been defined for more than 5000 years in virtually every world religion. The battle today is not about civil rights, but about redefining marriage. Defining homosexual relationships as marriage may not seem like a significant change, but such a change will inevitably open a Pandora’s box of social chaos. If we buy the argument that we should be allowed to marry anyone we want, then why can’t a man marry two women, or two men, or an animal? The very arguments advanced in favor of homosexual marriage lead inevitably to the destruction of traditional marriage as a privileged social unit. If heterosexual marriage is no longer granted special status, then governments can no longer encourage it. If government can no longer encourage heterosexual marriage, then we will see a decline in the already faltering family unit that is the foundation of a civilized society. Make no mistake about it, this is a life and death issue for our nation. If the traditional family unit continues to unravel, so will our nation. Do not think that America is invulnerable. I firmly believe that America’s ultimate destiny will depend wholly on whether we affirm the teaching of God’s word. I am not alone in that sentiment. President Ronald Reagan warned the country that “without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” He was right.

Baptist Identity - Part 1

The church I pastor (Hillsdale Baptist Church) is unapologetically Baptist in its identity.  But what is it that makes a church Baptist? Is it affiliation? There are more than 150 Baptist denominations in America. Members of some of these denominations deny every major tenant of Christianity. In other words, they are not even Christian, much less Baptist. So, what makes a church Baptist? In short, it is what we believe that makes the difference.  Convictions make us Baptists.  

The first conviction that defines Baptists is our insistence on the authority of the Bible. We are a people of the Book. It has often been said that we have no creed but the Bible. To this conviction I would add the associated beliefs of the absolute inerrancy and the sufficiency of the scriptures.  Inerrancy means that all that the Scripture teaches or intends to present as truth is true. Also, we believe that the scriptures are sufficient. Scripture is comprehensive, embodying all that is necessary to one’s spiritual life. The scriptures as we have them are also complete. There is no need for additional revelation to be added to the Bible.  

From these foundational beliefs flow the other hallmarks of Baptist identity. Chief among these is the concept of regenerate church membership. This means that you have to be a born again believer in order to be a member of the local church. Now, this may seem like an obvious requirement, but it has not always been so. In fact, most denominations today engage in the practice of infant baptism. These churches admit children to membership in the church without having a credible profession of faith. Indeed, they are usually baptized before they are even old enough to speak. The major reason for this practice is a misunderstanding regarding the role of the church. The church cannot impart spiritual life or grace through a sacrament. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are only memorials. The church is not the place where salvation is dispensed; it is not the savior, but the home of the saved.  

Others have begun to admit the unregenerate to membership based on theological decline. I read recently of a Presbyterian church which admitted an atheist to its membership simply because he liked the members of the church and they liked him.  

Regenerate church membership is the Biblical model. Acts 2:47b (NKJV) says: ^{. “}. . . And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” Other scriptures supporting regenerate church membership include 1 Corinthians 1:2, and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. Clearly, regeneration comes first, then church membership. Infant Baptism reverses this order.

Any church that intentionally admits unregenerate people to membership violates the teaching of the scriptures. So, the scripture demands that we attempt to intentionally exclude unbelievers from church membership. Not necessarily attendance, but membership.

 

Christianity and Islam: A Reply to the President

In his remarks at a recent prayer breakfast, President Obama insisted on creating a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. President Obama said: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim crow all too often were justified in the name of Christ."

The outcry against his comments has been swift and justified. The problem with his remarks is that there is no moral equivalence between the terrorist acts of Islam and slavery practiced by Christians in the antebellum South. One is the logical outworking of a religious system, the other is an illogical perversion of it.

Violent Muslims believe that their version of Islam is more faithful to the essence of Islam and the Quran. And they are right. Their position is supported by the Quran, the founding of Islam and the long tradition of Islamic conquest. The image of Muhammed as a warrior is central to Muslim theology and practice. The most common image of Muhammed is of the prophet brandishing a sword. Atrocities such as the enslavement and rape of Yezidi girls, the burning of churches, and the burning alive of captives is perfectly consistent with Muslim history and theology.
On the other hand, Christ himself told Peter to put away his sword. Violent Jihad is one of the five pillars of Islam. Love thy neighbor as thy self is one of the two great commandments of Christianity. While Islam has always been accompanied by slavery and war, wherever Christianity has spread violence and slavery have ceased.

So, what about the President's assertions? Is Christianity rightfully indicted by the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery and racism? Lets deal with each in turn. First, the Crusades were a long time ago. The first was proclaimed by Pope Urban II in 1095. Doesn't it say something about the moral superiority of Christianity that in order to find anything to indict it, you have to go back a thousand years? To indict Islam you need go back no further than yesterday! Still, history is history. Were the Crusades an evil that is to be laid at the feet of the church? First, understand that the Crusades were defensive, not offensive in nature. The Crusades began as a response to the military conquest and persecution of Christians by Islam. Second, the Crusades were arguably more about protecting trade routes than about religion. No one was trying to convert anyone else at the battle of Ascalon. Finally, I would point out that the Crusades did not come to an end because Islam sued for peace. Rather, Christians brought the Crusades to an end because they recognized that making war in the name of Christianity was inconsistent with the teachings of Christ!

So, what about the Inquisition? Well, as an evangelical let me point out that the Inquisition was an exclusively Catholic affair. From our theological standpoint we would argue that Catholicism is a blend of Christianity and pagan beliefs and practices. We should not be surprised that pagans and secularists would torture and kill their adversaries. Also, during the time of the Inquisition, the Catholic church was famous for its secular nature. Many, if not most people, were Christian in name only. There is a famous saying that is all too relevant here. "The sins of hypocrites cannot be charged to the church." Just because a person calls himself a Christian does not make him one. The Inquisition was not carried on by genuine Christians. Indeed, true Christians were usually the ones being persecuted by the Inquisition.

As for slavery, history shows that wherever Christianity has spread, slavery has disappeared. Christianity is penicillin for the infection of slavery. What do we make then of slavery in England and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries? William Wilberforce was an English evangelical and politician who opposed slavery. Indeed he is widely credited with being the major force behind the end of slavery in England. Wilberforce spoke of Christianity as a tide that rises and falls in a society. As the tide of Christianity fell in England, the society became more amenable to atrocities such as slavery. In fact, he identified the decline of Christian doctrine as an influence in British society as the chief cause of slavery. Thus, slavery was not the product of Christianity, but the result of its declining influence. Time does not allow me to go into detail, but evangelicals were responsible for the abolitionist movement in both England and America. As for those who attempted to use the Bible to justify slavery, their burden was to overcome Christianity's historical and theological predisposition against the practice, a battle which they ultimately lost. Islam and Christianity are not equally guilty of atrocities. One is the logical outworking of a religious system, the other is an illogical perversion of it.

Also, let me say a word about the distinction between "moderate" and "radical" Islam. Both the media and the current administration make the same mistake. The difference is not in kind, but in extent. "Moderates" and "Radicals" do not represent different kinds of Islam. Rather they represent different levels of commitment to the essentials of their religion. The Radical is simply more Muslim than the Moderate. WE see the same phenomenon in Christianity. Liberal Christians do not represent a different branch of the faith. By denying the fundamentals of their faith, they are merely less Christian than conservative believers. For this reason, encouraging Moderate Islam gets us nowhere. It is like saying we prefer those who have a milder case of Ebola over those who have a worse case. In the end, it's still Ebola.  

Having said all this, should we treat our Muslim neighbors with suspicion and disdain? Certainly not. Likewise, we should defend the freedom of every American to practice their faith, as long as they do so peacefully. As believers we must view Muslims as potential recipients of grace, just as we are. We must lovingly offer the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope for salvation. But as a nation, we need to recognize that Christianity is far more compatible with freedom, democracy and peace than any other religion - especially Islam. 

Ideas Have Consequences

          Ideas have consequences. There are two views of humanity in the world today. And both were on display at the Colorado vs. Arizona basketball game on January 15. A college basketball game seems like an odd place for a clash of world views, but such is the condition or our society. Bill Walsh, who was calling the game, took the opportunity to present his fellow broadcasters with gifts. He gave Dave Pasch a copy of the Origin of Species, because Pasch doesn’t believe in evolution. Pasch countered by offering to give Walsh a "book that counters the Origin of Species" at their next game.

Unfortunately, most of America's cultural leaders today side with Bill Walsh, and ideas always have consequences. If evolution is understood as the evolutionist intends it to be understood, then human life has no inherent sanctity, no dignity, and no special status at all. The late Stephen J. Gould, who was Professor of Paleontology at Harvard University, openly denied the idea that human beings have any special status or any special origin at all by suggesting that we are simply an accidental “twig” on the “amazingly arborescent tree of life.” We are a pure, biological accident. The wonder is not that some creator called us into being, or some plan produced us. Rather, said Gould, in all the randomness of natural process, look what resulted—isn’t that amazing? But, it is not meaningful in any moral sense. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University says that all of evolution is about the contest of “memes”—the basic units of genetic data. It is a rather bizarre idea, but what he is saying is that the survival of the fittest works its way down to the tiniest elements, such that human beings are simply machines produced by biological evolution in order that germs can replicate themselves. We are basically germ factories and germ hosts until we die, and then they will move to another body in which to take up their form and shape and sustenance. Your sole reason to exist is to be a germ factory.

Such is the nonsense our schools are teaching today. This is what is taught at Oxford and Harvard Universities. This is what is established in the curriculum, and this is the worldview that shapes the minds of those who make our laws and judge our cases and teach our children and report the news.

 
           Ideas have consequences, and the idea of evolutionary naturalism tells us that human beings are simply an accident. There is no special status, no special quality, no special sanctity or dignity of life. And if human beings really are just a biological accident, then why not abort in the womb or put them into Hitler’s ovens?

I suggest to you that this is the very reason The 20th century saw assaults on human life and human dignity on an unprecedented scale. Historians now believe that perhaps as many as a billion human beings were murdered by atheistic ideologies in the twentieth century. It may be that a half a billion died in Communist China alone. Over 200 million died in Stalin’s death camps and by his execution squads.

Christendom has been criticized for its occasional crusades and  inquisitions. But Christianity has nothing to compare to the millions slaughtered by atheists in the killing fields of Cambodia, and Rwanda. Indeed the one by product that always accompanies Atheism is mass murder. It is the chief characteristic of that philosophy.

Another product of this secular view is that human beings are no longer considered superior to animals. The animal rights movement has now built an entire argument against human dignity apart from other animals. This kind of argument, they insist, is a form of “speciesism.” Humans, these animal rights activists argue, are not superior to other animals—just more powerful in manipulating the environment. The logical end of this argument is that to wear animal skins and eat animal meat is the equivalent of murder. What right do we have to deprive the animal of its life or of its skin?

In contrast to this deadly worldview, we offer a Biblical concept. The Bible clearly teaches that we alone are created in the image of God:

            Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26 NKJV).

 The Bible teaches that we alone are spiritual beings. The image of God is a spiritual image. It has to do with the fact that there is a unique spiritual capacity within us. There are three kinds of life that a creature may possess. The first is Biological life. This refers to the capacity to eat, grow, reproduce and carry on the biological processes necessary for survival. Plants, animals, and human beings all possess biological life. The second kind of life is psychological or emotional life. This is the capacity to remember, and to process events both intellectually and emotionally. Animals and humans both possess this capacity. Clearly both humans and animals learn, and experience emotion. However, the final category of life is unique to human beings. I refer of course to spiritual life. This is a dignity about which the Scripture is very clear. Alone of all creation, human beings may consciously know and worship God. Indeed the Bible teaches that we did not arise by accident, but that God created each of us personally.

 

Psalms 139:13 - 16 (NKJV):

For You formed my inward parts;

    You covered me in my mother’s womb.

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    Marvelous are Your works,

    And that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from You,

    When I was made in secret,

    And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.

    And in Your book they all were written,

    The days fashioned for me,

    When as yet there were none of them.

 From the moment of conception (defined as the exchange of genetic information) to the end of natural death we are made in the image of God. This clearly rules out Abortion, Euthanasia, and the use of embryo's for experimentation, or to harvest stem cells, or to destroy embryos that are unwanted as a part of fertility treatments. There is no biblical ground or cause to take the pre-born life. It is murder and has been recognized as such from the very beginning of biblical time. We are the image bearers of God, and we are fully deserving of the dignity that should be accorded to every human being. Human life must be defended. Ideas have consequences.

Christ, Our Example

This week I read an interesting article about the poorest president in the whole world. As of November 2012, Jose Mujica, the president of Uruguay, held a unique position—the BBC called him "the world's poorest president." It's a common complaint that many politicians around the globe live in luxury while the masses they lead live in poverty. Instead, Mujico has chosen to identify with his people by living on a ramshackle farm located on a dirt road outside the capital.

A reporter for the BBC News described his approach to Mujica's lowly residence: Laundry is strung outside the house. The water comes from a well in a yard, overgrown with weeds. Only two police officers and Manuela, a three-legged dog, keep watch outside …. This austere lifestyle—and the fact that Mujica donates about 90 percent of his monthly salary, equivalent to $12,000, to charity—has led him to be labeled the poorest president in the world …. In 2010, his annual personal wealth declaration—mandatory for officials in Uruguay—was $1,800, the value of his 1987 Volkswagen Beetle. The article also noted that Mujica doesn't have to live this way. Uruguay provides a luxurious presidential residence in the capital city of Montevideo. But Mujica has chosen to shun the privileges he has a right to enjoy so he can stand in solidarity with the people he serves. (Vladimir Hernandez, "Jose Mujica: The world's poorest president," BBC News 11-14-12).

 

While Mujica is just a man, and a flawed one at that, it is remarkable to me that he voluntarily relinquished the privileges and glory of his office for the good of his people. In a much greater sense, Jesus did the same thing. The Apostle Paul said “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:5 - 8 NKJV).

 

When Jesus came to earth as a human being He accepted the limitations of a human body. Sometimes we think of Jesus as being very different from other children. At Christmas we even sing the verse in away in a manger which says “no crying he makes.” The truth is that Jesus was no different than any other child. He was born like all babies are born. He grew through childhood just like other children grow. Matthew says He grew in wisdom and stature, like all young boys do. We read in the gospel accounts that Jesus hungered, thirsted, grew tired, suffered and eventually died a death like all people experience.

 

Jesus even humbled himself by accepting the limitations of a human mind. The fact that Matthew says that he “increased in wisdom” says that He went through a learning process just like our kids go through. Jesus had to learn to read and write. We find Him asking questions and discussing the Law with the teachers in the temple, and later He would even say that there were some things He just didn’t know, such as the time of His second coming.

 

Philippians 2:7 says that Jesus made himself of no reputation. The HCSB renders it literally – “He emptied Himself.” Now, there are those that teach that this means that he laid aside his divinity, that he gave up his divine nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. He did not empty himself of his divinity, but rather he poured out himself on our behalf.

 

Still, Jesus operated as a human while here on earth. How did that work? Well, the best way to think of what happened in the incarnation is to understand that he subtracted by adding. He added a human nature to his divine, godly nature. Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose I borrowed your car and instead of taking care of it, I took it out to a local mud pit. Suppose I raced it through the mud and did donuts in the mud pit. Suppose I covered it with mud. I will have subtracted from its glory. I covered its glory by adding something – mud. This is what Jesus did. He covered his divine glory by adding a human nature. Why? Why did Jesus accept the limitations of humanity? One reason was so He could be our substitute. If He had not been a man He could not have died in our place and paid our sin debt. But there was another reason as well. Jesus operated in his humanity while here on earth in order that he might be a role model for you and me. While here on earth Jesus relied on the same resources to live his life that you and I have. He relied on the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, prayer, and the communion of other believers. For this reason the Apostle Peter said Christ left “us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21 NKJV).

 

Christ is not only our redeemer, but our example. This is yet another reason to focus on Christ as the reason for the Christmas season.