On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts—most saying they’ve never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis.
The tornado happens on a Wednesday...during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's national convention in the Minneapolis Convention Center. The convention is using Central Lutheran across the street as its church. The church has set up tents around it’s building for this purpose.
Piper notes the schedule of what was to occur during the 5th session of ELCA's convention.
Date: Wednesday, August 19
Time: 2PM
Title: "Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality"
Description: Whether practicing homosexuality should disqualify someone from pastoral ministry.
The eyewitness then continues his account of the tornado.
This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.Did this tornado just by chance hit the church that the ELCA was meeting at, at the exact moment of the beginning of their meeting? Looks more like design than coincidence to me. Or was this tornado sent by God as judgment upon the ELCA? They did, in fact, eventually pass the proposed social statement on human sexuality, which allows practicing homosexual pastors. Or was this tornado a warning sent not only to the ELCA, but also to everyone who hears of this phenomenon? With more wisdom than I have, Dr. Piper reminds us all of Luke 13:4-5.
The time: 2PM.
The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what’s left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.
“Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”Therefore, we would be wise to take this event as an opportunity to repent of our own sins, lest we be judged and find ourselves outside the Cross of Christ.
I have a hard time believing that is wrong for a pastor to be openly homosexual. The few verses in the Bible that Christians quote as being proof that homosexuality is a sin, are verses that are right next to other ones that say you can't eat shrimp! (read Leviticus) I'm pretty sure most Christians still eat shrimp, and yet no one is accusing them of sin. It is hard for me to ever believe a religion that takes bits and pieces of the Bible and uses them to their advantage but leaves others that they deem no longer necessary, accurate, etc.
ReplyDeleteFor any "Christian" to ever suggest that a natural event is a sign of condemnation of homosexuality is absolutely ridiculous. Claims like this are the reason many intelligent people find Christianity to be a bit silly.
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, why would God disapprove of progressive behavior that tries to include all of his followers in worship? That baffles me. Get over it! Being gay is not a "sin."
Nowhere in the Bible is there a passage that suggests being a homosexual is a sin. Not only that, Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus. Last I checked, Jesus was inclusive of all (and not just in the "I'm gonna try and convert them type of way", he actually cared and loved them) and never spoke once about homosexuality. And I agree with David, trying to claim that an act of nature symbolizes God's will is pretty ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteBesides all this, who cares? What did a homosexual ever do to you? One of the best sermons I've heard came from a gay man. The sexual preference of a human being says nothing about who they are or what kind of life they live. If the point of Mr. Piper's blog is to save people from their sins, shouldn't we be focusing on people whose sins actually hurt and affect others? Some of the greatest people I know just happen to like people of the same sex. So what? So they can't reproduce? There are lots of heterosexual couples who can't reproduce either. I'd say that if you're looking for a leader of the church to be an example of truly loving others and following Jesus' teachings, their sexual preference doesn't matter.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for your comment. Your statement is genuine and one that many Christians probably wouldn't be able to respond to immediately. My response is twofold.
1. You are correct that Christians often use verses in Leviticus (Lev. 18:22 & 20:13) to prove that homosexuality is a sin, when in fact, right next these verses are statements saying that eating shrimp is a sin as well. At first glance, it would seem like Christians are using "bits and pieces of the Bible to their advantage but leave others that they deem no longer necessary or accurate." However, this is not exactly true.
The laws that are explicitly stated in Leviticus are often called the Mosiac law, because they were given to Moses on Mount Sinai for him to give to Israel. Not only were there moral laws (such as laws against stealing and homosexuality), but there were also food laws (i.e. no shrimp), ceremonial laws, and civil laws. These laws were meant to show Israel that it is impossible to live up to the holy standards that God calls all of us to. They were meant to show us that we are naturally a sinful people. That's why, as a part of the Mosaic law, God introduced the sacrificial system in order to cover over the sins of his people. The priest would enter into the temple with a young lamb, lay his hands on it thus symbolically transferring the sins of Israel onto the lamb, and then he would slaughter it. The lamb would die in the place of Israel. This sacrifice had to be done over and over again to cover over the sins of Israel... up until 33 AD. Why 33 AD? Because that was when Jesus completely fulfilled the whole Mosaic law (Matthew 5:17-18). He fulfilled the moral, civil, ceremonial, and food laws by following all of them to the dot; he was perfectly sinless. And to finish fulfilling the Mosaic law, he became the sacrificial system. He was the Lamb that was slain... on a cross. All of our sins were laid on his back, he took them to the cross, and was slain like a young lamb, so that now we do not have to continually offer up sacrifices year after year for our sins. Jesus Christ has already paid the ultimate sacrifice once for all time (Hebrews 9:12). Therefore, when we trust in him as our Savior from our sins, having already taken our sins upon himself, he gives up his right standing (i.e. righteousness) with God. All this to say, when Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect life, and died on a cross in our place, he fulfilled the whole Mosaic law. And by fulfilling it, he superseded it.
So how does this respond to your comment? It would seem that since the Mosaic law is abolished, we can eat shrimp if we like and we can be homosexual if we like. Not so much. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and replaced it with the law of Christ. The law of Christ is now found in the teachings of Jesus and in the rest of the New Testament.
Therefore, as Christians, we no longer follow the Mosiac law (i.e. the laws set out in Leviticus); we follow the law of Christ. This brings me to my second point.
(see 2nd comment).
2. Leviticus is not the only place in the Bible where God addresses homosexuality. There are many references to homosexuality in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis where God first reveals his displeasure of this act. In addition to these Old Testament passages about homosexuality, there are even more references to homosexuality in the New Testament. Three of the most explicit are found in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, & 1 Timothy 1:10. The verses in Romans are posted below.
ReplyDelete"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
On top of this, 1 Corinthians says that men who practice homosexuality (as well as adulterers, thieves, & the greedy) will not get to heaven. These verses reveal the law of Christ.
The Bible speaks explicitly to the issue of homosexuality. There is no getting around it. Homosexuality is sin. However, so is lying, so is stealing, so lusting. The sin of homosexuality is no greater sin than any of these. They all deny the law of Christ. Now, here's the problem. We all sin. You do, I do, Bob does... all of us. But thanks be to God who has sent down his Son to take our sin upon himself if we trust in him as Savior & King.
I hope that makes sense. That's why Christians believe eating shrimp is sinless but committing acts of homosexuality is sinful. Christianity does not "take bits & pieces of the Bible and use them to their advantage but leave others that it deems no longer necessary & accurate." If that were true, I couldn't believe it either.
Unfortunately, the verses you have quoted do not speak about homosexuality in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship. But, I realize there is always a point to make in defense when you have become so ingrained with a anti-homosexual mindset.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm really thinking is: If all of this is true, then why does God make people gay?! If they're so sinful, wouldn't he (or she) make all living beings into happy heteros? There's the rub; some people are born gay, and everyone is made in God's image.
David,
ReplyDeleteThe reason the verses I quoted do not speak about homosexuality in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship is because God through his Word does not speak about homosexuality in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship. You just won't find that in Scripture.
But I can't help but wonder, what do you do with those verses? How can you take part of what the Bible says and claim it as true (that we are all made in God's image), and yet deny other parts of the Bible as false (that homosexuality is not described as a sin in the Bible)?
As for your question, you and I have different convictions. You believe people are born gay. I don't. Therefore, for me to answer your question, I would say that God doesn't make people gay. People choose to be gay.
Also, please keep the scope of this blog post in mind. I did not post this article to make a statement about homosexuals. I posted it to show that the church in America is slowly drifting from its biblical roots, and evidence of this is seen in the decision of the ELCA to ordain gay ministers. In addition, I posted it because I believe God is opposed to those who claim to trust in Him, yet deny certain teachings from his Word. Just like Jesus. Jesus befriended the afflicted and the poor, the prostitutes and the sinners. But he was very harsh with the Pharisees, those who claimed to be religious but, in fact, were further from salvation than the prostitutes and sinners themselves.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response, I appreciate it.
I do have another follow up question for you. The Scripture you are reading and quoting - what version of the Bible is this from? I tend to be a little skeptical of these passages that outright say homosexuality is a sin. First, the word homosexual wasn't even used until the 18th century. Second, that verse in Romans is kind of misleading. I took a class on the history of the New Testament (taught by a Jew actually, very interesting), and when you look at when Paul wrote Romans, it was common practice for men to have close relationships with one another. I guess this all depends on how you define "close", but I have a hard time believing that Jesus would really be upset about the relationship between two men since he never said anything about it. Also, Paul is the one who also wrote about how women must be subordinate to their husbands. Now I know most modern readers of the Bible claim that you have to either look at the context of what this was written or there is some fancy translation of these verses, but the point is that very few people take these verses literally. Paul lived during a different era, a different period, a different culture than we do. And it's not right for people to claim that some of his writing we have to take literally and others we don't.
Additionally, there are scientific facts to prove that people are born gay. I find it hard to argue with science.
Also, while I understand the purpose and reasoning behind your blog post, I must ask you this: if God does not want gay people to be ordained ministers, why doesn't He bring tornado's upon every single Christian church/organization/meeting of the superiors? You said yourself being gay is no worse a sin than for instance, being divorced. Why does the church allow for people who live in "acceptable" sins (divorce, lying, cheating, stealing) to lead the church and not gay people? If the standard for ministry is to be leading a completely sin-free life, there would be no way any one could make it. The bottom line is that Mr. Piper and those who follow him have decided that some sins are worse than others and twisted the words of the Bible (and not of Jesus) to prove their points.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your honest comments & questions. You're keeping me on my toes. If you don't mind, I think that I am going to answer your questions in no particular order. No reason; I just feel like it.
Question #1: Why doesn't God bring tornadoes upon every single Christian organization that ordains homosexual pastors? Have you ever heard of the term "common grace?" It might be easiest to understand with an example first, then a definition. According to Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death." Therefore, at the moment we first sin, we should be struck dead and cast into hell. That's what happened to some of the angels. "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell..." (2 Peter 2:4). But when Adam & Eve first sinned, they were not immediately killed and cast into hell. They lived a long life and eventually died. How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death? Common grace. Theologian Wayne Grudem defines common grace as "the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation." So why doesn't God send judgment upon all churches who ordain homosexual ministers? I think some of it has to do with common grace. But it's not the tornadoes that we should be worried about. It's the judgment that is coming, and when it comes, common grace will be no more.
Question #2: Why does the church allow for people who live in "acceptable" sins (divorce, lying, cheating, stealing) to lead the church and not gay people? This is a great question, and one I completely agree with. Sadly, it seems that there are just as many scandals in politics as there are in the pulpit. I wish this weren't so. To answer your question simply, I don't know why the church allows people who live in "acceptable" sins to lead the church and not homosexuals. They shouldn't allow either of them.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 lays out the qualifications of overseers (pastors) and deacons (those who serve in the church). They are pretty straightforward & stringent qualifications. I would type it out for you to read here, but it's too long. Click on this link to read it (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20timothy%203:1-13&version=ESV). As you can see from this passage, God holds pastors and those who serve in the church to a much higher standard. Not a sinless standard, but a high one. They must be "above reproach." Like you said, if the standard for ministry was sinlessness, no one could lead the church. But living in continual, unrepentant sin (adultery, addiction to pornography, homosexuality, alcohol abuse, etc.) is grounds for not allowing someone into the pulpit. "Acceptable" or "not acceptable", liars, cheaters, thieves, adulters, & homosexuals alike should not be allowed to lead the church.
Mr. Piper and those who follow him (including myself) believe all sins are equally disgraceful in the eyes of a holy God.
I'll have to finish my response on another comment. I'm running out of characters.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteHere's the rest of my response to your comment.
Question #3: What version of the Bible am I quoting from? I am quoting from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible. I prefer it because it is a word-for-word translation similar to the NASB and the NKJV. English word-for-word translations translate each Greek & Hebrew word into English first, and then modify the wording to make sense to us. These translations tend to be closer to the actual wording of the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts. Other translations are phrase-for-phrase translations like the NIV & NLT versions. Phrase-for-phrase translations take a chunk of the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts and translate that chunk into wording we can understand in English. These translations tend to be easier to read but further from the original wording of the Greek & Hebrew manuscripts. Just good info to know.
Comment #4: "The word homosexual wasn't even used until the 18th century." I don't really understand how this helps build a case for homosexuality not being a sin. Just because there wasn't an English word for homosexuality until the 18th century doesn't mean that the act itself can't be described as sinful. Maybe I'm missing you're point.
Comment #5: "Paul lived during a different era, a different period, & a different culture than we do. And it's not right for people to claim that some of his writing we have to take literally and others we don't." I agree with both of statements here wholehearted, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from them.
Yes, Paul did live in a different era & culture. And yes, I absolutely agree that we cannot take some of his writings literally and others not. That leaves us with two options. We either take all of Paul's writing literally, or we take none of his writing literally. From what I understand in your statement is that you want to take none of Paul's writing literally. I don't. I want to take it all literally.
Two reasons.
1. Don't you think that God's Word transcends time & culture? If the Bible is God's means for revealing himself and his commandments to his creation, I would think that His Word is timeless and should not be reinterpreted because we live in a different culture. For example, would you say that God's command to not murder should not be taken literally because you live in a tribe of cannibals? No. Though cannibalism may be culturally acceptable, it is still sin because God's Word transcends time. I think the same applies here with Paul's teachings on homosexuality, women being submissive (not "subordinate") to their husbands, and anything else he taught in his letters.
2. How do you take Paul's teaching on homosexuality not literally? Maybe I should clarify. If we don't take something literally, I'm assuming we can mean two things. Either we take Paul's teaching figuratively, or we don't take it at all. But how do you take Paul's teaching on homosexuality figuratively? I see no metaphor or analogy within Paul's description of homosexuality that was meant to be taken figuratively. So if we don't take it figuratively, then we just flat out don't take it. We deny it's true for today. And you throw some of Paul's teaching out, you might as well throw Paul out. And if you throw out Paul, you might as well throw out the whole New Testament since he wrote most of it. And without the New Testament, the Old Testament's empty, so trash that as well. In my opinion, to be intellectually consistent, we take it all or we take none of it.
My hope is that you will take all of it.
By the way, I've enjoyed these conversations. Besides my wife and my mom, you, David, & Anonymous are the only ones who have commented on my blog. I guess I just have to post something controversial to get people to read it. Ha! Hope you are doing well.
I would be incredibly interested in the scientific data that proves individuals are born gay. I have heard that argument from straight people defending gays, but never any gay individual that I've befriended.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest that you watch the movie "For the Bible Tells Me So". Granted I'm sure it won't change your mind but it would give you a better understanding as to where people who disagree with your stance on homosexuality are coming from.
ReplyDeleteSure. I would actually really enjoy gaining a better understanding of a point of view different than my own. Can I just get it on Amazon?
ReplyDeleteIt is actually free on youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY (they changed the name in the title but this is the movie)
ReplyDeleteAlso read: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I've only ever heard this evidence referenced, never presented. Would it even matter, though? Given the fallen nature of humanity, it shouldn't be surprising that some sins would "come naturally" to some individuals.
Andrew, this comment of yours FRIGHTENS ME!!!
ReplyDeleteBuddhism FTW