Category Archives: Ecclesiology

Concerning Same Sex Adoptions

Yesterday, a friend’s question on social media in response to an article I shared about children in same sex households provoked the following thoughts on the issue of adoption, even dealing with single parent adoptions and the detriment to the child (not to mention the selfishness they expose). Here is the article I shared:

Here are my thoughts on the issue of same sex couple adoption and single parent adoption, as well as the destructive force they (in particular same sex couple adoptions) have on children and on society:

Yes, I am opposed to single parent adoptions. Though, I will firmly argue that a single parent is less destructive than homosexual parents – who effectively guarantee the perversion of the child’s mind from naturally understanding God as their Father and the Church as their Mother. For no one can have God as their Father if they do not have the Church as their mother.

Further, at least a child with a single mother or father can have a motherly or fatherly figure (respective of the one missing) enter their lives through other relatives or friends or future marriage. Same sex couples are claiming to be married and in need of no other member of the opposite sex to be required in the household (though I’m sure some single parent adopters have thought the same thing, wrongly).

Now, I say this not to disregard the grace of God in saving people out of their twisted thinking and broken upbringings… I am saying this as a point of genuine natural law and civil society. As Christians – by conceding this to be acceptable – we further degrade and destroy our society and our witness to those who would seek to understand what a true human society should look like.

For those of you who might think that (simply) 2 is better than 1… This thinking ultimately breaks down because all children in America today (who are not being held captive by criminals of course) have plenty of people helping to raise them in their lives – whether it is school teachers, grandparents, neighbors, fellow church members, etc.

This issue, from a Christian perspective, has everything to do with nature, the created order, and human salvation – and NOT anything to do with having enough people to help a child have some kind of ‘better’ life. For a child who has a better life and ends up not worshiping God will receive more damnation in hell than the child who was poor and needy, yet still did not believe. For we are all going to be judged according to our deeds – either for rewards in heaven or punishments in hell.

By nature – on the adoption issue – any child raised in a single parent or same sex couple situation is going to be devoid of any real life experience of how God created them to grow up naturally – thus the basic problem of allowing either kind of people to adopt. Therefore, as Christians, to have any part in “okaying” or affirming such practices in adoptive circumstances is to rip apart the very fabric of our civil society. It not only harms the child, but it also puts one more stumbling block in the way of that child growing up to see these two fundamental truths of reality:

  1. No one can have God as their Father who does not have the Church as their Mother. (Galatians 4:26)
  2. Marriage between a man and a woman has always stood to show this mystery – the relationship between Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:32)

And as we all should recall here… Jesus said, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2)

The End is Near!

Well, the end of the Episcopal Church’s relationship with Anglicans is near… N.T. Wright recently published a very clear rebuke and warning about the Episcopal Church on the Times Online the 15th of this month. Read the whole article, but here is an excerpt:

In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

[HT: James Grant]

Homosexuality and the Church

James Grant says:

In the previous post regarding the Church of Scotland and the appointment of a practicing homosexual to a particular ministerial post, someone left a comment stating that this is a healthy move for the Church of Scotland, and American Christians should follow their lead, referencing this article by Walter Wink: “Homosexuality and the Bible.” In this article, Wink provides several arguments as to why the church should not condemn homosexuality, but at the heart of his article and argument is this statement: “The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic.” Indeed…that is a crucial matter on several levels (not to mention an significance difference of opinion on the nature of Biblical revelation).

I do hope Christians can have open and civil discussions, even about this controversial matter, but it is important to realize that Wink’s arguments will not persuade Christians who oppose the practice of homosexuality and have thought through the textual, biblical, and historical issues. It is not as if Christian’s haven’t dealt with Wink’s arguments both throughout church history and in our more recent cultural situation.  Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of those books that helps Christians get the right perspective on this issue. It is the most comprehensive book-length response to the interpretive assumptions that go into this type of discussion.

Robert A. J. Gagnon

I would also encourage you to check out Robert Gagnon’s website. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and his credentials are superb: a B.A. from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained elder in a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. His website is a comprehensive response to the homosexual movement within the church, which he faces in the PCUSA. You can view some of his specific responses to particular articles and reviews here. This includes a response to Walter Wink’s arguments from Christian Century. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see links to the pdfs. If you prefer to hear Gagnon, Issues, Etc., has a two part interview with him (Part 1 & Part 2).

Maundy Thursday: The Commandment

Last Supper

John 13:31-35: A New Commandment

When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Celebrating St. Patrick’s Day

patrick

In honor of the great missionary and pastor, commonly known as “St. Patrick”, I would like to encourage you all to take a moment sometime today and read about his life. Below are a few articles to choose from, but I highly recommend the one by Mark Driscoll called Vintage Saints: Saint Patrick. Here is an excerpt from that article:

Technically, Saint Patrick is not even a saint, as he was never canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, Patrick was not even Irish. Rather, he was an Englishman who was a Roman citizen that spoke Latin and a bit of Welsh.

Patrick was born around 390 A.D. When he was roughly 16 years of age he was captured by pirates and taken to Ireland on a ship where he was sold into slavery. He spent the next six years alone in the wilderness as a shepherd for his masters’ cattle and sheep. [Continue Reading…]

Here are the other articles:

Audio: Total Church Conference 2008

The Audio for The Total Church North America Conference 2008 is now available. Tim Chester and Steve Timmis recently published a book – “Total Church” – with Re:Lit. This conference is the result of the ideas presented in the book.

Main Sessions

Breakout Sessions

[HT: Mike]

Building Healthy Churches – Conference Audio

This past weekend my church, Concord Baptist, in Chattanooga, TN, hosted a “Building Healthy Churches” Conference by 9 Marks Ministries. I encourage you to download the audio and listen through all the sessions so that you can help your church become a healthy, Gospel-centered church.

Here are the links re-posted below from the church web site:

Below is the audio from the 9 Marks conference held at Concord on October 17-18, 2008. At this conference, many church issues were examined through the light of scripture to help us discern this question: “What does a healthy church look like?”

[Right click and select “save as” to download them to your computer.]

  1. Session 1 – A Theological Vision :
    Churches that Display God’s Glory

    Matt Schmucker
  2. Session 2 – Preaching & Biblical Theology
    Michael Lawrence
  3. First Evening Q&A
    Michael Lawrence and Mark Dever
  4. Session 3 – Gospel, Conversion & Evangelism
    Mark Dever
  5. Session 4 – Membership, Discipline, and Discipleship
    Greg Gilbert
  6. Session 5 – Leadership, Membership, Discipline, and Discipline
    Mark Dever
  7. Session 6 – Covenanting Together
    Matt Schmucker
  8. Closing Session Q&A

The N.T. Wright Project

Some students from Princton Theological Seminary have started a research project for the purpose of studying the foundational works of theology by N.T. Wright. Here is their description of the project:

Rarely in the course of our seminary study do we have the opportunity to study theologians whose work is currently transforming the life of the church. Tom Wright is one such theologian, and a small group of us at Princeton Theological Seminary, together with one of our professors, Ross Wagner, have decided to spend this semester immersed in Wright’s work. We hope to carefully read some of his most foundational writings and to engage each other through this blog on the issues and ideas which emerge from this study. From time to time we will have guest authors from a wide spectrum contribute, and we also invite those of you in church, parachurch, or seminary communities to read and respond to our blog posts as a way of keeping this project closely grounded in the church today. Welcome and enjoy!

I encourage everyone to keep up with this blog, especially if you don’t have the ability to read Bishop Wright’s works in full by yourself. These students will be summarizing and analysing and discussing much of what he has written and I think we will all benefit from their work. May God bless this project!

LORD, Language, & Liturgy

Pastor Jeff Meyers, over at Corrigenda Denuo, has posted three very helpful articles (12 points in all) on the topic of the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh. This is a very interesting subject to me and I encourage you all to read it and consider what he has to say about it. I would tend to agree that there is no reason we should keep translating the word “LORD” or “Lord” when that is not specifically what the name means. Yahweh is not simply a title, as “Lord” or “LORD” is. It is God’s covenant name and we need to recognize that when we study, teach, and worship the Triune God with that name.

Here are the articles:

Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part I
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part II
Lord, Language, & Liturgy – Part III

Here is a good excerpt regarding what I mentioned above:

1. Yahweh was given to Israel as God’s “memorial name” (Exod. 3:15). This personal name of God was revealed to Israel so that they might use it in prayer and thus remind God of his covenant so he would act for them. God’s personal name for Israel was not “Lord” but “Yahweh.” As Psalm 20 says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we will memorialize the name of Yahweh our God.” The name of the God of Israel was not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh. They were to call on God to remember (that’s what “memorialize” means) his covenant by using the name he gave them for that purpose. I should say here also that all the gnostic theologizing about what this name really “means” is a distraction. Yahweh is not a “term” that refers to something else, like God’s infinite majesty or whatever. Yahweh is a concrete name given to the Israelites to use, to call out in prayer and praise in their worship.

2. “Lord” is a title not a name. You can make the word “Lord” into all caps, italicize it, bold it, or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it means “Master” or “Sir” and is not a name, certainly not God’s revealed personal name. So when one translates passages like “Let them praise the name of Yahweh” as “Let them praise the name of the LORD” you muck up the meaning badly. In fact, this is not really a translation at all but an altering of the text for some external purpose. God’s revealed name in the Hebrew Scriptures is not “Lord” or “LORD” but Yahweh.

3. The abbreviation YAH is not replaced with LORD in our English translations. We still say and sing “hallelujah,” which means “praise Yah[weh].” Why don’t we sing “hallelu-LORD”? Silly, you say? Just as silly as replacing YHWH with Lord. If saying the whole name is so spiritually hazardous, why isn’t saying part of the name just as dangerous? But YAH was not even replaced by superstitious Jews who refused to say the whole name for fear of judgment. In addition to Hallelujah we still have all the proper names that include Yahweh in them, like Joshua (Heb: Yah-shua – “Yahweh saves”). The best we can say is this is inconsistent; the worst is that it’s evidence of how stupid this superstitious avoidance of the name Yahweh really was and is.

4. Later Jews superstitiously refused to vocalize the name. I’ll get to when this happened in a moment. But the practice of replacing Yahweh with Lord was an act of rebellion, pure and simple. God gave this name for the Jews to use in memorial prayers, Psalms, and worship. Not using it means that they thought they were wiser than God. This is part and parcel with the Pharisaical “fencing of the law.” In order to avoid transgressing the 3rd Word (“taking the name of Yahweh in vain”) the wily Pharisaical Jews decided to just avoid the word altogether. And we want to follow that tradition?