Christianity Today Gleanings: Pastors' Positions on Creation vs. Evolution Vary by Region, Church Size

Christianity Today Gleanings: Pastors' Positions on Creation vs. Evolution Vary by Region, Church Size

BioLogos (a theistic evolution organization) sponsored this study. I find the results interesting, but also praise the resolve of the pastors who continue to believe in Biblical creation (YEC). See Chart below (click for larger version):

John Piper on the Femininity of Women

John Piper (theologian) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

John Piper recently answered a question in a podcast about if he used Bible commentaries by women, and his answer in a nutshell was yes since he couldn't see them. This set off two different blog posts, one over on Christianity Today's Her.meneutics blog, and the other by Rachel Held Evans. I think Piper makes a good point in suggesting that I Timothy 2:12 is directly speaking of direct contact with women teachers and because one does not see the woman teacher or she is not directly teaching men face to face, this makes it okay. As a complementarianism myself, I will tend to agree with Piper up to a point, but I think something got lost in his explanation when he added the "not seeing the woman, so it makes it okay" bit. Some might disagree with me here, but I think this is where both Pietka (on the Her.Meneutics blog) and Evans struggled with Piper's answer.

Evans, as usual, really takes Piper to task as a hypocrite on this issue. Of course, she's also of this new wave of liberal Christian feminism, where husbands submit to wives, and vice versa, but it seemingly seems the woman is controlling this. As well, in her world, there is nothing wrong with women holding leadership positions over men in the church, despite the Biblical prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12. Pietka is more kind in her words, and yet takes Piper to task for a whole another reason, and that is suggesting that Piper has an obsession with women's bodies. She writes,

"Piper's affirmation, consequently, of women who teach indirectly and impersonally shows his overt rejection of and implicit obsession with women's bodies. He makes it seem impossible that a man could listen to a woman's biblical insights in her presence without being distracted by her femininity."

I don't think that's the problem, but that's her perceived problem, whereas Evan's problem is more theological, although she'll probably state it as cultural as well. She simply has problems with complementarianism, but that's another issue all together. Regardless, Piper stirred something up within the Christian feminist community, but there's something we need to examine here ourselves. Is Piper right on this issue? There's just something that's been nagging me about it.

I see no problem with reading women's commentaries on Scripture, whether it's Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, or others. It's not because I can't see them or because they are not directly teaching me in a Church setting. It's simply because I believe that Godly women do have something to say to us. We can and should learn from all who might have an insight.  Paul was referencing a Church teaching setting, I believe when he wrote 1 Timothy 2:12. He referenced the women in Timothy's life as people he learned from. There were women in the Bible who were teaching a discipling. Learning from Godly women is not a bad thing. But our reasoning should not be because we don't see them. It should be because they do still have something to say, whether we are complementarian or not.

Related articles

• John Piper on How Christians Can Win the Battle Against Lust
• On the 'new' wave of complementarians
• John Piper doesn't mind being taught by a woman as long as he can't see her boobs or hear her voice
• Rachel Pietka Challenges John Piper on the Implications of Allowing Women to Teach "Indirectly"

Culture Is Not the Problem

Ken Ham - Answers in Genesis

This past weekend, we had the opportunity to attend the 2nd Annual Teach Them Diligently homeschool convention in Spartanburg, SC which featured speakers such as Ken Ham, Lou Priolo, Stephen Kendrick, and other well-known speakers/authors from the homeschool community. I attended a number of Ken Ham's sessions, of which he laid out how the Church has lost a measure of authority, because many pastors are teaching their congregations that Genesis 1-11 are not entirely true. While churches are teaching that the coming, death, and resurrection of Jesus are absolutely true, they are leading their congregations astray by allowing science to dictate what is "true" about the origins of the universe and mankind. I've known this for some time, as I've read pieces by Tim Keller detailing his views on how Genesis 1 means one thing with regards to creation and Genesis 2 is something else. I doubt he does that with the rest of scripture. The Christian group, BioLogos, exists to link evolution, millions of years, and the Bible together. In fact, this was the whole reason the Teach Them Diligently conference was started last year because a similar conference in South Carolina had an issue with Mr. Ham calling out Peter Enns on this very issue.

In short, Mr. Ham's point was that because the Church has decided that they would use a different hermeneutic in interpreting Genesis 1-11, we have lost and are losing the so-called "Culture Wars." How? Because we have no more credibility when we don't fully interpret the Bible correctly. We lose on marriage because Genesis 2 and 3 details God creating the marriage of man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Why we need a Savior is in Genesis 3. If we start interpreting the Bible according to what Science says, how can we have much credibility? How can we justify the need for a Savior if we say we came from apes or that dinosaurs could not have been created the same day as man?

The Church is the problem in that they are not teaching the whole counsel of God. They have lost the full meaning of the Gospel message by not correctly interpreting the Bible. They don't want the Bible to say what it means or mean what it says. They want day in Genesis 1 and 2 to mean something other than day when it doesn't mean something other than day in the rest of the Bible. Let's stop playing around with man-made science and look at God's science and what he really says about His creation and get down to the real Gospel. When we start giving out the real Gospel, only then can hearts truly start being changed.

Related articles

• "Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School"
• Ken Ham interview
• So, I guess I've been outed as an Atheist
• The place of Biblical authority and why Ken Ham's position should be questioned

Getting the facts straight on the Boston bombing suspects

English: A Muslim raises his hands in Takbir, marking the beginning of his prayers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From the beginning of the hunt for the Boston bombing suspects, there seemed to be a concerted effort by some bloggers and journalists to either hope this was an act of Islamic terrorism or to not hope for it. The facts of the case don't show this to be a "Jihadist" attack at all but a case of two brothers seemingly going off the deep end. Then again, we still don't have any motives. But let's look at what we do know and what we don't know.

1. The brothers accused in the bombing are from the country of Chechnya, a former soviet region better known for attempts at trying to put out the Muslim population there in ethnic cleansings. These brothers are Muslims, but keep in mind, that this is more of an ethnic faith, rather than a practicing faith. Much like you have people who are Catholics in South America, Christians in America, or Jews in Russia.

2. Chechnya Muslims are not known for having any particular terrorist group ties.

3. These brothers have been here long before they would have had terrorist ties and were legal residents of the U.S.

4. This bombing did not follow any particular Islamic terrorist convention. There was no blowing one's self up at the bombing, no shouting "Allahu Akbar," and no shaving of one's body hair.

5. People lost their lives and limbs in this bombing. Let's show some respect to them and not go off the deep end in trying to prove that Muslims are evil because the bombing suspects are Muslim. Remember the OKC bombing, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing were done by "Christians."

6. In fact, this bombing has all the stylings of the Atlanta Olympics bombing.

In watching the news reports and reading the blogs, let's not jump to conclusions or be fearful, until all the facts are out. People like Robert Spencer are loving the fact that these guys were "Muslims" simply because it "proves" his point. I think the 19 year old kid is probably scared and confused and most likely talked into this by his brother, for whatever reason his brother wanted to pull this off. We should look at this through the eyes of Christ and have compassion on both the people of Boston and on this bombing suspect. The people standing in the streets shouting "USA" are no better than the Muslims shouting in the street when an attack happens to us. We need to be praying and showing Christ's compassion during times like these.

Related articles

• Talking About Terrorism
• Who Do We Bomb? Who Is Responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing? Muslims?
• Boston bombing suspect 'inspired by' radical Aussie Muslim cleric
• Uncle urges bombing suspect to turn self in
• What You Should Know About Chechnya as the Boston Story Unfolds - Thor Halvorssen - The Atlantic

Friday Funny - Rise of the Homeschool Mommy Bloggers

#Crazyisgood—“iPotty for iPad = high-tech toilet training” / SML.20130110.SC.PublicMedia.CNET.News.8301-17938_105-57563056-1.ipotty-for-ipad-aims-for-high-tech-toilet-training.Crazyisgood.Kids.Edu.Opinions (Photo credit: See-ming Lee 李思明 SML)

The other night my wife and I were having a discussion about homeschool mommy bloggers while doing dishes. Here's what we came up as a picture of them.

1. 15 Passenger Van.
2. Minimum 6 kids
3. Nursing at least 1 kid, potty training another.

Now, when do they have time to blog or homeschool?

Driving one kid to soccer practice, another to dance, and another to debate class, nursing one, the 2 year old is sitting on a portable potty somewhere in the back, dictating to their iphone what needs to be posted on the blog.

Now, have fun picturing that one in your head.

Biblical Truth vs. Cultural Norms

English: West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Español: Edificio de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In my Missiology classes in college, we often talked about contextualization and applying Biblical truths to those cultures we were seeking to reach with the Gospel. Most cultures have norms that are not Biblical. This was one of the reasons that God ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples they encountered on the way to the Promised Land. He knew that should they allow the peoples to integrate or influence the Israelites, they would disregard His Law He had given them. Of course, Israel did disobey and they were influenced by the peoples they did not wipe out. They did not wipe them out as a result of giving grace to them. It was purely for selfish reasons.

Fast forward 4000 years from the Israelites and you have the culture of the United States of America. This next week, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the status of homosexual "marriage" in the United States. In recent years, we've also seen churches denying Biblical truth in favor of "acceptance" of homosexuals into their congregations. Some of these churches have suggested that because cultural norms have changed, the churches should change. They have used arguments seemingly from the Bible to suggest that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it's just love as the reason that homosexual "marriage" should be okay. In my missiology classes, this was called syncretism, not contextualization.

One example often used is the woman brought before Jesus by the Jewish leaders. She had been found to be in adultery and they were demanding that she be stoned according to their law. Jesus asked for those without sin to cast the first stone and then he proceeded to tell her that he did not condemn her. This is where most of the "Christian" homosexual activists stop. Jesus also told her to go and sin no more, however. That is perhaps the most important part of the story. Incidentally, this story is found in a section of Mark that is not found in the earliest manuscripts. That's beside the point, as it is still being used against a full exegesis of Biblical truth.

Another point often brought up is that Jesus never spoke against or condemned homosexuality. In all honesty, that really is a silly argument as it's an argument from silence. If churches never spoke against the issue of abortion, would that make it right? Incidentally, not speaking up, allowed it to be argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1972, making it "legal".  Abortionists attend our churches, as do homosexuals. There is a denial of Biblical truth in these churches as they choose not to confront sin, but allow culture to tell them what is right and wrong.

Rob Bell recently came out in favor of homosexual "marriage." This was no surprise to me as it followed from his denial of Hell a few years ago. John Shore is another author who is also in favor of homosexual "marriage." His support also followed from a denial of Hell.  In short, what I am seeing is that those "Christians" who are suddenly in favor of homosexual "marriage" have also justified their beliefs by denying that there is a final judgment for those who do not trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior. They have become universalists. President Obama is a universalist and can be seen to be that by his statements. Nearly every church that homosexuals are accepted without condemning of their sin are universalist churches. Several denominations are exceptions, obviously, such as the Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, and Presbyterian (USA) denominations.

In short, in order to arrive at the conclusions that "Christian" homosexual activists have arrived at, they must deny the very reason that Jesus Christ came. That is, that he came to rescue people from the judgment and wrath of God. All of God's wrath toward sin was poured out on Christ in order for those that trust in him would have their hearts changed to be like him. However, if one denies that their is a judgment, then there is no reason for Christ to have come. Cultural norms have overridden Biblical truths in this case. Let us stand on Biblical truths. There is nothing wrong with cultural norms where they do not contradict Biblical truths. But we must be careful not to allow our human emotions to override those Biblical truths. We can love and respect homosexuals and others different from us without denying Biblical truths and I think we will be more respected for it.

Related articles

• Problems with pro-gay theology
• Hate in the Name of Christ
• Rob Bell Would Make a Great Mormon
• The Great Gay Debate
• What Think Ye of Christ?
• Gay Christians (Thoughts)
• What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality & Gay Marriage?

Second-Class American Citizenship

With his family by his side, Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States by Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr. in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009. More than 5,000 men and women in uniform are providing military ceremonial support to the presidential inauguration, a tradition dating back to George Washington's 1789 inauguration. VIRIN: 090120-F-3961R-919 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the strictest sense, Biblical Christians first citizenship is that of Heaven. This world is not our home, we are just passing through, as the old song goes. Yet, in today's United States, and even a number of other countries, Christians are also being relegated to a second-class citizenship status. Look at the news stories so far this year regarding Evangelical Christians in the news.

1. Pastor Louie Giglio was scheduled to give the benediction at President Obama's second inauguration. However, gay rights groups quickly found a sermon of his from approximately 20 years ago speaking about the sin of homosexuality. Giglio was subsequently disinvited from the inauguration ceremonies. Incidentally, Giglio was invited for his work with stopping human trafficking. Now, this is a secular event, so something like this should come as no surprise. 
2. New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow was scheduled to speak at First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas later this Spring. Keep in mind that this is a church and that Tim Tebow is a Christian, scheduled to speak at a church. There was an outcry from gay rights groups about Tebow, a Christian, speaking at this church, because of statements (misinterpreted and taken out of context statements) made by the pastor of First Baptist, Dr. Robert Jeffress. Tebow turns around and cancels, issuing a statement via Twitter, and Jeffress issues a statement via his church website that Tebow will likely speak at a later date. Tebow is applauded by the "rights" groups and attacked by Christian groups, particularily the American Family Association.

So, what is my point in bringing up these incidents from over the past couple of months? As the Supreme Court hears the case regarding whether or not gay marriage is constitutionally protected or not, Christians are being excluded from the conversation. People from both sides of the aisle are arguing for the constitutional protection. What I am not seeing is any religious exemption being put forth. As well, if one is in the public eye, it is unjust and immoral to take any stand or associate one's self with any group that is "anti-gay." This is all while these groups are supposedly speaking about tolerance while being utterly intolerant of one's beliefs. Christians are being marginialized and set aside in any kind of conversation. What we say does not matter and will not matter in the future. We are officially second-class citizens, being put there by the chief himself, President Barack Obama, even though he, himself, professes to be a Christian. Does this sound bad? Not really. Christ said we would be persecuted and we would have to put up with this. He suffered so much more than the discounting of morality. The world exchanges the truth for a lie and all we can do is stand back, watch, and pray.  We cannot succumb to the world in giving in the immoral lie that homosexuality is okay. Too many "Christians" are doing such a thing. We must continue to fight for truth. America has lost it's moral compass. Let's not lose ours.

Related articles

• My Take: Christians ought to shrug off inaugural pastor rejection
• Tim Tebow Attacked By AFA For Canceling Gig At Mega Hate Church
• Jets QB Tim Tebow To Speak At Increasingly LGBT-Friendly Pepperdine
• Tim Tebow, Robert Jeffress, Queer Media, and The Gospel
• As Job Axe Comes: Tim Tebow Drops Pastor Jeffress Speaking Engagement
• NBC Sports Writer Smears Baptist Church with Tebow Ties