To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how unwise it is to listen to the claims of hypocrisy made against Christians by unbelievers because we are not following the Bible the way they think we should. Though Clark had specific unbelievers in mind like Jonathan Merrit and Rachel Held because at least Merit holds us accountable to the Old Covenant, Clark seems to have generalized his claim to more unbelievers This appeared in Heidelblog.
The Old Covenant, Jonathan Merrit and others aside, we cannot dismiss charges of hypocrisy simply because unbelievers are making the accusations. Why? Because unbelievers are not just concerned with us following the Old Covenant, they are concerned with our personal actions, way of life, and political support for policies and candidates they believe violate what Jesus taught.
There is another reason why we should be concerned. That reason should be that we should not provide any stumbling blocks to those who are in position to hear us share God's Word. And considering that we are saved by grace, what harm is there in admitting wrongdoing when it is rightfully pointed out by an unbeliever? Perhaps our willingness to listen to unbelievers even when it entails correction just might make them more willing to listen to us when we talk about sin and the need for the Savior.
We should note that when we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say, not do or are silent on can be associated with the Gospel. And that should strike great fear in our hearts because we all often fail to rightly represent Christ in how we treat others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately Feb 11
To Gene Veith and his article that claimed that Christian teaching on sex was being criminalized when Dr Juhana Pohjola was being investigated for hate speech while preaching against homosexuality. This appeared on the Cranach blog on the Patheos website
Veith's article wasn't entirely accurate. A key statement in question which has brought an investigation is:
Instead, the scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development
That statement comes from the first article referenced by Veith. We should note that that statement is false according to scientific material. It is false according to medical associations like the APA. Also note that making such a statement goes beyond teaching what the Scriptures teach.
We should also note that, in the past, the Church led the charge for criminalizing homosexuality, in particular some of its sexual practices. In this nation, even masturbation was counted as a criminal offense. And yet, how many of us would object to bringing back those laws as strongly as we object to the investigation.
Pohjola is being investigated for inciting hatred against a group. And isn't that the challenge that faces us today. How can we preach God's Word without both compromising and inciting hatred, which often occurs when we overstate our case. Romans 1 is stands clearly against homosexuality. But in the context of Romans 1-3, does it portray homosexuals as being far worse sinners than the rest of us? Romans 3:9 says NO! In addition, when referencing natural law, we need to recognize the fact that homosexuality, at various levels, is found in approximately 1,500 species.
We need to determine whether it is the mere teaching of the Bible or our overstating of what the Bible says that is being investigated here. We also should take great pains to not describe homosexuality in ways that cause others to hate homosexuals. Why? Paul certainly didn't talk about homosexuality that way while describing it as being against God's Word. So why should we?
No comments:
Post a Comment