Add More Words

January 23, 2015 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Politics, Sanctification, Sexuality

Here in Idaho the LGBT group is in the midst of an “add the words” campaign to cordon off their actions from public censure and force the citizens of Idaho to publicly sanction their behavior. I have submitted the following to our local paper in response – you can read it on the Coeur d’Alene Press site here.

Every time I read something supportive of the “Add the words” campaign I’m disappointed that the advocates are so timid. They are taking mere half-steps when what we really need is a bold and courageous sprint for the finish. I say let’s “add more words” not just “add the words.”

After all, if we’re giving public sanction and blessing to perverse sexual expression, then why stop with LGBT? Let’s “add more words”! Advocates say that LGBT folks just want respect; just want the same rights as everyone else. But advocates of other practices could say the same. Some media outlets have already begun their relentless campaign to destroy all sense of civility and honor by sanctioning polygamy and incest. The TV show Sister Wives has shown how hip polygamy can be. And incest? Well Bianco Santos, star of the new MTV show Happyland, declared in July, “Incest is hot, and we’re going to have fun!” So let’s “add more words”!

And since we’re wallowing in the mud anyway, why not rename “Bisexual” as “Either” and our new acronym could be much more effective: PIGLET (Polygamous, Incestuous, Gay, etc). For that gets to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? You see, the problem with the entire LGBT movement is that it is built on sand; it has no foundation. What are we as human beings? Why should we even care about respect? Are we unique creatures made in the very image and likeness of God to pursue honor and dignity and virtue? Or are we mere beasts who’ve evolved to root about in the muck and act like barbarians? Our civilization was built on the former conviction; currently we’re being pressured by those convinced of the latter. Are you convinced? Incest is hot? How about despicable? Vile? Offensive? An affront to God and to every thinking man, woman, and child? Just as are LGBT and polygamy.

Urge your state representative and senator to oppose this vile propaganda and to uphold the traditions that our fathers handed down to us. Thank Governor Otter for standing against the tyranny of our federal courts. And pray that God would lift His hand of judgment from us that we might not add any words to the unchanging moral laws which He has delivered to us in His Word (Deuteronomy 4:2).

And then there was Love

November 2, 2014 in Bible - NT - 1 Corinthians, Bible - NT - 2 Peter, Homosexuality, Love, Marriage, Meditations, Sanctification, Sexuality
2 Peter 1:5–9 (NKJV)
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
As we have made our way through Peter’s exhortation here in his second epistle, we have learned of the necessity of personal virtue and the way in which that virtue is to manifest itself in our treatment of others. Last week we considered Peter’s words to add to godliness brotherly kindness. Today we consider his command to add to brotherly kindness love.
Love is the culmination of Christian virtue. Unfortunately, as a result of Romanticism, it is often misunderstood. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, for example, defines love as “a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person.” But biblically love is not at bottom a feeling – that is not its proper genus. While love often shapes, governs, and informs our feelings, it is not itself a feeling. Far better the simple declaration of Hartley Coleridge, Is love a fancy or a feeling? No. No, love is not a fancy or a feeling; for feelings come and go but love remains constant, like immaculate Truth. It is a fixed reality, a covenant oath. As Shakespeare would have it, love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove: O no; it is an ever-fixed mark, That looks on tempests, and is never shaken…
Paul gives the most compelling description of love in the thirteenth chapter of his letter to the Corinthians:
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
Love, in other words, is not self-centered but other-centered, not primarily a feeling but a heart-centered commitment, longing to give joy and delight to another. Paul goes on:
[Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails…
Away with the absurd notion that love is merely a feeling. Today we are told to countenance all kinds of wickedness in the name of Merriam-Webster’s definition of love: we should embrace homosexual unions because they “love” one another; we should turn a blind eye to fornication because they “love” one another; we should sanction no-fault divorce because they just don’t “love” one another any more. But Merriam-Webster is wrong: love is not a fancy or a feeling.
So what of you: how have you been defining love? Do you truly love the brethren? Are you truly loving your spouse? Have you loved your children? For we are to add to brotherly kindness love.

Reminded of our calling to practice true love, to be committed to the true good of others and to labor unceasingly for that good, let us kneel and confess our sin to the Lord.

Joe Biden and Civilized Nations

June 29, 2014 in Bible - NT - Acts, Bible - NT - Matthew, Church History, Homosexuality, Love, Meditations, Politics, Trials
Matthew 5:11–12 (NKJV)
11 “Blessed are you when [men] revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Vice President Joe Biden declared this last Tuesday that “protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions.” He warned other nations that there is a price to pay for failing to do so.
We shouldn’t misunderstand what this means. In one fell swoop, Biden has identified all traditional Christians – as well as Jews and Muslims for that matter – as enemies of civilization. Of course, Biden is using this rhetoric to justify intervention and regime change in Africa, the Middle East, and Russia. But such a statement must necessarily relegate us to barbaric status as well. Should this policy prevail, we will find ourselves the object of discrimination and persecution, labeled as “those who turn the world upside down.”
It is fitting for us to remember, therefore, how we are to respond to such persecution. It is ever easy to take opposition personally and forget that in defending the cause of Christ we’re not defending ourselves but the truth. And because we’re defending the truth, we can rest in the knowledge that God is His own best Defender. He will vindicate His Name and demonstrate to all nations that He is Yahweh.
In the meantime, our calling as individuals is to imitate His grace and mercy by showing kindness to those who persecute us or say all kinds of evil against us. While standing courageously for the truth and speaking it frankly, we are to look for ways to bless and extend grace to our persecutors. Why? Because this is the way God acts toward his enemies day by day. And if God extends grace, ought not we?
We must always beware the lure of moralism and defensiveness; we must ever remember the grace and mercy that God has extended to us and so extend it to others. As we do so, we can rest in God’s promise that no gracious word, no good deed, no turning of the other cheek will go unnoticed. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
And this type of faith manifesting itself in love is precisely what the Apostles modeled for us when they were persecuted by the Jerusalem authorities for preaching Christ – they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ’s name(Acts 5:41b).

But often we respond to the criticisms and slanders of others not by giving a blessing but by giving an insult instead. Rather than returning good for evil, we return evil for evil. But this is not the way of our Lord Christ, nor is it the way that God will work to bring the nations to bow before Christ and acknowledge Him to be Lord of all. So let us confess our sin to the Lord and pray that He would enable us to give a blessing instead.

Pastors and Politics

June 20, 2014 in Bible - OT - 2 Kings, Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Ecclesiology, Homosexuality, Politics, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

Well it seems the editor of the Coeur d’Alene Press is upset that a number of local pastors have expressed “political” opinions and may very well have influenced the last election. There was an article in the press expressing Representative Ed Morse’s exasperation at his and others’ defeat in the recent election. In the article he is quoted as claiming that he is going to bring these actions to the attention of the IRS. More disturbing than Representative Morse’s exasperation was the editorial piece of the same day. Yikes!

I debated writing a letter in response but couldn’t get myself sufficiently motivated. Fortunately, a number of folks have written some excellent responses. Scott Grunsted offered a compelling critique of the editorial and corrected many of the misrepresentations of the Founding Fathers found therein. Unfortunately, the Editor missed Grunsted’s point and entitled his article, “Church, State are inseparable.” This is not the point Grunsted was making and very few Christians would defend it.

We must distinguish between the issue of church/state and relgion/state. Church and State are separate in Scripture – kings were not priests and priests were not kings. Consider that King Uzziah was struck with leprosy when he tried to assume priestly duties for himself. While Church and State are separate, religion and state are not. Every state, ancient and modern, is built upon some religious foundation. The reason is that states impose morality – they penalize certain behaviors and reward others. So how does a state decide which actions to penalize and which to reward? Religion. Historically the religious foundation animating our public policy has been Christian. We are now in the process of apostatizing and abandoning this foundation – and the ease with which this is being accomplished is due, in part, to the failure of our Founding Fathers to articulate in our founding documents the necessity of this Christian foundation. While they did make the point in their private correspondence and public letters and speeches, they did not make this explicit in our Constitutional documents and this was a tragic error. It seems unlikely that our great republic will be able to persist as a result. Hopefully, the next time such an experiment as America takes place, their founders will repudiate the heretical notion of the secular state and recognize that every state is built upon some religious foundation. And the religious foundation that provides for personal liberty, liberty of conscience, and constitutional limits on political power is the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Another excellent letter responding to the editorial was written today by Kim Cooper. She demonstrates the absurdity of the editorial’s attempt to compartmentalize portions of people’s lives. She gives a great example of worldview thinking! Excellent work.

Let us just note in passing the inconsistency of the editorial as well. The press has campaigned rather clearly for numerous moral principles lately. They’ve opposed bullying, advocated the homosexual agenda, and portrayed the transgendered agenda sympathetically – and on each of these issues prominently featured within the articles is the Human Rights Education Institute and Mr. Tony Stewart. Is bullying wrong? Let’s ask Mr. Stewart and find out. Should homosexuality have public sanction? Let’s ask Mr. Stewart, he’ll tell us. But has anyone cried foul? After all, I think that the HREI is a 501c3 entity. How dare they dabble in politics? Sheesh! Haven’t they read those regulations? But of course it’s ok for them to express opinions, teach at the local government schools, nurture our children in the evils of discrimination because – well, because they agree with us! But those pastors – shut them up! Wisdom is justified by her children.

Existentialism and the Transgendered Movement

June 10, 2014 in Bible - OT - Genesis, Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Creation, Homosexuality, Politics, Quotations, Sanctification, Sexuality

Below are notes from my sermon on Sunday endeavoring to highlight the connection between Existentialism and the transgendered movement and the way in which this deviates from the special creation described in Genesis 1-2; we might also add how demeaning the transgendered movement is to folks caught in its snare. May God have mercy upon us.

In the 20th century there emerged an incredibly influential philosophical movement known as Existentialism. This movement is the driving force behind much of the political and moral disarray occurring today – though most people are unaware of these philosophical underpinnings. Existentialism grew out of the teachings of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre explains existentialism thus:
Atheistic existentialism, which I represent…states that if god does not exist, there is at least one being [man] in whom existence precedes essence… This means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.      Jean-Paul Sartre
And, Sartre would go on to declare, you can make of yourself whatever you want – the important thing is to do, to will, to make of yourself something, anything. You define; you decide; existence precedes essence. Existentialism! You popped on the scene and now you have to figure out who you are and what you are going to be.
Notice the way this philosophy drives our current cultural debates – even in our local government school system and the push to make the schools endorse transgenderedism: Are you born male? It matters not – you can choose to be female. Are you born female? It matters not – you can choose to be male. Choose. It’s all in the choosing. There is no god who defines us; no higher standard that bounds us. You exist – you were born this way. But that doesn’t define who you are. Your essence is something you choose – and all that matters is the choosing.
But let me suggest that this is the very thing symbolized by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sartre is the serpent of the 20thcentury. He has tempted us to be “like god” – to define good and evil for ourselves; to say what is and what is not good and noble and right; to live autonomously as a law unto ourselves. But in the end, this will lead to death – indeed it already has: the deaths of millions of children still in the womb.
You see, Sartre and Peter Singer (Utilitarian Philosopher at Princeton) are of a piece. “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself,” Sartre pronounces. Or as Singer would have it: “Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term “human” has been stripped away, we may continue to see normalmembers of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and so on, than members of any other species; but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be.” For they must be able to choose; they must be able to make something of themselves.
So what are we to think of a human being who cannot articulate that choice? What are we to think of those who are suffering from dementia or cerebral palsy or madness – or perhaps even religious mumbo-jumbo? After all the Soviets determined that religious belief was a mental abnormality that needed to be cured; and Richard Dawkins has said much the same. So what are we to think of such human beings? They are expendable – for they lack the features that we (the elite like Peter Singer) have determined are meaningful for life.
But this is absolutely foreign to the Word of God. God defines us. We enter into the world pre-defined. Essence precedes existence. We have some form of essentialism not existentialism! God defines you – you are a human being, made in God’s image, invested with dignity and honor not because of what you have done but because of what you are. God has made you and crafted you and breathed into you the breath of life.
If you are male, God made you male and gives you a distinct calling to be a man. If you are female, God made you female and gives you a distinct calling to be a woman. You cannot redefine these things. The definition has already been established. So receive who you are; receive it as a gift from God and rejoice in it. God made you a man; made you a woman. Rejoice, give thanks, and sing! You bear the very image of God, an image that cannot be taken away.

You can’t redefine but you can rebel like Adam and Eve. But the result of rebellion is death, destruction, judgment. There is no third option.

Is God anti-gay?

May 9, 2014 in Bible - NT - Mark, Book Reviews, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

I just finished reading Sam Allberry’s recent book Is God anti-gay? And other questions about homosexuality, the Bible and same-sex attraction. Allberry is a single pastor in the UK and has struggled against same-sex attraction throughout most of his life. The book is a store of biblical wisdom, compassionate counsel, and clear thinking.

He writes in the beginning that he refuses to identify himself as “gay” and instead emphasizes that he is someone who experiences same-sex attraction. “Describing myself like this is a way for me to recognize that the kind of sexual attractions I experience are not fundamental to my identity. They are part of what I feel but are not who I am in a fundamental sense. I am far more than my sexuality.” This is a crucial observation and one which all of us need to remember in our increasingly sex-saturated society. Christ defines us not our sexual drives.

Allberry does an excellent job explaining the meaning of repentance. “Repentance means turning around, to change course. The implication is pretty clear and a little uncomfortable: we’re not heading in the right direction.” He goes on to remind us that Jesus calls all of us to take up our cross and deny ourselves (Mk 8:34). And this has direct relevance for the title of his book, Is God anti-gay? Allberry answers: “No. But he is against who all of us are by nature, as those living apart from him and for ourselves. He’s anti that guy, whatever that guy looks like in each of our lives. But because he is bigger than us, better than us, and able to do these things in ways we would struggle to, God loves that guy too. Loves him enough to carry his burden, take his place, clean him up, make him whole, and unite him for ever to himself.”

Allberry surveys the biblical teaching on sexuality in general before discussing homosexuality in particular. He writes, “Sexuality is a little like a post-it note. The first time you use it, it sticks well. But when it is reapplied too many times, it loses its capacity to stick to anything. We are simply not designed for multiple sexual relationships.”

Thereafter he gives a helpful survey of various passages that address homosexuality directly, answers potential objections, and then goes on to discuss ways individual Christians and the Church can assist those tempted by same-sex attraction – both within and without the Christian community. I would highly recommend his book.


We are Humans not Animals

March 10, 2014 in Bible - OT - Exodus, Homosexuality, Human Condition, Law and Gospel, Meditations, Mosaic Law, Sexuality, Ten Commandments
Exodus 20:14 (NKJV)
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
The law of God repeatedly reminds us that we are not, as human beings, mere animals driven by our instincts and impulses. Though Darwinism insists that we are descendants of primates and not fundamentally different from other animals, the Word of God insists that we have been made in the image of God and are responsible for the choices we make, responsible for the actions we take.
Because this is the case, because we are humans and not animals, our actions can be classified as noble or ignoble; as good or evil; as praiseworthy or reprehensible. We are not controlled by our impulses but often choose to follow those impulses to our sorrow and shame.
Nowhere is this more true than in our sexuality. The sexual revolution has made full use of the Darwinian myth to justify sexual licentiousness. We are no more than animals; hence, there is no such thing as nobility or honor in the arena of sexuality; how dare you tell me what to do?
But God does tell us what to do. He created us, not we ourselves. Hence, he governs us, not we ourselves. And God commands us in the 7th commandment to govern our sexual impulses, powerful as they are. We are to govern our sexuality so that we not conduct ourselves shamefully, as mere beasts, but so that we conduct ourselves nobly as men.
So what does this mean? It means that we are to treat our sexuality as a gift that is intended to be enjoyed in the context of a marriage covenant. The physical union of husband and wife is a noble and glorious thing, a gift from God. Outside that marriage covenant, however, sexual fantasies and actions are shameful and ignoble; indeed, some of them are criminal.
So lusting in our hearts after another is shameful; viewing pornography is shameful; fornication is shameful; adultery is shameful; homosexuality is shameful; bestiality is shameful; incest is shameful; rape is shameful. There is a distinct reason that our consciences weigh us down when we practice such things; a reason that we experience feelings of shame – for these things are shameful in themselves. They degrade us as human beings and they dishonor our Creator.

As we come into the presence of God, therefore, the God who has made us and fashioned us as men and women not as beasts, who has fashioned us for nobility not dishonor, let us confess that we have often fallen short and acted dishonorably. Let us kneel as we confess our sin to the Lord.

Human Rights and Wrongs

September 25, 2013 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, King Jesus, Law and Gospel, Politics, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

I submitted a My Turn article to the Coeur d’Alene Press yesterday in response to Tony Stewart’s article in the paper last week. My article was published today and is available online here. It is imperative both for the good of our city and the preservation of our integrity, to speak clearly and frankly about the issue of homosexuality and the attempt by the LGBT community to co-opt the language of human rights to sanction their perversion.

If you think that my questions about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, etc. are unnecessary, then please consult the excellent article in The New American by Selwyn Duke. It is entitled, “The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia.” He hits the nail on the head. May God have mercy upon our nation and turn us from our folly and from the trajectory on which we are currently headed. I tried to outline that trajectory in my sermon last Sunday entitled, “Saving the World from Suicide.” It should be up on the website soon.

For those who prefer, my article is printed below.
______________

During this local political season, it is important that our communication with one another be characterized by a firm allegiance to honesty, integrity, and truth. As a local pastor, I decry sins of the tongue – slander, gossip, lies, outbursts of wrath, false accusations – all dishonor our Creator and defame others who are made in the image of God. It is my desire to speak the truth in love.
To that end I wish to address the misleading way in which the agenda of the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community has been linked by some, including Mayoral candidate Steve Widmeyer and homosexual activist Tony Stewart, to the idea of human rights. We need to preserve the “human rights” of those in the LGBT community and not discriminate against them.
It is important that members of our community understand that this linking of the ordinance with human rights is false and destructive. First, it is false. The ordinance is not about the preservation of human rights but about the public sanctioning of immoral and destructive sexual behaviors. Our forefathers never taught that “human rights” include the “right” to do what is wrong. And this ordinance is not about the preservation of human rights but human wrongs. It is the equivalent of passing a law forbidding discrimination against thieves and adulterers – granting public protections to those who engage in particular immoral actions.
Second, it is destructive. It leaves human rights in the hands of human beings. The founders of our great nation were careful to maintain that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were given to us by the Creator, not by any human agency, whether a vote of the people or a decision of the king. Governments are created to protect and preserve these rights; but the rights exist independent of any government. On this matter, Mr. Stewart is exactly right: every decision of the majority is subject to the moral law.
So where do we find the moral law? Clearly Mr. Stewart believes in it; he appeals to our “moral compass” to oppose discrimination against those in the LGBT community. So how does he identify what is moral or immoral? Shall we soon find him defending the “right” of citizens to practice polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia? Perhaps murder, rape, thievery? No doubt he opposes such things. But on what basis? Public opinion? Then he undermines his claim that these things exist independent of government decisions and leaves us in the hands of the people. The Creator? Then he needs to explain how we understand and know the mind of the Creator. And if we can only know the mind of God through individual human opinion then we’re back to our first dilemma – we have to take a vote. Vox populi, vox dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God. And in that case whatever the people decide becomes “moral” – it becomes two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to eat. It leaves us in the hands of the people.
Christianity resolves this dilemma by appealing to an objective moral standard that stands over and above every human society – Christian or non-Christian. We know what is good and right and honorable through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Here God has revealed the moral law – it is summarized in the Ten Commandments and lived out in the life of Jesus Christ. And this law clearly identifies the LGBT lifestyles as perverse and destructive both individually and societally. This law leaves us not in the hands of human beings but in the hands of God. As historian Arnold J. Toynbee remarked, “Sooner or later, man has always had to decide whether he worships his own power or the power of God.” There is no third option.
Contrary to Mr. Stewart’s claim, love and discrimination always go hand in hand. It is the father who loves his daughter who teaches her to discriminate among suitors. It is the mother who loves her son who teaches him to discriminate and choose his friends carefully. It is Jesus who loves the poor who discriminated against the moneychangers and overthrew their tables (see Matthew 21:12-17).
And so I would urge the citizens of our community to use proper discrimination as you approach the polls. Always defend human rights while ardently opposing human wrongs. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
Pastor Stuart Bryan

Trinity Church