Russell Moore did a great job earlier today on CBS News’ morning show. You will note that Danny Akin, Daniel Patterson, Jon Akin and some others make cameos in this one. Watch it above.
I was struck near the end of the interview by something the reporter says. After noting the positive message that Moore brings to the job, she says, “But a different tone only goes so far.” She goes on to say that a new tone doesn’t remove the offense of Christianity’s sexual ethic, and in particular, its stance against gay marriage.
That looked like Jon Akin, but I’m pretty sure it was his twin brother Paul! When I preached in chapel at SEBTS, he saw me do a double take during the sermon b/c I thought Jon had come over for Nashville. But Jon was in Nashville . . . Paul is at SEBTS.
Dr. Moore speaks of a “Christian sexual ethic” as if this was a singular thing with well defined boundaries. A huge group in Christendom claims that all forms of artificial birth control is sinful while others say this is not true. There are differences in the ways Christians understand what the Bible says on divorce, some even claiming if you divorce and remarry you are continually committing adultery, a sin. Similarly, there are some groups that claim all homosexual acts are sinful and other groups that say that only some homosexual accts are sinful.
There was a time not too long ago when some thought that the Bible clearly endorsed slavery, while others said it did not. So I wonder if homosexual behavior is the slavery issue of our time. If sincere Christians cannot even agree on whether to baptize infants, when baptisms is a milk doctrine according to Hebrews, something to be taught to a new believer, I do not think it is reasonable to think there will be agreement on more complex things, the doctrines that are not milk.
Don, are you seriously using birth control and baptism to argue that the biblical sexual ethic approves of anything other than one man married to one woman?
No one can biblically argue that God approves of any kind of a homosexual relationship.
In the Bible, some of the people in the Hebrews Hall of Faith were polygamous and being such obviously did not stop them from being seen as faithful by God. I agree that God’s best is heterosexual monogamy or celibate singleness, but I also know we live in a broken world. As a matter of public health, I am fine with the government encouraging a citizen to be faithful to their sexual partner, whether heterosexual or homosexual, as contrasted with multiple partners or promiscuity.
There are some that argue that being in a faithful homosexual relationship and being a believer in Jesus is not impossible. I have not read their books, but am I sure enough before studying the issue that this is not possible? No, because I have changed my beliefs on some aspects of my faith as I studied an area in more depth and at times I have learned to read the text of Scripture in ways I could not have imagined before better understanding the cultural context.
Well Don, I am saddened although not surprised have read your comments on this blog for while now.
I hope and pray that you turn from the trajectory you appear to be on, or, alternatively, that I have simply misread that trajectory.
Don, I would submit to you that the church (collective whole) was never pro-slavery. I would suggest you read the book ‘For the Glory of God’ by Rodney Stark. It’s a very good read on the matter.
I have read that one by Stark and I think all of his on Christianity, I agree they are very good. I agree that the Southern US version of pre-Civil War protestant Christianity was an aberration.
The SBC FORMED over its members being pro-slavery, so I think it is relevant to discuss here. While it is true that in 1995 the SBC repented of its previous position on slavery, after all its founders were long dead and gone, I think it is relevant because this was an (now) obvious case of self-serving Bible interpretation, and I think this is still going on.