CRN.Info and Analysis

Friends,

I am currently engaged in a through-the-bible-in-90-days reading ‘program.’ It is a fast-paced, exhilarating, whirl-wind adventure! This week I finished Leviticus and Numbers and started Deuteronomy. Anyhow, as you know, those books are filled with plenty of sermon stuff and, interestingly enough, one of the topics is that nasty three letter word ’sex.’

Now we have discussed much around here about whether or not sex is an appropriate topic for sermons on Sunday. It’s a good conversation to have. (Ironically, whenever the subject of ’sex’ comes up we always rush to Song of Solomon and never to the book of Numbers or Leviticus, but I digress.) So, since everyone is contributing humor this week, I thought perhaps to add my own bit of humor to the posting with this piece from Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby) that I clipped about 14 years ago.

When I went to City Hall to renew my dog’s license, I told the clerk I wanted a license for Sex. He said, ‘I’d like one, too!’

I said, ‘But this is a dog.’

He said he didn’t care what she looked like. Then I said, you don’t understand. I’ve had Sex since I was 9 years old.’ He winked at me and said, ‘You must have been quite a kid.’

When I got married and went on my honeymoon, I took my dog with me. I told the hotel clerk I wanted a room for my wife and me, and a special room for Sex. He said, ‘You don’t need a special room for Sex. As long as you pay your bill, we don’t care what you do.’

I said, ‘Look, you don’t seem to understand. Sex keeps me awake at night.’

The clerk said, ‘Funny, I have the same problem.’

Well, one day, I entered Sex in a contest, but before the competition began, the dog got loose and ran away. Another contestant asked me why I was just standing there, looking disappointed. I told him I had planned to have Sex in the contest. He said, ‘Wonderful! If you sell tickets, you’ll clean up!’

‘But you don’t understand,’ I said. ‘I want to have Sex on TV.’

He said, ‘They already have that on cable. It’s not big deal anymore.’

Well, my wife and I decided to separate, so we went to court to fight for custody of the dog.

I said to the judge, ‘Your honor, I had Sex before I was married.’ The judge said, ‘The court is not a confessional. Please stick to the facts.’ Then I told him that after I was married, Sex left me. He said, “Me, too.”

Well, last night Sex ran away again, and I spent hours looking all over town for him. A cop came over to me and asked, “What are you doing in this alley at 4 o’clock in the morning?’

I said, “I’m looking for Sex.’

My case comes up on Friday.

Have a good weekend everyone.

HT: Levticus 18

jerry

Mark Driscoll has done it now.

For those of you unfamiliar with Mark, he’s the senior pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a church which has thrived - despite its unwillingness to alter the beliefs of the church to fit its culture - in a twenty-something, pagan culture in this ultra-liberal city. While I don’t necessarily agree with parts of Driscoll’s theology (**cough** Calvinist **cough**), I have often found his teaching, his energy, his bluntness, his steadfastness and his depth something to be admired.

But now he’s walked off the map, if parts of the Armchair Discernment Media are to be believed. (Granted, they like him from time-to-time when he makes statements about their favorite targets, but those times are few and far between.) One rabid critic of Driscoll is Steve Camp (yeah, the warmed-over Christian musician from the 80’s who jumped the shark on a Christian cruise ship years ago), and Mark has him hopping mad now.

Why?

Because Driscoll has started a series on The Song of Songs. More importantly, Mark decided NOT to teach SoS as allegory, but instead as it has been treated for eons by the Jewish church and by the early Christian church, prior to Origen. Mark decided to teach a series (to a church full of twenty- and thirty-somethings) about the Biblical view of sex and sexuality, and to use the book of the Bible that explicitly addresses this topic as something non-Puritanical.

So, just to get this straight - The same folks who will declare you a heretic if you view the opening poem of Genesis as allegorical or semi-allegorical will also go into fits of apoplexy if you exegete another Biblical book literally instead of allegorically. Then, just to complete the smackdown, they’ll give you a hundred-plus-year-old Victorian exegesis from Chuck Spurgeon. OOOoooohhh, that’ll show him!

In reality, the Song of Songs is a poem, attributed to Solomon, which describes the relationship between a man and a woman. In some ways, the SoS can be treated allegorically, as love between God and Israel and as love between Jesus and the church. However, parts of it cannot really be viewed as allegory. In reality, though, these were used by Jewish families, particularly the newly married, as a way to view their own new relationship (since many were in arranged marriages, and may or may not have known their spouses before marriage).

Historically, Jewish boys were forbidden to read from the SoS until after the age of accountability, age 13, because of some of the imagery there, so I don’t see any problem in Youth Pastors in avoiding this text for lessons. However, with all of the unhealthy views of sex in society today, is this really something that our adult Christians should be ignoring - or allegorizing away?

Someone known to be wise once wrote:

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

How true. One of the other writers here noted the innate sadness of this particular news story, in which a young college coed has decided to sell her virginity (”legally” through a Nevada brothel) in order to fund her schooling. In reading this, I’m reminded of a story I’ve heard several times:

A man approaches a young woman and asks “If I paid you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?” The woman thinks about it and says “A million dollars? Sure, I suppose so.” The man replies “OK, how about $20?” The woman, indignant, says “What do you think I am?” to which the man replies “We’ve already established your profession, now we’re just haggling on the price.”

In the aforementioned news story, we learn that the woman isn’t just going to go for the highest bidder:

Dylan is a bright, beautiful young woman who’s going to consider a number of factors in her decision because she wants her first time to be a positive experience. “Natalie is a very smart girl. All she wants to do is get her master’s degree in family and marriage counseling and be a psychologist. She’s selling her virginity to accomplish that, [...] She’s smart enough to sell it. This is empowering her.”

So far, hundreds of offers have already come in including some from male virgins. Natalie says she won’t give up her virginity to the highest bidder. She’s also seeking other qualities from her first lover. “I’m looking for intelligence and an overall nice person,” said Dylan.

Continue Reading »

Friends,

“Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh” (Jude 1:22-23).

“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)

I feel the need to break my own self-imposed rule of minimal blogging here at CRN.info designed to give someone else the chance to get a word in edgewise. But everyone seems to be busy today and I just happen to have the majority of my work for the week finished and I don’t think I can let this post by A Little Leaven to go by without a comment or two. With all the noise surrounding the RA/KS scandal it seems perhaps it might do us some good to consider a question of with serious theological and practical implications. For the protection of CRN.info and the writers here, I will say up front that this is a serious inquiry into a post made at A Little Leaven by blogger Chris Rosebrough and in no way an accusation or slanderous statement about his faith, character or person. Here I am interacting solely with the contents of his blog post.

I want to begin by pointing out that I like Chris Rosebrough and that this post is in no way a personal attack (that seems to be a popular word these days) on his person. Here I am interacting only with the contents of the blog post linked above where he is critical of xxx.church and their new ‘Don’t Spank‘ campaign. Furthermore, while most of this blog post is of a serious nature, I have used a mild form of sarcasm in order to illustrate my point and highlight the absurdity of Chris’ commentary on said campaign by xxxchurch.

Chris asks a very important question at his blog, one that should be addressed, concerning this new campaign (it may be old, I don’t know; Chris just posted it yesterday, 25th). He writes: “What exactly does XXXChurch hope to accomplish through this particular campaign (other than offending just about everyone)?” Well, I think I’d like to take a stab at answering this question: Chris, what they hope to accomplish is that people will stop flogging their dolphin, beating their bishop, choking their chicken, spanking their monkey, and/or otherwise sexually abusing themselves while they look at porn, fantasize about porn, or surf the web searching for porn or think of creative ways to sneak porn into their minds. This really doesn’t seem to be a terribly difficult conclusion to come to given the nature of the ministry of xxx.church. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think a great deal of perception is required to understand this. I’m not sure why anyone would be offended by this at all. All they are hoping to accomplish, it seems to me, is to encourage some self-control (a fruit of the Spirit kata Paul) among Christians in particular and perhaps the population at large in general.

Second, Chris puts forth a hypothetical scenario and asks another very important question. He writes: “Let’s pretend that through the magic of this marketing piece that everyone who sees this decides to stop ‘flogging their dolphins’. Does that mean that they’ve become Christians and are now saved?” Well, again, this doesn’t seem to require a great deal of thought. Chris, the answer is no. What it means is that, through the magic of this marketing piece or self-control or the Holy Spirit or accountability to friends, those who listen will have stopped masturbating. I really think that is the whole point here. There doesn’t seem to be anything about this campaign to suggest, to me anyhow, that it is necessarily evangelistic in nature. I don’t see anything on the two-sided stickers that says ‘Jesus’ or ‘Romans Road’ or ‘Visit Paul Washer Online At…’ On the contrary, I have always been under the impression that xxx.church was a ministry designed to hold Christian brothers and sisters accountable to one another on the internet where there has been a proliferation of porn since its inception or to help those who are addicted to porn escape its clutches. I don’t see how anyone could possibly be offended by such a thing, but then again, I am not Chris R now am I? If you read this, Chris, please help me understand why this should be considered offensive.

No Chris you silly man. People don’t ‘automatically’ become Christians because they give up auto-erotic behaviors. They become Christians when loving Christians teach them about Jesus, the Gospel, and about how God will hold them accountable for their lives–you know, when we ‘talk about all the things that really matter most, like life and love and happiness and too the Holy Ghost’ (Bob Herdman)–and when God gets a hold of them and raises them up to new life in Christ (See Ephesians 2:1-10) at their baptism. This is all in the Bible and you can readily access it by turning to just about any page. Now all of this leads me to two very important questions for Chris.

First, I guess, following your logic, that Christians should do nothing to discourage any sin at all. This means, if I am understanding this properly, then Christians ought to give up any and all action against abortion, we ought to give up any and all action against homosexual nuptials, we ought to give up any and all action against serial killing, we ought to give any and all action against rape. We should never work to alleviate poverty and injustice. And so the list could go on and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, following this logic, if we work to prevent an abortion but no one becomes a Christian because of those efforts, then it was rather pointless to work against the abortion in the first place. I suppose we may as well not do anything to eradicate sin and injustice and unrighteousness in the world. We may as well just sit back and be happy that we are saved and hope that somehow God magically does something to save the rest.

Second, and here’s where it gets just a bit risky…but in opposing this new campaign by xxx.church…this new campaign designed to make people think before they, uh, flog or get them to stop flogging altogether…in opposing this campaign or at least mocking it, are you in some way advocating the behavior they wish to stop? Let’s suppose through the magic of this marketing that people do stop ‘flogging’ does this automatically mean they are Christians? No. You are right! But, it might mean there are a few less people looking at and buying porn and the ramifications of that are astronomical.

Now, to be sure, I know you are not advocating the continuation of such practice. What Christian would advocate self-abuse and lusting eyes? I know you don’t and you wouldn’t. So what are you opposed to it for? What exactly will you gain by opposing what the Lord has placed on the hearts of others? What will the pain be for the church if this campaign is a success? Why are you embarrassed that a para-church organization has taken it upon themselves to help people break these bad habits, some would say destructive sinful habits, and lead them to do something more constructive with their hands and eyes?

The problem is that for drive-by readers of your blog your post might be perceived in just such a way. There may be people who think you are advocating flogging behavior since you are opposed to a campaign to stop flogging behavior unless the only readers you have in the first place are those who implicitly agree with you already. Perhaps for just a moment you could step back and see the bigger picture of the cost and sacrifice involved in rescuing people from the sin that has so gripped their lives. In other words, let’s see if there is a way we can discuss the issue and bring or offer some grace and mercy to those who suffer the shame of such activity instead of so quickly dismissing it is as ‘offensive’.

If you have ever been saved because Chris Rosebrough posted a warning about xxx.church at his blog, please email us.

sincerely,

jerry

**UPDATE**

Turns out xxxchurch is wasting their time after all and that bro. Rosebrough was right to call them out. Link.

Seems that the bi-monthly topic of homosexuality has come up again. Interestingly, last week’s sermon topic at my own church was specifically on this topic, with an approach likely to tick off both extremes of the spectrum on the issue.

You can listen here (sorry for the streaming link - I don’t have a downloadable one, though you can get it through iTunes here).

“While some “Christian” pastors have slipped their Biblical moorings and are now apologizing for opposing abortion, men like Barak Obama are leading the charge to against pro-life legislation.”

This was the opening line in the post entitled It’s a Mad World, at CRN this morning.

It was followed with the statement

Is it really wrong and “Un-Christian” of Christians to call abortion a sin

So, I followed the link to a little leaven where they asked

Is the church wrong and judgmental for claiming that abortion and homosexuality are sins and contending against them?

Wow! A church that claims it is judgmental to call abortion and homosexualty a sin? A church that says it is wrong to call homosexuality a sin!? Where would this be? Well, it doesn’t exist. Here is the original news story and a few quotes that CRN or A Little Leaven will probably not want you to read

Georgia Baptist pastor who pledged to apologize to gays, women seeking abortions, and couples who live together outside marriage…

His apology was not limited to the aforementioned groups but was directed to those in the secular world that drive by churches each day and never consider visiting because of the judgmental posture…

Lee did not yield ground on his conservative beliefs but said the Church’s established methods of judging others for their shortcomings obviously has not worked. Driving people away from Christ is not an effective way of bringing them to Him, he said through a variety of illustrations….

“I am 37 years old and I believe the Bible is 100 percent truth without error. But the Bible tells us we are to judge our own lives and not the lives of those outside the faith”

And while I firmly believe that Romans 1 is true in its discussion of homosexuality I know that it is much easier to condemn when you do not know those in that lifestyle.

So, this would have been a big, huge, juicy story… if it were actually true. Apologizing for how we have treated these people is not the same as apologizing for what scripture has to say about their lifestyle and choices. I find it very ironic that Christians run to the media for an apology when someone treats them bad, but we are unapologetic for gay bashing, abortion clinic vandalism and arsons, and let’s not mention gadhatesfags.com. Don’t see too much outrage over how we have treated those that need Christ the most.

BTW… I LOVE how they had to drag Barack into the equation. Wouldn’t be a good ODM article without blaming some politicians for where the church has fallen short in affecting society.

Sometimes no commentary is needed to illustrate how the ODM’s have the unique ability to twist “news” to fit their agenda.

First from A Little Leaven comes the story of the sorry church

Is the church wrong and judgmental for claiming that abortion and homosexuality are sins and contending against them? Pastor Richard Mark Lee of the Family Church in Sugar Hill, Georgia thinks so. What did he do about it? He apologized to the unchurched for being judgmental during a highly publicized church service.

We think that Pastor Richard should also apologize on behalf of God for destroying the earth by flood because of men’s wickedness, destroying Sodom and Gomorah, plaguing the Egyptians and killing their first born, destroying Korah and those who followed him, killing everyone in Jericho, and killing the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel for their false religion.

And now from the Pastor, Richard Mark Lee, of Sugar Hill Church

“For me, I cannot stand in front of God and tell Him that I did nothing to reverse that perception. It’s important to know that the 18-28 year-olds are not against Christ; in fact, they tell pollsters that they have fond feelings for Him and believe in God. But the bottom line is that the Church is still perceived as judgmental, homophobic, and irrelevant” rather than for our love for them.

“I am 37 years old and I believe the Bible is 100 percent truth without error. But the Bible tells us we are to judge our own lives and not the lives of those outside the faith.

“Today I want to apologize to our community for getting in the way of Jesus. He really is awesome and you’d like Him, even though you may not like those in the Church.”

Lee addressed a variety of misperceptions the Church has given to unbelievers in an increasingly non-Christian society.

“I have picketed abortion clinics, I’ve held the signs and banners and done all those things. I am pro-life but I regret being involved in those things. I am sorry for having a bumper sticker mentality.

“If you have had an abortion recently or even several years ago, I want you to know that I do not sit in judgment of you today. I am sorry if you have sensed a spirit of judgment in the way I presented myself and the gospel.”

Then he addressed the gay issue and individuals in the Church who “have a pharisaical mindset,” apologizing for the way some Christians “have demonstrated prejudice, bigotry, or a hateful attitude.

“We are sorry for acting like the head of the body of Christ rather than like a part of that body. We are sorry for driving you out of church; that is not of God. “I have apologized to God and now I am apologizing to you.

“In my day of arrogance I have laughed at my share of gay jokes but I now understand that participating in such activity does color the way you view people. You can’t avoid it. And while I firmly believe that Romans 1 is true in its discussion of homosexuality I know that it is much easier to condemn when you do not know those in that lifestyle.

“I have recently renewed an acquaintance with an individual who is homosexual and I have come to the realization that I cannot engage in jokes which demean the very person I am trying to reach.

“We have used trite phrases such as ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ in these instances but we should really love the sinner and hate our own sin. The Bible teaches that love does not find fault, but the hard truth is that the world has seen that we do not love those who are different from us.

“Time and again, Jesus’ words challenged the religious establishment. He taught us to leave the 99 and go after the lost one. But we have not followed that teaching very well and have actually pushed people further away from church.

“In John 4:18 we read that ‘perfect love drives out fear.’ I apologize for driving you out of the church and making the church a place that you fear. While the Bible teaches that we should all have a reverential fear of God, we should not fear those who sit in the pews. I make this apology and genuinely ask you to forgive me.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Wait till you read this! Christians are actually loving sinners, serving them, and developing relationships with GAYS! And not just Christians… MEGA CHURCH CHRISTIANS! Who do they think they are–Jesus?

Read it all

In the recent post The Sexuality Obsession, there has been a heated debate over the issue of a Christian’s role in legislating morality. Ingrid wrote

I’m amazed at those who make the statement that you can’t legislate morality. Someone’s morality is always legislated, the question is always, whose? Right now the morality of the child-killers has been codified into law. We have 50 million dead babies because of this. Chattel slavery was the morality codified into law here in the United States and in Great Britain. It took a William Wilberforce, a Christian, to spearheaded moral opposition that changed the law (politics, Henry) to free blacks in England and a civil war to end it here in America where Christians had made peace with slavery.

All I want to say is that fighting for basic rights that all humanity should have (life, freedom, food, etc.) is one thing. Fighting for all humanity to act as we would like them to is a whole other ballgame. Calling for humans to not be sold as property is not the same as calling for everyone to have sex as we would like them to. Ending the genocide in Europe is not the same as fighting for our morals to be made laws in America. We Christians in the United States fight so hard for our moral freedom. But, as soon as someone else wants to exercise their moral freedom, not even asking for us to curb our beliefs, we react with vicious words and actions.

Look, I believe the scriptures. I believe that homosexuality is a destructive and ultimately godless lifestyle. I believe that having sex inside the context of heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable context for it. I believe that God longs for people to honor His instructions for sexual practices. However, I also believe that adultery is biblically wrong. I believe that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman for life. I also know that more people commit adultery in America (14-22%) than live homosexual lifestyles (1-3%). If we are so concerned about legislating our sexual morality, why are we not strengthening the marriage contract? Why are we not fighting for making adultery illegal? Of course, we can’t stop there in being the moral majority. We will have to make it illegal to not attend church. We will have to enforce coveting with the law enforcement. We can force people to give 10% of their income to the church.

If we are going to be the group who controls everyone’s morality thru the government, we have to think thru the long term ramifications. Are we really called to do this? Or, are we just picking and choosing our battles to keep our comfort levels at their peak?