Several years ago I highlighted the advent of the “Modern Hymn.” Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, along with others, have revived and reinvented the hymn for our generation. The most well known modern hymn, is perhaps one of the best: “In Christ Alone.” This song ranks up there with other greats and is as widely sung and loved today as “Amazing Grace.”
Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, recently highlighted the refusal of the authors of “In Christ Alone,” to allow it to be slightly edited and thus included in a new Presbyterian (PCUSA) hymnal. George lauds that decision, since the proposed edit would take out the idea of Christ bearing God’s wrath for sin. Here is the proposed edit:
From: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the wrath of God was satisfied.”
To: “Till on that cross as Jesus died / the love of God was magnified.”
George’s article, “No Squishy Love” was shared and discussed online and in print so much, that he has followed it up with a part 2, today. One of the places where his first article was discussed was Sharper Iron; and this most conservative of online evangelical blogs, was not even immune from those who argued against the idea that Jesus bore God’s wrath for sin. Truthfully the orthodox idea of Jesus bearing the punishment of our sin on the cross is facing hard times today.
The follow up piece by Dr. George, doesn’t back down from defending the satisfaction theory of the atonement, and it includes more historical insight on the question. In the piece, George also highlights another hymn with theological substance, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,” by Stuart Townend.
For my part, we should be glad that modern hymns are not as substance-less as some of the praise songs of the last few decades. Unadulterated joy and songs of intense emotion are needed, yes. But the didactic value of theologically rich hymns, which both move and instruct, is untold. May a new generation of hymn-writers pick up the mantle of Isaac Watts and continue to give the church faithful hymns for the next generation.
Al Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.
Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.
Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:
After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.
Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”
The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.
The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.
In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.
This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?
Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”
Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.
Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.
Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.
Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.
So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.
Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).
In the wake of Rob Bell’s controversial book Love Wins, a plethora of books have appeared clamoring to answer the question “Does Hell exist?” Most of these books take us back to the Bible and answer the question in the affirmative. A new book from Brian Jones is no exception. What is different about his book, however, is apparent from its title: Hell is Real (But I Hate to Admit It). Jones uses a healthy dose of humor and personal candor as he tackles this ever-troubling topic.
Jones shares his story of secretly disbelieving in Hell for his first four years as a pastor. When he realized his error and confessed his secret sin, he was met with bewilderment. Why confess a doctrinal shortcoming? “Pastor, we were worried there was something more serious going on!” was how many took his news. This is indicative of the sad state of affairs in the church today and part of the reason Jones has given us this book.
His book is written in a simple, straightforward style. He explains the Bible’s teaching on Hell, but more than that, he gets into the question of why it is that he and so many others wanted to believe there isn’t a Hell. He then finishes the book with a call for “apocalyptic urgency” and a straightforward witness to the lost around us.
He doesn’t dismiss social concerns but calls the church to be more forthright in its evangelistic fervor. By the end of the book you aren’t surprised to learn that he was fired from the Princeton Theological Seminary bookstore for being too evangelistic. Jones has a passion for Jesus Christ, and it shows!
This book is accessible and at times humorous. And more importantly, it won’t steer you wrong. It might just spur you on toward a more serious view of evangelism. If we really do believe there is a Hell, shouldn’t that belief burden us all with “apocalyptic urgency”? Brian Jones thinks it should, and I have to agree. Read this book and be challenged. You won’t regret it.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by David C. Cook publishing. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
About Book Briefs: With limited time available to give every book sent my way a full review, I’ll be offering short-form book reviews called Book Briefs. Book Briefs are book notes, or my impression and informed evaluation of a book, but they stop short of being a full book review.
Finally, the long-awaited interview of Rick Warren by John Piper has posted. Just last week, the 90 minute interview was released. I found the interview interesting and informative. I do think Rick Warren has gotten a bad wrap from us Reformed folk.
Warren doesn’t like to identify with the Calvinist label. Can we really blame him? He wishes that proponents of the Doctrines of Grace would be more gracious. I wish the same.
In the interview, it comes out that Warren is a monergist and believes in unconditional election. He’s uneasy with limited atonement as popularly conceived. His book The Purpose Driven Life was not originally intended for unbelievers, and he never expected it to sell as well as it did. Warren bemoans some of what he said in the book, wishing he would have been more clear in his emphasis on repentance.
Piper has very little criticism of The Purpose Driven Life really, and the book is what the interview is primarily about. Piper is aghast at some of the bitter reviews he’s read of the book. In Piper’s reading of it, he just doesn’t see it that way.
John Piper does challenge Rick Warren with regards to ensuring the legacy he leaves through his influence over thousands of pastors is one that encourages them to go deep and to explicitly root their ministries in theology. Part of Piper’s aim in the interview too, is “that the thousands of pastors and lay people who look to Rick for inspiration and wisdom will see the profound place that doctrine has in his mind and heart.”
I believe that Warren took the opportunity to clarify himself and his ministry and ran with it. He knew he was speaking to many critical voices through this interview. That said, he doesn’t come across as artificial or canned. The impression I got is that it’s the same Rick Warren, and that he’s been misunderstood more than people are willing to admit.
Am I now a rip roaring Warren guy? No. I’m cautious still with Warren’s ministry. But I am happy to have heard what I did of it. I’m more optimistic and hopeful for him and his influence. I’m also thankful that people like John Piper are willing to interact with people like Rick Warren. I think that there is a friendship budding here which can have a positive effect both ways. Piper can be encouraged to be more practical and think bigger dreams, and Warren can be challenged to be more explicit about how theology shapes his vision, and to be more careful with his influence over pastors all over the world.
The naysayers and critics will dismiss this interview altogether. They’ve already judged Warren (contrary to Romans 14), and now are going to be even tougher and more critical of John Piper. But I am willing to bet that if you listen to Piper’s three conference messages shared at Saddleback last month, you won’t find him back-pedaling. Piper apparently didn’t end up speaking at Saddleback church beyond the DG conference that Saddleback hosted. But 2,000 people attended the conference and so an important message was shared to the people who were in attendance.
I’ve spoken my mind about the Warren-Piper scandal before You can see several posts on this question here. And I’m willing to hope for the best on this. I doubt we’ll see Piper waver and falter in his message now. I am not sure we’ll see Warren change. But I hope people are challenged to think through secondary separation and other matters that something like this raises. Do we have to be ultra-critical of anyone not quite like us? Do we have to think the worst when we see a 2 minute video clip of someone being grilled on Larry King Live? Can we agree to disagree on such questions over someone’s ministry? Is it okay that I approve of Piper’s embrace of Warren and that you disapprove of it? Can we still be friends and get along?
I hope this scandal is behind us now. God will be (and is) the judge. We can rest in His sovereignty. Until then, remember, we’re not ministering on behalf of Piper or Warren or anyone else. We have to be faithful with where God has put us. I’m not of Piper or of Warren. I’m of Christ. But I respect both of these men and pray God’s continued blessing on their ministry.
Yes, I do believe Christianity calls us to live a life devoted to holiness and that does mean no sex outside of heterosexual marriage. We are to live in light of God’s created intent for this world: one man, one woman together in mutual love and submission for life, as husband and wife. But this is a fallen world and we all battle sinful urges which compel us to violate God’s standards for a holy life. Innately, and biologically even, we are driven toward pride, dishonesty, sinful strife, jealousy, and yes we are drawn to fantasize sinfully over objectified people of either gender. Some struggle one way, others another, but just because we were born as sinners and have a bent toward sinning, doesn’t mean we are not called to “abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.”
I wanted to point out a significant book review which brought up something I hadn’t truly considered before when it comes to this controversial topic. Dr. Peter Jones of Westminster Seminary, California, reviews a new book by Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are (IVP, 2011). His review is worth the long read as it covers where we are in evangelical Christianity today on this issue. One of the points in his review is “the worldview implications of sexuality”. Without further ado, I want to excerpt a good portion from his review here for your benefit. Please do read the whole review, however.
Such thinking not only ignores biblical morals but also denies biblical cosmology. Homosexuality and other forms of sexual blending have deep religious significance within pagan cults. Paris mentions the berdache, the he/she that appears in over one hundred tribes as a “two-spirit” man or woman who functions in the opposite gender, but she claims we know little about them, except that they perform spiritual rituals (67). She also mentions ethnic groups in Siberia, Borneo and the Philippines that “grant religious roles for those of ambiguous sexual biology or those of same sex attraction” (67-8). Never once does she inquire as to what those religious roles might be, nor the spirituality there practiced.
The End of Sexuality fails to recognize that homosexuals have functioned consistently, from the mists of time and all over the globe, as occultic shamans in all kinds of pagan religions. Mircea Eliade, a world-renowned authority on world religions, and one of the architects of the new spirituality, demonstrates that through time and space a commonplace figure in the pagan cultus is an emasculated priest. This common religious universal, or archetype, is identified with a particular kind of spirituality. We see the myth of a bisexual or androgynous god in ancient Mesopotamian and Indo-European nature religions, as well as in the myths of Australian Aborigines, African tribes, South American Indians and Pacific islanders, all still surviving today. In all these religions, observes Eliade, “ritual androgynisation” is a “symbolic restoration of Chaos, of the undifferentiated unity that preceded the Creation.” Homosexual androgyny, the joining of male and female in the same person, functions in these countless traditional religions as “an archaic and universal formula for the expression of wholeness, the co-existence of the contraries, or coincidentia oppositorum…symboliz[ing]…perfection…[and] ultimate being.”
Homosexuality is not limited here to morals or the lack thereof. It is employed as the attempt to define the very nature of the cosmos as inherently divine. It is for this reason that the Old Testament denounces homosexuality in such strong terms, since it is a sign of pagan religion. Paris’s dismissal of Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality as “the five or six passages” fails to see the injunctions as part of a major polemic against anti-creational paganism. The context of the much-cited prohibition against homosexuality states, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan” (Lev 18:3; see Lev 20:23). Leviticus presents sexual activity between two men as an example of the pagan religion of the Canaanites, which the people of Yahweh should avoid. In other words, it is the religion (implicit in the act, in its rejection of God the Creator), more than the morals, which is in view.
Certainly, not all homosexuals see these religious connotations, nor have they come to homosexuality for religious reasons. Nevertheless many contemporary homosexuals see this deep connection. It is what J. Michael Clark, professor at Emory University and Georgian State University, and a gay spokesman, understood about the berdache. Clark, once a Christian, could not find an adequate place for his sexuality in biblical faith, and turned to Native American animism for an acceptable spiritual model. He found in the berdache, this androgynous American Indian shaman, born as a male but choosing to live as a female, “a desirable gay spiritual model,” because the berdache achieves “the reunion of the cosmic, sexual and moral polarities,” that is, the classic pagan “joining of the opposites.” …
Other notable contemporary homosexuals understand their sexuality in occultic religious terms. Professor Emily Culpepper, an Ex-Southern Baptist and now a lesbian pagan witch, sees gays and lesbians, in her words, as “shamans for a future age.” She reserves a spiritual role for homosexuals, for a shaman is “…a charged, potent, awe-inspiring, and even fear-inspiring person who takes true risks by crossing over into other worlds.”
A contemporary gay theorist, Toby Johnson, inspired by the modern-day popularizer of pagan mythology, Joseph Campbell, believes that present-day gay consciousness represents a new religious paradigm, for:
it undermines the authority and legitimacy of the institutions of traditional religion;
it helps to see the world with a harmonious, non-dualistic vision;
in its ecstatic pangs of longing inspired by same-sex beauty, it experiences reverberations and recollections of humanity’s common mystical oneness with Gaia; and
it helps humanity to get over dualistic, polarized (male-dominant) thinking, and thus save the world in awareness of common planetary identity.
With the place of homosexuality firmly established as an essential component of cultic and religious nature worship, it was inevitable that a Jungian, June Singer, would give the ultimate expression of the deeply religious importance of homosexuality. She said already in 1977, “the archetype of androgyny appears in us as an innate sense of…and witness to …the primordial cosmic unity, that is, it is the sacrament of monism, functioning to erase distinction…[this understanding of sexuality was] nearly totally expunged from the Judeo-Christian tradition…and a patriarchal God-image.”
Clearly, Singer’s non-binary definition of sex does not fit “a Christian understanding” of creation (34). How powerfully, in its pagan self-understanding, it opposes what Paris also opposes, a “rigid sexual dimorphism” (32). Paris says that “viewing sex on a spectrum…male and female…positioned on the same line, not in two separate categories…makes a credible space for intersex people,” but, alas, such a view also makes an enormous space for occultic spirituality–once the connection of sex with spirituality is made (33).
I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I wanted Dr. Jones’ case to be established here. This spiritual aspect of homosexuality needs to be understood as evangelicals grapple with the increasing prominence of this issue today. The “otherness” of the Bible’s teaching on this issue should make sense given this wholistic viewpoint. It really is a different spirit and a different religious perspective that fights against the Created order presented in Scripture.
Several years ago I highlighted the advent of the “Modern Hymn.” Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, along with others, have revived and reinvented the hymn for our generation. The most well known modern hymn, is perhaps one of the best: “In Christ Alone.” This song ranks up there with other greats and is as widely sung and loved today as “Amazing Grace.”
