Monday, November 20, 2006
No Such Thing As "Sexual Orientation"
Homosexuality poses the greatest challenge to discernment, discipline and restoration that the church has faced in the past 100 years. Why? If we don't learn how to discuss it with winsome conviction, we'll probably lose our voice on the issue altogether. Thankfully, when God brings a sin into the open, as he did with the exposure of Ted Haggard, it means He's giving the church an opportunity to deal with it.
However, before this happens, we must change our language and stop allowing popular culture to define our terminology. What do I mean? Here's just one example: In a recent CNN interview with Kyra Phillips, instead of providing incisive clarity from a biblical perspective, evangelical sociologist Tony Campolo muddied the waters. I'm not suggesting that Christians must be ready with pat, religious mumbo-jumbo for every tough question posed by the media, and I confess that I sometimes agree with Campolo's controversial views on social justice, poverty and war. But he needs to put his perspective on homosexuality back under the microscope of Scripture.
In discussing Haggard's restoration, Campolo states:"Will he just say, 'I have a little problem on the side'? Or will he begin to face the fact that maybe I have a sexual orientation that does not offer an easy fix? And if he does turn out to be homosexual in his orientation, he's going to have to live with that orientation and figure out what this means for the rest of his life, because there's not an easy fix for that."
First, Scripture does not recognize homosexuality as an orientation, any more than it recognizes adultery, fornication, anger, drunkenness or lying as individual orientations. Instead, it prohibits specific behaviors--all of which have their root in an "orientation" that every human being was born with: sin. This orientation (or "sin nature," as theologians would put it) leads us to reach for a bottle, a gun, a syringe or someone else's spouse in our relentless defiance of God's law. Whether by nature, nurture, genetics or life choices, some of us are more inclined to certain sins, but we remain, as Paul so eloquently contends, "without excuse".
The language of "orientation" has allowed us to relinquish our responsibility for specific behaviors, to psychologize our conduct and to label each other as drunkards, abusers, adulterers, liars, homosexuals and so on, based on the sins we are most likely to commit. This system is convenient both for those who do not struggle with any of the sins that happen to be "socially-unacceptable" at the moment and for those looking for an external excuse for their sinful behavior.
Campolo is partially right: Our orientation toward sin is something we're born with and will have to deal with all our earthly lives. But the orientation and the sin itself should not be confused, lest we embrace some fatalistic version of Christian living. Campolo sounds a lot like Paul, who wrestles with this when he states, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do" (Romans 7:15). But if we keep reading, we see that Paul was convinced that it is possible, through the power of the Spirit, to win daily battles with the the "sin orientation" that lingers in our fallen souls. As church father Augustine summed it up, before conversion we were "unable not to sin," but when we are in Christ, He enables us not to sin--a testament to the power of the Spirit to circumvent our wiley sin nature.
Whether speaking to our congregations or the press, imagine the clarity church leaders could bring to the nebulous discussion of "sexual orientation" by letting our language reflect biblical reality and altogether avoiding the cultural labels of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", "transgender" and so on. The results?
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
We intend to discuss this topic further in the future in the print magazine. Your feedback, perspectives and ideas are welcome below.
However, before this happens, we must change our language and stop allowing popular culture to define our terminology. What do I mean? Here's just one example: In a recent CNN interview with Kyra Phillips, instead of providing incisive clarity from a biblical perspective, evangelical sociologist Tony Campolo muddied the waters. I'm not suggesting that Christians must be ready with pat, religious mumbo-jumbo for every tough question posed by the media, and I confess that I sometimes agree with Campolo's controversial views on social justice, poverty and war. But he needs to put his perspective on homosexuality back under the microscope of Scripture.
In discussing Haggard's restoration, Campolo states:"Will he just say, 'I have a little problem on the side'? Or will he begin to face the fact that maybe I have a sexual orientation that does not offer an easy fix? And if he does turn out to be homosexual in his orientation, he's going to have to live with that orientation and figure out what this means for the rest of his life, because there's not an easy fix for that."
First, Scripture does not recognize homosexuality as an orientation, any more than it recognizes adultery, fornication, anger, drunkenness or lying as individual orientations. Instead, it prohibits specific behaviors--all of which have their root in an "orientation" that every human being was born with: sin. This orientation (or "sin nature," as theologians would put it) leads us to reach for a bottle, a gun, a syringe or someone else's spouse in our relentless defiance of God's law. Whether by nature, nurture, genetics or life choices, some of us are more inclined to certain sins, but we remain, as Paul so eloquently contends, "without excuse".
The language of "orientation" has allowed us to relinquish our responsibility for specific behaviors, to psychologize our conduct and to label each other as drunkards, abusers, adulterers, liars, homosexuals and so on, based on the sins we are most likely to commit. This system is convenient both for those who do not struggle with any of the sins that happen to be "socially-unacceptable" at the moment and for those looking for an external excuse for their sinful behavior.
Campolo is partially right: Our orientation toward sin is something we're born with and will have to deal with all our earthly lives. But the orientation and the sin itself should not be confused, lest we embrace some fatalistic version of Christian living. Campolo sounds a lot like Paul, who wrestles with this when he states, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do" (Romans 7:15). But if we keep reading, we see that Paul was convinced that it is possible, through the power of the Spirit, to win daily battles with the the "sin orientation" that lingers in our fallen souls. As church father Augustine summed it up, before conversion we were "unable not to sin," but when we are in Christ, He enables us not to sin--a testament to the power of the Spirit to circumvent our wiley sin nature.
Whether speaking to our congregations or the press, imagine the clarity church leaders could bring to the nebulous discussion of "sexual orientation" by letting our language reflect biblical reality and altogether avoiding the cultural labels of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", "transgender" and so on. The results?
It helps church leaders avoid fixating on discussion of certain sins at the expense of others and alienating people who struggle with specific sins, while leaving others off the hook.
It levels the ground at the foot of the cross, where all sinners must meet--regardless of which sin they are most vulnerable to. It naturally redirects manipulative questions such as "Will gays go to hell?" to more substantive ones, such as "Will sinners go to hell?"
It redirects the focus of those wishing to justify their orientation for one reason or another to examining their specific behavior as offensive to God.
The increasing prevalence of homosexual behavior in our society provides an open door of opportunity for Christian leaders to reclaim the language of sin and, in so doing, bring hope to sinners and clarity to believers seeking to understand the depths of their own depravity and ongoing need for grace.It levels the ground at the foot of the cross, where all sinners must meet--regardless of which sin they are most vulnerable to. It naturally redirects manipulative questions such as "Will gays go to hell?" to more substantive ones, such as "Will sinners go to hell?"
It redirects the focus of those wishing to justify their orientation for one reason or another to examining their specific behavior as offensive to God.
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
We intend to discuss this topic further in the future in the print magazine. Your feedback, perspectives and ideas are welcome below.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Wednesday Fun: MeChurch
Ever get the feeling this is what people expect your church to be?
This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What New Life Did Right
As many of you know, Ted Haggard served as a senior editorial adviser to Ministry Today and wrote a column in each issue of the magazine until this past May, when his increasing duties at New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals precluded his ongoing involvement. During the time he served in this role, we appreciated his warm personal encouragement and insight--as well as his incisive wit in writing and conversation. We're still reeling as we read the accusations, admissions and announcement of his resignation from the NAE and dismissal from the pastorate of the church he founded and successfully led for so many years.
We do not want to understate the long-term effect this scandal will have on New Life Church, the Body of Christ at large and the world's public perception of God's people. But while we are sobered by the events of the past week and vividly reminded of our own frailty and vulnerability to sin, we are also strangely relieved. Why? Because this could have gone so much worse had it occurred at one of many other charismatic congregations whose leaders do not have the sense to structure their church government to account for such a dreadful situation.
Consider the case of the Atlanta church essentially run by a family of untouchable religious potentates, several of whom have been accused of ethical and moral lapses, but who have maintained control of their church through a bizarre combination of blackmail, bribery and spiritual manipulation. The congregation of thousands has shriveled to a handful, leaving a trail of shattered and disillusioned souls.
Then, there's the Arlington, Texas, pastor who drugged women in his church with methamphetamines and then raped them. Although allegations of misconduct had swirled around him for some time, it was not until he was hauled off to prison to pay for his crimes, that his pastoral position was pried from his grasp ... and given to his wife.
This is not to say that denominational churches are immune to such spiritual thuggery. Most of us remember the Southern California pastor who divorced his wife, remarried a week later and pulled his 10,000-member church out of his denomination when its leaders had the guts to confront him for his outrageous conduct.
In contrast, the bylaws of New Life Church were written in such a way that within 72 hours of the initial allegations of Haggard's conduct, he had been investigated, removed from his post by a team of overseers and elders from inside and outside the church and placed in the restorative care of three respected church leaders.
This is not to say that the system worked perfectly--a "perfect" system would have prevented this scandal from occurring in the first place. As the story unfolds, it will doubtless be revealed that warning signs were ignored and safeguards were overlooked. Even the most efficient structures of accountability and discipline cannot contain the destructive forces of our human depravity. But the leaders to whom Haggard was accountable should be commended for the swift and decisive manner in which the situation was dealt with.
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Weigh in on this discussion by posting your comments below, and look for an in-depth exploration of accountability, discipline and restoration in the January/February issue of Ministry Today.
We do not want to understate the long-term effect this scandal will have on New Life Church, the Body of Christ at large and the world's public perception of God's people. But while we are sobered by the events of the past week and vividly reminded of our own frailty and vulnerability to sin, we are also strangely relieved. Why? Because this could have gone so much worse had it occurred at one of many other charismatic congregations whose leaders do not have the sense to structure their church government to account for such a dreadful situation.
Consider the case of the Atlanta church essentially run by a family of untouchable religious potentates, several of whom have been accused of ethical and moral lapses, but who have maintained control of their church through a bizarre combination of blackmail, bribery and spiritual manipulation. The congregation of thousands has shriveled to a handful, leaving a trail of shattered and disillusioned souls.
Then, there's the Arlington, Texas, pastor who drugged women in his church with methamphetamines and then raped them. Although allegations of misconduct had swirled around him for some time, it was not until he was hauled off to prison to pay for his crimes, that his pastoral position was pried from his grasp ... and given to his wife.
This is not to say that denominational churches are immune to such spiritual thuggery. Most of us remember the Southern California pastor who divorced his wife, remarried a week later and pulled his 10,000-member church out of his denomination when its leaders had the guts to confront him for his outrageous conduct.
In contrast, the bylaws of New Life Church were written in such a way that within 72 hours of the initial allegations of Haggard's conduct, he had been investigated, removed from his post by a team of overseers and elders from inside and outside the church and placed in the restorative care of three respected church leaders.
This is not to say that the system worked perfectly--a "perfect" system would have prevented this scandal from occurring in the first place. As the story unfolds, it will doubtless be revealed that warning signs were ignored and safeguards were overlooked. Even the most efficient structures of accountability and discipline cannot contain the destructive forces of our human depravity. But the leaders to whom Haggard was accountable should be commended for the swift and decisive manner in which the situation was dealt with.
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Weigh in on this discussion by posting your comments below, and look for an in-depth exploration of accountability, discipline and restoration in the January/February issue of Ministry Today.
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fatom-789988.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fbloglines-793792.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fmyyahoo-702660.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fmygoogle-777464.gif)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ministrytodaymag.com%2Fblog%2Fuploaded_images%2Fsub_itunes-743863.gif)
