Love Always Trusts

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails… 

(1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)

Love "always trusts"... In some versions, it says that love "believes all things".

I was once grappling with the meaning of the verse which says that love "always trusts". How can we possibly trust the untrustworthy?  

Believing the Best About Others

I found a number of commentaries online which helped to shed light on the meaning of the verse that love "always trusts". 

The Pulplit Commentary explains that love:

Takes the best and kindest views of all men and all circumstances, as long as it is possible to do so. It is the opposite to the common spirit, which drags everything in deteriorem partem, paints it in the darkest colours, and makes the worst of it. Love is entirely alien from the spirit of the cynic, the pessimist, the ecclesiastical rival, the anonymous slanderer, the secret detractor.

The point is to believe the best intentions about others or their actions, and to refrain from attributing the worst intentions to them or their actions.

One particular incident in my working life brought this to the fore. I was away from office on National Service for the afternoon that day, and had asked a colleague to cover for me in relation to a particular simple court hearing. She did so and, with my approval of the draft email, sent out an email updating the client about the hearing. It was quite a regularly, routine update. 

The next day, my director took me to task over the email that my colleague had sent out on my behalf while I was out of office. He began to accuse me, saying that I was telling the client that I did not care about my work and that the particular case meant nothing to me. He attributed the worst possible intentions and motivations to me over that one act of my colleague on my behalf. 

I felt deeply aggrieved and maligned over what was a very regular and usual practice of having colleagues cover for each other when absent.

Someone once said: You tend to interpret your own actions through your intentions, while other people tend to interpret your actions through their effect. 

Again, in an opinion piece published in the Straits Times on 3 October 2017, "Some more heaven-worthy than others?", Gary Hayden made a similar point:

When we judge other people's actions, we tend to attribute them to character rather than circumstances. But when we judge our own actions, we place much more emphasis on circumstances.

He added that "if we wish to judge people fairly, we should try to take both factors into account."

The Dangerous Tendency 

In debates over contentious issues, especially in the political sphere, it is very tempting to regard everyone who opposes one's political or ideological position as a mean-spirited or evil person with malicious intentions, while seeing everyone on one's political or ideological side as a good person. 

Mistakes and wrongdoing on the part of one's allies become excusable or justifiable, because they are seen as good people who simply made an occasional lapse, while similar mistakes or wrongdoing on the part of one's opponents are immediately pounced upon and used as weapons against them, since they are wicked people who can do nothing good.

Conversely, any good done by one's political opponents are either ignored or seen through coloured lenses as cynical or opportunistic steps taken to advance one's position, while any good done by one's allies are cheered and celebrated.

While deeply tempting, none of these tendencies are consistent with the principle of love that Paul has taught us in his letter to the Corinthians. 

Good and evil remain good and evil regardless of who does those deeds. Indeed, Paul tells us earlier in the passage, "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."

What About Falsehoods? 

Does this mean that we should naively believe even the lies that people tell us?

Certainly not. As noted above, Paul has taught in the very same passage that love is not blind as between good and evil, or truth and falsehood. 

When there is evidence of evil or proof that a matter is false, we not called to naively fall prey to evil or to believe lies. In such circumstances, it may often be necessary to confront and address the wrongdoing in love, and to rectify it so that the person may be edified.

Yet, in the absence of such evidence or proof, it behoves us as believers to refrain from assuming or jumping to conclusions that the motivations and intentions of others are evil or wicked.

A God Who Trusts

Earlier on in this post, I asked: How can we possibly trust the untrustworthy?

But there is another question we must ask: How can God possibly trust the untrustworthy?

All our motivations and our actions are laid bare before an omniscient God. We lie, cheat and steal; yet God still trusts us despite our untrustworthiness. He entrusts us, no less, with His Gospel message, and calls us to proclaim it to the ends of the earth.

Why?

It certainly has to be because of His Son Jesus Christ who has died in our place and imparted His righteousness to us, and the power of the Holy Spirit that ministers through us. In addition to that, I believe that it has to do with the fact that God sees not just who we are (or were), but who we can be. 

Therefore, the same God who spoke creation into being with His Word (i.e. the Word that became flesh) is also transforming us into the likeness of His Son, so that, in the day when He appears, "we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." (1 John 3:2)

And thus, in that same way, just as our Lord has first loved us, we are called to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Q&A on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues

Some time ago, I gave a number of answers to a friend who had questions from a Christian youth regarding the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues. 

Here are the questions and my responses. Some slight grammatical and typographical changes have been made.

Question 1: Why should Christianity dictate national laws that govern non-Christians? Why should we impose this upon others who do not believe in this?

Singapore has a secular state and a multi-religious society. No one religion or religious group should “dictate” national laws. However, as a democratic society, every single citizen has the right to participate in the democratic process and engage with issues of public policy.

As Christians, we believe that the role of the State is to uphold what is good and punish what is evil (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Thus, we advocate for laws which are consistent with what is good, and we advocate against unjust laws which are not. 

It is the role of the State (not the Church) to enforce the law, and all laws impose morality on someone. For example, tough laws against drug abuse and trafficking impose on drug abusers and traffickers the seriousness of drugs.

Question 2: People often quote 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, or John 8:7 - We ourselves are not sinless. How can we judge others? How do we reconcile these Bible passages? 

The Bible does not create a blanket rule “do not judge”. This is based on a common misreading of Matthew 7:1. Once we read Matthew 7:1-5 holistically, what we see is Jesus emphasising the importance of applying consistent standards across the board, and to begin with self-examination before judging others. The important principle is to “judge rightly” (John 7:24).

This ties in very closely to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, where Paul was exercising church discipline against an immoral man within the church who was sleeping with his father’s wife. Paul is telling the church to judge those within it, and to expel the man because he was openly living in sin while purporting to be Christian. On the flip side, it would not be the place for the church or church leaders to exercise such judgment of people outside the church.

Finally, in John 8, even as Jesus told the people “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone”, Jesus also told the woman, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” This is a beautiful picture of God’s grace. Grace does not deny the existence of sin or refrain from judgment. In fact, grace recognises that a person has sinned, but chooses not to hold that sin against the person. As Paul said, God’s kindness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4).

It would be hypocritical of any human being to judge another human being by his or her own standards because, as this youth has rightly acknowledged, we are all sinners. It would be quite presumptuous of any human being to say to another, “I’m good, you’re bad.” How many of us even live up to our own (human) standards of behaviour, let alone God’s standards?

The message of the Bible is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That is why we all need Jesus, who clothes us with a new identity and His righteousness, once we put our faith in Him. Our message is really, “We have all messed up, but we know Someone who makes things right.”

Question 3: He feels being picky and choosy on what we impose is pretty hypocritical. Do we still follow the laws of the Old Testament? He hates that we downplay the importance of the Bible by following whatever is convenient for us. How do we reconcile this?

I would like to affirm this youth on his desire to be consistent in our application of God’s Word, and his strong dislike of the downplaying of the importance of parts of the Bible whenever inconvenient. Indeed, Truth exists and it is not our place to play pick-and-choose with it, or to apply and disapply parts of the Bible according to our preferences.

The answer to this was put very nicely by William Lane Craig. We are Christians because we follow Jesus Christ. We do not follow the Law of Moses per se, but follow the Law of Moses only to the extent that Jesus tells us to follow it.

So, for example, we are not obliged to follow the food laws (kosher) of the Old Testament. (We can if we want to, but we need not.) This is because Jesus said that “nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’” (Mark 7:18).

On Biblical sexual ethics, our basis for understanding marriage and sexuality is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and elaborated upon by the Apostles. Thus, we are not following the laws in Leviticus. Rather, we follow the teaching of Christ that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6) and that “porneia” (referring to all kinds of sexual behaviour outside of marriage) is immoral (Mark 7:20-23).

4. If the Bible is so clear-cut on its stance in LGBT, why do so many churches still support it?

There are many reasons why churches support LGBT ideas, and it is difficult to cover all the possible reasons why. However, I will speak from my experience engaging with people who profess to be Christians who also support LGBT, same-sex marriage, etc. as a matter of their church doctrine, and what I have read so far. 

At its very core, I believe that people on both sides want to do the right thing. We all want to do what is fair, just, and loving. 

Churches that support LGBT come from that motivation. They want to love their neighbours who identify as LGBT, and they believe that supporting same-sex marriage, ordaining clergy who identify as LGBT, etc. are the best way to do so. They also believe that the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice, whether in the Old or New Testament, are either confined to a certain cultural context or based on a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Most, if not all, of such churches also believe that God made people LGBT. It is a religious version of the “born this way” idea, where people argue that LGBT is biological and immutable.

Where I would point out as the main problem with their beliefs is the belief that God made people LGBT, which defines and identifies people according to their sexual desires or feelings.

From a Biblical perspective, we are made male and female in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4-6). Therefore, we do not derive our identities from our sexual desires or feelings, but from God and His design of human beings as male and female. Furthermore, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, your identity is as a child of God (Galatians 4:6-7), rather than any label you might give yourself or others might give you. 

Another mistake which they have made is what I would call their rather selective interpretation of the Bible. As we have discussed in the context of question 3, we should not be playing pick-and-choose with the Bible. For example, many of these churches want to affirm Jesus’s teachings on loving one’s neighbour (Mark 12:29-31), while at the same time ignoring His teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6). 

In a sinful and broken world, our desires are corrupted by sin, including our sexual desires (which manifest in inappropriate desires for the same or opposite sex), and there may be some people who are born with indeterminate sex (i.e. intersex). 

But the promise of Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He demonstrated His love through His sacrifice for us on the cross. For those who put their trust in Him, He promises to clothe us with a new identity as children of God, and to give us a new life in Him. That is the message we proclaim.

Sacrifice as the Answer to the Fall

Psychology professor Dr Jordan Peterson ran a lecture series on the psychological significance of the Biblical stories. To be clear, Dr Peterson is not a Christian. According to him, he went to the United Church till he was about 13 years of age, but otherwise had "rather limited religious education". His approach to the Bible is influenced to a large extent by Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche, and would be unorthodox by theological standards. 

However, in his lecture on Cain and Abel, he provided an interesting insight into the significance of sacrifice, as a means of delayed gratification and a bargain with the future (at 19:03 of the video): 

People watched the successful succeed and the unsuccessful fail for thousands and thousands of years. And we thought it over and we drew a conclusion: The successful among us sacrifice. The successful among us delay gratification. The successful among us bargain with the future.

Reflecting further on the sacrifices of Cain and Abel later in the lecture, he said (at 1:06:56 of the video): 

You think "Oh how primitive! You know, how primitive these people were sacrificing to their God!" It's like you know those people weren't stupid and this is not primitive. Whatever it is, it's not primitive. It's sophisticated beyond belief because the idea, as I already pointed out, is that you could sacrifice something of value and that that would have transcendent utility. And that is by no means an unsophisticated idea. In fact it might be the greatest idea that human beings ever came up with. It's an answer to the problem that's put forward in the story of Adam and Eve... [Emphasis added]

Dr Peterson had his own extensive reflection on the matter and interpretation of the story, which carry much insight in their own right and are deserving of a careful understanding. However, there is a deep truth to the idea that sacrifice is the answer to the Fall. 

Part of the story of how humanity fell into sin was the desire for immediate gratification. Genesis 3:6 writes that, "the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom", and took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband. This is the classic lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life (1 John 2:16) that has plagued humanity ever since. Humanity traded the eternal bliss of Eden for that one moment of immediate gratification.

Sacrifice is the exact opposite of that. As Dr Peterson put it, it is delayed gratification, and a bargain with the future, where "you look into the future and you decide that by making today a little less impulsively pleasurable, shall we say, you'll make tomorrow a little bit more secure and productive" (at 10:44 of the video).

Thus, the answer to the Fall of Man is the ultimate Sacrifice of God. To borrow Dr Peterson's language, Jesus Christ looked far into the future and went through immense suffering, making a bargain with the future to make all our tomorrows completely secure and productive. "Christ was sacrificed one to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him." (Hebrews 10:28)

Dr Russell Moore and the Profanity-spouting Elderly Woman with Dementia

If you were a pastor and there is an elderly woman with dementia in your congregation who is spouting profanities during your sermon, what would you do?

Most pastors and church leaders, I would suspect, would kindly request the family of such a woman to relocate her to one of the isolated or overflow rooms (if any such rooms are available on the premises), so that she would not disrupt or "stumble" anyone with her profanities. Some might even request the family to keep the woman at home. In the minds of many, this would be seen to be quite justifiable and intuitive.

However, Dr Russell Moore had a very different experience. He shares about his encounter, early on in his ministry, with an elderly woman with dementia who was spouting profanities, and how her church responded, in a message at The Village Church titled "Restoring Holiness"(at 22:15 of the video):

I was in a church I served really early on in my ministry. We had an elderly woman in the congregation who was going through dementia.

Fairly… a serious form of dementia but she could still live at home and she came to church every single Sunday.

And I would be preaching and she would just randomly yell out in the middle of the service, but the problem was she would yell out strings of profanities. Now, this was a really, really sweet, proper, in-church-every-single-week lady, which is why those profanities were in her mind because she was shocked by them. Things that she would she would hear, she would take notice of them that’s bad, that’s shocking and that sort of embedded into her mind and came out.

And she would yell out, “Well you blankety-blank-blank-blank, blankety-blank-blank-blank!”

I found something happening in my heart while she is yelling this out. I’m looking around and I’m saying: Who do we have visiting with us today that’s gonna be totally freaked out by this taking place?

What Mom has just brought her four-year-old kid in here who says, “Hey Mom, what does blankety-blank-blank mean?” Not what they’re intending to learn at church today.

I’m trying to filter through; I look at this other group of ladies over here and thinking: How upset are they about this and how upset are they going to be with me about this?

Until one day a group of those ladies came up and said, “Brother Russ, when Miss So-and-So starts cussing, it seems like you’re embarrassed.”

And I said, “Yeah, I guess I am.”

She said, “Well, we’re here to rebuke you for that.”

“Because she can’t help this and when she’s screaming out this stream of profanities here, well that’s just her way of saying ‘Amen’. And if we’re going to be the Body of Christ to her, then we need to stop worrying about what everybody else is going to think that that takes place, and instead say to the outside world around us if you want to know the kind of church we want to be, we want to be the kind of church where our sister who is suffering and who is screaming out things that would humiliate her in any other period of her life doesn’t embarrass us. We love her and we receive her and she’s welcome here, because every single one of us are bringing to the table all kinds of other things that need to be borne up by everybody else that maybe aren’t quite as visible as what she’s grappling with right now. And that’s what the church does.”

I was convicted to the heart, because I realised I’m up here teaching about the worship of God, leading people in the worship of God, but the worship of God had become more important to me than her, which means that the worship of God had become a tool for me for something other than the worship of God; that is easy to do.

This is a remarkable and beautiful story, and the congregation listening to Dr Moore erupted in applause when he shared about the women's statements.

The tenderness and attitude of the women from that church who rallied around the elderly woman with dementia brings to mind the passage in 1 Corinthians where Paul describes the Church as the Body of Christ. As Paul said, "those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honourable we treat with special honour. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment." (1 Corinthians 12:22-24a)

Further on in the passage, Paul wrote, "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it." (1 Corinthians 12:26) Those women cared much less about what other people thought about them, but were willing to bear any possible reproach in order to come alongside that elderly woman. 

Are we prepared to do that as a Church for our fellow brothers- and sisters-in-Christ, whatever condition they may be in or whatever they may be going through?

Jordan Peterson's Dream of Christ and the Kings

On 26 January 2018, the University of Toronto hosted a dialogue on the meaning of life featuring philosopher William Lane Craig, psychology professor Dr Jordan Peterson, and philosopher and author Dr Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Canadian journalist, author and editor Karen Stiller moderated the dialogue.

During the dialogue, Stiller posed a "Why do so many people then tussle with the question of ‘do I matter’? Why do so many of us struggle with the meaning of life then?"

Dr Jordan Peterson, in the context of his response to Stiller's question, shared and reflected on a very fascinating dream that he once had (at 1:33:28 of the video):

I had a dream once – and I’m speaking psychologically here, not theologically – I had a dream once.

I was in the cemetery of an old church, an old cathedral surrounded by the graves, and there were indentations in the grounds where all the graves were. And all of a sudden, the graves started to open and it was a graveyard where great people, great men of the past, had been buried.

And so [a] grave opened and an armed king stood up, and then another grave opened and another armed king stood up and just happened all around me.

And these were very formidable figures; they were the great heroes of the past. And after a number of them appeared on the scene, they looked around and saw each other and, being warrior-types, they immediately started to fight and the question is: What stops the great kings of the past from fighting?

And I had a revelation after the dream, I can’t remember if it was part of it… but, yes, it was part of the dream. They all bowed down to the figure of Christ and then I woke up and I thought, what in the world does that dream mean? What in the world could that possibly mean?

And then I understood it. I understood that, if you have twenty kings, let’s say, and you took the thing that was most king-like about each of them and then you combined it into a single figure, then you’d get a single figure of transcendent heroism, of transcendent Good and it’s a tenet of the Union School of Psychology.

Let’s say that that figure of transcendent Good is symbolised by the image of Christ and the purpose of that image is so that even the tyrannical king has someone to bend his knee to, and that’s absolutely vital.

I mean it does. You don’t have to approach it from a religious perspective, although you inevitably do, because when you speak of things at this level that’s what happens. But you need an image of the transcendent embodied Good to serve as something that unites the great tyrants of the past.

It’s something like that. It’s an emergent vision of embodied unity and it’s a psychological necessity, it’s a sociological necessity, and I think it bears very strongly on your question about why is it that people matter. It’s the classic Western answer to that. The Judaeo-Christian answer to that is because you have a spark of divinity within you and that divinity is a reflection of this transcendent Good and it’s obligatory for me to recognise that in you and vice versa if we’re going to inhabit the same territory without mayhem, peacefully, and with the ability to cooperate.

Now, you might say, “Well, the mere fact that a transcendent image is necessary as a uniting figure doesn’t prove the reality of that image.”

But I would say, well yes, but it doesn’t disprove it and it strongly hints at something more profound especially when you also ally it with the observation that the encounter with something truly admirable produces the instinct of awe. And that’s not a rational instinct, it’s an irrational instinct, but it’s a marker that you’re in the presence of something greater than yourself and it’s not something that you have voluntary control over. It’s something that overtakes you and it could easily be a reflection of the truth.

Now, you can make a biologically reductionistic argument about that, but it starts to become extraordinarily difficult because you enter into the realm where these transcendent experiences of religious significance and awe are phenomenological and psychological reality and it’s not easy to explain why that’s the case.

Although Dr Peterson was clear that he was speaking psychologically, there is a great deal of truth to Dr Peterson's dream (or vision) of the image of Jesus Christ, from a Biblical perspective. 

Paul tells us that Christ is the "image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15), and:

For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross. 

(Colossians 1:19-20) 

Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 20:16), and "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Philippians 2:10).

More than an image (or statue) upon whom all the greatest king-like qualities are ascribed, Jesus Christ truly came as the Word made Flesh, died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and made various appearances to His disciples (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

God Calls Us to Holiness, Not "Heterosexuality"

There exists a page on Facebook known as "Heterosexual Awareness Month Singapore" (HAM SG), which appears to have been created on 26 June 2018. As of the time of this post, there are only 2 'likes' and 2 'followers' of the page. 

In a post published at 3.06pm on 28 June 2018, the page purported to describe "some benefits of being hetero", including being "STD Free", "Healthy" and "Make Babies". The post added that "Heterosexuality is the Way, the Truth and it creates Life."

It is not clear who the creator of the page is, or whether there is any organisation behind this, religious or otherwise. Further, it is unclear what the motivations behind the creation of the page are, whether this is a "troll" page meant to mock and ridicule Christianity or conservative sexual perspectives, or a genuine page seeking to advocate for "heterosexuality".

In any event, the direction and message of the page is quite misguided, and completely misses the mark in its discourse on sexuality or faith.

The idea that "Heterosexuality is the Way, the Truth and it creates Life" is clear and utter heresy. The language of the post draws from, or at least parallels, John 14:6 where Jesus Christ said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, not "heterosexuality".

Further evidence of the page's error in idolising "heterosexuality" can be seen from the caption of its post at 3.25pm on 27 June 2018 'sharing' the video of Tamae Iwasaki where she spoke about her sexual abuse as a child, and her subsequent struggles with sexual attraction to both sexes, even during her marriage, and how God saved her. Rather than acknowledging God, HAM SG's caption was instead, "Heterosexuality heals."

The concept of "sexual orientation", including "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", are recent inventions originating from the 1800s. In a thoughtful article aptly titled "Against Heterosexuality" (March 2014), Michael W. Hannon argues against adopting such categories:

They are recent inventions that are utterly foreign to our faith, inadequate for justifying sexual norms, and antithetical to true philosophical anthropology. The time has come for us to eradicate sexual orientation from our worldview as systemically as we can manage—with all due prudence as to complicated particular cases, of course.

Neither is it true that simply being "heterosexual" would make a person "STD Free" or "Healthy" or would "Make Babies". Sexual immorality, whether with the same or opposite sex, is a problem. For instance, according to the Ministry of Health statistics, out of 434 new cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in 2017, 417 cases acquired the infection through sexual intercourse, where heterosexual transmission accounted for 36% of all cases. Furthermore, many Singapore couples are not having children, or having fewer children. Singapore's fertility rate was also at a 7-year low at 1.16 in 2017.

Ultimately, God does not call us to "heterosexuality". Instead, the call of God to every single believer in Jesus Christ, and to all of humanity, is a call to holiness through faith in Jesus Christ, who clothes us with a new identity as children of God. As Christopher Yuan said:

God says, “Be holy, for I am holy”. I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. God never told me, “Be heterosexual, for I am heterosexual”. He said, “Be holy, for I am holy”.  

And God told me, “Don't focus upon your sexuality, don't focus upon your feelings but focus upon living a life of holiness and living a life of purity.”

Addressing Biblical Teaching on Sexuality the Master's Way

During a dialogue on race and religion earlier this year, there was a question the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues. The Straits Times reports in "Tough questions posed at dialogue" (28 January 2018):

Why do Taoists have a practice of burning joss paper? What is the Christian stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues? Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? 

Such questions were posed during a one-hour dialogue at the first National Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circle Convention at the Suntec Convention Centre yesterday, titled "Inconvenient Questions on Race and Religion". 

Asked about the Christian stance on LGBT issues, Reverend Malcolm Tan of Covenant Community Methodist Church explained that traditional biblical sexual morality teaches faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage, and defines marriage as something that should always be between a man and a woman. 

"However, this does not mean that we become adversarial with people who are different or disagree with us," he said...

I do not know whether Reverend Malcolm Tan said more than had been reported in the article or if the article merely summarised his comments. Thus, I would refrain from addressing his specific comments at the dialogue, but focus on the more general issue of the Christian response on Biblical teaching regarding LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness.

While it is not wrong to address LGBT or other sexual brokenness issues by talking about the proper context of sex within marriage of a man and a woman (and this certainly reaffirms Biblical teaching), I would like to suggest that there is a better way to address Biblical teaching in sexuality. And who better to learn from than the Master Himself?

In the Gospel of Matthew, we see Jesus's response to the Pharisee's question on divorce:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Matthew 19:3-6)

To be sure, there were many passages in the Old Testament on divorce, and Jesus could have given a straightforward answer on the question by pointing to passages such as Malachi 2:16 where God declares "I hate divorce." However, He did not do so.

Instead, He began by referring to God ("the Creator"), human nature ("made them male and female"), the beauty of marriage ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), followed by how marriage has gone wrong in the context of divorce ("what God has joined together, let man not separate").

This order seems to reflect Jesus's priorities in how Biblical teaching on sexuality ought to be addressed.

Rather than sexual conduct per se, the core issue is that of God and human nature, of Dei and Imago Dei.

And some of the leading advocates on LGBT issues have likewise pointed out the centrality of one's understanding of human nature in debates over such issues.

Ryan T. Anderson wrote in "Same-sex Marriage and Heresy: The Importance of Anthropology" (16 July 2015), that the most pressing heresies today "center on the nature of man". He explains that "the sexual ideology that has battered the family and redefined marriage" springs from "a faulty humanism", "faulty anthropology [and] a misunderstanding of the nature of man".

Ever since the Fall, all of humanity has been attempting to define human nature apart from God, removing the Dei from Imago Dei.

The very notion of "LGBT" assumes that a person is and can be defined by one's "sexual orientation" or "gender identity", such that a person is defined by one's sexual desires or feelings about oneself. A person can be a "man trapped in a woman's body" or a "woman trapped in a man's body", presenting the idea that one's body is like a prison, rather than part of oneself, and can be altered and changed at will.

Modern society, shaped by the Sexual Revolution, has made sex into an idol. It has defined sex as such an integral part of human identity and fulfilment that - to quote Sam Allberry's paraphrase of the modern idea - "life without sex is no life at all".

Professor Robert P. George identifies in this the resurgence (or persistence) of the old Gnostic heresy, which sees the body as inferior and sees the human person or "self" as a spiritual or mental substance. As a result, according to post-Sexual Revolution sexual ethics, all forms of sexual conduct (with anyone or anything) are permissible as long as they are consensual, since what ultimately matters is connection on the emotional, mental or "spiritual" level.

It goes without saying that all of this is contrary to the vision of human nature (and thus human sexuality) presented in Scripture.

Human beings are made in the image of God, male and female, and are thus not "accidentally" placed in the wrong bodies. (However, in a sinful world, we must be aware that there are disabilities and abnormalities which may affect the development of one's sexual organs.) Our identities are accordingly defined by God's design, rather than according to our sexual desires or feelings.

As Sam Allberry said in his address to the Church of England General Synod in 2017, "I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me. And that has become Good News."

Since our bodies are important and part of who we are, what we do with our bodies in sexual behaviour affects us on a personal level, and are not merely emotional, intellectual or "spiritual" connections. Marriage is thus a comprehensive union, uniting a man and a woman in heart (emotional), soul (spiritual), mind (intellectual) and strength (physical).

Yet, in a world marred by sin, we should recognise that we are not only sinners, but also victims of sin (whether sins of others or our own sins), whom Jesus Christ came to seek and to save. And even as sexual brokenness affects us all in different ways, Jesus came as a Bridegroom for His beloved Bride, the Church, giving Himself up for her "to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5:27).

Through His sacrifice on the cross, He frees us from the shackles of our pasts, such that we are no longer defined by our sexual desires, sexual history, or any sin that once held us. Christopher Yuan, who is same-sex attracted and left his former lifestyle, said it well:

My identity should never be defined by my feelings; my feelings should not dictate who I am. My identity is not gay or homosexual or even heterosexual for that matter, but my identity as a child of the Living God must be in Jesus Christ alone. 

You see, God says, “Be holy, for I am holy”. I had always thought that the opposite of homosexuality was heterosexuality. But actually, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. God never told me, “Be heterosexual, for I am heterosexual”. He said, “Be holy, for I am holy”.  

And God told me, “Don't focus upon your sexuality, don't focus upon your feelings but focus upon living a life of holiness and living a life of purity.”

Jesus clothes us with a new identity as children of the Most High, and we look forward to the great wedding between Jesus and His Bride at the end of days (Revelation 21).

So, how do we address Biblical teaching on sexuality the Master's way?

A better way of engaging on Biblical teaching on LGBT issues or any other issue of sexual brokenness should, in order of priority, address the following:

1. Begin with God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them, including humanity ("the Creator"), 
2. Explore the wonders of human nature, as male and female made in the image of God ("made them male and female"), 
3. Present the beauty of marriage according to God's original design as a "one flesh" union between a man and a woman ("a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"), 
4. Recognise how marriage and sexuality have gone wrong in a sinful world, and that there are forms of sexual conduct which are contrary to God's laws ("what God has joined together, let man not separate"),
5. Finally, present the Gospel of how Jesus Christ redeems and makes us holy and blameless through His sacrifice on the cross, and He will return one day for His beloved Bride.

Seeing God's Back

In Exodus 33:18-23, Moses asks to see God's glory. God grants Moses's request in part, permitting Moses to see His back but not His face: 

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” He said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

In a podcast on 15 June 2018, Ben Shapiro cites his father's exposition (D'var Torah) to provide an interesting commentary on the passage, in response to a question from one of his listeners:

David says, “Dear Ben, from your perspective, how well do you think human intellect can understand God? The ancient Greeks seemed to believe human intellect was the key to understanding God. If God is beyond understanding [through] intellectual tools, what other tools can be used to understand God and God’s will?”

So, I’m writing an entire book about this right now, David. And my view of this, is that it is our job to use reason to try and understand the universe that God built in order to understand God’s logic. Right, I believe in this sort of Greek teleology that the universe was designed with certain purposes in mind and that it’s our job to try and find those purposes. That said, God operates from a different plane, so trying to understand the mind of God completely is never going to happen.

I think the most beautiful exposition of this happens in the Book of Exodus when Moses asks to see God’s face. And what the commentators explain is that when Moses asks to see God’s face, what he’s really asking is, “Can I understand the universe?”

And God says, “You can’t look at my face. If you look at my face, then you’ll die. But I will let you see my back.”

And He puts Moses in a cleft in the rock, and then He goes by Moses. All of this is anthropomorphic, just because human beings can’t understand completely spiritual imagery. And my Dad has a very nice, kind of, what we call D’var Torah on this. He has a very nice, sort of, exposition on what this means.

He says that, people that you know – right, people that you love and you know – you can recognise them from behind. Right, if I saw my wife I could recognise her from behind. If I saw my kids I could recognise them from behind. But I can’t tell what’s on their faces. I don’t know what they’re thinking, because I can’t see what’s on their face. But I certainly can tell that they are there.

And that’s I think what the intellect can comprehend. The intellect can comprehend that God is there. We can see sort of shadows of what God wants from us. Through revelation I think we can see more than shadows. But just through pure intellect, through pure reason, I think we can gather a couple of things. I think that we can gather, you know, the idea that there is a God; I think there are good arguments for a God. The idea that there is a God who is the Creator of heaven and earth. I think that we can pick up on certain interactions between man and man that don’t even require belief in God necessarily to logic yourself out to.

As far as understanding what God wants from us, I think that that’s only going to take you so far. You can get to the Aristotelian logic of: God wants us to use reason. God wants us to act in accordance with right reason, which amounts to virtue. But that is relatively vague.

Aristotle did as well as anybody. Even Aristotle’s philosophy has some flaws in how he brings out virtue.

"Yes for Love": Declared on the Cross 2,000 Years Ago

Australia conducted a postal survey on the issue of same-sex marriage, where voters were asked by post, "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" Out of around 16 million eligible Australians, 79.5% participated in the survey. 

On 15 November 2017, the results were announced. 61.6% voted "Yes", while 38.4% voted "No". The vote was decisively in favour of changing the law to recognise same-sex marriages.

"Yes" campaigners immediately celebrated the vote for same-sex marriage. Various public figures and celebrities lauded the vote, and numerous businesses launched their own celebrations of the results. 

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in his speech on the results, said: "Australians voted for marriage equality. They voted Yes for fairness, they voted Yes for commitment, they voted Yes for love. And now it is up to us, here in the Parliament of Australia to get on with it, to get on with the job the Australian people have tasked us to do and get this done, this year, before Christmas — that must be our commitment."

If one looks into the Gospels, one would see that the contrast could not be more stark.

In the quiet testimony of Scripture, the Bible tells a very different story of love. 

On a cross between two criminals, hangs the Son of Man on a dark and gloomy day crying out in a loud voice and pleading His Father for forgiveness over those who, in their ignorance, hung Him there (Luke 23:34).

It is the story of a man giving Himself up for His beloved to make her holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:25-27). The Bridegroom for His Bride. A man and a woman.

And with His final cry, "It is finished" (John 19:30), that man Jesus Christ declared a resounding "Yes" for fairness, "Yes" for commitment, and "Yes" for love. 

It was done. He did what the Father had tasked Him to do. That was His commitment.

For it is through this that God shows Himself to be not only just, but the one who justifies. He is the one who commits to us His entire being, even to the point of death, and promises an eternity with Him. He is the God who demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

The message of the cross, therefore, tells of a gift that no human being, authority or institution can ever give. It is a perfect gift that can only come from above.

The message of the cross tells of that "Yes" and "Amen" to fairness, commitment and love that had been decisively spoken, not by the voice of any mere human being, but by the voice of God 2,000 years ago. 

While those who support same-sex marriage and who celebrate the "Yes" vote in Australia may rise in momentary triumphalism, on Calvary's hill 2,000 years ago stood the quiet testimony of Jesus Christ and His cross. It is the story of a man who gave of Himself to redeem His beloved Bride. It is the story of a King who rose from the grave, will return to wed His faithful Bride, will reign forever in victory, and whose kingdom shall have no end.

The festivities will fade, but the world needs to hear, as it had always needed, this same story of the Bridegroom and His Bride. And it is our sacred duty to proclaim it till He returns. That must be our commitment.

Is Isaiah Welcome in Singapore?

Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel.
All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced;
they will go off in disgrace together.
But Israel will be saved by the Lord
with an everlasting salvation;
you will never be put to shame or disgraced
to ages everlasting.

(Isaiah 45:15-17)

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has rejected recent Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) applications for two foreign Christian preachers to speak in Singapore. In a statement released by MHA on 8 September 2017, it was said that "both preachers had made denigrating and inflammatory comments of other religions."

 

MHA said in its statement:

3         One of the preachers had described Allah as "a false god", asked for prayers for those "held captive in the darkness of Islam", and referred to Buddhists as "Tohuw people" (a Hebrew word for "lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren" individuals) who can be saved only by converting to Christianity.  The other preacher had variously referred to "the evils of Islam" and "the malevolent nature of Islam and Mohammed", and called Islam "not a religion of peace", "an incredibly confused religion", interested in "world domination" and "a religion based on… adhering to uncompromising and cruel laws often focused on warfare and virtual slavery".   

 

In a letter to member churches dated 11 September 2017, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) took the opportunity to advise member churches "to exercise due diligence and careful discernment when inviting foreign guest preachers to minister in their congregations". It added that this was to "preserve the harmonious religious environment that currently exists in our nation, which allows Christians to fulfil their dual role of seeking the welfare of the city and sharing the good news based on our faith."

 

The letter continued:

In a multi-religious society with a secular government, the norms of engagement that make for peace and a nation's well-being require that all the different faiths be responsible in the freedom each has been given to practice and propagate their respective beliefs. In keeping with this, the language of discourse when relating to other faiths must always be respectful and winsome. Our speech should always be "gracious and seasoned with salt" (Col 4:6). The preaching and teaching over pulpits must exemplify and be consistent with this. We are not to denigrate another religion or act in ways that jeopardize the religious harmony in our society. This harmony is both rare and precious in times marked not only be a heightening of contention between nations but also contention within a nation itself.

It is without a doubt that our call as Christians is to speak the truth in love. In a verse cited also by NCCS in its letter, the Bible teaches us "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

However, the question comes at the level of application. In this, let us consider one "foreign preacher", the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah was the son of Amoz, who prophesied during the reigns of the kings of Judah Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Some of these kings were righteous, while some were not.

Many would be familiar with his messianic prophecy, "he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him" (Isaiah 53:5), a verse quoted in Matthew 8:17.

Nevertheless, his prophecies not only spoke of the Messiah and the salvation of Israel, but also condemned the wickedness and idolatry around him.
 

In Isaiah 44, the prophet Isaiah criticised idols and those who make them. "All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless," Isaiah speaks on behalf of the Lord, "Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their shame." (Isaiah 44:9)

 

Isaiah tells of a man who uses half of his wood to make a fire over which to bake bread, and the other half to fashion an idol for worship:

From the rest he makes a god, his idol;

he bows down to it and worships,

He prays to it and says,

"Save me; you are my god."

They know nothing, they understand nothing;

their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,

and their minds closed so they cannot understand.  

(Isaiah 44:17-18)

Later on, Isaiah issues a call to the "fugitives from the nations", calling them to gather and assemble, and to acknowledge the God of Israel as the one true God. Speaking on behalf of the Lord, he declares, "and there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me." (Isaiah 45:21b)

 

One would struggle to distinguish the substance and tone of language in Isaiah's prophecies from the statements of the two Christian preachers that had been complained of by the Singapore Government, which leaves us with some questions.

 

Would Isaiah be accused of "denigrating" the religions of others or jeopardising religious harmony?

 

Going by the standards of the Singapore Government, would this "foreign preacher" Isaiah be welcome in Singapore, if he applied for an MWP?

In the Beginning was the Tao...

If you are shocked by the title of this post, you are probably experiencing the same shock I felt when I read John 1:1 in Chinese one morning during my quiet time.

In the Chinese translation of John 1, the Greek word logos (λόγος), which is translated the "Word" in English, is translated "道" (dào in pinyin, or the anglicised "Tao") in Chinese.

Thus, John 1:1 reads:

太初有道，道与神同在，道就是神 。

In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God.

The word "道" has multiple meanings in Chinese. It could refer to a way (such as a road or path or a method of doing things), or a doctrine or principle. Many would be familiar with the use of the term Tao in Taoism. 

Logos (λόγος), in Greek philosophy and theology, refers to the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. This is the term that John used to refer to Jesus Christ, as the logos.

The depth and complexity of the term Tao truly illuminates who Jesus Christ is. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." (“我就是道路、真理、生命。”) (John 14:6a)

Jesus is the 'Logos' or the 'Tao' of God. He is not just the overarching principle of the cosmos, but the way to live and the way to eternal life.

Why the "Jesus" of "Fight of Gods" is not the Jesus of the Bible

I was more than slightly amused when I saw the trailer of a video game titled "Fight of Gods" on YouTube, my attention having been drawn to it by a recent report on Channel NewsAsia ("Malaysia blocks 'Fight of Gods' video game for threatening religious, racial harmony" (9 September 2017)).

 

Published by PQube Games, the game is described as follows on the Steam store:

Your prayers have been answered! For the first time ever, gods, holy spirits and mythological characters from around the globe and throughout history will clash in an explosive 2D fighter where the entire world is at stake!

The characters in the video game include Moses, Zeus, Odin, Jesus and Buddha, engaging in one-on-one fights much like the Street Fighter series of games.

 

As can be seen from the trailer of the game, the "Jesus" character makes his entry by breaking free and coming down from the cross, and using the chunks of wood still nailed/strapped to his hands as weapons or shields in the fight. The trailer tells us that he is the "Son of God", and that "He's back, and he's cross." (pun certainly intended)

 

"Jesus" breaks free of the cross

(From the trailer of "Fight of Gods")

 

Communication and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak reportedly said that the game degraded religions and religious leaders and posed a huge threat to racial unity and harmony. Steam was initially blocked from access after being given a 24-hour ultimatum to disable downloads of the game by users in Malaysia. But after Steam disabled downloads this morning (9 September 2017), the block on the website was lifted.

 

All that aside, it is quite evident that the "Jesus" of "Fight of Gods" is not the Jesus of the Bible.

 

Firstly, Jesus did not (and would not) come down from the cross. The Gospel of Matthew records how Jesus was taunted at His crucifixion:

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"  

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"  

(Matthew 27:39-43) 

Despite the fact that Jesus could have easily called for "more than twelve legions of angels" to his aid (Matthew 26:53) and despite the taunts and the challenges to His identity, Jesus submitted to the Father's will to die a cruel death on the cross, so as to save the world.

 

Sam Allberry puts it well in his book, Lifted: Experiencing the Resurrection Life:

And yet there is a double irony at work here. For it transpires that he won't save himself because he is the Saviour. His crucifixion was to be the means by which he did save others. Had he chosen to save himself, he would have been no Saviour to anybody else.

 

Secondly, Jesus does not advance His kingdom through violence, but through the preaching of the Word. From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus' message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." (Matthew 4:17) Before Pilate, He said, "My kingdom if not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews..." (John 18:36) Thus, when Peter sought to prevent Jesus' arrest by the Jews, Jesus rebuked him that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:42)

 

Thirdly, when Jesus comes back, He will not be coming on a cross, but on a cloud (Acts 1:11). Paul writes about the second coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

And the Book of Revelation shows us instead a picture of Jesus riding on a white horse, with justice to judge and make war (Revelation 19:11).

 

A final point to make is about the premise of the "Fight of Gods" game itself. The game is premised on the false idea that all these are gods who occupy the same universe and are in a battle against one another, and that Jesus is simply one of these gods. On this, the Bible is unequivocal that "there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:5)

 

Though there is a spiritual battle "against the forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12), Jesus had already disarmed, made a public spectacle and triumphed over the principalities and powers by the cross (Colossians 2:15). And when Jesus encountered demons and evil spirits, even a legion of demons found themselves begging Jesus for mercy (Mark 5:1-20).

 

Thus, the "Jesus" of "Fight of Gods" is not Jesus Christ at all. Such a "Jesus" who forsakes the cross and lives by the sword can save no one (perhaps not even himself), but will instead perish by the sword.

 

The real Jesus Christ was crucified, died and was buried, and rose again to life to reconcile all things to Himself, triumphing over the dominion of darkness, saving us from sin and the grave, and the world is much better for it.

"It's none of your business"

"When you and I as children of God are living in the light of honest confession - we're not trying to keep things under wraps, we're not trying to live a double life, we just want to honour Him in the best way that we can - your failures are not met with God's anger, they are met with God's advocacy."  

- Nik Godshall

 

The above quote was from a message by Nik Godshall titled "Why All the Rules", which he preached at Times Square Church on 6 August 2017.

 

To illustrate the point, he recounted the following story:

Just not too long ago, my son was playing with a bunch of other toddlers. And when toddlers engage in fellowship, dangerous things can happen, especially when my boy is there. Because my boy is a stereotypical boy. He is aggressive, as anything. I don't know what to do with him sometimes.

He likes to hit. He breaks things and everything. He's a lot of fun; don't get me wrong. I love him so much, he's the joy of my heart. I mean, he's excited, he hits. He's happy to see me, he hits. He gets angry, he hits. And he hit a child, which he knows that's wrong. Well, he hit them twice.

And so I had to make good on my previous threat, and so we needed to go deal with the situation. We left the room, and we dealt with it, and it was a very tearful dealing; for him, not for me. And we came back, and I was going to let him resume playtime. And he didn't want to. He just wanted me to hold him.

So I'm holding him on my lap and I'm just comforting, telling, you know, "It's okay, buddy. Daddy loves you. That's why we don't hit. We have to be kind..."

All of a sudden one of the kids from the group came up. They were a little older, and they started asking me some questions about my son. And, they were making me upset, and I had to keep telling myself, "This is an underdeveloped human. This is an underdeveloped human. This is an underdeveloped human. Children are not rational." Just everything.

They had this smirk on their face. They knew what just happened, and they said, "Why is he crying? When you took him in the other room, what happened? Why is he crying?"

And in that moment, I'm thinking, "This is so perverse. What's wrong with you, child?" You know...

And I remembered a line from a book that I had read to my son only a few nights before. We want to make him a bookworm, so we're feeding into that now. We go to the library; we bring home like a dozen books and we just read one every night. We read a Bible story; he gets to pick a storybook.

That night, we had read a book by Max Lucado; it was a collection of children's stories that he had written. And the first one, a really beautiful... basically a poem from a Daddy to his daughter. And I remember one of the lines. He is telling her about what it means to be her Daddy and what she can expect from him. And one of the lines made me stop. I'm reading to him and it made me stop and think, that is amazing. It is where he tells her, "I will always be on your side." And I thought, wow, what a line about parenthood.

My son is only two, and he's got a whole life of rebellion and folly ahead of him. And sometimes I think, what's he going to get into? What am I going to have to deal with someday? And just thinking about that in terms of that line "I will always be on your side."

I remembered that. I'm holding my little boy. I just had to punish him because he disobeyed me. He hurt another person. I had to deal with him because I want him to grow up to be a good person. I want him to be a good man. I want him to be a better man than his Daddy when he grows up. So I've got to be consistent. I've got to do that.

And then this innocent accuser, if you will, comes. And in that moment I remembered that line, I'm always on his side.

I made intense eye contact with this child. And I said, "It's none of your business."

And they walked away.

Stock photo

 

Certainly, human experiences of fatherhood pale in comparison to the love of the Heavenly Father. Yet, even in our imperfection and despite the evil within us, Jesus recognised and affirmed the natural human instinct of fathers to give "good gifts" to their children (Matthew 7:11). 

 

And this account remains a beautiful illustration of God's discipline as well as protection over His children.

 

The Bible shows us that all children of God are under God's discipline. God as a loving Father disciplines us for our good so that we may share in His holiness, even though such discipline may be quite unpleasant and painful for the time being (Hebrews 12:11).

 

However, in the face of the accuser, God is our advocate and defender. We have an advocate in Jesus Christ who speaks to the Father in our defence (1 John 2:1). And in Romans 8:33-34, Paul writes:

Who will bring any charges against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died - more than that, who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 

If God declares us righteous, who can condemn us?

 

All our sins have been paid at the cross, and there is no charge that anyone in heaven or on earth or from the pits of hell can bring against the children of God.

 

So, even as the evil one may come and bring accusations against the children of God, God as a loving Father stands as our protector, looks him plainly in the eye, and tells him, "It's none of your business."

"The Message" Author Eugene Peterson's Retraction of Same-sex Marriage Support: Where do we go from here?

Eugene Peterson is the author of "The Message" paraphrase of the Bible, who recently stirred controversy due to his support of same-sex marriage, which he retracted one day later.

 

 

Interview and retraction

In an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service published on 12 July 2017, "Best-selling author Eugene Peterson changes his mind on gay marriage", Peterson stated that he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

 

After recounting experiences with "several women who were lesbians" in churches where he was associate pastor, and the employment of man who applied and was employed as a music director that identified as being gay, he added:

I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.

 

Meritt asked Peterson as a follow-up, "If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?" Peterson replied with a one-word answer, "Yes."

 

A day after the publication of the interview with Merritt, Peterson retracted his views, stating, "To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything."

 

Peterson said, "I’ve never performed a same-sex wedding. I’ve never been asked and, frankly, I hope I never am asked."

 

He apparently blamed Merritt for asking the question in a hypothetical, and then claimed that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt: "When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else."

 

"I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered," he said. "It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate."

 

Merritt responded to Peterson's allegations, that his questions were pointed, "as any serious journalist’s should be. They were respectful and in no way pushy." He added, "It is possible Peterson felt he had been placed on the spot and offered an answer that doesn’t reflect his true conviction. But it is also important to note that in the week prior to the publication, there was no attempt to clarify or change his answer to these questions." ("Eugene Peterson backtracks on same-sex marriage", 13 July 2017)

 

Was Peterson's retraction genuine?

In thinking about Peterson's position on same-sex relationships, I have found Russell Moore's reflection on World Vision's 2014 change of course on same-sex marriage quite instructive.

 

For one, I find that Peterson's claim that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt to be an irresponsible act of blaming another person for his own error (if he does truly believe it to be an error), in an act of self-justification, quite similar to many of the public (partial) apologies that we see these days. It is part of the sinful human condition.

 

We have seen such examples in the Bible. Adam infamously pointed the finger at "the woman [God] put here with [him]" when God confronted him about his sin (Genesis 3:12). When Moses confronted Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron blamed the people instead, "You know how prone these people are to evil." (Exodus 32:22)

 

Secondly, in his response, Merritt suggested that Peterson retracted his views due to pressure from "conservatives":

The condemnations from conservatives were swift. LifeWay, America’s largest Christian book chain, threatened to ban his books if he didn’t affirm a traditional view of marriage. The heat rose quickly, and then Peterson retracted his remarks, claiming he was put on the spot. While he said a same-sex couple would be welcome in his church today, he would not perform a same-sex wedding “out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching.”

I find there to be quite some merit to this view (no pun intended). 

 

Despite Peterson claiming to affirm a "biblical view of marriage" and a "biblical view of everything", this seems to be based less on the authority of the Bible per se, but out of mere deference to "the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching".

 

Entire congregations can fall into error, the larger church body can be mistaken, and Christian view and teaching however historic or historical are no substitutes for the actual Word of God. As Christians, we are taught to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). Quite regardless of whatever people may say, our conscience and duty are owed to God, and God alone.

 

It would follow that, if God approved of or is neutral towards same-sex relationships or marriage, Christians ought to stand for these regardless of what people think. The same is true otherwise. And on this point, the Bible is amply clear in its affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman, and disapproval of all other forms of sexual behaviours outside that union, including homosexual behaviour.

 

Unfortunately, therefore, Peterson's retraction does not appear to be a genuine, Biblically-based retraction, but one made out of mere deference to the wider Christian body at large.

 

Where do we go from here?

Peterson's departure from the truth of marriage probably began way before the interview, and this interview was merely a symptom or a culmination of that earlier departure. (See Jonathan Merritt's article on "Eugene Peterson had this to say about same-sex issues in 2014", 13 July 2017)

 

It is important to recognise that Church (not just any denomination or congregation, but the wider body of Christ) is meant to be a place of accountability. Leaders and ministers are not exempt. Indeed, those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

 

Russell Moore's reflections on World Vision’s change of course in 2014 are equally applicable here:

We need to watch and to hold every Christian organization and ministry accountable. That’s what the Bereans did when they judged everything that the apostles were saying according to the word of God. They searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. We need to do that all of the time because every human authority is fallible, and every human authority can make mistakes. And so we need to be constantly watching that.

 

Especially on issues as controversial as sexuality in our modern age, we may find not just many churchgoers, but also pastors, leaders and ministers being swayed by the spirit of this age to fall into error. On this, James' exhorts us:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

 

Since Peterson's retraction was apparently made merely out of deference to the wider Christian body at large, it would be an error to merely take his retraction at face value and assume that he has turned from error. To do so, would merely enforce conformity with doctrine without genuine conversion to a Biblically-centred faith or, worse, the fear of man rather than God. 

 

It would also be wrong to accept his self-justification and blaming of his interviewer for putting him in a spot, since such denial of personal responsibility stands in the way of true faith and repentance.

 

Instead, the wider Body of Christ should actively reach out to Peterson to bring him back not only to a sound Biblical understanding of marriage, sexuality and human nature, but also and ultimately, a renewed relationship with the Creator Himself.