New Location

As you know, or may not know, I've been winding this blog down for sometime. I left Green Bay almost four years ago.

Here's where you'll find me:

http://riversidepastor.blogspot.com/

I'm going to delete this blog in another week or so.

Thank you.

Are You Ready: One Response to the Recent Supreme Court Decision

Some are wondering if I am going to comment on the recent 5-4 ruling on same sex marriage by the U. S. Supreme Court. Here goes. People wiser than I have expressed the concern that things do not bode well for the Christian Church in America. I agree. At the same time, Christians in the United States are no worse off than Christians living in Corinth or Ephesus during the New Testament times.

I suppose that our religious and academic institutions will inevitably be stripped of tax exempt status, as Time Magazine advocates. Nevertheless, larger questions loom, like, “What next?” and “Just what does the Bible say about same sex marriage?” The answer to the last question should be readily apparent for any believer who’s read his or her Bible.

Many argue that Jesus never mentioned same homosexuality or same sex marriage. Therefore, it must not be that big of a deal for Jesus. The reality is that Jesus affirmed the Law of Moses saying that before those principles failed that heaven and earth would pass away:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. ¹⁸ "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

A few chapters later, during a discussion about divorce and the nature of marriage, Jesus makes the following telling comments:

When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; ² and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.  ³ Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" ⁴ And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, ⁵ and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '?⁶ "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:1-6 )

Just for the record, I did not put these statements in capital letters. It is customary for English Bibles to highlight quotations from the Old Testament in capital letters. Here Jesus is quoting from Genesis as His rule of faith for understanding marriage. We also realize that Jesus is speaking to the religious leaders of His day about what His Father says about marriage. Jesus is living out His earlier “until heaven and earth pass away”statements previously listed above.

Jesus’ words are instructive: (1) anyone taking time to read the Bible knows that God, not government or men, designed and instituted marriage; (2) from the very beginning of time, marriage was intended to be a permanent relationship between one man and one woman (Jesus says this both directly and indirectly in vv. 4-6); (3) mankind has neither the right or authority to tinker with marriage on either an individual basis, a community basis, or governmental basis (v. 6). What God has designed and put together (people and institution) let no one separate (again v. 6).

As for homosexuality being unacceptable in the sight of God, Romans 1:18-32 deals sufficiently with this type of behavioral choice. If this were the only passage it would be enough. But it is one of many passages.

All of this begs the question: “So what?” Same sex marriage is the ‘law of the land.’ There is no changing this during the present administration, or afterward, in all likelihood. Just as “no fault” divorce was first legalized in California in the 1970’s and it now the rule of day, just as abortion was legalized in Roe v. Wade, same sex marriage is legal and more creative permutations will likely follow (if you read the implications of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion).

What are we to do? In the end, God calls us to be faithful. He doesn’t call us to be boisterous or combative. We must continue to fulfill the Great Commission. We follow God, not man. We proclaim Christ and Him crucified. We call sinners to repentance. We suffer for our faith. If you want to change the world and change the country you will not do it by electing “Christian” politicians. You will do it one soul at a time as God uses you to draw people to Himself. Are you ready? 

Manhood and what it means to Man Up

Manhood summarized sufficiently but not exhaustively: A one woman man, above reproach, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, not a drunk, not combative, gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. If he has children  one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. He's not a new convert, he must have a good reputation with those outside the church...a man of dignity, not double-tongued (two faced) but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 

Someone once said there's nothing new under the sun and that's true. If you're a Christian who reads their Bible (I'm told there are those who don't), then you know I'm summarizing 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. People seem to think that these passages pertain to supermen, or super saints. The fact is that these traits are what every man must strive for.

God's measure of a man isn't that he drives a cool car, has a good job, or looks good. God doesn't see as men see. He looks at the heart. We live in a culture where the wink of an eye, a few talents, athletic prowess of some kind, and the ability to reproduce are confused as the measure of manhood. That's too bad. I suppose the question you and I have to ask ourselves is do we understand the true measure of a man? 

Real men truly repent. Real men pursue biblical change. Real men embrace accountability. Real men accept responsibility. Real men do not minimize their sin and call it a mistake. And real men are sorry before they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Real men strive, really strive, to please God and do not blame others for their decisions to fail. Real men take responsibility. Real men man up. 

I'm reminded that true grace is God's riches at Christ's expense. As the Holy Spirit says through the pen of the Apostle Paul, we do not sin more that grace may abound more. If we love our God, then we truly hate our sin. Hating our sin and repenting is what it means to man up. When we man up, we strive for God's measure of a man in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. 

A Hesitant Observation about the Root Cause for the Charleston Church Shooting

The events in Charleston, SC are among the more confounding and heartbreaking events I can think of. For this reason, I hesitate to comment on these murders given the emotional and spiritual damage this young man has done to his community and our nation. I grieve for the tremendous loss of life.     I know the city of Charleston. I grew up not that far away.

Charleston is not a stone-aged racist city. Long ago Charleston had the good sense to hire Police Chief Reuben Greenberg, its first African American Orthodox Jewish convert Police Chief who served with distinction from 1982 until his retirement in 2005 (see wikipedia article here: http://tinyurl.com/pcsfdyw ). 

This story is not about Charleston, racism, or guns. The sad fact is that there are many Dylann Roofs walking the streets today, ready to detonate. I don't think Dylann Roof is merely a racist. He's worse (if that is possible). He's a narcissist (he loves himself), a nihilist (he's destructive and self-destructive), and a misanthrope (hater of people, besides himself). But he is a symptom of a larger problem that goes beyond racism and gun violence. It's an issue of worldview that pervades our culture. It's valuing self above others to the expense of others.

The problem is not an isolated one and the problem is greater than Dylann Roof. Read articles on this story and you find a disturbing, yet subtle, trend. This excerpt from the associated press provides insight into what I mean. Read it carefully as I don't want to be misunderstood and mislabled (see below).

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A black drinking buddy of the white man accused of killing nine people at a Charleston church says the suspect told him a week earlier that he planned to shoot up a college campus in the city. The friend, Christon Scriven, told The Associated Press on Friday that he thought Dylann Roof's statements were just drunken bluster. Still, Scriven said he was concerned enough that he and another friend, Joey Meek, went out to Roof's car and retrieved his .45-caliber handgun, hiding it in an air-conditioning vent of a mobile home until they all sobered up.

Later (this is from the same article) Roof told a white friend: 

"He just said he was going to hurt a bunch of people" at the College of Charleston, said Scriven, 22. "I said, `What did you say? Why do you want to hurt those people in Charleston?'" He just said, "In seven days, they all got seven days.'" 

A week later, on Wednesday, authorities say the 21-year-old Roof went into Charleston's historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, sat for nearly an hour at a Bible study class, and then opened fire on the participants. 

The exchange recounted by Scriven matches accounts from other friends of Roof who have been interviewed by the AP... In an interview on Thursday,  (Joey)Meek (who's white) recounted how Roof had complained while getting drunk on vodka that "blacks were taking over the world" and that "someone needed to do something about it for the white race." Meek says Roof also told him he used birthday money from his parents to buy a .45-caliber Glock semi-automatic handgun. 

Later Roof's black friend comments:

"I don't think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school," Scriven said Friday. "But I think he couldn't get into the school because of the security ... so I think he just settled for the church." 

Now, let's go back and time and across the country to Colorado and James Holmes and the theater shooting. Read the article carefully.

Centennial, Colorado (CNN)A psychiatrist who treated James Holmes described him Tuesday as an anxious, anti-social oddball who thought obsessively about killing people in the months before he opened fire in a crowded movie theater in the Denver suburbs, killing 12 and wounding 70. Dr. Lynne Fenton testified before a packed courtroom that Holmes told her in March 2012 that he had "homicidal thoughts" -- as often as three or four times a day. As his treatment progressed, he told her his obsession with killing was only getting worse. 

And yet, Fenton told a jury there was little she could do because Holmes never talked about specifics.

In both cases, you have a shooter. One is more or less a self-absorbed little thug. The other is likely a full-blown lunatic. The crimes they committed are horrific and will leave scars in their surviving victims for years and years to come. In both cases you have a shooter who gives plenty of indication that he's going to do something terrible. They tell friends and others. And what happens next? Those they confess their intentions to take some sort of action to protect themselves or limit their own exposure. Nobody takes steps beyond self-preservation. Nobody had compassion on "victims-to-be." 

Re-read the Associated Press excerpt. Roof had black drinking buddies and white drinking buddies. He told the black drinking buddies he was going to shoot up a bunch of students at the College of Charleston, where mostly wealthy white students attend. Later Roof indicated to his white drinking buddies that he was going to kill black people. Indications are that this young man was disturbed and frustrated and intended to kill a bunch of people and then kill himself, going out in a blaze of glory, only he lost his nerve when it came to taking his own life. 

He chose his final target according to his African-American friend is to be believed based on convenience (see above). Holmes was similar. Both thought through their actions. Both planned the carnage they committed. Both are accountable. Both deserve the death penalty. 

Each case was preventable and avoidable in that the shooters' accomplices (Roof's white and black drinking buddies and Holmes' psychiatrist and girlfriend, to name two) effectively did nothing. Their friends were alarmed by their behavior and threats and took certain steps. But no one stepped up to save the lives of strangers they didn't know. 

 We live in a culture where the individual is valued above all others. We watch out for number one. What we have is a problem of worldview.

We live in a culture of entitlement where people think they are entitled to be 'happy.' And when those who feel entitled to whatever makes them happy don't get it: people pay. Often people die. We saw this at Columbine. We see this now in Charleston. 

We live in an increasingly secularized society that tells us all that we are accidents or freaks of nature, here by random chance and that life is meaningless. We live in a society that worships nature and sees mankind not as a spiritual being created in the image and likeness of God, members of a single race: the human race but as a virus disturbing "Mother Earth." 

This is how children are being educated in schools and universities and this is what our children are being taught in the media (movies, TV, internet, etc.). Consequently, hearts have grown cold. The Dylann Roofs can shoot up churches, Holmes can wreak havoc in a movie theater, and the Columbine Shooters can shoot up schools. The instruments they employ are incidental to the larger problem: godlessness. Our society's problem is godlessness. 

 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false  prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:10-14 ESV)

No, this  is not some end time prophetic vision I'm sharing. It's a diagnosis of our culture's problems. If we can marginlize God, then we are free to act as our own god and minimize and marginalize the lives and well-being of others as it suits us. What we have is a problem of worldview and it will take a miracle to change it because it is so engrained in our schools, colleges, universities, institutions, and media. Pray for that miracle. The government can't change it. The educational system won't change it. Gun control won't change it, either. It's a God thing. Pray for the God thing. 

Numbers; Numbers; Numbers and the Bible

 Numbers are significant. If you are one of those people who are interested in numerology this discussion may take you in a direction you may not have guessed. First, let me say that numbers do have significance. Sometimes we give them more significance than they deserve---or the wrong kind of significance. Other times we do not give numbers the significance they deserve.

How many days was Jesus in the tomb before His resurrection? For some this is a no-brainer. For others it’s a ridiculous question. “Three!” comes the answer from some quarters. “None!” comes the answer from another quarter. The “Three’s” take a literal, or common sense, reading of the text of Scripture. “Three means three,” they say. The “None’s” take a different tack. They’ll tell you that science proves that really dead people do not come back to life. For those Christians and professing followers of Christ who believe in the resurrection, all assume that the text, correctly read, spells it out: Jesus was in the tomb for three days. Why do they say this? A number of reasons. First, that’s what Jesus promised referencing the “sign of Jonah” in Matthew 12:38-45, during His confrontation with the Pharisees. Second, that’s what the New Testament teaches. The number ‘three’ is not a metaphor for something else. Three means three. For those who do not think the resurrection is central or important to the faith I refer you to a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, where Paul writes that if there is no resurrection the Christian faith is in vain and we are to be pitied above all people.

How many days was Jonah in the belly of the fish? Some will answer “Three days!” Others will answer “None!” The “None’s!” say this because science has proven that a fish cannot swallow a person and that person survive (has that been proven?). However, the believer would say three days because that what was recorded in the Bible. A believer would likely argue that the Christ (God the Son) referred to this event as historical and pointed to its relation to His own resurrection (i.e. the sign of Jonah). Christ Jesus would be in the earth for three days. Three days means three days.

How many days did Joshua march around Jericho during Israel’s invasion of Canaan? Christians answer “Seven days!” Once again, there are those who do not believe in miracles. They do not hold to the supernatural. Therefore, they would dispute that God caused the walls of Jericho to collapse. Nevertheless, the length of Joshua’s march is described as seven days in the Bible. There’s nothing miraculous about marching. Seven days is seven days.

Do our numbers “add up?” Christians who see these numbers almost take them for granted. But should they? For example, how do we know that Christ isn’t still in the grave somewhere because three days really means 300,000 years? 300, 000 years isn’t over (yet). Maybe three days meant 3 million years. Maybe three days means three generations. After all the Bible is full of symbolism. 

And Jonah: what if three days really meant three seconds, or three minutes, or three hours. Suppose the writer of Jonah was just employing hyperbole (exaggeration) as a literary device. Maybe Jonah, writing from his own point of view, stated ‘three days’ because it only seemed like three days. And what if the seven days of marching around the walls of Jericho was seven years. Seven years of marching was what it was required to wear a rut in the roads so deep that they tunneled under the walls at the deepest spot? Or maybe they walked around the walls for 70 years and wore a really deep rut. At no point are “days” (whether 3 or 7) adequately defined within these texts. Where does it say or imply literal days?

The only place that is says solar “days,” or defines “days,” is the Genesis account of creation. In Genesis chapter 1 we read: “and there was evening and there was morning, the first day… a second day… a third day… a fourth day… a fifth day… a sixth day, etc… Funny, “the first day” stands out from the others because of the employment of the definite article “the.” Unlike the previously listed accounts the meaning of "day" is clearly defined (evening, then morning). Even unbelieving Old Testament scholars who were Hebrew language experts contend that ‘day means day’ in the Genesis accounts (they usually add the caveat that they do not take the Bible seriously). My “Old Earth” friends in the faith insist that science proves that God did not create the universe in 6 days. Really? Like science ‘knows’ that Jesus’ resurrection was impossible? Like science knows that Jonah was not swallowed by a fish? Were the scientists there?

It’s embarrassing? Some tell us that our holding to a 6 day literal creation, as described in the Genesis narrative, will keep people from taking us seriously. The theologians Friedrich Schleiermacher and Rudolph Bultmann said the same thing arguing for deleting miracles from the Bible. Thomas Jefferson removed all miracles from his personal Bible. Should we follow suit?

What’s the big deal? What’s the harm in accommodating the culture? Think it through. If Genesis is symbolic then this calls into question Christ’s atonement for our sin on the Cross and even Christ’s deity. No Adam and Eve, no original sin. No original sin: no need for a Savior and God’s promise in Genesis 3:15 becomes superfluous. Then there’s Jesus’ faulty theology and imperfect understanding of history:

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. ² And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. ³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" ⁴ He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:1-6 ESV)

So much for the deity of Christ and His understanding of the Scriptures. So much for the Sermon on the Mount and Christ's explanation of the Law of Moses: "you've heard it was said but I say to you... (Matthew 5:27)" 

The very big deal is salvation. Poor Jesus, He didn’t know that Adam and Eve (v. 4) didn’t exist. He didn’t know that Genesis 2:24 was merely symbolic (vv. 5-6). Maybe He wasn’t God the Son and the Son of God after all. Looks like Paul got it wrong, too:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14 ESV)

Then there’s all that problematic stuff about the resurrection account in 1 Corinthians 15, tied to the myth of the “first Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:45. Paul does all that first Adam stuff in 1 Timothy 2:23, too. What do scientists and our “Old Earth” friends know that the Holy Spirit speaking through the pens of the writers of Scripture did not know? What did our “Old Earth” friends get right that Jesus got so terribly wrong?

          

Why change the numbers to save your embarrassment and accomodate the culture? That’s part of suffering. If God can’t create the world in 6 days, then can He raise His Son from the dead in three? And if days don’t means days, then let’s at least be consistent all the way through our interpretive processes. Maybe Jonah was only in the fish for 3 seconds before the fish regurgitated. The problem is that days are defined in Genesis clearly as days (with evening and morning). All the interpretive gymnastics in the world won’t get you and me off the hook. And if you’re going to toss out days in Genesis, then toss it out everywhere else. No literal Adam and Eve: no original sin; no need for a Savior; no Savior; no salvation; no hope; no heavenly home: No Gospel. Think this through biblically, exegetically, and consistently because you’re putting the very content of the Gospel at stake.

Bruce-Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal: the Chickens Come Home to Roost

Why is the Jenner Identity controversy the embarrasing gift that keeps on giving? The logic behind Jenner's assertion that he is a woman trapped in a man's body is medically and scientifically unprovable. However, our culture's (and the media's) perception is that 'feelings (like clothes) make the man," or in this case woman. As a result, because Jenner feels like a woman he is a woman.

Now comes the Rachel Dolezal case: "The leader of the Spokane NAACP, Rachel Dolezal, canceled a chapter meeting Monday where she was expected to speak about the furor sparked over her racial identity (FOX NEWS/CNN)."

Who is Rachel Dolezal? Rachel Dolezal believed (or believes) she was an African American woman trapped in a Caucasian woman's body. She immersed herself in black culture, black causes, attended and graduated from Howard University, and rose to the highest level of her local chapter of the NAACP. She essentially left her home town, moved to Spokane, Washington and rebooted her identity, establishing herself as an African American. She married an African American man and she embraced African American culture and established herself as a tireless advocate of African American causes. The problem is that her parents turned up and they are both white. Rachel is white, too, as her photographs indicate. Below is a photo of Rachel today and as a young woman. 

Rachel Dolezal as an African American vs.  Rachel Dolezal as a Caucasian

(Is Rachel the first public Transracial Celebrity?)

What did Rachel do? Or what did Rachel do wrong? Let's talk about what Rachel did. First, she self-identified as an African American, much the way transgender students do in the California school system. Second, Rachel took steps to alter her appearance, as Bruce Jenner did (see below). 

Some say that Rachel Dolezal was dishonest about her racial identity. Could the same be said about Bruce Jenner? Rachel Dolezal feels like she's African American. She says she has a greater affinity for African Americans than for Caucasian Americans. However, she went about her transformation much more subtlely, some would say deceptively. 

We are told there was a time when transgendered people quietly but bravely went about their transformations because of a less tolerant society and a less accepting media. We are told today that they and Bruce-Caitlyn Jenner are "brave." Some criticize Jenner saying he put little at risk because of his money and influence that would protect both him and his 'career.' 

If we apply the same standard and thought process to Rachel Dolezal as we apply to Bruce Jenner, then shouldn't the media, the NAACP, and the culture be heralding her as a hero. Or is it because she is not rich and famous that she doesn't merit the same treatment that Jenner received? Will Rachel Dolezal receive a nomination for the Arthur Ashe Award for heroism in sports? Doesn't she play golf?

The real rub here is that even the media and the culture realize that Dolezal is no more black than Jenner is a woman. They are angry because Dolezal's downfall reveals an 'the emperor has no clothes' reality to the whole contrived Bruce Jenner charade. 

Either herald Rachel Dolezal as a heroine and pioneer for the transracial revolution that is to come or realize that the whole transgender (transracial) sham is just what it is a fraud. You can't have it both ways. Either Rachel and Bruce are frauds or heroes. Common sense tells us they are frauds and media circuses. 

Pray for these people. Pray for their supporters. Pray for their detractors. Pray for our culture. We are reminded in Romans 1:18-32 (paraphrase) that God's displeasure comes upon men and women who know the truth about God (and other things) yet they suppress this truth and concoct all kinds of stories and myths about life and existence rather than being thankful to God or giving thanks. They feign ignorance of God rather than accept the fact that they belong to Him and are ultimately accountable to Him. 

Ultimately, however, the chickens come home to roost in this life or the next. We are reminded that God offers life and forgiveness to all who will receive His undeserved mercy. However, He only grants that gift to those who acknowledge that need and receive that gift on His terms by repenting of their sin, surrendering their past, their present, their future, their rights and their will to the Savior who died for their sin in their place, proving His power over death and sin by His resurrection. There's hope for Rachel and Bruce in Christ. There's hope for you in Christ... if you surrender to the Savior. Otherwise, people go on living lies and sooner or later (in Rachel's case sooner) the chickens come home to roost. For Rachel they have come home to roost in this life. 

Are Churches Dying from the Loss of a Younger Generation?

Two interesting articles appeared and offered conflicting prescriptions to stave off the death of Christianity in America. One appeared in National Review, written by a “conservative attorney,” David French. The other appeared in a CNN blog written by a liberal feminist who found true religion in the Episcopal Church USA, Rachel Held Evans. They are both listed below.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417931/if-you-want-destroy-your-church-follow-liberals-advice-david-french

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/

Both articles deal with the decline or exodus of millennials from Christian Churches. Each has their own diagnosis. I will seek to summarize both below. 

Rachel Evans addresses why Millennials are leaving the church, describing herself as a millennial (i.e. someone born between 1980 and 2000):

1. We want an end to the culture wars.
2. We want a truce between science and faith.
3. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
4. We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.
5. We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

·         We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities. We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.

Rachel Held Evans goes onto comment that “My search has led me to the Episcopal Church, where every week I find myself, at age 33, kneeling next to a gray-haired lady to my left and a gay couple to my right as I confess my sins and recite the Lord’s prayer.” Evan’s goes onto to comment:

It’s about the “inclusiveness,” you see: This is the inclusivity so many millennials long for in their churches, and it’s the inclusivity that eventually drew me to the Episcopal Church, whose big red doors are open to all — conservatives, liberals, rich, poor, gay, straight and even perpetual doubters like me.

French succinctly summarizes what Evan’s is suggesting isn’t so much a theological perspective but a “progressive writer’s wish list,” with the trappings of high-church traditions married to “no-church” theology. French is right.

As French notes, and objective research indicates (some provided by the denominations in question), nothing could be further from the truth. Millennials aren’t flocking to the Episcopal Church, USA, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA (not to be confused with either the PCA or OPC), or the United Methodist Church (my old alma mater). These groups are dying a slow and painful death and most of these groups, based on current rates of decline will not see the end of the 21^st Century:

1. Episcopal Church, yet between 2002 and 2012 it lost 18.4 percent of its members, and its church attendance declined 24.4 percent.
2. The United Church of Christ (UCC), lost 20.4 percent of its members in the seven years after it voted to recognize same-sex marriage.
3.  The Presbyterian Church (USA), which further liberalized its stance on sexuality in 2006 and redefined marriage in 2014. Between 2006 and 2013, the church lost 22.4 percent of its members and is now on pace to disappear entirely by 2037.
4.  The United Methodist Church in 2014, with its 49 reporting U.S. annual conferences, reported over 83,000 fewer members combined, with more than 68,000 fewer members attending weekly services. These losses are consistent with the results of the previous year’s annual conference reports, as reported by United Methodist News Service. UMNS’s analysis found a loss of 87,319 members and 50,895 fewer people in worship in 2012, based on 57 of the 59 annual conference reports. While membership losses continue at roughly the same pace, the decline in worship attendance has jumped by more than one-third.

All these groups have one thing in common, they began following Rachel Held Evans’ advice before she gave it. While much is being made about the decline of Christianity in the US, this decline is good because it pertains to non-bible believing groups who embraced the culture’s secular agendas and ideas about sexuality rather than staying with the Bible.  Jesus spoke about this type of phenomena in Matthew 7:19: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” 

Let the pruning continue. It is good that unhealthy groups who have abandoned the faith die off. 

However, in a parallel theological universe there is growth. Assemblies of God Churches, for example, have experienced explosive growth. The Southern Baptist Convention, while stagnant at the moment, has grown exponentially to the point that its membership is greater than all the Mainline Denominations combined. Biblically committed groups remain healthy, others... not so much. We could go on but a picture is worth a thousand words. We recently found this series of drawings online, they come from the website: http://adam4d.com/death-of-christianity/. They tell the story best: 

Those (Millennials or others) who are abandoning the Church aren’t abandoning it because it is not hip, relevant, or young enough. They are leaving dead groups for biblical ones or they are leaving because of what 1 John 2:19 states: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This is not to suggest that the state of all biblically committed churches is a healthy one. However, generally speaking the biblical churches are healthy churches and relative to the mainline churches they continue to thrive. It’s not about age groups it’s about truth. It's not about size, it's about content---the Bible. 

On the Road with Pastor Josh Cobia, Caitlyn Jenner, and the Washington Post

In an article in the Washington Post entitled, “I went to church with Bruce Jenner. Here’s what Caitlyn Jenner taught me about Jesus,” Santa Monica worship pastor Joshua Cobia writes about (like the title says) what Caitlyn Jenner taught Josh Cobia about Jesus (here’s a link to the article: http://tinyurl.com/ptqegvh). Cobia’s article is in the mold of the Andy Stanley’s and others who see themselves (and who the Mainstream Media sees) as the vanguard of the “New Evangelicalism.” Their message is simple, and I’ll summarize it in a synopsis of Cobia’s article:

Bruce Jenner is a nice guy who kept going to church even when his famous wife and daughters (the Kardashians), who help us plant a church, stopped going. Bruce Jenner is a nice guy and consistent church goer. Now as Caitlyn, Jenner is the same nice person he was before. Bruce/Caitlyn was/is nice to me. Because Jenner is nice and knows about Jesus, Jenner must be a Christian, too. Christians are nice people except when they are not so nice and get hung up on issues like gay rights, transgender rights, and the like. My LGBT friends are nice. I wish Christians could be accepting like the LGBT community. When people are genuinely nice they act like Jesus. Jenner, in being nice to me, is acting like Jesus and so Jenner knows Jesus. Here’s what Jenner taught me: Let’s be nice by acting like Jenner and Jesus. Let’s not get hung up on the Bible. Let’s just love (love goes undefined).

Cobia took longer to say all this and also probably got paid more than me to write what he wrote. But here’s the problem with Cobia, Stanley, and others like them. There’s great deal of emotions, feelings, and niceness in all their talk about compassion but there is often little or no Bible, biblical principles, or Gospel message in what they say.  God’s Word doesn’t factor into their equation. Given all the Jenners' and Kardashians' public conduct and immorality does Cobia truly believe they are "okay?" 

On the surface, Cobia's words sound nice and loving. However, in reality, there’s very little love. We say this because rather than sharing the true Gospel with a pitiful, but admittedly rich, lost soul like Bruce Jenner, who might be searching for truth---Cobia affirms Jenner in his sexual identity confusion and perversion. This is the opposite of love. If Cobia loved like Jesus, he'd share Jesus' Gospel, which in Mark 1:15 is the call to repent and believe the Gospel.

Additionally, implicit in Cobia’s writing is a condemnation of Christians who don’t see things Cobia’s way. Cobia has been unfair to Jenner and unfair (disobedient is a better word) to his calling to ministry as a Christian. He’s providing Jenner a death by comfort approach, like some involved in the social Gospel do for poor, homeless, godless people who are about to perish without Christ.  Cobia is affirming Jenner and others like him by saying Jenner is okay. In so doing, Cobia is sending Jenner on his way without the Gospel. Like those who send poor people well dressed, well fed, and in some cases well educated to hell because in the social Gospel there is no biblical Gospel, Cobia is sending Jenner off in the same direction. What does it profit Jenner or lost homeless people if we send them off affirmed and fed without the Gospel? What does it profit Jenner is he gains the world but forfeits his soul. Is this love? With Cobia’s reassurance Jenner may feel okay when he is not okay (see Matthew 7:21-23) and that will be spiritually and, perhaps eternally, disastrous for Jenner if nothing changes.

We live in an age where good intentions are more highly valued than truth, facts, or reality. The presentation is more important than content. We ought to be nice rather than speak the truth. Imagine an oncologist trying that: no truth but all niceness. Someone once said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Perhaps Josh Cobia has good intentions but he is paving the way to hell for Bruce Jenner and should know better. Bruce should know better (read Romans 1:18-32).

Born that Way (Homosexual Predispositions)?

I had a long talk with someone I’d known for years about homosexuality. We’d both lost a person dear to us to AID’s (and the promiscuity and multiple partners to contribute to contracting it). We both self-identify as Christians. We both would claim (verbally at least) that the Bible is true and a guide and rule of faith and practice. We both have distinctly different understandings of inspiration as well as both the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. I suspect my friend is unconscious of our differences.

During the discussion of our deceased dear one my friend seemed to indicate that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice. I quickly, though gently, reminded them that homosexuality is a sin. I’m not sure what their mainline denomination calls sin, or if the UMC even acknowledges sin anymore. However, my friend did a “yes… but…” What’s a “yes…but?” A “yes…but…” is an often unconscious acknowledgment and affirmation of biblical truth (in this application) followed by an implicit denial of it.

My friend’s position is that homosexuality is a predisposition that someone can be born with. In other words, my friend was implying that our deceased dear one was “born that way.” This somehow lessens the sin because somehow the impulse to seek out people to have sex with outside of marriage nullifies or mitigates the sinner’s personal responsibility. This idea has gained ground, like transgender impulses.

 We are born with sinful predispositions. Theologians call this “original sin.” No one has to teach a child to lie, steal, or bully. Watch a child sometime: ever notice how they look around before they do something wrong. They know better. There is an innate sense of right and wrong that works against their predispositions.

Humans are predisposed to self-absorption and self-gratification. Such acts come naturally. In you make a person angry enough, he or she may have the impulse to take your life. If someone finds your wallet on the sidewalk they may have an impulse to keep it rather than turn it in. Such impulses stem from original sin. Personal sin is what occurs when you choose to act on these impulses immorally (murder, theft, homosexuality, bestiality; selfishness). On a bad day, the impulse to do someone harm is simply that: an impulse. The temptation to steal a wallet rather than turn it over to lost and found, or the police, is just that: an impulse. The inclination to engage in homosexual acts is just that: an impulse. Personal sin occurs when we choose to act on such impulses and we are accountable for our choices. We can’t blame God. We can’t blame genetics. We can’t blame others. We can take responsibility for our actions and do what is right.

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. ¹⁴ But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ¹⁵ Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. ¹⁶ Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. (James 1:13 ESV)

Our temptations are our own as we turn a bad idea, a sinful idea, over and over in our heads (vv. 14 and 15). In verse 15, as we tantalize ourselves with this idea, running through “dress rehearsals” in our minds, we begin to see sin as an acceptable possibility. This idea is fertilized in our imagination and fantasy until it develops like a malignant brain (soul) tumor. If we “leave it untreated” it will grow until it kills us (and others). Verse 16 warns us not to kid ourselves (do not be deceived). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23A). 

The good news is in the second half of the verse: “the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ, our Lord (Romans 6:23B).” My dear one chose death, rejecting forgiveness. He did not put his faith in Christ.  I wish it would have been different. Nevertheless, he alone was responsible for his own death. Do not be deceived. Human beings are thinking creatures, not animals driven by impulse. We are all born with a predisposition toward sin. Yet not all of us choose to embrace the impulse as fully as others. This doesn’t make us better. All sin kills (v. 15). However, not all sin has the same collateral damage and earthly consequences, like dying of AID's due to promiscuity and reckless sex compared to getting arrested for shoplifting.