Appeals to Higher Law

June 6, 2013 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Politics, Sexuality

I was interviewed by phone yesterday by Scott Maben, a reporter with the Spokesman Review. His article came out today. If you’re interested in reading it, you can find it here. He actually quoted one of my more rational statements. And in case you’re wondering after reading the comments, I have no immediate plans for relocating to Iran. I have a feeling I wouldn’t be any more welcome there.

Our Fourfold Charge

June 5, 2013 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Politics, Sexuality

All,
As you have probably heard the Coeur d’Alene City Council passed by a vote of 5-1 the proposed Anti-Discrimination legislation. Councilman Steve Adams played the man, bore testimony of Christ, and voted against the legislation. The other 5 voted in favor. Councilwoman Goodlander was frank enough to admit that this legislation granted special rights to the homosexual community at the expense of the Christian community. I spoke and also have written some letters this am – one to Councilman Kennedy on a couple questions he asked me during public testimony and another letter to the editor, a tongue in cheek Plea for the Adulterer. You can find my letter to Councilman Kennedy on my blog.
Our charge is fourfold. First, we are to continue as ever we have – loving Christ, loving one another, loving our neighbors, including those ensnared in various types of sexual sin – whether heterosexual or homosexual. While we vocally and stridently oppose the homosexual lobby, we must beware lest this opposition degenerate into self-righteousness or inhumanity. All humans, regardless of their sexual choices, are made in the image of God; indeed, this is why we call them to that which is noble and natural. Second, we need to be prepared to receive joyfully the plundering of our property for the sake of Christ and to come to the aid and encouragement of brothers who suffer in this way. We are called to identify with Christ and His people, bearing our cross, despising the shame. Third, we need to continue to urge our own families as well as other Christians to extract their children from the godless government education system. It is one of the chief institutions perpetuating the distorted notion that love does not demand change in the beloved and that kindness and tolerance are absolute virtues. Fourth, we are to use all lawful means to recall this legislation and the men and woman who passed it. It was clear from the representation at the meeting last night that the Council members were not representing the community at large but a special interest lobby. They should be made to know this.
Blessings,
Pastor Stuart Bryan

An Open Letter to Councilman Mike Kennedy

June 5, 2013 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Politics, Sexuality

Councilman Mike Kennedy
Mayor Sandi Bloem
Members of the City Council
Coeur d’Alene City Hall
710 E. Mullan Avenue
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83814
June 5, 2013
Dear Councilman Kennedy,
On several occasions last night at the City Council Meeting you asked for a description of the difference between discrimination on the basis of religion versus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Since you asked this question of me among others, I felt it would be fitting for me to reply having had some additional time to think about the matter. The problem with rushing this legislation is that you robbed yourself the opportunity to receive the best and most thoughtful responses to your questions.
So what is the difference between discrimination on the basis of religion versus sexual orientation? First, I would insist that basic to our make-up as human beings are the twin realities of religious and sexual expression. In every culture and at every time in human history these two things are natural and normal components of what it means to be human. We are religious beings and we are sexual beings.
Second, these two types of expression are both capable of natural and unnatural, constructive and destructive manifestations. In every society at every time in human history, including our own, both religious and sexual expression have been regulated and limited so as to preclude unnatural and destructive behavior.
For example, although we have constitutionally guaranteed rights of religious expression, these rights are limited by what is natural and constructive. For instance, ancient forms of worship that required the sacrificial offering of human beings or even the public sacrifice of animals are not permitted in our communities. This would be true even if the human victim voluntarily agreed to be sacrificed. We judge such religious expression perverse and unnatural, violating the sanctity of human life and destructive of the very fabric of society.
These same principles apply in the arena of sexuality. Sexual expression has never been, is not, and will never be completely unregulated. Most states currently prohibit consensual or non-consensual sex with minors, incest, polygamy, bestiality, rape, etc. On what basis do we make such limitations? I would suggest that one criterion is that which is natural and constructive.

Human beings are created to operate in a certain fashion, in accord with our God-given nature. Homosexual acts are inherently perverse and unnatural; this is a simple matter of biology and is confirmed by the sexual and personal consequences that attend the practice of homosexuality as well as by its intrinsic fruitlessness. The widespread presence of STDs, including AIDS, in the homosexual community is concrete evidence of its perversity. It is inherently risky sexual behavior because it is unnatural and destructive.
So in what sense is discrimination on the basis of religious expression different than discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? On one level there is no difference – in both cases societies discriminate against religious and sexual expressions that are unnatural and destructive. On another level there is a huge difference – the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered community is requesting protection for practices which are unnatural and destructive whereas the religious groups protected by current legislation are not.
You also asked whether I would think it just if an owner of a company fired an employee after discovering that he or she were homosexual. But let me suggest that this begs the question of whether homosexuality is constructive or destructive behavior. As a society, we do not fault the owner of a company from conducting mandatory drug screenings and potentially firing an employee who fails to pass the screen. Why? Because we recognize that drug use is destructive to the individual and potentially to the company. I would suggest that the same is true of unnatural sexual expression – whether lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, adulterous, or incestuous. If the behavior becomes public knowledge and the employer judges that that behavior compromises the reputation of his company or the quality of the work then he should be at liberty to fire the employee. Similarly, if a hotel owner recognizes a neighbor who has entered his hotel with a woman who is neither the neighbor’s wife nor his daughter, then he should be at complete and full liberty to refuse to give the man a room – the same would apply were it a same sex couple parading their sexual intentions.
So how would I speak to someone who was fired or refused service for unnatural sexual expression – whether adulterous, incestuous, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered? Again, I would ask a related question: if my brother failed his drug screen and were fired by his employer, what would I say to him? I would say a couple things. First, I would express my sympathy for his plight. “I am sorry that you have lost your job; that must be a grievous trial.” But I wouldn’t stop there. Knowing as I do that the drug use is self-destructive and has brought this on him, I would also say, second, “But listen, my brother, this is a wake up call for you. You need to change your behavior; you need to get rid of the drugs. They are self-destructive and will only cause you more problems in the months and years to come – and even more when you face your Creator on the Day of Judgment.”
This is precisely what I would say to anyone fired or denied service because of his or her sexual orientation. His behavior is destructive and unnatural – love dictates that I not set my heart on his destruction by telling him that what he’s doing is normal or natural. It simply is not.
I hope you will pardon the length of my letter. I felt it important that you have some more reflective thoughts on this question. Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
Sincerely,
Pastor Stuart W. Bryan
Trinity Church
A Reformed & Evangelical Congregation

An Open Letter to the Coeur d’Alene City Council

May 31, 2013 in Bible - NT - Mark, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, King Jesus, Politics, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

The Honorable Sandi Bloem, Mayor of Coeur d’Alene
Members of the City Council
Coeur d’Alene City Hall
710 E. Mullan Avenue
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83814
May 30, 2013
Dear Mayor Bloem and Members of the City Council,
It has come to my attention that the City Council will be given an opportunity to vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance. This ordinance is designed to protect the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered community at the expense of other community members.
I love our community and do not see a need for this ordinance especially as it sanctions behavior which is immoral, unnatural, and destructive. As a local pastor it is my obligation to speak first and foremost as a representative of the Lord Jesus Christ who simultaneously expresses his love for those ensnared in sexual sin and his abhorrence of such sin. He warns us that from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins… All these evil things come from within and defile a man (Mk 7:21-23). Jesus’ term “sexual sins” encompasses the very actions this legislation is written to protect. Such legislation would require Christian businessmen and property owners to endorse behavior that is evil.
I would remind you that as those entrusted with the responsibility to rule, you have been given this responsibility under God. His law is superior to any civic law and forms the basis for civic laws. Central to his law is the protection of human sexuality from abuse and degradation. Even as you would oppose someone endeavoring to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, so you are called at this time to oppose those who want to pervert God’s gift of sexuality.
I would urge you, in the Name of God, to vote NO on this legislation. Voting NO would uphold the sanctity of God’s law, be in keeping with Idaho State Law, and preserve the rights of all people living here in our beautiful city. 
Sincerely,
Stuart W. Bryan
Pastor

Know When Not to Listen

March 3, 2013 in Bible - NT - 1 Thessalonians, Meditations, Politics, Sexuality, Tongue

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV)
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
If you’ve lived long you no doubt have come to learn that effective communication is difficult. Not only is it challenging to explain things to others, we frequently find that the one to whom we’re speaking just isn’t willing to listen. This is especially true in times of conflict. We speak to the best of our ability and it seems that our words just bounce off our hearer.
It is this dullness of hearing among his audience that Paul will rebuke in our text today. They were in danger of not understanding him – not because the subject matter was overly challenging but because they were unwilling to listen to what he was saying.
When we come to the text we will highlight the problem with this attitude when faced with the biblical text. As human beings made by our Creator, we are to listen to the Word of God and pay heed to the voice of wisdom.
But as Paul indicates in 1 Thessalonians, there are times when we should close our ears. “Test all things,” he writes. “Hold fast what is good.” We are called upon to listen carefully, understand honestly, and then test what is said, clinging only to that which is good. This implies, of course, that we are to reject that which is evil. So how do we distinguish? We assess what we hear in light of the Word of God. God has revealed that which is good in His Word and as we feast upon His Word we will be enabled to recognize falsehood when it rears its head, no matter how alluring it may appear.
Solomon describes this benefit of gaining wisdom in Proverbs 2. “When wisdom enters your heart, And knowledge is pleasant to your soul, Discretion will preserve you; Understanding will keep you, To deliver you … From the man who speaks perverse things… [and] From the seductress who flatters with her words,” (Prov 2:10-12, 16). Gaining wisdom protects us from folly, from giving heed to that which we ought not. It protects us from the man who speaks perverse things and from the seductress who flatters with her words. It teaches us when it is appropriate to close our ears and refuse to listen.
I was reminded of these things while attending a debate this week between Doug Wilson and Andrew Sullivan over the resolution Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples good for Society? Mr. Sullivan professed to believe in Jesus and serve him while simultaneously living as a homosexual in union with another man. He was very winsome, very passionate, very articulate. But if we know the Word of God; if we know what God has to say about the abomination of homosexuality; if wisdom has entered our soul, then it delivers us from the man who speaks perverse things, it enables us to recognize the folly of the position.
Our calling as God’s people, therefore, is twofold. It is both to listen and not to listen. Our calling is to listen to God, give heed to what He says, believe it and embrace it for the good of ourselves and our children after us. Simultaneously our calling is not to listen – not to listen to the subtle or not so subtle temptations of those who would turn us from Christ and teach us to listen to some other god.
This reminds us that as human beings we frequently fail to listen to the right voices and instead listen to the wrong, And this is certainly becoming increasingly true of America. We are shutting our ears to the voice of God and listening to the voices of others. Reminded of this, let us kneel and confess that we have become dull of hearing.

That the Women be Reverent

September 12, 2011 in Bible - NT - Titus, Ecclesiology, Meditations, Sexuality

But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that … the older women … be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.(Tit 2:1-5)

The women of Crete did not have a sterling reputation in the ancient world. Part of this was no doubt a consequence of the topless attire that they wore. But part of it was also a consequence of the conduct of some of Crete’s leading women.

One of the ancient legends associated with Crete that most people know is that of the Minotaur. What fewer now know is that the Minotaur was the offspring of the Minoan Queen Pasiphae who had mated with a bull. Pasiphae’s sexual perversions weren’t lost on her daughters – one of whom, seduced by the Greek hero Theseus, paved the way for the destruction of the Minotaur and the decline of Cretan power and the other of whom later married Theseus and then tried to seduce Theseus’ son, precipitating the son’s death when he refused her advances. Not to be outdone, another of the royal Cretan women was banished from Crete for her illicit behavior, rose through skillful use of her beauty in the court of the King of Mycenae, married the king’s son, and then assisted the king in murdering his own son so that she could become the king’s wife. These perversions led to the disgrace of Cretan women generally – their conduct became the example by which all were judged; even the upright were viewed with suspicion.

Paul is very concerned that Christian women cause no such shame for the Gospel of Christ. He states the motivation of all his exhortations quite plainly in v. 5 – “that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” In so doing, Paul indicates that the operative concern for our lives as professing Christians is not our happiness, not our ease or comfort, but preserving the Word of God and hence God Himself from being blasphemed.

And so Paul’s first command to the older women is that they be “reverent in behavior.” Literally his exhortation means that they conduct themselves in such a way as would be fitting in the temple of God; that they act as they would if they were in the presence of God Himself all the time – for this is, in fact, how we live. We all live coram Deo – before the face of God. And so we are to live reverently.

So women – how are you doing? What are you using as the measure of your actions? What determines the sacrifices you make? The way you spend your time? The way you speak to your children? The way you respond to your husband? The way you speak about your husband to your friends? Paul urges you to measure your life by the Word of God – don’t do anything that would bring shame on Jesus’ Name, that would give the enemies of God cause to blaspheme God’s Name. Suffer anything rather than shame your Savior.

And this is the same message that Paul gives to you men as well. We are all to live such that we adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. So how are you doing? Has your attitude at work adorned the Gospel? Has your thankfulness at home adorned the Gospel? Has your care for your children adorned the Gospel? Or have you brought shame on Jesus’ Name?

Reminded that our conduct as Christians inevitably reflects on the Name of our Savior Christ, let us kneel and confess that we have given occasion for the enemies of God to blaspheme.

Bewailing her Virginity

May 11, 2010 in Bible - OT - Judges, Children, Ecclesiology, Meditations, Sexuality

“So [Jephthah’s daughter] said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.” So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.” Jdg 11:36-40

For the last several weeks I have been writing an essay for the Omnibus V curriculum on a medieval English historian by the name of William of Malmesbury. William was a monk who lived in Malmesbury Abbey for most of his life, serving as the librarian there. He wrote a history of England in an attempt to continue the Venerable Bede’s story up to William’s own day – the middle of the 12th century and the reign of Henry I.

As always in reading an old book there is a refreshing breeze which blows through one’s thinking. William is decidedly un-modern. For example, he thinks the First Crusade was a grand endeavor and explains at length the benefits that it brought to the Christians. Another area where William reveals his un-modern stance is in his approach to the topic we discussed last week – virginity. He routinely praises women who preserved their virginity and in this honors the principles we discussed last week.

But one of the things that William reveals is a distortion that entered into the Church regarding this topic of virginity. Paul had written that it was good for a man or a woman to remain single so that he or she may be able to serve Christ more effectively. The medieval church took this and insisted that Paul’s words meant that perpetual virginity was the ideal state. One’s virginity was intended to be preserved entire for the Lord. Monasticism, of which William was a part, was the result.

Of course, as with any misuse of the biblical text, there is an element of truth in this medieval distortion. Paul’s comments continue to have application even now – there are ways that single people, who remain perpetually celibate, can serve Jesus that married people cannot. And praise God for those to whom He gives this gift. We need men and women who are able to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the advancement of the kingdom. However, this acknowledgement is a far cry from the medieval exaltation of virginity into the most blessed state. For men and women to marry and have children was, by and large, viewed as a compromise, a forfeiture of God’s ideal.

And this brings us back to our text today. Jephthah, you may recall, made a rash vow, swearing that if God granted him victory over the Ammonites, he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon his return. God granted him the victory. Unfortunately, however, Jephthah’s daughter was the first to exit the home upon his arrival.

Whatever happened to Jephthah’s daughter – whether she was actually offered up as a human sacrifice (which would have been an abominable thing) or whether she was dedicated to the Lord’s service in the tabernacle – I want you to notice the way his daughter responded to his oath. She insisted that Jephthah must fulfill his vow but requested that she be given a period of two months to go out to the hills with her friends. Why? So that she might bewail her virginity. Now why would she do this? Because she understood that virginity, in Scripture, is not normally a gift to be kept to oneself for a lifetime but is normally intended to be given to a man as a gift. And when a young woman gives this gift, that God has given her, to a man, God frequently gives back to her in the form of children and a family. Jephthah’s daughter, in other words, wanted to be a wife and a mother, and this was a good thing. Indeed, so good, that from this day forth, all the virgins of Israel would go into the wilderness for four days each year in remembrance that Jephthah’s daughter was unable to give her virginity as a gift.

Today is Mother’s Day – a day in which we celebrate that many virgins of the past gave the gift of their virginity to a man so that they might have children and raise a family. Let us praise God for this. And, praising Him, let us be reminded of our tendency to distort the Word of God and fail to remember that our mothers gave a gift to conceive us and that when we give away that which God gives to us, He gives us even more in return. So let us kneel and confess our sins to the Lord.

Virgins in Israel

May 11, 2010 in Bible - OT - Deuteronomy, Children, Ecclesiology, Meditations, Sexuality

Deuteronomy 22:13-19 (NKJV)
13 “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

This morning we continue our series of lessons taught by young women. As members of the body of Christ, young women have important lessons to teach the rest of us and it is prudent for us to learn these lessons that we might honor our Lord more fully. We have seen that one of the titles by which God’s people are called is the “daughter of Zion” revealing God’s affection, protection, and provision for us.

The text today reveals another title by which young women in Israel were called, the “virgins of Israel.” A virgin, as most of you know, is a woman who has never been sexually intimate with a man. And, in ancient Israel, one of the titles by which young women were called, in addition to the title “daughters of Jerusalem” and “maidens” (which we saw last week), was the Virgins of Israel. None of this innocuous “teenager” language. When God began developing a young man or young woman, He took note of his or her respective treasures. And one of the greatest treasures that a young woman possesses, which she can give only once to one man, is her virginity.

God takes this virginity, this sexual purity, seriously and so he honors young women in Israel by protecting their good name. For example, in our text today, if a man were to marry a virgin, have intercourse with her on their wedding night, and then charge her falsely the next day with failing to be a virgin, he was to be punished by the elders of the city – likely beaten with a rod – fined an enormous sum of money that would be given to the father lest his daughter have to return home, and forbidden by law from divorcing his wife ever for any cause. Why? Notice the rationale: “Because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel” and that’s something you just don’t do.

The seriousness with which God takes this sexual purity is likewise evident in the way that young women who pretended to be virgins and were not were treated. The text goes on to describe what should happen if the charge were true. If a young woman were to contract a marriage on the assumption that she was a virgin and were to deceive her parents and fiancé into thinking she was still a virgin, only to be discovered the day after the wedding night that she wasn’t a virgin, then she was to be stoned to death with stones. Why? “Because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house.”

Young women, God takes your virginity seriously and acts to protect it in His law. So treasure and guard it well. Beware young men who would seduce you. Beware older men who would seduce you. Beware the pressure that will be put upon you to be sexually active by our current culture. You may be told that you haven’t fully experienced life if you haven’t had sex. You may be told that you are prude, naïve, silly. You may be mocked and scorned by the Hollywood crowd. But this is where the Word of God comes to our rescue by speaking very bluntly. What is a harlot? A harlot is a whore, a prostitute, a woman who gets paid to perform sexual favors. If we despise a harlot – which the Word of God says we ought – then how much more ought we to despise a woman who gives her sexual favors away for nothing? Who spreads her legs under every green tree and only demands “love” in return? Such a woman is both a harlot and a fool.

Young women, this is your charge. You are the Virgins of Israel, so be a Virgin of Israel – pure, unsullied, glorious, beautiful. Men, particularly young men, your task is to protect the purity of the Virgins of Israel. In relation to women, there are two types of men in the world: protectors and predators. To our shame, many, if not most, are predators – looking for yet another young woman they can defile, and, when they do, chalking up another victory on their achievement board. But your job is to be their protectors. Defend them and honor them even as Your God does.

And all of us should be reminded by these things the extent to which God values purity and chastity – both outside of marriage and inside. Reminded of this, reminded that we have been impure in our thoughts and often impure in our actions, let us kneel and confess our sins to God.