Signs of Sexual Rot: Diminished Masculinity & Femininity

Gender Roles 1

If you are looking for a book that will help you counsel someone with sexual problems or work through your own sexual problems then I would recommend Dr. Harry Schaumburg’s Undefiled.   Dr. Schaumburg at the time of this book (2009) had counseled almost 1,500 couples and has been counseling over thirty years with eighteen years devoted exclusively to sexual issues.  In one of the early chapters of the book he discusses how prevalent sexual sin is in the church.  He says that some research puts the number of church members watching porn at 50%. One mission organization told him that 80% of their applicants voluntarily indicated a problem with porn. One seminary professor said we no longer ask, are you using porn. But rather how bad is it? Dr. Schaumburg closes with this statement, “This rot in the church must be addressed or the devastation will be incalculable.” He then gives nine indicators of the problem. I will quote the first here and give the other eight in an subsequent post. Why quote the first one in full? It gets at one of the roots of our sexual malaise: rejection of created ordered and a failure to rejoice that men are men and women are women. Here are the two paragraphs under that indicator.  Continue reading

Emergency Baptisms in Geneva

Baptism 1

Here is a section from Scott Manetsch’s excellent book Calvin’s Company of Pastors about why emergency baptisms were banned in Geneva. An emergency baptism was when a newborn who was about to die was baptized.

During the first decades after Geneva’s Reformation, the Consistory [pastors who oversaw Geneva’s spiritual care] investigated a handful of baptismal cases in outlying villages where godparents or midwives performed emergency baptisms out of concern for the salvation of a sickly newborn infant. While Lutheran churches in Germany permitted this traditional practice, Geneva’s ministers viewed emergency baptisms as pernicious because the sacraments should only be performed by ministers in the assembly of the faithful in conjunction with the preaching of the Word, and they were predicated on the false Catholic teaching that baptism was necessary for salvation. It was with these theological concerns in mind that the Consistory sharply rebuked a woman named Claude Mestral in 1548 for allowing a midwife to baptize her sick infant out of the mistaken belief that “if the children of believers do not have the external sign [of baptism] they will perish.” Though emergency baptisms became extremely rare in reformed Geneva after 1550, nevertheless, the parental instinct to assure the spiritual well-being of sickly children through baptism was very difficult to root out entirely. This is seen in the fact that, in the rural parish of Russin in 1599, parents continued to bring sick newborns to their pastor in the middle of the night to request baptism. The Venerable Company instructed the pastor of Russin and other countryside ministers to remind their congregations that “the doctrine which claims baptism is necessary for salvation is false” and that all baptisms should be celebrated in the presence of the Christian assembly and in conjunction with Christian preaching.

There are several interesting ideas in this paragraph.

First, it is clear that in Geneva, baptism was not considered necessary to salvation. Therefore, I think it follows, given the general teaching on the covenant, that baptism was administered because the child was in covenant, not in order to bring the child into the covenant.

Second, the pastors in Geneva kept a close eye on liturgical practices that would undermine Biblical truth. Allowing mid-wives to baptize sick newborns taught a particular view of baptism: that without it a child was not saved. They saw this as dangerous and therefore eliminated the practice. We should carefully watch our liturgical practices, both in worship and outside, to make sure our actions are not undermining the truth.

Let me give two examples. First, what does it say if we allow unordained fathers to baptize their children? Second, what does it say if we allow women to teach men in small groups, Sunday school, church conferences, etc. but refuse them the pulpit? Too many Christians assume that liturgical practices have little impact. That is deadly and allows false teaching to creep in unnoticed.

Third, again showing pastoral wisdom, Geneva’s ministers looked at why a person was doing a particular action. Wanting to have a child baptized was a good thing. But the why mattered. If you wanted your child baptized because you thought baptism was necessary for salvation there was a problem that needed to be addressed. Doing the right thing does not always mean the right thing is being done for the right reason.

Finally, baptism was a church event, not a family event. It was to take place in worship where God’s people were gathered and where God’s Word was preached.  There are numerous reasons for this including the necessity of the Word. But one key reason is that raising children takes the effort and prayers of the whole church body. The child is becoming part of God’s people. When we baptize babies we have vows for the parents, but we also have vows for the congregation. This is one of our liturgical practices that we believe reinforces a Biblical truth: the whole congregation in various ways and at various levels is responsible for leading a child to Christ and teaching them the ways of Christ. Here are the congregational vows we include in our baptismal service.

Covenant Vows for the Congregation
Minister: Do you promise as a covenant community to assist [Parent’s Name] by word, prayer, and Christian fellowship to raise [Child’s Name] in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
People: By God’s grace we do!

Do you, the people of the Lord, promise to receive [Child’s Name] with love into Christ’s Church, pray for him, help instruct him in the faith, encourage, and sustain him in the fellowship of believers to the end that he may faithfully walk with Christ all his days and come at last to his eternal kingdom?
People: By God’s grace we do!

In Geneva, baptism was important but did not save, was communal, not individual, and was to attached to the Word, not separated from it.

Get to the Meat, Read Theology

Calvin-Latin

One of the great weaknesses in Christianity today, particularly among her pastors and leaders, is the lack of theological foundation. I have seen this weakness in my own life in my ten years of ministry. I went to Bible school and graduated from a conservative, reformed, seminary. Yet despite this I was not prepared theologically for pastoral ministry. I spent too much time in practical books that dealt with contemporary subjects and too little that dealt with the great truths of God’s Word. As I moved through pastoral ministry I became more and more aware that I did not have a solid theological foundation.  I did not know the catechisms, confessions, creeds, nor basic theological categories. I found this often led me astray. A cool, neat, sounding, novel idea would gain my ear. I would later find out it was either poorly worded, unnecessary because there are better answers, or just plain wrong. This could have been prevented by a thorough study of classic works. Here are some suggestions directed primarily at those who are in ministry or are going into ministry. Continue reading

And They Approve Those Who Practice Such Things

Sheep 2

Can you be an unrepentant, practicing homosexual and a follower of Jesus Christ?   I want to answer this question and then follow it up with a second, perhaps more pertinent question, what if a person doesn’t practice sodomy, but approves of those who do? Just to be clear I am discussing how to deal with those who claim to be Christians yet either practice homosexuality or approve of those who do. I am not talking about how to interact with non-Christians on the subject.

Sexual Immorality Keeps You Out of the Kingdom

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
(Lev 18:22)

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5:5)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 6:9-10)

Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood (Rev 22:14-15)

An unrepentant sinner of any kind is bound for Hell. This includes thieves, liars, drunkards, and the sexually immoral, such as practicing homosexuals, adulterers, porn addicts, and lesbians. Just to cut off “but what about,” I am not talking about a man struggling with his sin, fighting it, sometimes winning and sometimes losing. Nor am I talking about a new Christian or immature Christian who does not understand what the Scriptures teach nor has learned how to wage war on sin. I remember hearing of a Christian couple, new to the faith, who were living together unmarried. They had no idea it was wrong, until a pastor told them. That is not the situation I am talking about. Continue reading

Dangers of Being a Man Pleaser

 

Office Workers 1.jpg

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. (Colossians 3:22, KJV)

 

Paul warns us in this passage to make sure we serve God and not just our employers in our vocations. When a man first gets a job he usually has a great desire to impress his boss. Of course, this is good. But Paul tells us this is insufficient. What are the dangers of “eyeservice” and “menpleasing?” (By the way, the ESV version says, “people pleasers.” That is lame.) Before we note the dangers let’s be clear on what Paul is saying. He is not saying we should aim to displease our “masters according to the flesh.” All employees should seek to honor their bosses. But Paul is saying that our ultimate allegiance is to God. Paul closes this verse by focusing on singleness of heart, which means a whole-hearted devotion to God. We are to fear God. We are to obey our masters, but our hearts are to be completely devoted to our Lord.  What are the dangers of man’s approval being our ultimate goal instead of God’s? Continue reading

Mere Sexuality

cbmw

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) released the Nashville Statement this week.  I have had more disagreements with the CBMW over the years. Initially I was enthralled by them. But more reading, in particular historical reading, has led me away from them. However, this statement is good. It lays out mere sexuality, as in basic, very basic, Biblical sexual ethics concerning marriage, sodomy and transgenders. Initially, I thought the statement was too basic to be worthwhile. But the response by many progressive Christians has vindicated the need for it. Surprise, surprise many Christians are not as firm on the basics as they let on.  Continue reading

Is the Church Supposed to be a Persecuted Minority?

Different Person

The idea of Jesus as a persecuted minority and therefore the founder of a persecuted minority group, i.e. the Church, has become common currency in theological circles. The basic idea has been around in different forms for a long time in ideas such as the remnant, some Reformation era Anabaptists, and die-hard dispensationalists. But recently minority groups have used this idea to put themselves in the same category as Christ and to defend their particular cause.  We are told that if we care about the Gospel and follow in Christ’s footsteps then we will have compassion on and help minorities. Therefore I found this section of Andrew Fulford’s book, Jesus and Pacifism, helpful.  He is talking about the command in Matthew 16:24 to take up our crosses and follow Jesus. First he says,

Dr. Yoder [a pacifist] argued that this command was essentially a command to be a faithful minority community under persecution. [Fulford footnotes Yoder’s The Original Revolution and The Politics of Jesus]

Yoder does not mean what many current social justice warriors mean. But his perspective fits in nicely with SJW thinking. Yoder views the command through a political lens. Taking up your cross means you are willing to be associated with those on the edges and fringes of society,  those currently defined as weak, maligned, and persecuted. Fulford goes on to explain the command differently using Jesus’ own words and the context. He then says this:

In sum, this command requires nothing more of us than the Greatest Commandment does. To be commanded to serve God with everything one has, means being willing to obey him even to  the point of death…And this was not merely a teaching on this part; Jesus practiced what he preached. The cross was of course the means by the Lord himself would choose to lay down his life in order to obey his Father…When the Lord commands us to not just to pick up a cross, but to follow him while doing so, we can see what he means. He calls us to make the exact same choice he did: to accept death from the hands of God if providence gives us no choice between it and sin. It means, in essence, to be willing to give up everything and to endure anything rather than disobey God. His command goes to the very heart of the problem with the human condition. From the first sin, human beings have been choosing sin for the sake of some lesser good rather than obedience to their Creator. Jesus calls us to finally do what we were made to do, serve God above all things.

Fulford then discusses II Corinthians 4:5-18 and Paul’s description of his own sufferings. Here is the concluding paragraph.

Paul’s reflections on these themes are profound, and warrant many books dedicated to them entirely. But the important point for our purposes here is to note: for the apostle joining in the sufferings of Christ was not simply about being a persecuted minority in society. It was about enduring the effects of the curse; it was about accepting death in all its forms (literal and figurative) from the hand of God, and living in a certain hope that one day we will be redeemed from it, just as Christ has been. Refusing to take up the cross is not essentially about the minority’s temptation to take political and social power; refusing the cross is essentially repeating the sin of the Garden. Rejecting one’s cross is an action rooted in distrust of God’s goodness, leading to an attempt to minimize our pain and maximize our happiness by making moral compromises and breaking God’s commands.

Taking up our cross is not about whatever particular social justice cause we are currently pushing. It is not about a refusal to take up positions of power, as Anabaptists often interpret it. It is not even about our daily struggles with life in general. It is about belief in God and obedience to his commands no matter the cost. Most days that will look normal. On a few days it will be extraordinary.

One might argue that this is just one passage. There are other passages that make it clear Christians should care about minorities. Certainly there are passages to debate and discuss, but in the end we would probably end up at the same place. Minority status, however that is defined, is not a virtue in the Christian faith. Trust in God and obedience is.