the low view

Pastors and other leaders within the AVC have always been charged with hosting those who advocate sin within their churches. To some degree that may have always been true but I perceive it to be more so today. And I I think it goes further. Some AVC pastors promote these sins themselves. Under the guise of grace or enlightenment, these leaders have adopted a low view of Scripture.

I recently wrote to my pastor expressing my concern on this topic. In that, I referenced Phyllis Tickle, who while not in the AVC, has been embraced by some within the denomination and whose words, while illogical, ring true in observation.

Phyllis Tickle, like most emerg* (and potentially one I'd list as heretic), has a poor grasp of truth yet she bears listening to for the purpose of triggering some introspection. In the Great Emergence (2008), she wrote that the erosion of the authority of sola scriptura will have been in 4 stages: the end of slavery as a biblically justified practice, the acknowledgement of the reality of divorce and that those who suffer it might find total restitution in the eyes of God, the ascendancy of woman to ministry, and finally (and as yet incomplete), an acceptance of homosexuals into the Church. Added to this she includes the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals (the Vineyard movement getting special mention) in which the Holy Spirit played an increased role in questions of Authority.

Today I read a former Vineyard pastor who typifies those who have adopted this false notion of love and truth. David Hayward wrote a post regarding Al Mohler's response to the recent Piers Morgan CNN interview with Joel and Victoria Osteen on the topic of homosexuality. In his post, Hayward noted Mohler's praise of Osteen's tenacious stand for the Scriptural truth that homosexuality is a sin. Mohler wrote:

To his credit, Osteen did answer his question, and by staking his position on the Bible’s teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, he took the only road available to anyone with any substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible.

Hayward then cites N.T. Wright's position regarding the sinful nature of homosexuality:

Interviewer: So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?
Wright: Correct. That is consonant with what I’ve said and written elsewhere.

Hayward adds, "It is obvious by now that endless exegetical analysis of the scriptures will only take us so far." I agree because endless exegetical analysis is not what we are called to. We called to subsequently live the life we find in Truth. Sadly, that's not what Hayward means by these true words. He really means that at some point our reason must override what we find in Scripture. Hayward continues:

So many things besides what the text itself is saying, such as the culture, time, the ad hoc nature of the documents, the human aspect of the texts, etc., must be taken into account. We now realize that the biggest problem is our hermeneutic… our own biases, blind-spots, prejudices and ignorance as we approach the texts.

Interestingly, a current Vineyard pastor, Frank Emanuel, weighs in here (as he does elsewhere), expressing his opinion based on a low view of Scripture, that homosexuality is not sin, "we need to rethink homosexuality, because what we have today is not at all represented in any Biblical texts."

That's code for, "where one agrees with the text, it is truth and where one does not, we need to employ our faulty reason."

Hayward then employs a common scare tactic citing the death of a gay activist in Uganda and says, "American evangelicals visiting Uganda insist that a strictly biblical attitude be taken towards homosexuals. This is the result. How strictly biblical do we want to be?"

First, Hayward who would rightly confront others using scare tactics somehow links calling homosexuality sin to causing murder. He later (in the comments) tries to cover his blunder by saying he was only asking the question. Regardless, he makes an irresponsible and unsubstantiated link. And worse, he clouds the truth.

My answer to his question - I was to be strictly fully biblical! The clarification is fully. Hayward would have us call Scripture and those who stand by it into question by appealing to who images of those who have failed to live the whole of Scripture. He doesn't consider the redemption found in the whole. He instead finds fault in the part and then calls the whole into question. His is the path of destruction. He dresses his position as loving but it is nothing of the sort. True love exposes sin but then offers redemption, mercy, and grace. I thank God that we can be strictly and fully biblical and we don't have to settle for less.

Finally, what about Piers Morgan and that interview? Morgan notes several times that people would be angry at Osteen while implying that Osteen is that one that is angry. Morgan implies that Osteen should not set himself up as judge. His basis for accusing Osteen of this is (1) Osteen saying something is wrong and (2) the influence Osteen has over a large audience. Interestingly Morgan is accusing Osteen on his international talk show ...

Additionally, Morgan tells us he doesn't see God as a God of redemption. He implies that people get well through their shear effort and that homosexuality isn't as "easy" as other addictions - huh? He even suggests that people other than homosexuals choose their addictions - wow! And it goes on and on ... yet few seem to notice the failed logic and the utter depravity of fallen mind. Morgan is applauded because he reflects the worldview of our fallen creation.

I understand why (and expect) the world doesn't question him and mindlessly accepts his reasoning against Osteen. My frustration however is with those claiming to represent Christ buying into the same lies. Renew your minds.

Technorati Tags: homosexuality, Scripture