I protest. I actually posted “Matt***”, but my ISP notified me that my outbound asterisk quota has been exceeded for the day. Since I’m spiritually in Greenland, it’s actually tomorrow for me, so I can post them now.

And if that doesn’t get me out of the punishment, I’m warning you, I’m not without resources in my defense. I still have my copy of Church Dogmatics, and I’m not afraid to post entire pages of it to BHT. I’ve done it before.

Besides, you don’t want me to apologize. I believe I covered that already once, and you were specifically apologized to. But since the archives are no longer available, I will reproduce, in the extended entry, my famous post from August 25th of 2004, complete and unedited.

More »« Less

Sorry, Jim. You know the punishment.

They’re basketball shorts, man.

Rule 15, Jim. I’m so disappointed. We’ve been together so long…

Matt: That photo. With pants like those, who needs enemies?

My best buddy, Lucas, had a bad experience with Jabez once.

RE; Ju… Ju…Ju…
We have a similar story in our family. My daughter at about four shouted out upon seeing an extremely pimple faced box boy in a very loud, frightened voice, “Mom, he has chickenpox!”

Going off to college? Want to survive? Make sure you have these with you at all times.
Ruthless Trust, Brennan Manning. You aren’t saved if you haven’t read it.
Parliament of Whores, P. J. O’Rourke. You must read this before you are allowed to vote. No exceptions, not even for hardship cases like “but I live in Michigan.”
Romans, Karl Barth. Commit this to memory. If nothing else, quoting it will make your pastor very pale and quiet.
A Scanner Darkly, Philip K. Dick. In the guise of a science fiction novel, this is actually Dick’s vision of the paranoia that accompanies drug addiction. It’s a good thing to read, so that when you become a hopeless junky, you know what to look for.
A Spaniard In the Works, John Lennon. Very few people have as much fun with English as Lennon did, and this book definitely proves it.

I propose we market the official BHT “Prayer of Jabez” oil lamp. Just rub the lamp as you pray the prayer, and Peter, James and John will appear and grant you three wishes.

So that is what that was about. I had wondered. It was so trendy I never bothered to read it…LOL
That kind of stuff makes me want to vomit (literally makes my stomach hurt with that funny feeling in the throat that proceeds puking your guts out).

Hey Matthew…childish rhyme scheme...I’m running Accordance..I’m running Accordance…”

Martha gave me the keys to the free stuff, so I have the interface and the KJV running.

Do I want to write it on IM? I had to listen to a full blown Jabez presentation today, and it was really really difficult for me. The speaker meant really well, and was quite sincere, but it just made me incredibly sad for people sitting there listening to the presentation who have begged God to do things he hasn’t done. Basically saying that if you pray the right prayer, and really mean it, you will be blessed materially, was hard to hear.

I, for one, need a laugh.

“Ju…Ju..Ju…”

Where is “Engagement, Ohio?”.........................Between Dayton and Marion.

I think we all need one of these to make us feel better.

Er. Wanted to check in and say I’m back and hi, and I hope you have a blessed feast of All Saints (blessed be God in His angels and in His saints, and all that). But it looks like the battle axes are flying, a few of you have each other in choke holds, and the bar tab’s gonna be one hell of a thing to split up. So I’ll leave it at that and come back another night.

Pax Christi.

How do you know what he said? Your mind is depraved. We’re pomo, remember. Quit being so certain. (jn)

Jim, I can’t believe you said ‘*k’ in a Tavern. People that say ‘*k’ are irredeemable. You ***king forgot to mention ‘Gossip’.

For what it’s worth, I think Dale has expressed himself well and respectfully. Even if we differ, I feel he’s always a good conversational partner in here.

I assume we’ve said about all we need to say on this subject, haven’t we?

Dale, no bifurcation intended.

Your post seems mostly interesting in starting a new argument and like Phillip, I’m not particularly interested.

This whole thing is well summed up by Michael when he states something to the effect of: “Culture warriors, not preachers of the gospel, focus on homosexuality.”

How the hell this got all of the way to Bonhoeffer on Cheap Grace I have no furcating clue. Never, ever did I say or imply that homosexuality is not a sin, but I must admit that I’m finding it much less the sin than hyper-contention.

Edit: Michael, I agree that Dale’s been respectful, and I don’t sense any sort of ad hominem attack. Dale, what I struggle with is when it gets to the point in the Tavern at which every word uttered seems to start a new line of arguments. I know that this is sort of the ‘intelligentsia’ thing to do, but this is Boar’s Head Tavern not Boar’s Head University.

Some days this place seems more like a debate class than a Tavern, I’m not smart enought to be an intellectual let alone a pseudointellectual. (jn)

You said everyone. I feel personally attacked.

Oh, man, everyone, shut the ***k up. Please.

I’ll take the American Evangelical movement’s fixation on homosexuality-as-sin seriously the moment three things happen:

1) Jim Dobson et. al begin a radio campaign to address the epidemic levels of self-centeredness, self-righteousness, gluttony and materialism that, like a silent progressive cancer, are eating the body of Christ until there’s nothing left worthly of noting.

2) The issue is entirely de-politicized, meaning specifically that we stop viewing homosexuality as a threatening force to be legislated against, and start seeing it as… sin, just like, oh, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, gluttony, or materialism, to name a few.

3) The same level of energy that is spent attacking “the homosexual agenda” is poured into actually reaching homosexuals with the gospel, and for the sake of the readers who might not quite follow me on this, what I mean is this: you don’t begin giving the message of God’s grace to people by telling them that they will contract AIDS and rot in hell because their current lifestyle includes sodomy. You don’t. You don’t do that, any more than you tell a glutton about Jesus by calling them “fatso porker” and telling them they will starve for eternity, etc.

We have the ANSWER to the needs of the homosexual, the glutton, the bigot, the whore, the adulterer, the materialist, and even the self-righteous. But we can’t start giving it to them until we make them feel like dirt. Jesus understood people like us. He had some good names for us. Idiots. Brood of vipers. Whitewashed tombs. Stinking piles of garbage. We spit on the Savior every time we do this crap. When he sends us away from his presence for eternity, it won’t be because we blew it on the theology of communion. It will be because we failed miserably to take the message of hope, grace, and God’s love to people who need it desperately.

Josh: Did I mention Dale by name? Did I say I was addressing Dale’s post only, and not the long list of posts on this subject? NO I did not, and he leapt to conclusions, which you perpetuated.

In fact, you made the statement that “you have to say homosexuality is a sin…” as part of the gospel, so you’re the law/gospel mingler to which that was directed more than anyone.

See why I don’t want to hang around the BHT? Because people insist on making stupid statements, and then taking all responses out of context and twisting them to make stupid points.

It’s IQ test time: Dog:Cat :: Cat:Mouse. Remember those?

Jesus didn’t speak about homosexuality:Homosexuality is not an intrinsic part of the gospel :: Jesus didn’t speak about rape:Phillip doesn’t think rape is a sin == What the heck? You flunk. Read the words I wrote, buddy.

I’m about five posts away from leaving the bar forever, I’m so sick of the attitude in here.

Homosexuality is a sin, clearly. Duh. But I don’t have to catalog sins every time the gospel is presented, and there is no more reason to single out homosexuality while talking about Jesus than there is any other sin.

Which is, of course, exactly what I said before, but you can read whatever you want to into it, ‘cause I’m done.

Dale: From the standpoint of Christian Hedonism, I think this is great stuff, precisely because it properly relates repentance to the Gospel. For example:

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods.

Nothing better explains the dynamic of faith/repentance than that parable. No one would understand the story if it said, “A man sold all he had and waited for further instructions.”

Some quotes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s “Costly Grace”:

• Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
  
• Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.
  
• Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
  
• Such grace is costly because it call us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost the life of his Son: “ye were brought with a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

Did I mention that Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran?

HT: Perry

So let me get over to the BHT rules and add in this one: Never, ever mention a person’s name in a post that contains analysis or opinion, because what you are actually doing by the inclusion of the name is attacking the individual you are addressing, and assigning to them, personally, everything you might criticize in your post. The common assumption among average people that one might address a personal opinion to another person with that person’s name in the opening sentence is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Do so at your own risk.

Avoid if possible sentences like:

“So Joe, beautiful day we are having, huh?”

While you might expect something between “If you say so,” or “Yep,” or “I thought it was a bit cold,” what you may get could be…

“Listen you scheming bastard, who the hell do you think you are trying to make me responsible for the damned weather? Shut the hell up. Don’t drag me into your world where I am to blame for everything that happens with what I can’t control. I have no idea what the weather is and I don’t care. You’re just doing your fatass rural Kentucky weather martyr act, and you’ve sat home all day planning how to make me look like the bad guy. So screw you. Get the hell away from me.”

Hope this helps everyone. LEAVE THAT NAME OFF. We may be discussing issues here, but when you put in that name, it’s a long-standing personal attack.

Glad we cleared that up.

Our “new” organ was profiled in the local paper.

During the service last night, Ted was recounting a brief version of how we acquired the organ. At one point, he said that he and his compatriots who made the trek to Kalamazoo to take the organ out of the Baptist church described the road trip as “the week from hell.” Two seconds later the lights in the sanctuary went out. Gasps. Nervous laughter. Not missing a beat, Ted declared: “And that’s what happens when you use four-letter words in church.”

This recital was a real community outreach. I’ve never seen so many visitors in our church. I’m thrilled that we had a reception afterwards and that our members were able to meet many new people. I pray that much fruit will result.

Joel, sorry to be so late in responding. Yeah, that Clemson loss was sweet. Really, I had a perfect weekend: Georgia lost, Clemson lost, the Gamecocks beat Tennessee. What could be better?

Also, no, I haven’t heard of the Wilderking books. Sounds really interesting though.

Dale, (and to some extent Josh) the nuance or theme of this post is that my statement:

“My thinking is that someone could preach the gospel for years without needing to even mention homosexual sin. In today’s Christian PC environment that person would be accused of being ‘soft on homosexuality’. Sad.”

Was not prophetically normative because when it was used as a template to describe Elijah’s behaviour to the Baal Worshipper it sounded comparatively ridiculous.

Which could certainly be interpreted “to suggest that you can’t present the gospel without bringing the subject up?”

Let me frame it another way. I was trying to explicitly make the point that one could preach the gospel of Jesus Christ without needing to make any statements against homosexuality. That was the theme of my series of posts on the subject.

By arguing against a statement contained in one of these posts you seem to be arguing against the theme of my series of posts. If that is not your intent, it is a good thing to say: “I’m not arguing against your theme I’m arguing against the logic or analogy you used to support your theme.”

For anyone who cares, I never asked anyone to “explain” the behavior of anyone. I cited, in posts for anyone to read, Dobson and Phelps as examples of those who singled out homosexuality and do not communicate the Gospel.

Those who use their radio/television time to do an imitation of a minor league Fred Phelps may have the admiration of some, but I’ll say “No, thanks.”

I mean, good grief…Jim Dobson isn’t preaching the Gospel. He is obsessed with homosexuals because he wants to save the culture.

Dale: I appreciate your point of view, but I think the texts where specifc calls to specific sinners to repent of specific sins are pretty persuasive in regard to what was Jesus “style” of dealing with prostitutes, tax collectors and such. The call to repent is so wrapped up with the announcement of gracious forgiveness that I can’t imagine how I would construct a message on “Jesus’ Calls To Specific Repentance” that wasn’t, at the same time, “Jesus’ Announcement of Acceptance and Forgiveness.” John 8:1-11 seems a paradigm text, and Jesus’ encounters with Zaccheus, Matthew and other notorious sinners seem to fall right in line.

I’m quite influenced here by the errors that have shown up in the ministry of certain well known TRs who spend lots of time on repentance as a distinct message from believing the Gospel of Jesus and all that comes to us in it. Books such as Macarthur’s “Hard To Believe” seem to be about a different Jesus than the one who invited himself to Matthew’s house.

Now, telling Pharisees to repent…that is another story :-)

I think our little discussion is floundering a bit between 1) Should Christians believe and teach that homosexuality is wrong? (duh) and 2) Should Christians purchase air time and print space to specifically tell homosexuals they are going to hell for their sexual sins? Here’s the COMPLETE original context of the question:

I’ve a quick question, probably mostly for Richard but I assume that others would know as well. Would it violate Canadian ‘hate speech’ laws to teach in a Christian church that homosexuality is a sin?

I’m curious to understand whether or not a local radio station was exaggerating last evening while asking for donations to increase their broadcast power to extend into Manitoba.

I’m also curious to understand why it must be proclaimed that homosexuality is a sin in order to communicate the gospel, any thoughts?

I can’t imagine there is much disagreement on that, but I could be wrong.

you said Bifurcate…tee hee. triple word score. please use words that don’t sound like bodily functions, it’s distracting and it makes me giggle like a little girl.

I’m not sure what you are asking, Dale. I agree with what you are saying (I think) about this particular passage in Romans because that was the point I think I was making and it’s basically the point that Wright makes in the article I linked and in the relevant portion of his lectures on Romans. But I could be wrong. I’m so confused.

At least I’m not the Antichrist.

Bill writes: “The Gospel is that Christ came to save us from the penalty of sin.”

I guess it depends upon who you ask what the gospel is.

Half the definitions that I’ve heard of late (not necessarily on BHT but elsewhere) would mean that The Gospels (Matt-John) are not really gospel because they do not contain the message that evangelicals articulate.

To focus on one sin to the exclusion of all others is wrong.
To focus on any sin to the exclusion of the remedy for sin is wrong.
But to identify some act as sinful seems to be perfectly normative for Christians.

Amen.

Kent writes, “you make a great point. Preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ do sound a lot like the Old Testament prophets. Incredible similarities, good catch.”

Kent, it sounds like you are bifurcating the Old Testament and the New Testament—as if the OT were law and the NT were grace. Yet the OT is full of grace and the NT is full of Law.

Do you think that the OT Prophets were not declaring the good news?

Matthew writes:

Dale that might work a little better if you replaced “homosexuality” with Eros or Aphrodite as the god of sex href=”http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article55385.ece”>as Wright mentions in this article for the Independant:

The god of sex has some interesting names to call us if we insist on maintaining the morality common to millennia of Jews, Christians, Muslims and many others.

He challenges the gods of money, war, and sex or, really, our worship of these three so-called gods. I don’t think the issue is really homosexuality at it’s core but the kind of self-worship that mars the beauty of sex that our Creator gave us. We worship our ability to do all kinds of things and the acts in and of themselves rather than the One who gave us these gifts. I think Wright is correct in calling out these three gods. To proclaim the gospel – Jesus is Lord – means that Jesus’ authority challenges all three and it’s quite likely that in proclaiming the gospel we explain the call to turn from them to Jesus.

Matthew, I think that this is on the mark.

You could make the same case for the reason that people have abortions.

So we do need to deal with the root causes of a woman wanting/having an abortion. But I still would tell a woman a) not to have an abortion and b) to repent of having had one.

Finally, it interesting to follow the Apostle Paul’s reasoning in Rom 1:18-32

Matthew, when Paul says “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions”, what do you think the “reason” was that Paul alludes to?

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. ²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. ²⁵ For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever . Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural , ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ²⁸ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; ³² and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Some comments back to Phillip:

1. The worship of a false god is not the same as deviant sexual sin.

I agree—they are not the same.

However (see my previous post), the OT consequences/restitution was the same. If you believe in the lex talionis of the Law (as I do), then the fact that they were both capital crimes is significant.

2. Elijah was specifically called by God for a particular purpose. If you’re saying that you have been called in the same way, give Phelps a call.

No, I’m not called specifically to be a second Elijah. However, all Christians are called to be faithful and to speak prophetically to our culture in every area. Homosexuality is only one of many areas that needs to be addressed. If anyone is emphasizing the sin of homosexuality over other sins in our culture (e.g., covetousness, selfishness, etc), then that’s wrong. But to think that we’ve got to spend as much time on the sin of Baal worship as we do with the sin of homosexuality is also wrong. There are many spiritual parallels we can draw between Baal worship and our culture today; but there are other sins that have a 1:1 correspondence. Neither should be ignored.

3. There was homosexuality in the first century. Jesus never mentioned it. Paul didn’t make it the center of his gospel presentation. It was mentioned, but only along with other sins.

Again, I never said it should be a focus of any churches ministry. The only time that I think it would be appropriate to focus on it would be for some organization like Exodus International Ministries.

4. For that matter, there was idol worship in the first century, and Paul used it only as an introduction to his gospel presentation, and not in a confrontational way.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by “confrontational”.

Let’s pick a different (less emotional) matter. Someone is committing adultery. He is told that it is a sin and he needs to repent. Is that confrontational? Most likely. But the gospel is about God saving sinners; and our need to repent and turn to Him.

5. You want to talk about homosexuality, fine. I’m an Episcopalian, so I “get” that. But to suggest that you can’t present the gospel without bringing the subject up? Wow.

Phillip, I have no idea where you came up with that line “to suggest that you can’t present the gospel without bringing the subject up?”. Wow indeed. That’s not what I have ever, ever suggested.

7. I’m still stuck on how “Christ crucified” makes discussion of homosexuality a necessity, and can’t get past it. Because that’s not all there is to the gospel. The gospel also includes “repent and believe”.

And just in case you didn’t get it: Homosexuality isn’t the only sin that the sinner needs to repent of.

But it just happens to be one that in our current age is flirting with.

Matthew posted an article titled U.S. Methodist Panel Orders Homosexual Minister Defrocked.

Rev. Stroud is cited as saying that “she was in a committed relationship with another woman and had decided to be open about her sexuality because it was the honest, Christian thing to do.”

Actually, the honest, Christian thing to do in this matter (as in all moral matters) is to repent and stop. We have shifted to either a) redefining sin or b) ignoring it as opposed to repenting of it.

Pope Benedict XVI is the Antichrist!

Here is the result of my visit to JS’s site:

Don’t be deceived! Now you have absolute PROOF that Leif Erickson Rigney is the Antichrist!

Just in time for Halloween!!

A BHT Must Listen: Ken Myers interviews Eugene Peterson.

Two firsts for Christianity Today: A great interview with Douglas Gresham, and slightly edited profanity.

How did Paul respond to homosexuality in his culture?

IM is updated, and some good discussion is going on under “A Reformation Day Meditation.”

In honor of Halloween, I’d like to unveil a little page I’ve been working on for the last couple of days: The Antichrist Calculator. The end times are upon us, as we all know, and in this day and age nothing could be more important that knowing which of our friends, neighbors, politicians, and pop stars are the Antichrist or agents of the Antichrist. So, using the ancient and infallible art of numerology, I’ve made a page that will tell you, based on their name alone, whether or not they are the spawn of Satan.

And I’m sure that TR folks everywhere will be happy to know that iMonk is the Antichrist.

To be fair, I should point out that I am also the Antichrist. I wonder how many other tavernites are Antichrists.

RE: the discussion last week about terror and government. I have good news and bad news. The good news is that “suitcase nukes” are mostly impractical. The bad news is that has not stopped Al Qaeda from trying to get nukes.

Read the full story here.

This is going to generate a great deal of discussion for me this week.

Also, a UMC pastor who was placed on involuntary leave for not admitting a practicing homosexual to church membership was reinstated.

HT to WesleyBlog.

Melanie has recently finished reading two books in a planned trilogy called the Wilderking. (Wyman, have you heard of these?) The author is Jonathan Rogers, a fellow Furman alumnus. Says Melanie to her siblings: “They are aimed at 12-year-old boys, but I’ve had a lot of fun with them. I especially think you’d like them because they are set in south-Georgia style swamps and the flora and fauna descriptions really remind me of how you’ve talked about your experiences at Canoochee [River]. They are fun stories, and the setting would sorta be sentimental for you, perhaps.”

The first is a retelling of the story of David. Appears to be more allegorical than Tolkien, but with some of Tolkien’s LOTR themes.

Available here.

An interesting interview on NRO with the author of an investigative book on Wicca. Would that there were more Christian analysts out there like her…

Matthew, a few years ago I made a muscadine wine from my in-laws’ grapes and if I say so myself, it was pretty darn good. A dry white made mostly from Scuppernongs.

ahem “Gossip” ahem

In case you are really wondering, it’s Burgundy.

Is that muscadine wine you’re drinking there, Bill? Or, any other kind of “wine” that doesn’t come with a label on it? I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure that “White Lightning” doesn’t have the same kind of health benefits as real wine :-)

If it comes out of a box, I agree Bill.

Says footballer David Ginola in the Observer:

Ginola’s got enough money to drink what he wants these days, but when he goes home he still visits the cave co-operative with his dad. His tastes, in food as well as wine, remain remarkably simple, even if he likes to drink top Bordeaux or Burgundy on special occasions. Food and wine are intertwined for Ginola, as they are for most French people. ‘A taste for wine begins with a love of food,’ he says. ‘People who don’t like eating don’t really like wine. I’m shocked when I see people drinking wine on its own. Without food, wine is just alcohol.’

about what the sides of this debate are.

The Gospel is that Christ came to save us from the penalty of sin.

If people don’t know what sin is, then the Gospel is unintelligible.

To focus on one sin to the exclusion of all others is wrong.
To focus on any sin to the exclusion of the remedy for sin is wrong.
But to identify some act as sinful seems to be perfectly normative for Christians.

I think you guys are talking circles around each other, but since my head is spinning I can’t be sure.

Drinking wine is like using mouthwash with no place to spit.

I think Christian preaching on sin would be a lot more effective if pastors become more interested and concerned about the needs and problems of his own congregation and weren’t out to change the culture. It’s odd that people like to quote Romans 1 about the depravity of the heathen, but Romans 2 (“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things”) doesn’t get quite the same press. Odd that, as it directly follows Paul’s argument in the preceding verses.

Take another pet verse about homosexual sin – “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10) It is well worth noting that homosexuality is just one sin among many here, including good-old-fashioned heterosexual sin. But of course, we Christians don’t have ANY problems there… yeah right. And look where Paul goes next – “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified…” (I Corinthians 6:11) – Paul wasn’t just ripping the wider culture – he was categorizing the sins of his own flock, and reminding them of the power of the Gospel against those sins.

And, as a last parting shot, the ultimate “verse I’d love to see culture warriors exegete in their system”...

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (I Corinthians 5:9-13)

Phillip & Matthew, free beer, thank you.

Dale, you make a great point. Preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ do sound a lot like the Old Testament prophets. Incredible similarities, good catch.

Dale that might work a little better if you replaced “homosexuality” with Eros or Aphrodite as the god of sex as Wright mentions in this article for the Independant:

The god of sex has some interesting names to call us if we insist on maintaining the morality common to millennia of Jews, Christians, Muslims and many others.

He challenges the gods of money, war, and sex or, really, our worship of these three so-called gods. I don’t think the issue is really homosexuality at it’s core but the kind of self-worship that mars the beauty of sex that our Creator gave us. We worship our ability to do all kinds of things and the acts in and of themselves rather than the One who gave us these gifts. I think Wright is correct in calling out these three gods. To proclaim the gospel – Jesus is Lord – means that Jesus’ authority challenges all three and it’s quite likely that in proclaiming the gospel we explain the call to turn from them to Jesus.

I can tell I’m not going to enjoy reading the BHT for a while.

My brief thoughts, which you can all shred at will:

1. The worship of a false god is not the same as deviant sexual sin. Baal worship and Christianity are 100% mutually exclusive by definition. Homosexuality and Christianity are completely incompatible, but not to the same degree.

2. Elijah was specifically called by God for a particular purpose. If you’re saying that you have been called in the same way, give Phelps a call.

3. There was homosexuality in the first century. Jesus never mentioned it. Paul didn’t make it the center of his gospel presentation. It was mentioned, but only along with other sins.

4. For that matter, there was idol worship in the first century, and Paul used it only as an introduction to his gospel presentation, and not in a confrontational way.

5. You want to talk about homosexuality, fine. I’m an Episcopalian, so I “get” that. But to suggest that you can’t present the gospel without bringing the subject up? Wow.

6. Just, wow.

7. I’m still stuck on how “Christ crucified” makes discussion of homosexuality a necessity, and can’t get past it.

8. Wow.

Kent writes: “My thinking is that someone could preach the gospel for years without needing to even mention homosexual sin. In today’s Christian PC environment that person would be accused of being ‘soft on homosexuality’. Sad.”

Let me rephrase that a little, resetting it to 1 Kings.

“My thinking is that Elijah could preach the gospel for years without needing to even mention Baal worship. In today’s Christian PC environment Elijah would be accused of being ‘soft on Baal Worship’.”

Has anyone else noticed how Elijah was so obsessed with Baal worship?

Sad, really. I mean, instead of telling both groups about the incredible love and grace of the One who created them, Elijah was giving the Baalites a guilt trip for not doing more in the midst of their pain, and trying to convince the other group that they’ve been right all along…

What is wrong with you people! Don’t you realize that today is Satan’s High Holiday for devil worship and cross dressing (I don’t mean you Josh, although, as a former roadie, you were prettier than any of the guys from Stryper). It’s time to get focused, it’s time to prepare, the hour grows late and the onslaught begins tonight. Therefore, I have (I have already discussed this with Rigney and he has approved of my tactics) been busy attempting to build up all of my household defenses against the evil Halloween children and their demonically controlled parents. I have my paint ball gun all charged up and ready to go. I have injected each paintball with the garlic extract, wolfs bane, and holy water (I got that from Hellboy!). My children will be forced to remain on their knees reciting the catholic rites of exorcism while I sit on the front porch diligently defending our home, my wife will be doing her praise and worship dance and tossing out Chick Tracts to the latest WOW Worship CD as the evil Halloween children and their demonically controlled parents stagger past my front yard with the enthusiasm of a hungry zombie with taste of fresh manflesh on its mind. I think we are ready.

Wow, is ‘contributing to the deliquency of a Lutheran’ a crime? If so, lock me up.

It’s amazing what happens when a guy goes to Fargo.

To clarify, my poorly phrased question:

I’m also curious to understand why it must be proclaimed that homosexuality is a sin in order to communicate the gospel, any thoughts?

Was somewhat rhetorical (and it obviously worked), I was complaining out loud that it seemed that the Christian radio folks at the Chris Rice concert on Friday night seemed to care more about proclaiming the sin of homosexuality than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My thinking is that someone could preach the gospel for years without needing to even mention homosexual sin. In today’s Christian PC environment that person would be accused of being ‘soft on homosexuality’. Sad.

Last night on the way back from Fargo I told Laurie that being a ‘Mere’ Christian is like watching a long, slow train wreck in which everyone in the world is on the same train.

All are wounded, all will die, some will be ressurected. In the meantime, most of those who will be ressurected, instead of ministering to all of the dying and wounded are spending their time doing a sort of triage, sorting out those who are going to be ressurected from those who aren’t.

Instead of telling both groups about the incredible love and grace of the One who created them, they are giving one group a guilt trip for not doing more in the midst of their pain, and trying to convince the other group that they’ve been right all along, that “see, I told you that the train was going to crash”.

Josh, a charismatic lady at the concert I went to Friday night was praise and worshipping with that sign you’re doing, what’s it mean?

Wyman, let us not forget:

Tech – 10
Clemson – 9

And there was much rejoicing.

Tommy, I am Galadriel.

Dedication services today were glorious. It feels like Christmas or Easter.

Great find, Douglas. “Luther: The Musical” has some potential, doesn’t it?

The Reformation Polka
by Robert Gebel

[Sung to the tune of “Supercalifragilistic-expialidocious”]

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter’s profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints’ Bull’tin board:
“You cannot purchase merits, for we’re justified by grace!
Here’s 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
“Are these your books? Do you recant?” King Charles did demand,
“I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation – Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting “George” as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin’s model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation – Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let’s raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that ‘catholic’ is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation – Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

There is a beta for Mac OS X Online Bible. OLB is an excellent program that incorporates all the “free” Bible software available in programs like e-sword and Crosswire. I’ve used it longer than any of my Bible programs. If it works on Mac, that is a major step forward.

The New Wrightsaid Questions for October have been posted:

Webmaster’s note: Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, has agreed to answer a few questions occasionally from the Wrightsaid email list. I am pleased to make this Q & A available on the N.T. Wright Page. These are his responses for October, 2005.

—
There has been some recent debate over a controversial book by Steve Chalke which you have endorsed. Chalke has warned that some versions of penal substitution can reduce God to a “cosmic child abuser.” Would you agree with his analysis and do you see that as a danger?

ANSWER: There are some ways of preaching and expounding penal substitution which do indeed reduce it to the crude terms of God demanding that someone suffer and not caring much who it is. This is an attempt to put the vast ocean of God’s saving love into the small bottle of one particular category. When you track penal substitution from its NT statements (Mark 10.45, Romans 8.3, etc etc) back to its roots in Isaiah 53, you discover that in its proper form it is part of a much larger theme, which is God’s vindication of his justice and saving love and his demolition of pagan power and authority. Sometimes evangelicals haven’t wanted to embrace or even notice the larger themes and so have falsely accentuated the sharp edge of penal substitution in isolation from them. I think Steve is reacting to that kind of skewed presentation. Think of it like this. In a musical chord, the ‘third’ (in a chord of C major, this would be the note E) is the critical one that tells you many things, e.g. whether the music is major or minor, happy or sad. That E is vital if the music is to make the sense it does. But if the player plays the E and nothing else, the E no longer means what it’s meant to mean. Likewise, substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether…

—

What do you think of the idea of “Exile”, thematically as a multi-threaded metaphor running through the entire Canon with an actual, real referent – i.e., multi-dimensional alienation from God, self, others, et. al. due to rebellion – beginning with Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden?

ANSWER: It’s a great controlling metaphor. I’m not sure it covers every base in biblical theology but it certainly does a great many of them. I am increasingly fascinated by the way in which the great prophets of the Babylonian exile must have seen, and probably reshaped, the creation-and-fall story in the light of their own experience of ejection from their paradise garden. And that reminds us that the prophecies of Israel’s redemption are to be seen as signposts towards the larger-still redemption which Paul speaks of in Romans 8.18-27.

—

You have said: “Israel was called to be God’s people for the world, and it was Israel’s failure to be God’s people for the world which resulted in God sending his son to be his people incarnate for the world.” This is fairly standard Wrightian phraseology. Does this indicate that Jesus was God’s Plan B?

ANSWER: No. God made humans to be sovereigns over his creation so that he might himself become sovereign over his creation by becoming human. When humans sinned, God called Israel to be the people who would embody and carry forward his purposes of saving love in order that he might himself embody and carry out his purposes of saving love by becoming Israel’s anointed representative. I here take, unambiguously and unashamedly, the position of Duns Scotus (at least as I understand it!): incarnation was in mind from the beginning, and when atonement became necessary it would happen as one central aspect of that always-intended incarnation.

—

In your article “The Law in Romans 2” you write: “The spirit/letter contrast belongs closely, in Paul’s mind, with the contrast between the life in Christ on the one hand and the life in the flesh, and/or life in Judaism, on the other” (pg. 4). Is ‘flesh/sarx’ a technical term in Paul’s writings for Judaism, or does it also apply to all mankind, Gentiles included?

ANSWER: Sarx in Paul has three meanings (I think I say this in the Romans commentary in NIB somewhere): human flesh which is corruptible and will decay and die; human rebellion which tends towards such death; ethnic solidarity especially that of Israel. What Paul manages to do not least in Galatians is to point out that by clinging to ethnic solidarity (‘in the flesh’), those who insist on e.g. circumcision and hence their ethnic solidarity with the people of Abraham are in fact, despite their intentions and hopes, simply emphasizing that which they have in common with all humankind, and that which stresses their solidarity in sin. That is in fact the problem underneath Romans 7…

—

You often speak of Sin as a dominating power, and not just discrete acts of human wickedness. Some have accused you of downplaying personal sin, and its accompanying guilt. How do you conceive of the relationship between Sin as a world-dominating power and sin as acts of human wickedness?

ANSWER: it’s of course absurd to think that I downplay personal sin. Goodness, I know enough about it in my own life and am daily grateful for the kindness and faithful forgiving love of God in Christ. I have tried in my writings to track as faithfully as I can the way in which Paul himself uses ‘Sin’ sometimes as a power (e.g. Romans 7) and sometimes as specific actions of sin. The latter are clearly a manifestation of the former; though sometimes it seems he is using ‘Sin’ in a personified way where he could actually have said ‘Satan’. On the one hand, it is clear that all humans (other than Jesus) do in fact perform acts which constitute a refusal of the vocation to be genuinely, God-reflectingly human, and which therefore ‘miss the mark’ of that lovely, fully-human life which is not only glorifying to God in itself but which reflects that glory powerfully and creatively into the world. On the other hand, ‘Sin’ as a large-scale power has as its main aim the distortion, corruption and ultimately destruction of God’s good and beautiful and powerful world of creation. The link then becomes apparent: if Sin-as-a-power is to succeed, what is required is that human beings are deflected from their task of reflecting God’s glory and love into the world; in other words, if they default on the vocation to live as gladly-obedient, God-reflecting humans and so effectively hand power over either to elements of creation itself or to Sin which will only too readily use it…

—

You have said that some want to judge salvation based on an intellectual assent to monergism: we have gone to justification by faith in justification by faith alone.

In what way is individual resurrection connected to doctrinal confession?

I don’t want to say that Intellectual assent is REQUIRED for salvation, else my infants would not be saved…but I don’t want to say that bald rejection of something like the Kingship of Jesus is permissible however.

Where do we draw a line, and can we require an assent to facts without creating a new line of synergism by doing so? Are assent and rejection exactly equal?

ANSWER: I confess I’m not so clear exactly what’s at stake here. Yes, there is a danger in supposing that we are justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, rather than in Jesus. That’s a point already well made by Hooker in the C16. The key is that the reception of the gospel of Jesus in the human heart produces that change right across the personality which will, given a chance to come to flower, produce the belief in the resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus. Infants can perfectly well have this faith in embryonic form; when a loving mother feeds her baby, she is or can be preaching the gospel through the unconditional love she offers and the baby can respond. There’s lots more I could say about that but no time now. The question comes when someone is older, and mentally capable, and the implicit and embryonic faith has to grow up and stand on its own feet. At this point assent to events is important, not to turn faith into a work but because the gospel message is precisely that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. I’m not sure what’s implied by the question of assent and rejection being ‘exactly equal’. I am reminded of C. S. Lewis’s examples of questions which even God finds unanswerable: is yellow square or round? How many hours are there in a mile?

Dale: I understand your point. I believe I said, a couple of times, that we can talk about individual sins as long as we talk about sin in general such that the Biblical message- we are all sinners- is clear. (per John 8) I also said that there is a basis for talking about individual sins, but in my opinion that basis is usually not the Gospel. Talking about abortion is appropriate, but saying an abortionist needs the Gospel more than I need Christ doesn’t make sense to me. The illustration about racism was a good one, imo, because it proves my point that you can talk about the sins of the racist, but when we talk about the Gospel, we still have to say we are all sinners.

I didn’t chase the theological roots of this, but it seems to me to be the practical outworking of what we believe about federal headship in Adam and in Christ. Yes?

Josh/Readers: Kent’s question was clear, and my answer was clear: Those who single out homosexuality for condemnation ironically seem to rarely preach the Gospel clearly. I think I said it multiple times: It appears to me that the singling out of homosexuality goes along with an obscuring of the Gospel. There is a strange correlation between hyper-emotionalism about homosexuality as a sin, and failure to see one’s own reaction to homosexuality as scapegoating. That’s my opinion.

>Can I read? “I’m also curious to understand why it must be proclaimed that homosexuality is a sin in order to communicate the gospel, any thoughts?” So that’s a “Yes/No?” Hmmm….I write a few tests and it doesn’t look like a “Yes/No” to me.

“Any thoughts?”” is an invitation to thoughts. ”...why…” is an invitation to analysis. I don’t see the “yes/no” in that invitation. I really must have a reading problem. It appeared to me that Kent was asking, in the context of Canadian Christian broadcasting/preaching in particular, WHY homosexuality was singled out in what we assume is a “Gospel” presentation. I said- answering the “any thoughts?” invitation, that it appears to me those who single out homosexuality tend to NOT present the Gospel.

I do, however, see the “yes-agree with me/no-attack me” angle of Josh’s answer. The extent to which Josh has made any discussion with him into a personal war really makes any “thoughts” or “why-analysis” impossible. You can all read what you are going to get in the two exchanges I’ve attempted on here in the last week. In both, Josh turns the kinds of discussion that goes on in the BHT into highly inflamed personal exchanges, which allows him to say whatever he wishes about the other person in self-defense. All the points of the other person are scored as if they were intentional, hostile, personal attacks on Josh.

He’s said it repeatedly, and I believe it: he doesn’t believe in discussions; he believes in war between theological viewpoints and that all discussion is nothing more than attempts to “defeat” him. The stronger the opinion of the other side, the more he can claim to being personally attacked. If I mention James Dobson, he can say that’s “my world,” not his. He can talk about all the aspects of my comments that don’t have ANYTHING to do with him, which is pretty simple, because virtually none of my comments had anything to do with him.

I’m permanently done talking to Josh on the BHT. Not because I can’t handle this- I can- and not because it makes me angry- it doesn’t. I’m simply tired of BHT readers having to wade through this and the strange assumptions of these angry replies. I appreciate Josh’s mind, and I had some hope that the kind of discussions that happen in here would preview future discussions with professors and fellow students in seminary. I’ve decided there is no further point. My attempts at discussion are contributing to a tedious atmosphere for all and a continuing sense of failure for me. There is a reason no one else joins in on these little debates. (Yes, I get your emails, lurkers and fellows.) It’s time I yielded the point and admitted defeat: I can’t have a continuing theological exchange with Josh.

On a lighter note, I would like to announce that I am Yoda. I’m pleased with that.

Which Sci-Fi character are you? HT to Gandalf at Fattriplets.

Michael writes, “I haven’t yet figured out anyone’s basis for preaching one sin more than another.”

Michael, I have a couple thoughts on this matter.

I agree with the dictum that “no sin is so large as to be mortal; and no sin so small as to be venial”: Any sin can damn; and God’s grace can forgive any sin.

Yet, there are sins that in God’s eyes are more significant than others. We can see that in the lex talionis of the Law. Restitution has to be made for sins committed against one another; some restitutions are more sever than others; and some sins required the death penalty (there was no human restitution possible).

Further, there are sins that a culture is more prone to than others. In Idaho, we don’t have a problem with people boiling kids in the mother’s milk; and no problems with worshipping golden calves.

But we do have other sins that are culturally acceptible. To say publicly that gossip or murder is a sin: no one raises an eyebrow. But dare say that homosexuality is a sin to be repented of, and people go wild.

Michael: RE: the Nazi’s, I think you’re thinking of Godwin’s Law – “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

>If you had been a pastor in Germany in 1938, would you have said anything from the pulpit about the treatment of Jews, or would you have said to those “Confessing Church” guys that emphasizing the sin of the day was just works-righteousness and obscuring the Gospel, and that Christians shouldn’t be running through the streets denouncing racial triumphalism?

Nice apple to my orange. And isn’t there an award for getting comparisons to Nazis into a discussion asap?

I listen to people single out homosexuality as the “sin we most love to denounce” all the time. If I ever mention homosexuality from the pulpit, I get audible “amens.” I used to eat lunch with a so-called Christian brother who never tired of describing ways to dismember and torture homosexuals. I have Christian students who don’t even blink at using whatever hateful terms they want to talk about homosexuals.

So, no, I don’t see the point of singling out homosexuality besides other sexual sins, being silent about those sins and making as much hateful fund-raising hay as possible off of bigotry towards homosexuals. When we talk of specific sins, we better say a bit more or we aren’t telling the whole story.

Now, how you turned that into a scenario where I am a coward and a silent facilitator of the death of Jews is just gamey. Speaking up about the treatment of Jews was a Christian duty on any number of counts: the distorting of the Gospel by Nazis, and the general love of neighbor being the two biggest.

There are plenty of times to discuss particular sins, and plenty of times to mention particular sins. Pointing fingers as to “who is the worst?” isn’t one of them. You’ve read John 8, I’m sure. Jesus did have specific things to say about adultery in a number of places. He also said “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” There’s a difference.

There are plenty of people talking about homosexuality today that are not pointing to homosexuals as the scapegoats of all our cultural evils. I’m one of them. I talk about individual sins whenever scripture does….and I keep in mind what the Final Word, Jesus, says about all sins.

Those who use their radio/television time to do an imitation of a minor league Fred Phelps may have the admiration of some, but I’ll say “No, thanks.” Preaching about sin Biblically isn’t a finger-wagging, hate-speech justifying, Gospel-obscuring excuse-making spin for bigotry. That’s what I hear 95% of the time, and it has nothing to do with the Gospel. Defending Jews and denouncing facsism are one thing. Talking about how any person is the scum of the earth and not worthy of life or forgiveness is something else. (Basically, behaving like a Nazi toward homosexuals is never justifiable, and that’s what we have now.)

I mean, good grief…Jim Dobson isn’t preaching the Gospel. He is obsessed with homosexuals because he wants to save the culture.

BTW- who is scoring this discussion?

So Josh….if emphasizing the “sins of the day” is part of preaching the Gospel, why do the Christian groups that spend all their time pointing out that homosexuals are perverts headed for hell NOT preach the Gospel, but instead preach repentance, moral reform and the conservative Christian version of the social gospel?

Preaching “repent of your homosexuality” to homosexuals seems to usually go right along with preaching works righteousness and devaluing grace. It seems to be part and parcel with the kind of theology that believes some of us are really scandalous sinners, while the rest of us are, at least, not perverts.

I haven’t yet figured out anyone’s basis for preaching one sin more than another.

This is one place Luther got it right. Paul has his sin lists all right…and they go from gossip to murder, emphasizing that all of it is rot. The emphasis on homosexuals as sinners comes at the expense of saying we are all sinners. It turns into a distortion of the Gospel, not to mention as an excuse for Christians with some issues of their own to vent hatred toward a select group of scapegoats.

Romans 1 uses homosexuality as an example of idolatry and of the fruit of the entire process of rejecting God. I don’t think Romans 1 was supposed to have Christians running throught the streets of Rome particularly denouncing homosexuals as deserving of hell.

The emphasis on homosexuality comes at the expense of the Gospel in 95% of the cases I’ve every heard.

Good morning all. Just thought I’d share some joy this morning. Here it is:

South Carolina – 16
Tennessee – 15

Thank you. That is all. You are dismissed now.

W