Stephen W. Hiemstra's Blog, page 260

Knopf Exercises Core for Health and Strength

Karl Knopf.  2012. Core Strength for 50+.  Berkeley:  Ulysses Press.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

In 2012 I worked for 3 months in an Alzheimer’s unit associated with a local hospital. One of the critical features of life in the unit was the question of mobility, strength, and stability. Loss of mobility was often the kiss of death because bed-ridden residents would suffer muscle atrophy, depression, and decline—even death. The triggering event is most frequently a fall. Consequently, physical therapy—usually simple exercises—was critical to health maintenance and longevity.

Interest in “core exercises” arose out of the increasingly sophisticated field of sports medicine. The core is “the region from the tops of the legs to the shoulder” (8). Just likely the elderly, professional athletes are prone to injury although they heal better than older people. National attention was drawn to core exercises in the early 1980s when it is was used San Francisco 49er quarterback, Joe Montana (9).

The motivation for adding core exercises to your routine arises because:

“Having an aligned and strong yet flexible core can take the load off the vertebral column and discs [lower back], which results in improved function and less discomfort and pain” (8).

The benefits of core exercises include both preventative and rehabilitation objectives:

“improved posture, which allows you to present a more youthful appearance [not bent over like many elderly people], and balance.  It also means less load on the lumbar region of your low back, reducing the risk of injury to any arthritic joints and discs in addition to pain.  Performance in sports and recreational pursuits is also boosted.” (13-14)

I wish that I had been introduced to such exercises as a young person because in junior high school I injured my back tube-surfing at the ocean and suffered severe lower back pain episodically ever since.  In 2008, the pain was so bad that I was on my back for 3 days in a row twice during the summer.  After visiting a back specialist, I added Pilates exercises, a kind of core exercise, before my daily swim.

Karl Knopf’s book, Core Strength for 50+, draws on the author’s experience with both the elderly and professional athletes. Knopf is a professor emeritus of Foothill College and longtime director of senior fitness with the International Sports Science Association (127).  He is also the author of numerous exercise books (125).  Knopf divides his book into 3 parts:

Getting Started
The Programs and
The Exercises (v).

His introduction is part of part 1.  Following part 3 are a topical index, acknowledgments, and a brief biography of the author.

Knopf divides core training into 4 stages:

Leaning to contract deep-lying muscles.
Focus on endurance of those muscles.
Challenges to the core with arm motions. And
Additional challenges to the core (14).

The attitude appropriate for these exercises is important.  Knopf sees these principles as key:

Concentration and perseverance.
Quality of movement is more important than quantity.
Slow, purposeful progression to more challenging movements. and
The ability to perform every action from a neutral spine (15).

This last point came as a surprise.  Knopf is very concerned with proper posture.  He writes:  “Learning to sit, stand, and move in the most biomechanical manner is foundational.” He advises: “If you want to look young, stand tall.” (16)  After reading this, I became very self-conscious how I walked…

The philosophy of core training is likewise a bit different.  Knopf writes:  “The key to a well-aligned core is to strengthen that which is weak and lengthen that which is inflexible.” (22)  The way this is done explains all the exotic equipment found around gyms these days—big round plastic balls, form rubber rollers, kettle bells, etc. Exercising with unstable surfaces, like doing push-ups with a plastic ball in one hand, engages more muscle groups in the core (23).

Karl Knopf’s book, Core Strength for 50+, is an interesting and helpful book.  Not only did reading it help me understand my own exercise routine—the Pilates—but I also appreciated the update on the exotic gym equipment.  Exotic no longer seems so exotic.

I have changed my exercise routine; you may too.

 

http://pilates.about.com/od/whatispilates/a/WhatIsPilates.htm

 12345 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022.  (http://www.FootHill.edu).

 https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-karl-....

Prayer Day 35: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Espera verano 2015

Almighty Father. King of kings. Lord of lords. Thank you for your ongoing presence in our lives. Redeem our relationships; guarantee our fidelity; mentor our leadership. In the power of your Holy Spirit, bless our families, our churches, and our work places. In Jesus’ precious name, Amen.

Padre Todopoderoso, Rey de Reyes, Señor de Señores, gracias por Tu presencia constante en nuestras vidas. Redime nuestra relaciones; guía nuestra fidelidad; fomenta nuestro liderazgo. En el poder del Espíritu Santo, bendice nuestras familias, nuestra iglesia, y nuestros lugares de trabajo. En el precioso nombre de Jesús oramos. Amén.

Mercy as a Path to Salvation

“Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.

For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt. 9:13 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

It is no accident that we feel the tension with God over the question of mercy. We do not want to admit to our sins (or our need for forgiveness) because we spend most of our lives trying to hide our sin from other people. We deny our sin from morning to night. And it is painful, in turn, showing mercy to other people —we would much rather have them fulfill their promises and pay their debts.

Our problem with mercy is that it requires action.  We would rather talk about love because it is a squishy sort of emotion.  Easy on the action; easy to redefine; easily to confuse with.  We are always in compliance with a law of love, at least in our own minds.  Mercy requires concrete action.  Billy Graham wrote:  “What are some of the areas in today’s world toward which we can show mercy? First: We can show mercy by caring for the social needs of our fellow men…Second: We can show mercy by doing away with our prejudices…Third: We can show mercy by sharing the gospel of Christ with others.” (Graham 1955, 61-65).  Concrete. Doable. Undeniable.  Highly personal.

God’s priority is showing mercy. Jesus cites the Prophet Hosea twice [1] in Matthew after citing the beatitude:

“For I desire steadfast love [2] and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6 ESV)

The heart of paganism in the church lies in trying to bribe God with sacrifices other than the sacrifice of our own hearts.  We prefer to bribe God with sacrifices (”burnt offerings”) than own up to our own sin.   Arguing that we are basically good (denying original sin), in effect, denies Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross.  That is to say, we don’t need Christ’s mercy and, as a codicil, we do not need to practice mercy with those around us. The echo of Cain’s question still haunts us: “am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9 ESV)

It is interesting that in the Gospel of Luke, the double love command (love God; love neighbor; Matthew 22:36-40) is cited, not by Jesus, but by a lawyer (Luke 10:25-28) who then proceeds to narrow the definition of neighbor [3]. He asks Jesus: “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29 ESV) Jesus responds by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. At the end, Jesus pulls a Jedi mind trick asking: “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (Luke 10:36 ESV) Notice how Jesus substitutes the question—”who proved to be a neighbor” for the question—”who is my neighbor”. Jesus turns a direct object (neighbor) into a verb (to be a neighbor). To this question, the lawyer responds: “The one who showed him mercy.” (Luke 10:37 ESV)

Notice how in the story of the Good Samaritan we started out talking about love, but ended up talking about mercy? God’s identity—

“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6 ESV)

—includes both mercy and love, but mercy comes first. Jesus’ brother James makes a similar observation saying:

“For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:13 ESV)

Judgment requires truth (אֱמֶֽת) which in Exodus 34:6 is translated also as faithfulness. Mercy also comes before truth and judgment. Interestingly, James has in the citation above restated Jesus’ beatitude in the negative—essentially it is now in the form of a curse—it is a curse to be judged without mercy.

The link of mercy and judgment necessarily brings us back to the atoning work of Christ. The Apostle Peter clearly linked these two ideas when he wrote:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1 Peter 1:3-5 ESV)

It is the mercy of God to provide us a path of salvation to Himself.

[1] Matthew 9:13 and 12:7.

[2] There is tension in the Greek and Hebrew texts on this word. The Greek reads mercy (ἔλεος) and the Hebrew reads love (חֶ֥סֶד).  The citations in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7 go with the Greek.  The translation of Hosea 6:6 in the English Standard Version (ESV) goes with the Hebrew.

[3] Today, the lawyer would not only try to narrow the definition of neighbor, he would narrow the definition of love.

REFERENCES

Graham, Billy. 1955. The Secret of Happiness. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Campbell Turns Gender Confusion into Ministry

W. P. Campbell. 2010. Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christlike Response to Homosexuality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

In 2012 during my first unit of Clinical Pastoral Education, I spent a lot of time in the emergency room (ER) of a local metro hospital. One afternoon the ER was packed and overflow patients were stationed on gurneys throughout the room. As I worked my way around the room, it became obvious that a patient on one of the gurneys with a friend in attendance wanted to see me.  So I wandered over to talk with him.

I asked—What brings you to the hospital today?  His answer caught me off guard—rectal bleeding. The shock on my face must have been obvious. Also obvious was the fear of death on the patient’s face. I should have probed into his demeanor—Was he perhaps concerned about HIV infection? Instead, I mumbled through a few pleasantries, offered prayer, and left. My lack of preparation for that hospital visit was clearly a lost ministry opportunity.

How do we properly minister to people caught up in gender confusion?

Bill Campbell’s book, Turning Controversy into Church Ministry, focuses on confronting our fears and offering Christ’s presence to broken people.  Campbell writes:

“This book is written to equip Christians and their churches to prove a Christlike response to homosexuality and to people who struggle with unwanted, same-sex attractions.” (7)

How does a pastor respond to someone seeking care for unwanted same-sex attractions? Campbell (11-12) starts with the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus asked:

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”  (John 8:10-11 ESV)

Campbell notes two principles in Jesus response: grace and truth [1]. Jesus starts with grace—defending the woman against her unfair accusers [2] and refusing to condemn her [3].  But he also admonishes her: go and sin no more.  Campbell explains:

“Grace without truth pampers, confuses, and even deceives. Truth without grace cuts, wounds, and destroys…Salt is essential for the body, but separated into its two elements, sodium and chloride, it can be deadly.” (13)

He observes that the church has often reached out to those wounded by divorce, but has not done so with those that struggle with gender confusion (14).

The book has three parts:

Analysis: Your Church, Christs Body.
Approach: Overcoming Controversy.
Action: Building Ministry.

Campbell starts with the current status of your church and then provides information both scriptural and practical about the major controversies in church responses to homosexuality. He finally talks about the ministry challenges in ministry to homosexuals and provides links to ministry resources.

Analysis. Campbell’s guidance to churches is summarized in an interesting graphic (see right). He ranks churches based on their emotional response to homosexuality. Churches motivated by fear either blindly condemn or blindly embrace homosexuality. Churches motivated by apathy express support (or not) but mostly remain silent. Churches motivated by ministry remain biblically obedient but extend grace to those struggling with gender confusion, much like they would extend grace to alcoholics and other broken people (28-36). The ministry response that Campbell advocates is clearly neither common nor easy.

Campbell’s experience with homosexuality began with caring for his deaf son.  Being the rare pastor who could sign, he found himself intimately involved in the deaf community and their particular problems.  Deaf children often attend school in residual programs that leave them vulnerable to homosexual activity and exploitation (40).  He writes:

“The compassion of Christ begins to bloom when [church] members begin to understand that homosexual attractions are usually not chosen by those who experience them but are the fallout of a multiplicity of factors such as prenatal dispositions, sexual abuse, parental detachment, and same-sex rejection.” (38)

He learned that at homosexual temptations are rooted in isolation and rejection (46).

Approach.  The treatment of the science of homosexuality in the media and among psychiatrists offers a cautionary tale.  Scientific studies have for the most part not been able to demonstrate a linkage between genetics and any behavioral trait in spite of great efforts to explain depression, gambling, propensity towards obesity and even criminal activity (83).  A genetic linkage to homosexuality has likewise never been demonstrated even though much of this research has been done by groups and individuals anxious to find this linkage (82-89).  Nevertheless, the media has consistently claimed linkages that the scientists themselves have not reported (83).  The strongest statement that can be made based on research (as of 2010) is that some people may have a  disposition that they may (or may not) act on—Campbell compares it to a general disposition towards intellectual pursuits (86).  By comparison, alcoholism has been shown to be inheritable at a rate of 50-60 percent—the comparable figure for homosexuality is 50 percent or less (87).  While the media has dramatically increased the visibility of homosexuality, the percentage reported in the population remains a low 2-3 percent (89).

An important part of the effort to mainstream homosexuality arose in changes in the treatment by psychiatrists.  Research before the politicization of homosexuality pointed to the “distant father/overclose mother” theory, sexual abuse, and sexual experimentation as causal factors for homosexuality (110-113).  In spite of research supporting these factors in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted after intense lobbying from homosexual groups to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric illnesses normally reported in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)  (106-107).  Because listing in the DSM is a prerequisite for insurance company reimbursement for treatment, this change lead to a dramatic decline in scientific research and treatment in the years that followed.  Unfortunately, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM for political, not psychiatric, reasons. Still, some practitioners continue to see patients (110-117).

Action. Campbell sees ministry to homosexuals having 6 parallels to the efforts of Nehemiah to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, each having both an inner reality and outer focus:

Motivation–Prayer;
Vision–Leadership;
Healing–Family values;
Growth–Mentors and counselors;
Support–Small group ministry; and
Celebration–Outreach (153).

For example, Campbell notes that Nehemiah was a man of prayer.  Before approaching the king with his request to assist in rebuilding Jerusalem, Nehemiah mourned, prayed, and fasted (Nehemiah 1).  Opposition pushed Nehemiah closer to God (154).  The point here is that Campbell sees ministry to those challenged by gender confusion requiring a range of responses corresponding to a range of needs.

Bill Campbell is senior pastor of Hendersonville Presbyterian Church, Hendersonville, NC . He speaks from more than 20 years of ministry experience dealing with homosexuality. He recounts stories of families and individuals that he interviewed who have struggled with unwanted same-sex attractions and overcome them. His personal interface with the gay community arose from both family experiences and from his own ministry in a church located close to an AIDs clinic. He is passionate about the Gospel and has a shepherd’s heart for those in need.

Campbell’s book is long overdue. From my own walk with the Lord, I was ministered to as a young person by staff and clergy who were later dismissed for gay relationships. In my role as clerk of session in my home church, I found myself whipsawed by church controversies over ordination standards with little guidance other than scripture and personal experiences. In ministry, I feel a need to be prepared both scripturally and practically for the challenges of helping broken people. Turning Controversy into Church Ministry has been a big help in overcoming my own fear of being faithful in this ministry.

Thanks Bill.

[1] Grace and truth are among God’s core values expressed in Exodus 34:6 immediately following the giving of the Ten Commandments. We know that these values are fundamental for God because they are repeated almost word for word in Psalm 86:15 and 103:8, Joel 2:13, and Jonah 4:2.

[2] The law is clear, both the man and woman who commit adultery are liable to be put to death (Lev 20:1).  The woman’s accusers obviously know who the man is and have hidden him from the law.

[3] Under the Mosaic law, at least 2 witnesses are required in a death penalty case.  By law, the witnesses must be the first to cast a stone (Deut 17:6-7). Perjury carries the same penalty as the alleged crime (Deut 19:15-19).

Reid Satterfield Commencement Address

Reid, April, and Emma Jane Satterfield

Reid Satterfield is an editor for T2Pneuma Publishers LLC, the former director of the Pierce Center at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, a guest blogger on T2Pneuma.net (link),  and a good friend.  Reid commenced in May 2015 and gave the address on behalf of the graduates.  I commend it to your listening (press here).

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 2

Jack Rogers. 2009. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality:  Explode the Myths, Heal the Church.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

The single, most important organizational issue facing the Presbyterian Church (USA; PCUSA) in this generation has been the loss in membership. Since the merger of the Northern and Southern denomination in 1984, total membership has declined from 3,100,951 in 1984 to 1,667,767 in 2014 [1]. This is a loss of about half (46%) in 30 years or an average of 1.5 % per year . Because the primary evangelism practiced in the PCUSA is with our own youth, slowing the departure of young people from the church has been an obvious, but unattended priority . So what was PCUSA leadership doing while this was going on? Part of the answer is the subject of Jack Rogers’ book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality [4].

What was the biblical warrant for the priority given in the PCUSA’s  to gender confusion?

Rogers (66) lists 8 biblical texts that get the most attention in debating homosexuality:

Genesis 19:1-29 (Story of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Judges 19:1-30 (Rape of Levite’s concubine).
Leviticus 18:1-30 (law).
Leviticus 20:1-27 (law).
1 Corinthians 6:9-17-17 (vice list).
1Timothy 1:3-13 (vice list).
Jude 1-25 (unnatural relations). and
Romans 1 (new covenant rejected).

To this list, Rogers (86,128-136) adds several other passages which he sees as biblical analogies, including:

Acts 10-15 (acceptance of gentiles).
Luke 10:25-37 (good Samaritan).
Matthew 19:10-12 (Jesus on marriage).
Acts 8:26-39 (Ethiopian eunuch).
Isaiah 56:4-5 (Eunuch’s acceptance).

Most authors start any conversation of homosexuality with a discussion Genesis 1-3 because the Bible’s discussion of sexual relations from that point forward assumes monogamous heterosexual marriage is the exclusive model for sexual relationships. This is why, for example, polygamous marriages are never raised up as a Biblical standard (even if tolerated by ancient society) and homosexuality is later condemned as sin (Lev 20:13).

The modeling of monogamous heterosexual marriage in Genesis is obvious and has always been the focus of church moral teaching.  A creator God creates Adam and Eve in His image (Gen 1:27) and immediately tells them to continues His work of creating (Gen 1:28). Heterosexual sex makes this possible (Gen 2:24). Sin arises when the woman believes a talking snake’s word over God’s word (Gen 3:1-6). This story of original sin is followed by stories of intensification of sin—Cain’s murder of his brother (Gen 4:8) and Lamech’s introduction of polygamy (Gen 4:19; Feinberg 1998, 30). The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19) can accordingly be thought of one of these examples of intensification of sin.

This intensification of sin is evident both because the story follows a sequence of increasing greater sins in the Genesis accounts culminating in Noah’ s flood where  God brings an apocalypse of water.  Why?  Because of sin (Gen 6:5-7). Modeled on the flood, God then destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah through fire.  Why?  Again, it is sin (Gen 18:20). God’s judgment is reserved for especially egregious sins.

Rogers disputes that Genesis 1-3 lay out monogamous heterosexual marriage as a model (83). Stripping out the biblical model of marriage throws the interpretation of the later passages that deal with homosexuality into confusion.  He also tip-toes around the problem of sin.

For example, taking the story of Sodom and Gomorrah out of context Rogers views the story primarily as a problem in inhospitable behavior towards a traveling guest.  He argues this interpretation because “in the ancient world homosexual rape was a traditional way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes” (67) However, this sociological interpretation is contrary to the tradition of scripture.  For example, in Ezekiel we read:

“As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” (Ezek. 16:48-50) 

Two things about this passage stand out.  First, the word abomination stands out here because it normally evokes the Mosaic law (Lev 20:13) where homosexual sin is condemned and subjected to the death penalty. Second, the women of Sodom (as well as the men) are involved in this abomination. The involvement of women is important because Rogers argues that the men  of Sodom were just establishing male dominance in the Genesis account, not engaging in homosexual activity [6]. Because woman do not normally use sex to establish dominance, the usual biblical interpretation is that we are seeing the sexual perversion of both genders in Sodom and Gomorrah. This point is reinforced in the New Testament where we read:

“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7 ESV)

There is no reason to appeal to extra-biblical arguments, as Rogers does repeatedly, when the biblical text itself is clear.  [7]

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is important to understand that God himself destroys the cities.  If their destruction expressed a cultural bias, Abraham had ample opportunity to destroy the cities  when he captured them as a prize of war in Genesis 14.  He did not.  In fact, Abraham later interceded with God (an example of prayer) for the cities in Genesis 18:25-33.  Abraham’s behavior is an important object lesson for us.  We are to pray for those caught up in sin and leave judgment to God.

How does Rogers deal with homosexuality in the holiness code of Leviticus?

Rogers cites 3 reasons for the holiness code focusing on the need to maintain ritual purity:

Israel needed to distinguish itself from neighboring nations in order to survive.
Mixing with other people or adopting their customs threatened purity.
Male gender superiority had to be maintained. (68-69)

Rogers sees both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 fitting into this cultural critique, but the Bible focuses on ritual purity as being modeled after God’s immutable character:

“For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” (Lev 11:45 ESV)

God’s immutable character also informs Jesus’ comments about the human heart. Jesus said:

“But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matt. 15:18-19 ESV)

The expression, “out of the heart”, means feelings and emotions, and it implies that Jesus was suspicious of such motivations .  By contrast, Rogers abrogates these verses because they are inconsistent with the double love command (Matt 22:36-40) and—like the holiness code itself—they are an example of culturally conditions laws (69).  Using a general principle (double love command) to abrogate a specific command (prohibit homosexuality as sin) does have biblical warrant, as seen in Genesis 3:1.  In any case, the church has historically abrogated the ceremonial codes in Leviticus, but not the  holiness codes which form the basis of much of the Apostle Paul’s moral teaching.

Much more could be said about Rogers’ arguments about homosexuality. However, his frequent use of cultural arguments generally focuses not on what the Bible says, but why he thinks the Bible says it. He then questions the motivation of the biblical author and those that disagree with his interpretation. It is hard to reconcile this sort of rhetoric with a high regard for scriptural authority, on which he professes to be an expert (7-8).

Although I disagree profoundly with the argumentation and conclusions of Jack Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, he does a better job than any author I know of chronicling recent changes in the PCUSA. Unfortunately, the changes that he has advocated have led even more rapid decline in denomination membership than in previous years and, as a parent of kids struggling to believe, I grieve the denomination’s insistence on majoring in minors rather than preaching, teaching, and supporting the Gospel.

Nevertheless, in Christ we are never without hope.  I recently ordered new business cards which include this verse:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15 ESV)

This verse is a personal reminder that we all struggle with sin.  The irony is that the church offering the most healing [9] may not sing the sweetest siren song .

Soli Gloria Deo

 

[1] Total U.S. population grew from 225 million in 1980 to 309 million in 2010 or 36 percent or about 1.2 percent per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Demographics_of_the_United_States).  This implies that PCUSA membership has fallen even as population has increased.  This trend would be considered  a stunning failure in top leadership in any other organization.

The rate of decline in membership in the PCUSA has been accelerating in recent years and jumped from 3.29 percent in 2011 percent to 5.26 percent in 2012 with the passage of provisions encouraging the ordination of homosexuals. See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyt...

 The aging of the membership underscores this assessment.

[4] Kinnaman (2011, 21) provides a research-based exploration of the dropout of our youth.  He sees the core problem as a “disciple-making problem”.  A distracted church is unlikely to spend the time necessary to make disciples or to commit resources to making it happen.

 The parallel between Ezekiel’s characterization of Sodom and Gomorrah and postmodern secular society is most striking.

[6] The rape of Levite’s concubine in  Judges 19:1-30 is a parallel passage.

[7] Solo Scriptura—in God’s economy all knowledge is God’s knowledge, but the only authority for matters of faith in the reformed tradition is scripture.

Elliott (2006, 264) studied the use of emotions in the New Testament and concluded:  “Emotions are a faithful reflection of what we believe and value.”  Jesus’ teaching about the heart and suspicion about emotions suggests that the underlying problem of sin motivated his teaching.  This is why Paul could write: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Cor. 15:3 ESV)  Atoning for sin was at the heart of Jesus’ ministry both on earth and post-resurrection.  This is why the Gospel requires both truth and grace (John 8:11).

[9]  Each time we mourn a loss, we have to make a decision.  Do we lean into our pain or do we lean on God?  (Matt 26:36-44) Our identity is defined by the answer we give to this question each and every time.  Healing arises when our identity is in Christ, the Great Physician.

 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4 ESV)

REFERENCES

Elliott, Matthew A. 2006. Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Feinberg, Jeffrey Enoch. 1998. Walk Genesis: A Messianic Jewish Devotional Commentary. Clarksville, MD: Lederer Books.

Kinnaman, David. 2011. “You Lost Me:  Why Young Christians are Leaving Church…” Grand Rapids:  BakerBooks.

Prayer Day 34: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Espera verano 2015

Almighty Father. King of kings. Lord of lords. Thank you for your ongoing presence in our lives. Redeem our relationships; guarantee our fidelity; mentor our leadership. In the power of your Holy Spirit, bless our families, our churches, and our work places. In Jesus’ precious name, Amen.

Padre Todopoderoso, Rey de Reyes, Señor de Señores. Gracias por Tu presencia constante en nuestras vidas. Rédime nuestra relaciones; guía nuestra fidelidad; fomenta nuestro liderazgo. En el poder del Espíritu Santo, bendice nuestras familias, nuestra iglesia, y nuestros lugares de trabajo. En el precioso nombre de Jesús oramos, Amén.

God’s Core Values

“The LORD passed before him [Moses] and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exod. 34:6-7 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

What exactly are God’s core values?

God’s core values are given in Exodus 34:6 immediately following the giving of the Ten Commandments. We know that these values are fundamental for God because they are repeated all most word for word in Psalm 86:15 and 103:8, Joel 2:13, and Jonah 4:2. Interestingly, in the second giving of the law in Deuteronomy 4:31, only mercy is mentioned.

The emphasis in most of these passages on mercy and the de-emphasis in some passages on faithfulness (or truth) suggests that God is soft-hearted. Exodus 34:6 mentions mercy (רַחוּם), gracious (חַנּ֑וּן), slow to anger (אֶ֥רֶךְ אַפַּ֖יִם) or patient, abounding in love (חֶ֥סֶד) and faithfulness (truth) (אֱמֶֽת). Psalm 86:15 repeats all five words in the Hebrew in the same order. Psalm 103 repeats the first four values [1], but drops faithfulness. Joel 2:13 repeats the first five words, but substitutes “relents over disaster” for faithfulness. Jonah 4:2 likewise substitutes “relents over disaster” for faithfulness and swaps grace and mercy.

The giving of the core values right after the giving of the law is not an accident. Core values provide guidance on how to interpret law especially when conflicts arise. Law has the benefit of being concrete and establishes specific principles—this is the field of theology (the study of the nature of God). But in application circumstances are often messy and bring these principles into conflict—this is the field of ethics (the study of right and wrong action). As Christians, because we know God through the Bible and His Holy Spirit, we know the mind of God—we know his character.  Exodus 34:6 speaks directly to this question of God’s character.

The classic story of the mind of God is found in the Book of Jonah. God called on Jonah to preach repentance to the people of Nineveh. But Jonah hated the Ninevites and caught the next boat out of town going the opposite direction (Jonah. 1:2-3). Why? Because he knew God’s character. When he finally went to Nineveh and preached as God had called him, the people of Nineveh turned from their sin and begged God to forgive them (Jonah 3:9-10). Jonah responded in anger:

“But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.” (Jonah 4:1-2 ESV)

What did Jonah say? In prayer he cited God’s core values as a reason for running away from his assignment to preach to the Ninevites. Why? Because he hated the Ninevites so much that he did not want God to forgive them.

God’s mercy is first among his core values. When we refuse to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with our neighbors, we become like Jonah selfishly trying to keep God’s mercy to ourselves. This refusal puts us in tension both with God and with our neighbors. We are in tension with God because, in effect, we deny God’s mercy and our own identity as ones created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). We are in tension with our neighbors because we have denied them God’s mercy and, potentially, their eternal salvation.  Who are the Ninevites in your life?

Jesus reminds us with a promise: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” (Matt. 5:7 ESV)

Aren’t you glad that God’s core values are actually immutable character traits—part of his identity and not of a New Year’s resolution?

 

[1] Slow to anger is expressed with another expression—long nostriled (אֶ֖רֶךְ אַפַּ֣יִם)—implying the same thing—patient.

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 1

Jack Rogers. 2009. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality:  Explode the Myths, Heal the Church.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA; PCUSA) approved ordination of homosexuals in 2012 and gay marriage in 2014. As moderator of the 213th General Assembly in 2001 and in other leadership roles, Jack Bartlett Rogers was an important advocate for these changes. In his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, he lays out the argument for why he believes that:

“We need to give people who are LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] full and equal rights within the church and work for their rights within the broader society. That means that marriage, ordination, and every other right necessary to bring people who are homosexual into full equality with people who are heterosexual.” (107-108)

Because this book was published in 2009, it anticipated changes in the policy of the PCUSA by several years and played an active role in advocating for these changes. As such, readers interested in the genesis of these changes will want to be familiar with the arguments in this book.

Rogers is currently Professor Emeritus of Theology  at San Francisco Theological Seminary. While he is the author of numerous books, I am most familiar with his book, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions (2001), a study both in church history and dogmatics. Dogmatics is: “the study of the arrangement and statement of religious doctrines, especially of the doctrines received in and taught by the Christian church.” Rogers describes himself as “evangelical theologically” which makes sense for a former faculty member at Fuller Theological Seminary, but probably not for a faculty member at San Francisco Theological Seminary (6).

As advocacy, Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality can be described as a work in the field of dogmatics. Rogers writes in 8 chapters:

Studying Homosexuality for the First Time.
A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Oppression.
A Breakthrough in Understanding the Word of God.
Interpreting the Bible in Times of Controversy.
What the Bible Says and Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality.
Real People and Real Marriage.
Recommendations for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
All are One in Christ Jesus. (vi)

Before the chapters are 2 prefaces and acknowledgments. After the chapters are an appendix, a lengthy study guide, notes, and a topical index. Missing is a scripture index.

Rogers requires careful reading.

For example, one of the problems with the term, evangelical, is that the meaning has changed dramatically over the years and is often criticized as being a meaningless term. In chapter 1, Rogers defines an evangelical as:

“someone who accepts three propositions: (1) People can and should have a personal relationship with God through trust in Jesus Christ. (2) The Bible is the final authority for salvation and living the Christian life. (3) God’s grace in Jesus Christ is such good news that everyone should hear about it” (6).

So far so good. Rogers then goes on to distance himself from “fundamentalists” whom he describes as “more politically monolithic and more theologically conservative than evangelicalism.” (7) Fundamentalists have attempted over the years to give theological substance and voice to the evangelical movement.  Yet, Rogers uses them primarily in his book as a foil for criticism.

Rogers is an artful politician.

Chapter 2 is a case in point. Attorneys often cite this old saw:

if the facts support your case, then argue the facts; if the facts don’ support your case, then argue the law; if the facts and the law don’t support your case, then stand and shout.

Here the chain of reasoning is:  homosexual conduct is medically risky (fact) and it is a sin (law) [4], but it is also okay by Rogers (stand and shout).  If biblical interpretation provided a strong case for mainstreaming LGBT persons in the church, then one would expect chapter 2 to lay out the case for homosexuality—it does not. Instead, chapter 2 focuses on how biblical interpretation was misused to oppress blacks and women in the past (17). The art of politics lies in using innuendo—an indirect rather than a direct assault—to make an emotional point (standing and shouting) supporting your case. In this case, he argues that the Bible was misused in the nineteenth century to support slavery and oppress women—now, it is being misused to oppress homosexuals.

The problem is that evangelical Christians in the nineteenth century also successfully led efforts to abolish slavery and promote women’s rights [5].  The fascinating part is that in making these arguments he both lionizes 2 key constituencies (blacks and women) and, by inference, defames his opponents as being in the same league with racists and misogynists from the past who misused the Bible. While this is artful politics, one does not expect this line of reasoning within the church and it does not suggest a strong biblical case for homosexuality.

Rogers’ interest in Christology and his background in neo-orthodoxy are also fascinating. Troubling was the way that he split (much like the earlier split between evangelicals and fundamentalists) Jesus Christ from the scriptural witness—we understand Jesus Christ only from scripture and direct revelation (52-53).   The tradition of the church primarily represents scriptural interpretations rendered over time.  Consequently, because Rogers does not claim a new revelation of God [7],  it is highly misleading to separate Jesus from the scripture witness.

His proposed interpretative technique is laid out in 7 guidelines:

Jesus Christ is the center of scripture.
Focus on the plain text in grammatical and historical context.
Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Be guided by the consensus of the church.
Let all interpretations be guided by the rule of love—love of God and neighbor [8].
Establish a best text.
Seek the whole counsel of scripture (65).

A key problem with this list is item 6—establish a best text—which is in direct tension with item 7—seek the whole counsel of scripture. Picking a favorite text and reading the rest of the Bible in view of it allows complete freedom to read the text anyway you like—or, if you are a church leader, to control the interpretations of the church with your particular theology in view . In fact, item 5 is an example of a best text (item 6) and an attempt to control interpretation .

Missing from this list is a key interpretative technique that Rogers employs repeatedly throughout his book.  He argues that the biblical homosexual prohibitions exist primarily to establish male dominance.  For example, he writes:

“The hosts [in Sodom and Gomorrah] do not seem to think of the attackers as primarily homosexual, or they would not offer women for them to abuse.” (67)

No doubt Moses employs this argument to show the depravity of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah; Rogers employs the argument to defame the hosts as misogynists and to divert attention away from homosexual sin.  Rogers employs this sociological argument repeatedly (e.g. 74-75) which has the unfortunate consequence of undermining the authority of scripture in the eyes of those reading Rogers text—especially women.  How can church unity follow from interpretation techniques that by their nature divide and conquer along gender lines?

The Protestant reformation was launched along with a new interpretative method—John Calvin’s—which focused on the authority of scripture.  Without saying so, Rogers discards the interpretative standards of the reformed tradition by substituting his own standards.  The irony of Rogers’ proposed changes in church polity and biblical interpretation follow American culture much the same way as he criticized the church doing in generations past.  The difference is, however, that American culture today is overtly secular, atheistic, and post Christian.

Jack Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality is likely to be debated for years to come. It is easy to read and hard to understand. The target audience is broadly the LGBT community, woman’s groups, and minorities within mainline denominations. Rogers may, however, be remembered more widely as re-energizing interest in the study and practice of dogmatics, but perhaps for reasons he may not want to own.

In part 1 of this review, I have summarized of Rogers’ methods of argumentation and interpretation. In part 2, I will take a closer look at the biblical texts which both focus on homosexuality and at the biblical texts which Rogers’ highlights in his final chapter.

 

Comments supporting this assessment are found on a website:  http://www.DrJackRogers.com.  Anyone doubting Rogers’ position on this issue will want to read the first blurb on the first page by Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.  Early in chapter 1, Rogers also discusses a group called More Light Presbyterians who have a: “ mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and in society.” (www.MLP.org).

 Readers interested in the debate over scripture with Robert Gagnon (author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice) can find this online at:  http://bit.ly/1GrGVvz.  Read part 1 of my review of Gagnon at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-15F.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

[4]  Read part 1 of my review of Gagnon at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-15F.

[5] See:  Dayton (2005).

[6 At the heart of his argument is a weak analogy.  In fact, the Bible’s arguments about slavery and role of women evolve between the Old and New Testaments in a way that is not true for homosexuality. The weakness in this analogy was the focus of a recent book by Webb (2001).  Read my review at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Bn.

[7] Rogers’ revelation is more political than spiritual.  He writes:  “I worked through how the church, guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the scriptures, reversed our prohibitions against ordination to leadership of African Americans, women, and divorced and remarried people.” (15)  The argument goes 1 then 2 then 3 then 4, therefore 5.  The Bible never promoted slavery, even if it acknowledged it; women are clearly in leadership in both the Old and New Testament, although not as frequently as today; and divorce is a sin in the Bible, except in the case of adultery, yet the modern church has mostly looked the other way.  He is confusing what some people in the church have done with a mandate from the Holy Spirit and drawn an inference that cannot be made in scripture, but is now politically popular.

[8] At the heart of this debate over homosexuality is the proper definition of love.  In the Greek, Rogers is using a principle based on the Agape love (ἀγαπάω; love of neighbor) to excuse a sin based on type of Eros love (ἔρως; passionate love).  At a minimum, this argument is mixing apples and oranges.  It is certainly not an inference that could be drawn from Matthew 22:36-40 which is based on Old Testament law (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) which also prohibits homosexuality (Lev 20:13).

 The usual way that Protestants seek to interpret scripture starts with a focus on the intent of the author which is clarified by the whole counsel of scripture.  Then and only then is the reader’s interpretation brought in.  See for example:  (Vanhoozer 1998).  See my review at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Yq.

 The double love command (Matt. 22:36-40) is certainly important and much beloved among Christians. However, how can a general statement about love overrule specific guidance on the sinfulness of homosexuality?

 Thompson (2004, 58-62, 67, 71) viewed Calvin having 4 interpretative principles, including:  1. understand the author’s intent, 2. communicate effectively, 3. consult the original texts, and 4. consider the text and its application in the context of the canon of scripture.

REFERENCES

Dayton, Donald W.  2005. Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Peabody: Hendrickson.

Gagnon, Robert A. J. 2001. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Rogers, Jack. 1991. Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Thompson, John L.  “Calvin as Biblical Interpreter.”  Pages 58-73 in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin.  Edited by Donald A. McKim.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is There a Meaning in This Text:  The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan.

Webb, William J. 2001. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermaneutics of Cultural Analysis.  Colorado Springs:  IVP Academic.

Gagnon: Bridging the Bible and Gender Confusion, Part 3

Robert A. J. Gagnon.  2001.  The Bible and Homosexual Practice:  Texts and Hermeneutics.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press. (Goto part 1; goto part 2)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

If homosexual conduct reduces life expectancy today when modern medicine is readily available, then it must have been even worse in the ancient world. In a context where the poor routinely starved to death, child mortality was extreme, and any access to medical care rare, except among the very wealthy, living a godly lifestyle was a survival strategy.  When the Apostle Paul writes:

 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Cor. 15:3 ESV)

life and death hang in the balance.  So Paul describes faith as of “first importance”.

Gagnon divides his discussion of the New Testament into a short chapter (44 pages) on the witness of Jesus and a long chapter (108 pages) on the witness of Paul.  He writes in 6 working chapters, including:

The Context of Ancient Judaism and Jesus’ View of Torah.
Jesus on Genesis and Male-Female Complementarity.
Deconstructing the Myth of a Sexually Tolerant Jesus.
Love and Righteousness in the Ministry of Jesus.
Romans 1:24-27.
The Vice Lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

Let me focus on the longer discussions, items 4 and 5 above.

Love and Righteousness in the Ministry of Jesus. One of the enduring pictures of Jesus come from the parable of the loss sheep (210). Luke the physician writes:

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:4-7 ESV)

Notice that the parable targets those who are lost in sin and, when lost, are brought back to repentance.  Jesus’ healing ministry was not restricted to physical healing, but focused on repentance of wayward lifestyles and transformation into godly lifestyles (211).

Faith in God is like that—life  requires acknowledging that we participate in both a physical and spiritual reality.  Ignoring our spiritual reality leaves us like zombies—physical beings without life; ignoring our physical reality leaves us like ghosts—spiritual beings without a body.  Jesus rose from the dead both physically and spiritually [2].

Gagnon makes the point that Luke 15 has a theme of lostness—lost sheep, lost coins, lost (prodigal) sons.  He writes:  “The lost son is even identified with a dead person or corpse.” (211) In some sense, the modern church has, relative to those lost in gender confusion, often played the part of the older brother in the parable of prodigal son (also lost) who could not love his father and refused to accept the return of his wayward brother (211-212).

How do you properly love an unrepentant sinner?  Luke points to the father in the parable of the prodigal son who offers forgiveness and reinstatement in the family. Gagnon (213) points out:  “Jesus did not confuse love with toleration of all behaviors…”  Citing the story of the woman caught in adultery, Gagnon focuses on Jesus’ parting words to her:

“Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:10-11 ESV)

Healing comes not only from being loved on but also from being transformed. Truth and grace together make the Gospel—truth alone cannot be heard; grace alone denies the law [3].  This idea is captured also by the author of Hebrews:  “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15 ESV)  We need to hear the bad news before the good news makes any sense.  Grace is a gift that we have to live into if it is to transform us.

Romans 1:24-27. One question that intrigued me in seminary was the nature of the new covenant that we have in Christ.  What exactly does the new covenant look like and what are its provisions?

The Mosaic covenant is fairly easy to articulate because the law, starting with the Ten Commandments, is laid out in concrete detail in Exodus 20 (and Deuteronomy 6) and the blessings and curses are laid out in even more detail in Deuteronomy 28.  In Paul’s writing, the new covenant in Christ is loosely described as the Gospel and in the dichotomy between law and grace.  The most specific statement of the Gospel appears in Romans 1:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith [in Jesus Christ]. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Rom. 1:16-18)

Salvation from sin is freely given to all that believe in Jesus Christ—those that reject this salvation become objects of wrath.  What is this wrath?  Rejecting salvation garners a curse:  “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…” (Rom. 1:24)  Because of the deprivation of original sin, being given up to your own desires is a curse—it is a curse to get what you want .  Rejecting the Gospel also means that one remains subject to the law.  Living a Christian lifestyle is not denying our true selves as victims of dark desires; it is expressing our true selves as victors in Christ’s righteousness.

Gagnon observes that Romans 1:24-27 is a central New Testament text dealing with homosexual conduct, both among men and women (229).  The overall context for Paul is original sin which affects both Jews and Gentiles (240; Rom. 3:9).  This passage is edgy because:

“God does not judge them for their ignorance but for acting contrary to the knowledge that they do have.  This suppression of knowledge shows itself especially in two ways: idolatry and same-sex intercourse.” (247).

Idolatry is about priorities.  Idolatry is anything that we substitute for God’s  priority in our lives—is our identity in Christ or is it in other things like our work, sexuality, or entertainments?  Idolatry is not just substituting stone statues for the reality of God; it is replacing God’s priority in our lives for other priorities. The prohibition on idolatry is the first of the Ten Commandments because our survival depends on it:

“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me…” (Exod. 20:3-5)

God is jealous, not because He depends on our love or somehow needs sycophants; God is jealous because He loves us and knows how easily we are tempted into self-destruction.

Notice the inter-generational curse implied in Exodus 20:5 focused on those that hate God (247-249).  Paul is not making up stuff in Romans 1—he is just adjusting the law to suit the new covenant in Christ.  Ignoring God means worshiping something else and earns the curse of being given over to your own desires.  Because the Romans were famous for their immorality and homosexuality, Paul’s emphasis on immorality and homosexuality is tailored to his audience—but it is also obviously tailored to our unrighteous situation today.

In spite of the passage of time, Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice remains an important resource for biblical scholars and interested Christians. A key difference between Gagnon’s exegetical work on homosexuality and other treatments is his insistence on using scripture to interpret scripture. Authors who claim homosexuality is consistent with scripture usually focus on a narrow number of verses (e.g. Matthew 22:36-40) and discount other passages (e.g. Leviticus 20:13) that disagree with their position.  Consequently, progressives desiring credibility on this subject and evangelicals wanting to be informed need to engage this text.

 

A parallel is found in Deuteronomy for disobeying the Mosaic covenant:  “The LORD will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish.” (Deut. 28:22 ESV)

[2] Resurrection of the Body (http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Ii).

[3] The story of the woman caught in adultery is widely recognized as a later addition to the text of the Gospel of John and is bracketed in the Greek text.  However, the tension between grace and truth is deep part of the biblical tradition.  See, for example, the attributes of God listed in Exodus 34:6 which are divinely reveal immediately after God gives Moses the Ten Commandments.  The translation reads: “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,” (Exod. 34:6 ESV).  Grace is specifically translated.  The word translated as faithfulness ( אֱמֶֽת ), is translated as truth in the King James and the New American Standard versions.  This implies that both grace and truth have always been God’s character traits.