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!!