A church being liberal at the expense of being Biblical

Hoffstadt Creek Bridge, Mount Saint Helens (photo from trekearth.com)

An article in the local Maple Ridge Times explains that a Maple Ridge Anglican church has voted to allow same-sex marriages, and will do so when given permission by the diocese. This church had kindly assisted me with my questionnaire a few months ago and so I do not write this article with hard feelings against anyone! I genuinely appreciated their help in providing a liberal theological voice to my questionnaire. I have nothing personally against any liberal churches or homosexuals. The Times explains that at least 15 churches have voted to separate from the Anglican Church of Canada over this issue.

In the article the Reverend explains that they are an inclusive church and they stand for the liberal voice. I am a moderate conservative, and do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but I thought that a truly Christian church should stand for the voice of God through Scripture. The Scripture is to be followed as God’s Revelation for the world and the church, regardless if it means taking a conservative or liberal stand on an issue.

The Reverend points out that some people state homosexuality is a choice, but he disagrees. I can half grant his point as I think evangelicals at times are in error when they separate sinful choices from a corrupted human nature. It is not simply a choice. The Reverend states that homosexuality is part of the natural order of creation. I reason that this is a half-truth. Yes, in a fallen world, some persons by nature and choice are homosexual. I am not a scientist and I am not going to argue for or against the idea that some persons are born homosexual, but, even if it can be shown scientifically in conclusive manner that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals this would not make homosexuality natural within a Biblical context, in a fallen, corrupted creation. As human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. Those who live in homosexual practice stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). The entirety of humanity is corrupted, including physical nature and so a hypothetical homosexual nature in some persons would still mean that homosexual acts would be sinful.

The Reverend states that we need to get away from flat earth theology and become more enlightened.

Biblically enlightened?

As I noted in my previous article on this subject, Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83).

Biologically enlightened?

Basic biology tells me that marriage by definition is in part sexual and can, under normal circumstances, lead to sexual reproduction. I am not stating that a heterosexual couple that marries and cannot have children is not a valid marriage, nor is a marriage invalid where no children are produced by choice. Old persons that get married cannot have children, however, the physical sexual act of intercourse would be the same for all heterosexual couples and would be natural regardless of whether or not pro-creation could take place. The natural ability to sexually reproduce is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.

The Christian Church with the use of Scripture and biology should definitely be able to see that there is a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but many extreme liberals within the Church have lost trust in the word of God. I for one if I was an Anglican would refuse to submit to leadership that does not take a contextual evaluation and application of Scripture very seriously, placing it in front of sentiment and social and political ideology.

The Reverend notes that some Christian churches opposed the abolition of slavery in the past and compared it to the issue of churches opposing same-sex marriage. I think this is faulty reasoning as the Bible does not condemn any ethic group or race as being less than human or unnatural, but homosexuality is considered unnatural and sinful. Slavery did exist in Biblical times, but an aspect of New Testament teaching is equality of persons in love and that a person should no longer be a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother as Paul tells Onesimus concerning Philemon in Philemon 1:16.

In closing, I present a link and article and some key points from the article. I provide this as a contrast to the views of the Reverend regarding civil rights for blacks and homosexual rights. I can write concerning this article if needed in comments.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18338

Texas: 'Gay rights,' civil rights not the same, black leaders say

He (Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church and president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention’s Pastors’ Conference) pointed out three major differences between the two movements.

First, civil rights are rooted in moral authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in the lack of moral restraint, McKissic said. Trying to undo the damage of years of a race of people in slavery was the right thing to do, he said, whereas trying to change laws solely because of the decisions of a group of people is not the right thing.

Second, civil rights are rooted in constitutional authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in civil anarchy, McKissic said. According to the Constitution, all men have God-given rights. It was because of these rights Martin Luther King Jr. and others fought for freedom. He cited a speech King gave in Washington D.C. “He says, ‘America has written black folk a check and the check came back marked with insufficient funds,’ because the Constitution guaranteed us rights to vote, rights to buy property. It guaranteed us certain unalienable rights.”“But,” McKissic said, “the gay community [is] trying to write a check on an account that hasn’t been opened yet.”

Third, the sufferings of the homosexual do not compare to the suffering of the black man in America. McKissic said when the homosexual community suffers through 200 years of slavery, is declared only three-fifths human and is denied the right to vote or buy property, then the two movements can be compared.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

C.S. Lewis concerning free will and Hell

The following is another section I wrote on C.S. Lewis and the problem of evil, from my MPhil in 2003. There is material added in the Additional 2008 section.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

To Lewis, Hell was the place where those who were committed to unrepented rebellion against God were separated from their creator in the next life. Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119). This is the case even though Jesus Christ did the work required to save all of humanity.

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will. I see the logic of his point; however, it appears from Romans for example, that all reject God prior to God’s grace through the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10-11, mentions that not one person is righteous, not one person really seeks God. This being accepted, then even believers in Christ have their will somehow moved without being violated, since many believers accept the idea that human beings have, to some degree, free will. If a human being does not choose God without God first moving his/her heart, then the question arises, why does God move some and not others? Yes, some do believe and repent, but they cannot do this autonomously, so the reason why some are saved, and some are not, remains somewhat a mystery to humanity, and cannot be Biblically, entirely contributed to the human use of free will. Lewis explained some major objections to Hell, and countered these objections. He dealt with the objection with God’s retributive justice. He made the following point.

The demand that God should forgive such a man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. Lewis (1940)(1996: 124).

So, based on this idea, God must punish sinners, otherwise he condones sin. I think this true as well, to not believe in God in a relationship sense and fail to ask for forgiveness is a rejection of God. To refuse a relationship with God, one’s own creator, is to arguably commit the greatest crime possible. To reject the being that made you in love, and to reject your very own purpose to serve that God in love, is certainly a punishable offense. If there is anything wrong and offensive in the Universe that would be it!

Lewis also noted that while God does issue punishment to sinners in Hell, he is at the same time letting them live the selfish, Godless lives they desired apart from him, so it appears his love still remains even to those Hell bound. In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis as Uncle Screwtape states: "The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and specifically, the one self is not another self. My good is my good and yours is yours." Lewis (1941)(1990: 92) . This selfishness which leads to the damage of others is allowed by the Lord to flourish in Hell within the spirits of unrepentant sinners.

Lewis mentions the objection of God giving eternal-everlasting punishment for transitory sin. He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state. So, I would take from this idea, that perhaps the actual punishment of the sinner never varies, but stays the same. Hell could be a timeless type of punishment. Also, I would like to counter this objection by stating that in everlasting punishment, the sinner is not primarily being punished for sins against God in the temporal life, but is being punished and separated from God for a sin position against God. Why does a sinner earn everlasting punishment? Because his/her rebellion against God is everlasting. There is thus no injustice because there is not really eternal-everlasting punishment for temporal sin, but everlasting punishment for everlasting rebellion against God.

Concerning the objection of the horrors of Hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence. It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of Hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.

It is quite possible that the level of Hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11, so perhaps Hell is determined by what the individual makes of it largely.

Additional 2008:

Lewis noted this was the negative side of free will, that many would reject their creator. "Some will not be redeemed." Lewis (1940)(1996: 119).

Within much of Reformed theology persons outside of Christ freely reject God, but are also not elected to salvation. J.S.Whale states sovereign election means that all persons are subjects of double predestination, either in Christ or condemned. Whale (1958: 63). Election is based on God’s plan and initiative to save the elect. Calvin (1543)(1996: 200).

Lewis noted that because of free will, all of humanity could only be saved if God saved them against their own will.

I reason that this is incorrect. God can use compatibilism to save persons. Persons can be determined to believe in God without force or coercion, and freely accept the gospel message as God chooses to regenerate persons and moulds and persuades individuals to believe. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. This could be an outside force, as noted, that is not God. An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist.

Alexander R. Pruss notes a key difference between incompatibilism and compatibilism in regard to committing an action. The incompatibilist thinks if someone freely refrains from an action, they must not have been causally determined or significantly influenced to do so. The compatibilist thinks if someone refrains from an action, they have the power to do this and were not constrained from doing the action by an outside force. Compatibilism allows for significantly free human beings to commit free actions, simultaneously influenced and determined by an outside force but never with the use of constraint, coercion or force. Incompatibilism denies that any outside influence can significantly will any action, or impose itself on a significantly free being for a truly free action to occur. Pruss (2003: 216).

He handles this by stating that perhaps eternity is not necessarily in a line, but a solid, as in timeless state.

I personally doubt that hell is timeless, but the lake of fire, although likely described in figurative terms, has a physical nature where physically resurrected bodies are punished (Revelation 20). How time would work in such a place I do not know, but I reason that persons need time to process thoughts and to process punishment.

Finally, I desire that no one end up in hell, but it is a Biblical teaching!

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

LEWIS, C.S. (1941)(1990) The Screwtape Letters, Uhrichsville, Ohio,
Barbour and Company.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

PRUSS, ALEXANDER R. (2003) ‘A New Free-Will Defence’, Religious Studies, Volume 39, pp. 211-223. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/bloghush-floyd-
mayweather-jr-to-fight.html

Propaganda and Promoganda

Siegen, Germany (photo from trekearth.com)

And now for something completely different…

Propaganda:

‘Selected information, true or false, which is promoted with the aim of persuading people to adopt a particular belief, attitude or course of action. During the 20th Century all the major political ideologies have employed propaganda and made use of modern media to reach a mass audience. It has an important role in modern warfare and by WWII separate bureaus and ministries were established to promote morale and subvert the enemy. The Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, headed by Goebbels was one of the most effective. In the West there has been an increase in professional propagandists such as people in public relations and advertising.’ Concord (1982: 995).

The above is a direct quote with quotation marks, unlike the usual quotes on my blogs, which are paraphrased as I train myself to follow the Wales dissertation standard. I have been interested in propaganda posters for many years and wanted to feature some within an article. One day a few years ago I was scanning through some propaganda posters on-line and I came up with the term promoganda which I did not see anywhere on the web, but today I see that other persons are using it. I wrote the term down in a book and kept it to myself, but others have thought of it as well. With the Concord quote, perhaps much of modern 20th and 21st Century public relations and advertising could be considered promoganda.

In regard to the propaganda posters featured, I went to what appeared to be respectable sites, which would present accurate information, but I am not a scholar concerning propaganda. As well, I in no way whatsoever, politically or militarily support totalitarian regimes. I support Western political democracy and within a fallen world it is the best system to preserve human rights. I also support Western policing and military action when it concerns maintaining law and order. Romans 13 gives the state the right to maintain law and order. Bruce writes that Romans 13:4 explains that the state is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Bruce (1987: 224). 

Cranfield notes that from 13:4, the state is God’s servant, as it is an agent of punishment for wrath to those that do evil. Cranfield (1992: 323). Cranfield does tie in the mention of the word sword to the authority of the state to use military power. Cranfield (1992: 323-324). Cranfield points out that Paul in Romans seems to overlook the possibility that a government can use its power for evil rather than good. Cranfield (1992: 322). Cranfield leans to the admittedly difficult view that Paul reasoned that the state would ultimately praise an individual it intended to punish. Cranfield (1992: 323). I prefer another Cranfield suggestion that Paul was aware of the evil a state could commit, but was speaking of a states true and natural duty to do good. Cranfield (1992: 323). I reason the state is to maintain law and order in authority from God, but anything outside of that purpose can be evil. This could include imperialistic warfare, and a disrespect for human rights. Mounce suggests than in 13:4 we have the Biblical basis that the state can use force for the maintenance of law and order. Mounce (1995: 244).
http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/images/pp_ger_08.jpg


This German World War I poster appears to have Jesus Christ and therefore God blessing the German troops of the Central Powers. Since Romans 13 has God sanctioning each state to maintain law and order it cannot be necessarily assumed that Jesus and God sanctioned each and every German military action, as the Allied Powers too would have the divine right to maintain law and order.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters2.htm


The quotes provided are in italics.

A disturbing poster from Nazi Germany which supports euthanasia. A nation truly influenced by Christian thinking would tend to care for its ill.

This poster is from the 1930's, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party's racial office. The text reads: "This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP."
http://www.oddee.com/item_66536.aspx


I would support the Allied Powers over the Axis Powers, but the Nazis attempted to demonstrate that the Americans were pro-Jewish racists, and of course the Nazis were racists themselves. Such is sinful human nature as persons often condemn others for what they are guilty of themselves.

Liberators
A 1944 Nazi propaganda poster titled "LIBERATORS", which perfectly epitomizes many perennially-recurring themes of anti-Americanism


One totalitarian state battles another, although I can grant the Soviet Union the right to defend itself from an invader.
"Mercilessly, we will humiliate and destroy the enemy!"
Soviet propaganda poster from World War II, depicting a Red Army soldier aiming a bayonet at Hitler's temple. The torn paper document is titled "The Agreement on non-Aggression between Germany and USSR".

http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/description_0165.php



I would reason the poster was quite effective and I am glad the Allies won the war. It is interesting that the poster was produced by General Motors.

Warning! Our Homes are in Danger Now! Poster

The General Motors Corporation created this poster in 1942, early in World War II. The poster features menacing images of German leader Adolph Hitler and the Japanese Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, scowling over the American side of the globe. Both are armed and dangerous with Hitler holding a pistol while Tojo wields a bloody knife. Small houses form a line at bottom, underscoring the message of threats to ordinary lives.

At the right, there is a small white circle with a picture of a plane inside it, and the words "Our Job: Keep'em Firing."

The message is clear in the images and colors: America is in mortal danger and you must work long and hard to counter the threat.

BRUCE, F.F. (1985)(1996) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

THE CONCORD DESK ENCYCLOPEDIA (1982) New York, Concord Reference Books, Inc, Time.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/council-of-nani.html

A discussion on hell:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-02-19

C.S. Lewis and total depravity

Dubai

Within thekingpin68 blog, I have shared concepts from my PhD work. I thought for something different I would share two sections from my MPhil dissertation degree, which was also concerning the problem of evil. I realize that C.S. Lewis is quite popular and I reviewed his work on the problem of evil for my 2003 dissertation degree, which is like a mini-PhD in the United Kingdom academic system. I present two sections of my review and the second section concerns the topic of total depravity.

The entire MPhil can be found in the January 2006 archives and the link below:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

C.S. Lewis and total depravity

British born, Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a world renowned British writer whose theological literary works have been influential within Christian apologetics. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, describes Lewis’ beginnings and places of study.

Anglican scholar-novelist and Christian Apologist, perhaps best known for his literary fantasies that explore theological concepts. Born near Belfast in Northern Ireland, he received his B.A. from University College, Oxford, in 1924, and was fellow and tutor in English literature at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1925 until 1954. He then accepted the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. Hein (1996: 630).

Lewis pointed out some definite examples of human wickedness in his era and culture; however, he rejected the idea of Total Depravity. He stated:

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve the doctrine, partly on the logical grounds that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Lewis (1940)(1996: 61).

I can see the logic of Lewis’ point of view; however, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I will first give the comments of C.C. Ryrie and then explain my perspective.

The concept of total depravity does not mean

(1) that depraved people cannot or do not perform actions that are good in either man’s or God’s sight. But no such action can gain favor with God for salvation. Neither does it mean

(2) that fallen man has no conscience which judges between good and evil for him. But that conscience has been effected by the fall so that it cannot be a safe and reliable guide. Neither does it mean

(3) that people indulge in every form of sin or in any sin to the greatest extent possible.

Positively total depravity means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man’s nature, to his being: and total depravity means that because of that corruption there is nothing man can do to merit saving favour with God. Ryrie (1996: 312).

I would think Lewis did not significantly understand the doctrine. Ryrie’s first point answers Lewis’ objection. The doctrine is not about humanity being so evil that no good is possible. The point is that these good works can in no way earn salvation. As well, with Ryrie’s second point, humanity could acknowledge the existence of sin and evil in them because they still had a conscience, although it was scarred. Also, the depravity is not total in the sense of every aspect of evil in people being maximized, it means instead that humanity is corrupt to the point where salvation cannot be merited.

I think Ryrie explains the concept well, and understands it, unlike Lewis. However, I wonder if human beings can commit truly good acts, like both men suggest. I would think since humanity is totally depraved that no true human good is possible. If true goodness is found in perfection, as is God, then we cannot obtain that good. Even as Christians that attempt to perform the will of God with the help of the Holy Spirit, would there not be just a little taint of sin in all our actions? It is my view that human good is likely an absence of a complete maximization of our total depravity. I, for example, may appear to be humanly good compared to a serial murderer; however, that is because the murderer has been found out as someone who has committed heinous crimes, where as Lewis pointed out with an individual, my evil can be hidden in public persona.

HEIN, R. (1996) C.S. Lewis, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

RYRIE, C.C. (1996) Total Depravity, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.


Dubai


Dubai

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/recent-short-comments-on-society.html