Joshua D. Jones's Blog, page 9

Deconstructing Men : a response to Eric Pazdziora

Bored in Church?I awoke this morning to see that a few FB friends had tagged me in a BLOG that’s making the rounds. As I’ve written on the issue of gender imbalance in the British church before, they thought that I may be interested in this article that seeks to deconstruct the ‘muscular Christianity’ movement. And they were right.
I had not heard of Eric Pazdziora before, but apparently, he’s quite an accomplished pianist, writer, and blogger. His gift for word artistry certainly comes through. And overall, he makes some fair points.
I welcome his deconstruction of muscular Christianity on a personal level. We have such a movement here in the UK and I’m sure it’s not too different over in the States. I’ve never felt entirely at home in those movements. I’ve felt uncomfortable largely because of who I am. On Myers-Briggs, I’m an INFP. Typically, that’s a woman’s personality. Among other things, it means I’m a feeler more than a thinker.
I'm also not the typical sporty male – I write poetry more than play football. I'd usually rather be indoors than outdoors. I don’t have an alpha-male personality. By nature, I’m a content beta who likes to go along for the ride if someone else is willing to drive. When I lead, it’s usually reluctantly.
I also never personally related to the whole concept of men ‘having to do something’ when they get together – a refrain that Eric doesn’t address but that is often repeated within the men’s movement. I’m quite happy to meet a friend (male or female) for a coffee or a beer and just talk. I also don’t personally object to the flowery language of some worship songs. I was raised in the church and get the poetry and the theology behind the images. I thrive on expressing affection to and receiving affection from God.

In affirming some of what Eric says, I do not mean to throw the baby out with the lager in regards to the men's movements. I claim no semblance to the average man and these movements are obviously resonating with some. But a critique is still in order.
The Problem
So I welcome some of Eric’s points. I did think a couple of them bordered on strawmen arguments (or perhaps in his part of the world the men’s movement really is as shallow as he makes it out to be), but overall, it was a fair piece.
But we still have a problem. Even if we grant that Eric does a fair job in deconstructing the Men’s Movement, we as pastors are still left with our original problem: we have churches filled with women who come to worship each Sunday without their husbands and we don’t know how to reach those men. Eric attempts to show us that the men’s movement isn’t the way forward. Ok, thanks. But how then?
Deconstruction can be a lot of fun. Bloggers can thrive on it. We're critics. We get to show how silly other movements and ideas are without actually putting forward too much of our own. And taking shots at Doug Wilson, well… how much easier a target can we get?
I walk away from the article thinking, 'Quite. How silly that some people think they can reach unchurched men by painting things blue and making references to Batman films! Ho-ho! Silly masculinists.’ But I don't leave the article with any real answers on how to reach men. Eric has (perhaps) exposed some of the shallowness of the masculine movement, but what is he replacing it with?
Wilson and the Bullies?
In one place Eric does suggest that it may be bully pastors that draw women in but keep men away. When speaking about Doug Wilson he writes,
If we want to know the reason men are staying away from church, maybe we just found it. Maybe they see church people as bullies.
To this suggestion, I can only reply 'really?' Perhaps that is genuinely his experience. Perhaps women in his corner of the world take a particular fancy to bullies. But where I'm at, this would not be in the case.
Spiritual abuse is a problem on both sides of the Atlantic. We have abusive pastors over here as well. But it has not been my experience that such churches are the cause of the male/female percentage divide in general. It also seems to conflate two issues. When I think of the churches in our area who actively accept the practical advice of various men’s movements (they run lots of sporty activities, give out bacon sandwiches on Sunday morning, sing more ‘masculine’ type hymns, etc) I do not think of these as abusive churches nor as ones run by bullies. They are just churches trying their best to reach lost men with the gospel.
And on this point, I think Eric could’ve been clearer. By mixing his deconstruction of the men’s movement alongside his efforts to call out Doug Wilson for being a bully, he seems to suggest that anyone who's involved in men’s movement ministry is pro-bully. I don’t think that Eric wants to say that, but addressing Wilson’s style would’ve been better reserved for another post.
I'm sympathetic to many of Eric’s concerns over superficiality in the men's movement. But as a pastor, I still have the very real issue of single women not being able to find Christian husbands and many British men, in general, being bored of church - an institution that exists to comfort their grannies. We may say the men's movement has immaturities, but what are we replacing it with.

While Islam, Atheism, and Buddhism all have strong masculine representation, Anglo-Saxon Christianity lags behind – and has done here in the UK since the reign of Queen Victoria (though the YMCA movement of the early 20th Century helped – for a while).
While deconstructing a proposed solution may be of some value, unless we are given real solutions to replace them with, then we haven’t gotten very far.
________________
Please Share
How can Christian Men and Women have meaningful friendships without scandal? Please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Generation Ahab

'Ahab did more of what YHWH considered to be evil than any king who lived before him.' -1 Kg 16
It was a wicked culture. Now I know we like to pretend that all cultures are equal and that one isn't better than any other. We say that cultures are just different. But that's not true. Some cultures are more perverse than others. 
Here, a wicked generation had created a wicked culture. And though many people were culpable to some degree, one man was responsible above all.
Ahab is said to have been more wicked than all the previous Israeli kings combined. It had been 58 years since the kingdom was torn in two after Solomon, and the 10 tribes had been ruled by a succession of 7 bad men. But now Ahab led the nation in creating a toxic culture that exceeded his apostate forefathers. It was a poison to all, a generation steeped in a darkness greater than any midnight. How had this happened?
Religion, Sex & Power
Call in the usual suspects. 
To start with, Ahab imported Baal worship into Israel with a zeal. It became all the rage among the who’s who. It was everywhere. His predecessor King Jeroboam’s bull worship seems to have been just a warm-up for the spiritual and theological evil that was Baalism. It spread through the land like aggressive cancer, turning the hearts and minds of the people away from the God of their forefathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There was also the worship of Ashtoreth that Ahab promoted. This was Baal’s female cohort. The worship of this goddess was like dumping petrol on the already existing flames of sexual immorality. People had sinned in previous generations. But now it was open defiance against what was written. Wickedness was now publicly celebrated with no shame. 
Finally, there was the woman. Ahab was the first King to take a princess wife from a foreign, pagan king – something forbidden by Scripture. We don’t know why he married princess Jezebel. Perhaps his successful father, King Omri, had arranged it. Perhaps he did it for the sake of political stability and economic opportunity with their prosperous Phoenician neighbour. Or perhaps he just thought she was pretty hot.
Whatever the motive, Jezebel took a wicked situation and made it far worse. She found Ahab to be a moody husband that she could easily manipulate and was soon the one wearing the trousers in the kingdom. She was an evangelist for the false religions of Baal and Ashtoreth and once securely in power, she sought to eliminate the worship of YHWH. Ahab was ultimately culpable because he allowed it all to happen on his watch. Jezebel may have been the active one, but just as Pontius Pilate would learn centuries later, a leader cannot wash his hands of responsibility with just a little water.
Men, how will you shape the culture of your generation? The way you worship God matters. The way you exercise self-control over your sexual and other appetites matters. If you marry, the woman you choose matters. We are not islands. Choices that we think of as being private are the very ones that shape our character. Even our laziness and passivity has an effect on culture.
Ahab made bad choices in his personal life and his name is now forever carved on the stones of history for leading Israel into apostasy. He failed to worship the Creator God in private and failed to lead well in public.
Over 2,500 years later, we're a generation of Ahabs.
________________
Please Share

How can Christian Men and Women have meaningful friendships without scandal? Please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Christians joining the Pirate Party

Among UK Christians the image of Pirate Party members is of grown boys who still live at home, wear Spider-Man pyjamas, and want to illegally download films without paying for them. So why would I, as a Christian minister, seriously consider supporting them?
First of all, let’s get a clearer picture of who they actually are. The first Pirate Party was started in 2006 in Sweden and it’s there that they’ve had the most success with two Pirate candidates being elected to the European Union. Their values are freedom of expression, direct democracy, and copyright reform.
While Theresa May's government works to be able to read your WhatsApp messages – surveillance laws that are not opposed by the Labour Party – the Pirates believe in the right of free people to freely communicate without Big Brother watching. Are the Lib-Dems any better?
Castration by Microphone
It's not fun to see a man get castrated. Yet this is what the world beheld as journalist Eleanor Garnier sliced off Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron's ideological balls with a microphone. Really, it’s painful to watch (HERE). If the Lib-Dem leader capitulates on camera to the LGBTQ orthodoxy police - then we know they no longer have the ideological vision to stand strong on free expression when it counts.
I had the privilege of speaking with David Elston, the acting Pirate leader, by phone. Though no longer a professing Christian himself, he said that he was surprised how many Christians have started joining the party. He’s come to understand what many forgetful British Christians need to remember: the act of publicly proclaiming a controversial message is central to the life of the Church.
There are Christian Pirates standing. Mark Chapman is an Anglican and is the Pirate candidate in Vauxhall for the snap General Election. Morgan Hill is an Evangelical and is the Pirate candidate standing in Eddisbury. If we live in these areas, we should prayerfully consider supporting these men.
As Christians, we do not fear hate speech - we engage it. I’m happy to grant freedom of speech to the most radical of Islamic clerics as well as the most God hating of the New Atheists. We want more speech for all. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas and we should have confidence in our own views not to shy away from debate. This is a value held by the Pirates.
Civilisation Sleeps
Lenin: If it offends State values, we'll call it 'hate speech'
Stalin: LOL, let's get their Whatsapp messages firstIn his recent excellent article,  Civilisation Sleeps , CoE Rev Dr Jules Gomes points out that, in the past, the UK has lead the world in abolishing 'Test Acts' and opening public offices to all people regardless of religious belief. He points out that this Liberty is sadly seen as passé among today’s cool kids. He observes in reference to Farron’s effeminating fiasco and other such cases that, 'Christians holding public office are humiliated in Stalinist show trials and burnt at the media stake for holding traditional views on sex and marriage.'
In the UK we lose freedoms as some secular groups lobby and pressure our main political parties into expanding ‘hate speech’ laws, monitor communications, and police the internet. But the situation is still worse in Islamic countries. This is one of the reasons Gomes (rightly) states that, 'Most worrying for the civilised world is the threat to free speech. While Tim Farron will lose votes and Andrew Turner lost his seat, Pakistani Christians accused of blasphemy are losing their lives.'
Sadly, blasphemy laws in Muslim lands are getting worse. And now Islamic governments are policing social media to find those who would insult Muhammad or his ideology. It is no small irony that Islam, the world's largest blasphemy, is the main producer of blasphemy laws. Not only would the Pirate Party secure freedom of expression here in the UK, but would help make this an issue on the world stage when more Christians are being killed or persecuted for their beliefs than any other faith group. The main parties have shown they care far too little.
Our Heritage
There was a time in British history when Christian dissenters were executed for expressing views that opposed the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. Some of those who were hunted by the government escaped to America and helped ensure that Freedom of Religion and Speech were the first in their Bill of Rights. Others persevered here in the UK to ensure that these freedoms became recognised here as well. But they are now at risk.
The Pirate Party’s website has as its first guiding principle ‘The Pirate Party exists to ensure the preservation and development of… freedom of thought and expression.’ This is good news to a people who’ve been given a book and told to preach and teach it. Don’t simply vote among the main parties for the lesser of three evils. 

The only wasted vote is a vote cast without conviction. When will us UK Christians grow back a pair and work for the eroding freedoms that our spiritual forefathers once bled for?________________
Please Share
How can Christian Men and Women have meaningful friendships without scandal? Please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Dear Alt Right, You have a Rainbow

Dear Alt-Right,
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am a slave. Not that it matters much. It’s who I belong to that’s of far greater importance.
It seems that you have something that belongs to Him. I’m writing to ask that you politely return it. I don’t know if your grandmothers ever taught you the moral imperative, ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’. Well, my Master is quite partial to that law – as He gave it.
You have recently acquired a rainbow. You're using it as a new symbol for your movement. You say the colours represent the various races and how they are best separate and not muddied together. 'Let the blacks, Latinos, Jews, whites, Arabs, and Asians all have their different corners and celebrate their own holidays' you say. 

As quaint as that idea might be to some, I am writing to ask that you find another symbol to represent it. Racial Rainbow Separation: we
shouldn't celebrate other race's holidays.
I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to argue that you pirated the rainbow fair and square from the kids over in LGBTQ land. That may be so, but there’s a snag. They stole it from my Master.
I had been working to get them to return it voluntarily. It wasn’t ever meant to be a symbol of sodomy or gender confusion. My Master had far more radical purposes for.
But now you have it. And though some of you may have successfully stolen the swastika from the gods of Hinduism, you’ll find that my Master is in quite a different league to them. I am optimistic enough to think that we can reason together.
It’s important that you know why the rainbow is so very important to him. You see, He once poured out judgement humanity. They were being violent and wicked to such a degree that He was grieved He ever made them in the first place. Finally, he flooded them all out – all except 8 people.
After the devastation, he chose the rainbow as a symbol of peace. There’s a reason it’s termed rain ‘bow’. It is, after all, shaped like a bow one would shoot arrows with. After the flood, the Master hung up his rainbow – as a warrior retiring from a mighty battle. The message was clear: He would never send a global flood upon the earth.
But that doesn’t mean humanity wouldn’t forgetfully descend into wickedness or that He wouldn’t get angry again. He didn’t burn his bow. He just redirected it. His bow was now aimed upward – at the very heart of heaven.
God’s arrows of judgment – be it against the arrogance of race, sexual perversion, or stealing – fell upon someone. But not the ones who deserved it. They landed upon himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth on his cross of execution.
We may work to reconcile with friends. But God loves us while we’re still his enemies. This is possible because he exchanged his throne for our electric chair. The rainbow will be of far greater value to you if you allow it to stand for what my Master intended. He's not just interested in getting his symbol back, He wants you too. He comes to you with a pardon, stained with his own Jewish blood, in His nail pierced hand.
Upon your unconditional surrender to Him as your King, you will find his mercy and kindness far greater than anything you’ll find elsewhere. I know. I was once one of his enemies. One who had also stolen from Him.
As one who has now been made an envoy, I would suggest you not refuse his deal. For on the day of His wrath, your race and your politics will avail you nothing.

Considering Consent

There’s been a flurry of articles recently blowing about the Evangelical blog-o-sphere about how rape is bad. Apparently, there are some Christians out there who didn’t know this and who were unaware that this has no place in a holy marriage. They have now been duly informed.
What is Consent?
If by saying that spouses ‘must give consent’ our self-appointed internet guardians simply mean that rape in marriage is damnable, then there is no disagreement. If they are arguing that rape victims need the support of their faith communities, there is no disagreement. I don’t personally know of any minister of any theological stripe that says otherwise. Granted, if we search the internet we may find a loud redneck preacher somewhere saying rape is ok. But from the way the blogs were written, you’d think these messengers were giving the Christian world a fresh revelation.
One of the reasons that these articles are so tedious to read is that they’re so vague. Most of them never defined ‘consent’. If by consent they mean that the two spouses look at each other and one asks ‘So dear, would you like to have sex now?’ and the other replies, ‘Yes, I give my consent for us to have sex’ then we can assume that these bloggers are still single or in need of marriage counselling.
Christians who have been married for more than five minutes know that initiating lovemaking is rarely formal. Signs that one is in the mood can be given in a number of ways, some direct, some indirect. They may range from a gentle footsie under the table to simply saying, ‘I really want to jump your bones now.’ Both are equally holy.
But what these blogs lack in clarity, they more than make up for in bad theology and misandry. Theology
It’s hard to count all the times these bloggers write, ‘a woman’s body is her own’. Now in a sheer practical sense, this statement has some truth to it. Our bodies are ours in the sense that they don’t belong to the government or to Mao Tse Tung. But still, the statement is not strictly true.
As Christians, our bodies don’t ultimately belong to us – Christ owns them. We are his slaves. We offer up our bodies a living sacrifice to his service to do as asks. We must go where he calls us to go and do what he calls us to do.
But it doesn’t end there. If we choose to get married – and Scripture tells us we can be happy and unmarried – then we also yield our bodies to our spouses. It is written that ‘A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but his wife does.’
What does that mean practically? It means that if my neighbour Mark knocks on my door and asks me for a back rub, I can say ‘no’. My hands do not belong to him. But if my wife asks me for one, I am obliged. My body is not just for pleasing myself anymore, it must serve her even when I don’t feel like it.
Misandry
Feminist theological bloggers usually have little use for the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. The usage of these words implies a distinction and therefore opens up the door to affirming the anathematised gender roles which they have declared jihad against. For that reason, they normally keep with the term ‘spouse’. But if they can further their ideological agenda by making all women seem oppressed and all complementarian men look like sex-trafficking oppressors, they’ll pull the terms back out of retirement. 
Which they do  HERE  and other places.
In every insistence in these articles, it was always the wife who had to give consent to the rather aggressive, intellectual boorish, and undisciplined husband. None of their examples implied that a wife might want to knock boot with her husband when he wasn’t up for it. 
Biblical Consent
Scripture is amusing for a number of reasons, not least of which is how it deals with the concept of consent. In the Old Testament, sex was seen as a wife’s right. Much is written to say that a husband does not have the right to withhold sex from her. In Exodus 21.10 Moses describes one of the regulations put on polygamy, ‘If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing and her marriage rights.’
According to this, a man has a role before God to keep the kitchen full of food, to make sure she has all the clothes she needs, and to be available for her sexually when she should require. Though polygamy was allowed in ancient Israel, laws like this discouraged the practice. If the obvious financial obligations in regards to the food and clothing weren’t enough to discourage a man from taking four wives, then having to be available to perform anytime for four wives would be. Remember, all this was before the invention of the little blue miracle pill.
Genesis records just such a situation. Jacob had two wives and two semi-wives (long story). One day, when he returns from a hard day’s work, he’s greeted by Leah, one of his wives, saying ‘You’re having sex with me tonight. I traded my son’s mandrakes for you!’ (Gen 30.16).
Really. You can’t make this stuff up.
Having four wives may sound like a seventeen-year-old boy’s wet dream, but the reality was unpleasant. Though Jacob was a righteous man who went to heaven, he got a good taste of hell in having to live with four competing, hormonal, pregnant women who would trade him around. At the end of his life, he would say ‘My days have been evil.’
A Biblical view of consent can teach us men three things:
1.    Sex is to be done in an atmosphere of love and affection. Rape is in not compatible with the way God designed sex to work. Churches should support victims of abuse - male or female. 2.   We cannot deny our wives physical affection (whether its back rubs or intercourse) just because we don’t want to. Stop surfing the internet and start satisfying your wife. 3.   You’re not a barbarian for anticipating the same treatment back. That’s equality – a concept most theological feminist wouldn’t know from Adam.

Elijah and the Lullaby Preachers

‘How long will you waver between the two? If Baal is God, serve him. If YHWH is God, serve him.’
We have the summary of Elijah’s sermon on Mt. Carmel. Like all good sermons should, it had just one point: stop worshipping idols and start living for God.
We don’t know how long the sermon was. But I’m willing to bet that no one fell asleep. No one left Carmel that day thinking that Elijah had preached too long. Elijah’s sermon and accompanying miracle so moved the people that they arose and killed 950 false prophets as a response. It was effective.
Granted, decapitating false teachers isn’t exactly how we do things in New Testament times. But we shouldn’t miss the obvious. People were stirred to do something dramatic upon hearing this message. True repentance happened that resulted in true action.
Lullaby Preachers
The Anglo-Saxon church world of the early 21st Century is plagued with boring preaching. The most exciting sermons are often by blasphemers and false prophets. It’s tragic that on Sunday some may have to choose between a preacher who makes lies seem true or one who makes truth seem dull. 
Which is worse?
There was once a preacher in London who was friends with an actor. This actor packed out the theatres night after night. Over evening over dinner, the preacher quipped to his friend, ‘I would like to be able to fill my pews the way you fill your seats.’ The actor responded,
The difference between myself and you preachers is that I take things that are unreal and make them seem real. You preachers take things that are real and make them seem unreal.
Information Dispensers
Preacher, do your sermons sound like mere academic lectures? Is the goal of your message only to give information? Or are you preaching people into the presence of a holy God, to repent and believe the Gospel? Do we know what Paul meant when he wrote, ‘My preaching wasn’t in word only, but in the power of God’?
I don’t mean speaking from hype. I mean preaching from a conviction that cuts deep into your own spirit. Many of us here in the UK preach as if we are going to be marked by professors for theological soundness at the end of our sermon. We don’t preach as dying men to dying men.
Preacher, our job isn’t to read sermon notes to listeners or to just give them Bible trivia. Our goal is to tell them about how the God of Scripture must change their lives through Jesus. Remember, Jezebel's 950 false prophets speaking their lies with a hellish passion - and our people face them every week. We need to look people in the eye and tell them soberly about who God really is and who they really are. We are to plead with them to repent and believe, not just dispense accurate Bible facts.
Being faithful involves being more than stepping into the pulpit with orthodox sermon notes (if you use them). Being faithful also means preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit. And that’s not something you can get in a book. Fire for preaching comes from sucking the floor in your prayer closet. If we haven’t prayed over the people and the passage, it will show when we open our mouths on Sunday. Preacher, with all your activities, be sure to get the fire. 
__________________
Please Share How can Christian Men and Women have meaningful friendships without scandal? Please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

The Topless Prophet (part two)

Queen Herodias doesn't like being called a tramp. And that's what starts happening in the gossip circles when John rebukes her husband for marrying her.
But this chick knows how to get revenge. She gets her daughter to do a strip tease before the drunk King and his buddies (yes, his stepdaughter) and uses that whole daytime talk show scenario to manipulate her husband into getting John topless in the worst possible way.
We might hear the pundits of the day commenting, ‘If only John had stuck to that nice, charitable “share what you have” sermon and left people’s sex lives alone, he might’ve been ok. Why did have to go there?’
Sermonising Sexual Sin?
We might ask a similar question about the church today: Is speaking out on sexual sin central to our mission? Is it a small thing we can sweep under the rug, keep for closed room conversations, or agree to disagree on?
Many say, ‘yes’. They reason that people need a new heart more than controlled genitalia. They rightly point out that huge amount of social and political controversy that has circled marriage and sexual related issues over the last many decades: no fault divorce, unmarried couples living together, abortion, trans issues, ‘gay marriage’, etc. Wading into these waters will only distract from the simple message of the cross and resurrection of Jesus. And we want to be known for what we’re for rather than what we’re against. Right?
The reasoning makes sense. We don’t want to distract from the gospel. But this begs the question: what is our gospel? 
Repent of Wot?
Jesus said that the gospel was one of ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins.’ If that is the case, our first question must be, what are we calling people to repent of and seek forgiveness for?’
And this is where preachers get into holy trouble. They stop speaking in milquetoast platitudes and start getting specific about sin. John gave out specific advice to specific people about what they needed to repent of. There was no, ‘Everyone just stop being selfish and grumpy’ type preaching.
John told the soldiers to repent of abusing their authority. He told the rich to share. He told the non-rich to be content with their wages (an affront to both capitalist and socialist narratives). And to the King who was living openly and unrepentantly in the tolerated sexual sin of the day? 
'Yes, you too must repent your highness.'
But Culture...
The early church preached a confrontational message to the culture of the day. What was one of the chief social sins of the day? It was Emperor worship. People were allowed to worship other gods, as long as they also burned incense to Caesar and say, ‘Caesar is Lord’. 
But the message of the early church was that ‘Jesus is Lord’ and Jesus was preached as Lord as the gospel spread outside of the Roman Empire and he is still Lord now that the reign of the Caesars has ended. Jesus wasn't 'anti-Empire' any more than he was pro-Empire in that political sense. 
But in the context of Roman culture, the Lordship of Caesar was an idol that was particularly opposed to the gospel. The apostles knew that if repentance were to be real in their context, they must confront that idol. 
And yes, there were other cultural idols as well. The other big sins of Roman culture were greed and sexual immorality and they were addressed in the apostle's letters.  
Topless Today
And what are the big cultural idols of our day? We have more than one. Money is certainly up there. Politics too. But they are not alone. The idol of unfettered orgasm drives us as a culture. The perceived right to have sex with who I want and when I want – in a consensual relationship – is taken for granted.
John’s Gospel (the other John) tells us that ‘Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light’. When light shines down on that which is shameful in our culture, we hate it, and do all we can to argue and reason against it. This is why Jezebel wielded all her manipulative trickery with Ahab – even to the point of pimping out her own daughter.
The result of John’s preaching was his death. Very few sermons on Sunday ever get near the point of being dangerous. Why is that? Is our culture less wicked than that of the Romans? Have we found a nicer way to present the gospel than John and the martyred apostles?
When preaching gets specific, things get intense; people then get defensive, and prophets lose their heads. 
(see part one)
__________________
(Please Share) If you want to read about spiritual, non-sexual, Male-Female friendship then please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

The Topless Prophet (part one)

Stop! Keep your head on!
So John's friends plead when he speaks against the sexual sin of those in power. Matthew 14 records his words and their consequences: 
‘It’s contrary to God’s law for you to marry your brother’s wife!’
His rebuke rings out over the hot, desert sands of time, upsetting the ease of everyone who has become laid back and tolerant over such matters.
Was John Right?
We might start by asking if John should be a bit nicer. After all, it’s being said that when the queen heard John’s 'cruel' words, she went back into her castle to cry, indulge in chocolate ice cream, and garner social media sympathy points. (Which was good because her tweets hadn’t been getting nearly as many likes as they used to.)
But a much wiser question would be: Can we be confident that John was right in giving that rebuke?
John’s rebuke against the sexual sin of Herod is based on a law in the much-maligned book of Leviticus. It's stated in chapter 18 and then repeated slightly differently in chapter 20. And though Scripture directs us to usually give rebukes in private, Herod was a public figure who was sinning publicly and unapologetically – therefore a public rebuke was appropriate. It’s the same for leaders today. (1 Tim 5.20)
Is the Bible Understandable?
Have you ever worked with children? One of the things that mine do, when I ask them about something they’re uncomfortable with, is to pretend they don’t understand what I’m saying.
Me: Naomi, did you clean your room like I asked you to?Naomi: Room? Which room? Our house has lots of rooms?
Or,
Me: Ransom, did you hit your little brother?Ransom: Brother?Me: Yes, your little brother Elijah. Ransom: What do you mean by ‘hit’?
We are big children and we do this with the words of our Heavenly Father when he says something we aren’t comfortable with. Here in the 21st Century Anglo-Saxon world, we’ve become masters of this art. If John lived in our day and issued his rebuke, the crowd around him would give him feedback along these lines:
John: It is not lawful for you to marry or sleep with your brother’s wife!Us: John, are you sure that’s relevant? There are far worse sins happening.Us: Moses is no longer the ruler of Israel John, we’re in Greco-Roman times now. We know things the ancients didn’t.Us: Don’t judge John. Focus on your own sin.Us: But John, that rule is taken from Leviticus – and that book has some weird stuff in it.Us: John, you should stick with your message about sharing our clothing with the poor. That bit went down well in the media.
Us: Moses was speaking only in the context of pagan worship. Us: But God is love, and if Herod and Herodias really love each other, why do you want to keep them apart? Us: Moses wrote that in Hebrew 1,500 years ago. We speak Aramaic. You need to understand the word for ‘brother’ meant something different in the original dialect.
Clarity
When the serpent got Eve to sin, he first fed into the idea that God’s Word was unclear and confusing. ‘Did God really say…?’ he whispered.
By contrast, the people of God looked back on Scripture and said things like:
‘The unfolding of your words give light; it gives understanding to the simple.’ -Ps 119and‘From childhood, you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and useful.’ -2 Tim. 3
It’s blasphemy to excuse our laziness in the careful study of Scripture by blaming God for not being clear enough.
Bible Degrees
John was arrested and then made topless in the worst possible way. All he had done was convey what Scripture had always said, but a new generation had ignored. John was faithful - he cared little for being clever. He didn't have a degree from an outstanding University. He was schooled by God in the desert. 

My degree is in Theology and my MA in Biblical Interpretation. You know what that means?
Not much.
When I was 17 I could understand 90% of the passages I do now with the basic help of a Bible dictionary or historical/cultural commentary. These are things any literate Christian can obtain and use. And those aren't even necessary for most passages. All the formal education has helped me do is to better explain why some of the new, creative, and contortionist interpretations – the ones that get the passage to say something other than what they obviously mean – are in error.
Like whisky, the truth is best presented spirited and straight - even when done gently. It’s deception that usually gets confusing and needs lots of commentaries. 
_____________________
(Please Share)
If you want to read about spiritual, non-sexual, Male-Female friendship then please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Church calls its LGBs to Celibacy - Culture Loses it

Sex is great.
Let's be clear: we are not talking about the male-female gender binary right now, wonderful as that is. We're referring today to the actual act of knocking boots. 

I’m a bloke with a solid history of heterosexual behaviour. I look back upon it all with fondness while also cheerfully anticipating much more in the days and years ahead. It’s important to clarify this point because some might think that in this post we are disparaging or making light of the gift of sex. 

No. What we must do, rather, is to expose the view of our orgasm worshipping society as false. Then we can put this gift in its proper perspective.
The Sexy Celibates
'Abuse'?Which brings us to our point. There has been a lot of chatter through social media lately on how unfair it is that Christians with same-sex attraction are being called by the church to a life of celibacy. (Cue the gasping and shameful shaking of heads). 
A lot of this is a reaction to our increasingly vocal celibate, same-sex attracted leaders and writers. These would include awesome women like spoken word artist Jackie Hill Perry* and writer Rosaria Buttefield.
It would also include British pastors like Ed Shaw and Sam Allberry. If context allowed me to say that I have a man crush on these two, I’d say it. But I’m not sure it does. Let’s just say, I think they’re awesome.* 
That they don't need to have sex?What we have in speakers and leaders like this is something that flies in the face of the whole Queer Theology narrative. We have men and women who are strongly same-sex attracted (our society would use the term ‘gay’) who are at the same time living celibate lives for the sake of Christ that are full of joy and love and who are giving good leadership to the Western church in the 21st Century. 

When (mostly straight) theological sex activists say that it's unfair to call same-sex attracted people to lives of celibacy, these Christian leaders say, 'Really? Tell me about more about that.' Their lives give them the authority to call out our culture's sexual BS.
It's driving some theological revisionists nuts. It's scary, some activists wish these people didn’t exist. Even Vimeo was recently pressured to take testimony videos from former homosexually active people who now live faithfully to Christ (here). Big brother is here and wearing a rainbow blouse.
Why?
The celibacy of these leaders not only offends gay theological activism, it offends our whole culture. The message they preach and live out is that one can live whole, complete, happy lives without sex. Our Western culture started believing that sexual activity was necessary for the fullness of life and love ever since Sigmund Freud. ‘To deny yourself sexual activity is to deny your humanity’ is how the sounds bites go.
As Christians, we tell a better story. Our story says that humans need love and intimacy. But sex is optional. Sex is based on naked bodies. Intimacy is based on naked souls.

The leader we follow, Jesus, lived the fullest life of any human as a celibate. The apostle who wrote most of the New Testament, Paul, was single, celibate and thankful for it. Jesus calls us into a loving, vulnerable relationship with God – and then with others.
In the church, the unmarried (celibate) life became very popular in the 2nd-4th centuries. It even became a bit extreme to the point where married Christians were viewed a bit like 2nd class citizens. Fortunately, some early church leaders like John Chrysostom helped bring balanced and laid out healthy teaching on marriage.
But today we have swung to the other extreme. In some churches, people even pray that the unmarried folk among them will ‘find the right person’. Don’t do that. Let’s not assume that marriage will be a part of God’s plan for everyone. It may be better for them to be unmarried and freed up to serve God in other ways.
Sex: a Limited Good



Sam Allberry sees the irony.Personally, I lived a celibate life until I was married. I never related to the term ‘lost my virginity’ – as if I might accidentally misplace it. When I got married I didn’t lose it, I was more than eager to give it away. I didn’t care much for exercise, but with sex, I started to make an exception.
But I was just as happy when I was a celibate as I am now. The gospel of orgasm which our society preaches is a lie. Before I was married, my soul fed on the intimacy from close men and women who make up my inner circle. It still does. 
Many Christians would say the same. Yes, we're sometimes tempted to behave sexually in ways contrary to God's call. But we are not animals and our identity is not rooted in our sexual desires. God works in us to make us capable of self-control. 
Though I had a desire for sex before I was married, I did not need it to be happy or human. We don’t belittle sex. Sexual activity is a good gift.
As a bloke, I’m certain that boobs are a sign that God loves men and wants us to be happy. But they are not necessary. Christ is. 
If we say that it’s wrong to call LGB folk to celibacy, we're excluding them. For Scripture calls all people who aren’t married to this life. If we say that they need to enter into a ‘gay marriage’ in order to experience true intimacy and joy, we lie.
And to be able to live free, confident, and joyful without sex, that's sexy. And that's the Gospel.___*Perry has I good hip-hop album I'd recommend.** Check out Shaw's 'Living Out' ministry - lots of good resources from same-sex attracted, celibate Christians__________________________(Please Share) If you want to read more about non-sexual, Male-Female friendship then please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Mary Magdalene MUST be a Hooker

The Junia Project released an article on one of my favourite Bible characters in the run up to Easter. Much is made of Mary Magdalene's relationship with Jesus in my book Forbidden Friendships. She’s an uneclipsable chick - and the resurrection account with her in John 20 is one of the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture.
That’s why the Junia article (HERE) is so disappointing. It's even got some push back from their own followers over the issue.
To the article's credit, it is historically solid. The article is not misinformation or ‘fake news’ in that regard. The author, Gail Wallace, has done her homework well. There is no intellectual horsepower missing – it's good information.
But though a car may have great horsepower under the hood, we must ask what the point is if it's headed down the wrong lane of traffic. It contains accurate information but argues for an undesirable destination.
Wallace gives much of her attention to demonstrating that Mary was NOT a hooker – as has been often depicted throughout Church History. Wallace argues that this view of Mary is unwarranted from Scripture. In this, she is correct. It cannot be demonstrated just from Scripture that Mary was. It doesn’t mean she wasn’t – just that there’s little reason to think so from Scripture. Scripture describes her background as demonic, but that may refer to many things.  If this was all there was to the article, it would be harmless. We may even agree with it. The article would then simply be like those Christians who remind us every Christmas that Jesus wasn’t actually born on the 25th of December.
Yes, thanks for the trivia.
But Wallace is doing more than separating Scripture from tradition. She has a goal. She says so herself: she wants Mary to be a ‘role model’ for us. For that reason, she tries to clean up her soiled reputation – and it’s this goal that takes reasonably good information and points it in the wrong direction.
Historic Church Leaders
Wallace’s article leaves us wondering what we're to make of historic, extra-Biblical tradition. She begins by separating all of the historic, dirty stuff said about Mary from what is actually written in Scripture. Fair enough. But then she tries to build up Mary’s reputation by appealing to … what? Yes. Historic, extra-Biblical sources.
Wallace even appeals to the apocryphal gospels which ‘depict Mary as a disciple who has a deep understanding of Christ’s teachings.’ She dismisses Pope Gregory’s comments that referred to Mary as a Prostitute in the 6th Century, but then appeals to St. Thomas who gives Mary the title of 'apostle to the apostles’ in the 13th Century.  The big press picked up on it and ran their own story. 
They confuse Scripture with tradition.
So we're left questioning: which way are we supposed to play this?  Do we take our view of Mary only from the Scriptures or do we also included traditional views? If the latter, why does the Junia Project embrace the words of 13th Century Thomas but not 6th Century Gregory? 

Why the seeming inconsistency?
Good Model or Good News
Is there any more descriptive passage on Mary than that of John 20? It’s when Jesus first appears to her after his resurrection in the cemetery garden. It’s the only place in Scripture we hear Mary’s voice. The story is full of John’s typical deeper symbolism giving us a picture of a whole new humanity. On one level Mary is simply herself. But on another, she is standing in place of the Universal Church - the Bride of Christ. 


In Genesis 2 & 3 the first man and woman stood in a garden at the first creation. In John 20 a man and woman stand in a garden at the dawn of the new creation.Adam was a gardener. The second Adam was mistaken for a gardener.
Adam loving named his new bride ‘woman’. The second Adam affectionately called his grieving friend ‘woman’.
Adam awoke from a deep sleep to meet his new friend and Bride. The second Adam awoke from the deep sleep of death to meet his friend – a symbol of all of his true bride.
Adam disobeyed at a tree. The second Adam obeyed on a tree.
Eve earned her curse. Mary is given undeserved blessing.
Adam was given the fruit of death by his bride. The second Adam gives the fruit of resurrection life to his friend - symbolic of the whole church, his eternal bride.
This is why Mary must be wayward. If not a technical prostitute in historical fact, at least in spiritual principle. This is a point that prim and proper people often forget: God’s redeeming an unworthy people. His bride must have a sordid past. In the book of Hosea alone this message is on every page – pointing us to a God who redeems a hooker to be his bride. This is why a clean, educated, middle-class Mary won’t do.
I need Mary to be a broken, angst-up prostitute because I’m a broken angst-up prostitute.
Mary is worth looking at. But not because she is a great moral example. Rather we should look at her because Jesus is a great Saviour of people like her.
One of the more popular comments on the Junia FB page 
suggested Mary shouldn't even be considered 'sinful'.In the Junia article, extra-Biblical sources are cited to make her sound like a sound, moral, enlightened teacher of Scriptures. But in John 20 we see a woman who, though passionate, is completely blind to who Jesus is - even though he is standing right in front of her. Her understanding was like the hour of the morning: ‘it was still dark’ (Jn 20.1).
Sadly, one commenter on the Junia FB page even suggested that we shouldn't see Magdalene as 'sinful'. This comment received lots of 'likes' from other followers. But why is it wrong to say that Mary - like the rest of us - was sinful? Can you relate to a sinless Mary? Or do we relate to the woman who screams out:
'Me?! The Son of God called MY name?! Me, who used to walk these streets - screaming, half-naked, insane and lost in my sin?!'
Mary loved much because she was forgiven much. And if we were to chose to look at her as a role model (and she might be horrified if we did) then we must see her foremost as a sinner. And if this demon possessed woman who can’t see Jesus working 18 inches in front of her while surrounded by angels can be redeemed by Christ, then so can we. 

And so can all the thieves, and whores, and rapists, and heroin addicts, and paedophiles - and all the lovely bastards that we know.

This issue of Mary is typical of how many of us who identify as 'classical Christians' often differ from those who identify as 'feminist Christians'. It's not that we don't value the truth that women are equal to men. God forbid! We celebrate this. But we don't go about demonstrating this doctrine by talking about how virtuous women are. We talk about what a great saviour Jesus is and how he loves and saves both wicked men and wicked women. The moment our emphasis begins to be 'men bad' and 'women good', we are further separating men and women and wandering from the Gospel.
Yes, the idea that Mary was prostitute may not be historically correct. But we should be careful that when we seek ‘to restore Mary Magdalene’s reputation and help her take her rightful place’ that we don’t over sanitise her to fit our ideological aims. The gospel is not good advice for the moral – it’s good news for the sinner.
The Bible is not a book of role models. It is not a book of good guys versus bad guys. There is only one good guy. And it is written that he ‘came into the world to save sinners’.Not the sanitised.
_________________
(Please Share)  If you want to read more about Jesus' friendship with Mary and other examples of Male-Female friendship in the Bible and church history, then please check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.