Russell Moore on divorce: "we speak in very muted and ambiguous terms ... "

I think that Robert is absolutely correct. It is not apples/oranges. Divorce is a MUCH BIGGER problem for the church than homosexuality. The church spends a disproportionate amount of time fighting off homosexual aggressiveness when compared to the sin of divorce. I know of a church right now whose pastor has impeccable credentials. There are a number of couples in that church on the brink of divorce for unbiblical reasons. This man will do the right thing however. But I also know of situations where unbiblical divorce happens in the congregation and the church does absolutely NOTHING. People just go on about their business and pretend it isn’t their problem. There is no confrontation or anything. Guess what! It is their problem. Jesus made it their problem. At best, in these situations, there is counseling. And what do we deal with in counseling? Often, it is everything but the right thing: sin! God gave us the spouse we have and our task is to glorify Him in that relationship by adhering to His word and loving that person. Instead, we focus on how unhappy we are. We assume God cares more about our happiness than our holiness and we proceed to court. BONK! And the church does little to nothing about it. It isn’t just the leaders’ job to get involved. It is your job and mine. If I see a brother sin, I am to go to him. It IS MY BUSINESS. I am charged with the command to help him see his sin. If he does not listen, I am to take others with me. If he refuses still, I am to tell it to the church. If he refuses still, the church is to act to excommunicate him and treat him like he is an unbeliever.

I read people’s post who talk about the problem of liberalism and homosexuality in the church and I know for a fact that they have had opportunity to get involved in this very issue and they refused. Imagine that! They refuse to go to a woman who has unbiblically separated and divorced her husband, and they sit down at their computer to pontificate about the evils of Washington or the homosexual agenda or abortion. Scandalous indeed!!!!!!!!! Bravo Robert. You are spot on!

Thanks for all of the comments regarding divorce and then including the handling of homosexuality. This very issue is one of the problems which I ALWAYS run up against when talking about Christ with homosexuals. This is just one of my areas where individuals will point out the hypocrisy and just turn around.

There are two problems which I see in this area, for both divorce and homosexuals:
1) The churches and Christians need to stop stepping into God’s shoes and preaching that these people are damned unless they change. This results in the homosexuals never coming to a large number of churches (if any at all), and would have the same impact on divorcees if the same message were spread as loudly.
2) The churches and Christians need to speak out against the various churches who are so outspoken with this ‘damned to hell’ theme. Also, speak out against the outrageous antics of some churches such as the one which protests at veteran’s funerals in the name of homosexuality. Without speaking out, to the media where possible, and to the congregation when it sprouts up in the news, these homosexuals assume implicit acceptance as a result of the historical stance taken by churches, and I would imagine the same would hold true for divorcees.

As for anyone, homosexual, divorced, drug addict, etc., I would rather have them in church and at least believing in Christ in a basic manner than completely turning their back on Christ as a result of the outspoken stance of various churches and Christians. I will then leave it in God’s hands as to what happens next in their earthly lives and well as their life following death. I will talk about sins, right and wrong, etc. But it is not my proper position to damn them (judge them).

There are two problems which I see in this area, for both divorce and homosexuals:
1) The churches and Christians need to stop stepping into God’s shoes and preaching that these people are damned unless they change. This results in the homosexuals never coming to a large number of churches (if any at all), and would have the same impact on divorcees if the same message were spread as loudly.
2) The churches and Christians need to speak out against the various churches who are so outspoken with this ‘damned to hell’ theme. Also, speak out against the outrageous antics of some churches such as the one which protests at veteran’s funerals in the name of homosexuality. Without speaking out, to the media where possible, and to the congregation when it sprouts up in the news, these homosexuals assume implicit acceptance as a result of the historical stance taken by churches, and I would imagine the same would hold true for divorcees.

As for anyone, homosexual, divorced, drug addict, etc., I would rather have them in church and at least believing in Christ in a basic manner than completely turning their back on Christ as a result of the outspoken stance of various churches and Christians. I will then leave it in God’s hands as to what happens next in their earthly lives and well as their life following death. I will talk about sins, right and wrong, etc. But it is not my proper position to damn them (judge them).

Really James? By your first comment, no one should preach anything. God’s word states plainly that all who do not repent of sin are condemned ALREADY! Scripture condemns homosexual behavior as sin. When we see that behavior in a professing Christian, we have an ethical obligation to go to them. Unless we make some sort of judgment about their behavior, based on Scripture, we could never do this. If they do not repent of their sin, witnesses are to go. If they still refuse, the church is called on to go. If they still refuse, Jesus said to excommunicate them. By refusing to do as Christ commanded, we doing what you say we should not do: playing God.

Secondly, we don’t preach in order to attract people. We preach the truth out of a desire to please God and glorify Him. Getting people to church does not get them to heaven and out of hell. Homosexuals and people who ignore God’s command regarding divorce are not believing in a basic Christian manner. They are hypocrites who serve to mock the life-transforming gospel of Christ. The Christian community is not a social club James. You don’t join it! You are born into it by the work of the Triune God and by His work alone! One of the clearest indications that you have been born in Christ is a hatred for sin. If you do not hate sin everywhere you see it, you do not love God. If you do not love God, you are in darkness until now.

Perhaps you should read the SI doctrinal Statement again. I am not sure you are in agreement with it.

A huge part of the problem in the homosexuality debate among Christians is that things are lumped together that are not the same (or that are not similar in the implied ways). People routinely misunderstand one another because one person uses “homosexual” to mean “a person who has certain desires” and another uses the term to mean “someone who behaves a certain way” and others use the term to mean both.

So Christians who take the Bible seriously need to be clear that:

• People are not condemned to Hell for any particular sin but for being sinners and all the sinning we do as a result.
  
• We are all sinners, whether gay, straight, divorced, never-divorced.
  
• The Bible does not condemn people for having any particular orientation toward (or temptation toward) any particular sin (it’s what we are and the sinful character of our hearts that is condemned)
  
• Redemption is available to all through Christ, regardless of what kinds of sins they personally find tempting
  
• Christian churches welcome all sinners of all kinds to repent and believe in the merits of Christ’s blood to obtain that redemption
  
• All who have obtained that new life in Christ are called to live holy lives of obedience: including not indulging in homosexual acts of mind or body (as well as a host of other things that are part of the old way of life)
  

In other words, we need to be clear that “homosexuals” (whether as “orientation” or as “conduct”) are not special in a negative sense or a positive sense. They are just sinners who need to change like the rest of us.

Depending on how you understand a couple of key texts, divorce is usually or always sin as well for the one pursuing it. It should be pretty obvious that there is often one party in the relationship that has no choice in the matter.

[edingess]
By your first comment, no one should preach anything.

This is an absurd conclusion. My point is the noise, emphasis, etc placed on it. The fact that, as this thread is captioned, Divorce is spoken of in ‘very muted and ambiguous terms’ in comparison to ‘popular’ sins to condemn. Many sins fall into this same category of being spoken of in muted terms.

Either condemn all sins with the same fervor or accept the fact that there is a human judgment involved which categorizes some sins into those which are spoken of and condemned loudly while others fall into some ‘other’ category in which they are marginally spoken of and condemned, if at all.

[edingess]
Perhaps you should read the SI doctrinal Statement again. I am not sure you are in agreement with it.

Interesting Ad hominem approach.

To answer your question, yes. Perhaps you can indicate where I would be straying from it.

I was going to ask the same of you but decided that was wrong (after quite a bit of struggling - pride, etc vs the Christian thing), and I do not want to have to correct such an error in judgment in the future.

________________________________________

Aaron, I could not agree with you more.

Since I’m pretty familiar with it ;) ….a word about the relevance of the DS to the discussion.
OK, two words: not relevant

Suggestion for Ed and James: sue a few posts to probe and understand what the other is saying and what he means. Then you’ll be ready to counterargue with precision. For my part, it’s not at all clear what you actually disagree about. …it might be interesting if we could get that much clear.

1) The churches and Christians need to stop stepping into God’s shoes and preaching that these people are damned unless they change.

This statement seems to be applied to the sin of homosexuality. Christians need to stop preaching that these people are damned unless they change. Really? Should we? What exactly then does this statement mean?

I have to say that I LOATHE postmodernism with all its influence!

What we need to preach is that everyone is damned unless he repents. (“Repent” does not equal “change”)
It’s the special targeting of homosexuality that tends to cause confusion.
I understand that one reason this happens is the special promotion of it in so many places. But we need to avoid confusing the relationship between “change” and salvation. It’s true that all who are saved “change,” but they are not saved by changing. So it really confuses the issue to preach along the lines that they have to change in order to escape damnation.

Plus, we still don’t know if James is talking about changing their conduct or changing their “orientation” (which is, in biblical terms, nothing more than a capacity to be tempted by that kind of sin). If he’s speaking of the latter, there is little biblical evidence that change should even be expected this side of death and resurrection.

Sorry, the statement and entire gist of the comment should have been along the lines of:
The churches and Christians need to stop stepping into God’s shoes and only being outspoken regarding the damnation of homosexuals while quietly, if at all, addressing the other sins in more subdued tones, terms and rhetoric. (Hope this comes across OK).

I do not have the time to write, edit and then thoroughly review my comments prior to posting, therefore I should not post. This is the reason I stopped posting in the past and should not have started again.

To answer Aaron - I would call it ‘changing their heart’, or better yet, God changing their heart through Christ. As to conduct or orientation, I have heard discussions on both sides and will leave that discussion up to you folks.

FYI, I have also been called a reductionist. I prefer Christian, nothing more.

Have a good evening everyone. I will be reading and try to refrain from posting.

You’re doing fine. Cleared up what you meant I think.

[Aaron Blumer] What we need to preach is that everyone is damned unless he repents. (“Repent” does not equal “change”)
It’s the special targeting of homosexuality that tends to cause confusion.
I understand that one reason this happens is the special promotion of it in so many places. But we need to avoid confusing the relationship between “change” and salvation. It’s true that all who are saved “change,” but they are not saved by changing. So it really confuses the issue to preach along the lines that they have to change in order to escape damnation.

Plus, we still don’t know if James is talking about changing their conduct or changing their “orientation” (which is, in biblical terms, nothing more than a capacity to be tempted by that kind of sin). If he’s speaking of the latter, there is little biblical evidence that change should even be expected this side of death and resurrection.

Response to: “Repent” does not equal “change”
Louw Nida defines METANOEO as follows: to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness. BDAG says: change one’s mind. Spicq (Theological Lexicon of the NT) says, “In the NT metanoeo and metanois retain this basic meaning, change opinions, regret, be grieved about something, but they are used almost exclusively for the attitude of unbelievers and sinners returning to God, and they are laden with a new theological density: they form an essential part of the kerygma lexicon, urging conversion to Christianity. There is no longer any question of distinguishing between change of thoughts, of heart, of actions. The change is that of the soul, of the whole person (the new creature), who is purified of stains and whose life is transformed, metamorphosed.

That “repent” does not equal “change” I think is clearly unsupported by the lexical evidence cited above. Secondly, the use of this word throughout the NT clearly indicates change is in view. Therefore, the textual evidence would signify that “repent” does not equal “change” is unsustainable. It would seem rather elementary to me that repent and change can be used interchangeably based on the lexical and textual evidence. Moreover, the history of Christian orthodoxy would oppose the view that there is no relationship between repent and change. The WCF states, “Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, (Ezek. 36:31–32, Ezek. 16:61–63) which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; (Hos. 14:2, 4, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7) yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. (Luke 13:3, 5, Acts 17:30–31)”

Secondly, what does Scripture teach respecting the relationship between repentance and condemnation? Jesus said in Luke 13:3,5 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Peter tied repentance to the cleasing of sin in Acts 3:19. Paul tied repentance to change of behavior in Acts. 26:20. Rev. 2:22 threatens tribulation to those who refuse to repent.

It seems very clear that repent does in fact equal change. Repentance without change is impossible. However, change without repentance is possible. One can always become a moralist, a muslim, a catholic, etc. Repentance without change is a foreign concept unknown to the Greeks, the Hebrews, and especially the biblical text. Moreover, Jesus Himsefl taught that unless a person repents (changes), they will perish (be condemned). To withhold this truth from people is neither right nor safe. It is dangerous, not only to the souls of men from whom it is withheld, but also to the souls of the men who withhold it.

Reponse to the comment regarding people who teach that we are saved BY our repentance or that we can somehow rely on our repentance to garner salvation, I repudiate such teaching. As a full-fleged calvinist, I hold firmly to the WCF and as such believe in the prinicple of sola fide. I also detest the Westboro Church that targets homosexuals for their message of hate.

I do not believe it confuses the issue to preach that people have to change in order to escape damnation because Christ and His followers preached that very thing repeatedly. In fact, it was this kind of preaching that got most of them killed! Jesus did not confues anyone with His message, although he did incite and inflame many as did the disciples.

As far as the debate concerning James, this is another example of convoluted non-sense in my opinion. The context of James concerns personal behavior. He knew nothing of the idea that people are forever identified by their sinful behavior. When a person repents of adultery, they are no longer an adulterer. Sinful temptations do not themselves define us. We are all sinners because we have a sin nature. People are commanded to repent of sin, to include homosexual behavior. They are nowhere commanded to repent of being tempted! The gospel not only frees from the penalty of sin, it frees from the power of sin as well. We are no longer slaves to sin, to obey it in all its forms. We have been losed from the bondage of sin.

[edingess] Louw Nida defines METANOEO as follows: to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness. BDAG says: change one’s mind. Spicq (Theological Lexicon of the NT) says, “In the NT metanoeo and metanois retain this basic meaning, change opinions, regret, be grieved about something, but they are used almost exclusively for the attitude of unbelievers and sinners returning to God, and they are laden with a new theological density: they form an essential part of the kerygma lexicon, urging conversion to Christianity. There is no longer any question of distinguishing between change of thoughts, of heart, of actions. The change is that of the soul, of the whole person (the new creature), who is purified of stains and whose life is transformed, metamorphosed.

That “repent” does not equal “change” I think is clearly unsupported by the lexical evidence cited above. Secondly, the use of this word throughout the NT clearly indicates change is in view. Therefore, the textual evidence would signify that “repent” does not equal “change” is unsustainable. It would seem rather elementary to me that repent and change can be used interchangeably based on the lexical and textual evidence. Moreover, the history of Christian orthodoxy would oppose the view that there is no relationship between repent and change. The WCF states, “Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, (Ezek. 36:31–32, Ezek. 16:61–63) which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; (Hos. 14:2, 4, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7) yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. (Luke 13:3, 5, Acts 17:30–31)”

Secondly, what does Scripture teach respecting the relationship between repentance and condemnation? Jesus said in Luke 13:3,5 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Peter tied repentance to the cleasing of sin in Acts 3:19. Paul tied repentance to change of behavior in Acts. 26:20. Rev. 2:22 threatens tribulation to those who refuse to repent.

It seems very clear that repent does in fact equal change. Repentance without change is impossible. However, change without repentance is possible. One can always become a moralist, a muslim, a catholic, etc. Repentance without change is a foreign concept unknown to the Greeks, the Hebrews, and especially the biblical text. Moreover, Jesus Himsefl taught that unless a person repents (changes), they will perish (be condemned). To withhold this truth from people is neither right nor safe. It is dangerous, not only to the souls of men from whom it is withheld, but also to the souls of the men who withhold it.

I think II Cor. 7:9-11 have much to say to this point. I don’t see where anyone else referenced this passage, but I may have missed it.

Ed, we’re talking about the conditions for being accepted by God and becoming his child. Do you believe one must change before becoming God’s child? If you do, you would be the one with views not compatible with our doctrinal statement.
The long standing Christian (non-Catholic) view has been that one repents and believes as a response of the heart. Then “change” occurs in the life of the believer after he is indwelled by the Spirit and joined to a local body of believers.

So we’re kind of missing the point here. Surely you aren’t claiming that a person who is guilty of homosexual sin must cease the activity before God will accept his repentant response to the gospel. That would be what we call “salvation by works.”

Assuming that isn’t your position, the alternative is pretty much what I said earlier…

[Aaron] What we need to preach is that everyone is damned unless he repents. (“Repent” does not equal “change”)

Hi Aaron,
I was simply taking your statement at face value and asking: is it true that repent does not equal change. I think that I demonstrated from the lexical evidence, not to mention the Biblical texts as well, that repentance without change is a foreign concept to Scripture. That being said, I never asserted that one must stop sinning in order to be accepted by God.

Repentance from homosexual activity is ceasing from homosexual activity. Can you explain to me, in simple terms, how one can repent of their homosexual activity without ceasing from it? That is an exceptionally confusing statement from my perspective.

Now, to be clear on salvation: no, I do not claim that a person has to stop sinning before God saves them. God saves them and then they begin the process of mortification. That process is the fruit that demonstrates that salvation has in fact taken place. So, if a homosexual claims he/she has been converted to Christ, but refuses to repent of their homosexual activity, their claim to salvation must be examined through the disciplinary process and either validated by obedience and submission to Christ’s command or demonstrated to be just another false claim as so many others have made throughout the years. Lord, Lord, have we not done many wonderful works in your name.

I am a five point Calvinist in the PCA church. I do not hold to works-based salvation. However, I also find the view of OSAS, cheap grace, or easy believism to be contrary to Scripture and dangerous close to a false gospel if not in fact a false gospel.

It is a inappropriate to assert that people pointing out particular sins, such as homosexuality, and calling people to repentance out of it, is wrong-headed. The question that needs to be asked is, “Are they right?” When anyone stands up and preaches against the sin of homosexuality, and says that homosexuals will in fact suffer condemnation, are they preaching the truth? Now I am not talking about using foul and disrespectful language here. I am talking about a sermon condemning the sin of homosexuality. If the sermon is based on Scripture, preach it! Who are we to tell others what truths they can and cannot or even should and should not preach? How dare we! Such a view is quite arrogant from my vantage point. Preaching against homosexual sin doesn’t seem to be much of problem in the church today. Paul preached against it several times in his day.

To say that only God has the right to say that homosexuals are condemned and that we play God when we preach it logically means we cannot assert that anyone is condemned. That position is wide of Scripture by leaps and bounds. In fact, the same would hold true in the positive, would it not? If I can’t say that a person is moving toward hell, then it also follows that I cannot say that another person is moving toward heaven. In both cases I am making a judgment. And that, according to the prior post is playing God.

In the end, I suspect you and I are on the same page. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t get the sense that you believe practicing homosexuals have genuine relationships with Christ and are part of the body of the body of Christ, having been truly saved from their sin.

I was simply taking your statement at face value and asking: is it true that repent does not equal change

The statement has a context. It is not possible to define “repent” in a manner that includes works, identify it as a condition for conversion, then reject salvation by works.

To say that only God has the right to say that homosexuals are condemned and that we play God when we preach it logically means we cannot assert that anyone is condemned. That position is wide of Scripture by leaps and bounds. In fact, the same would hold true in the positive, would it not? If I can’t say that a person is moving toward hell, then it also follows that I cannot say that another person is moving toward heaven. In both cases I am making a judgment. And that, according to the prior post is playing God.

You’re not understanding my position.

All are sinners. All are condemned. All must repent. Homosexual conduct is not special in that sense. There are no additional requirements for homosexuals compared to all other sinners.
This is not a difficult concept. I don’t know why you keep recasting it as something else.

If we are going to single out homosexuality, we need to single out lots of other sins also (When was the last time you heard a highly public condemnation of, say, blasphemy? (1Tim.1:12-15) Is that because it’s less common than homosexuality? How about adultery? Is this less common or a smaller problem than homosexuality in our society?). Otherwise, the message we are understood to be declaring is something like:
- Regular sinners are saved by grace through faith
- Homosexual sinners must clean up their act before they come to Christ

It’s vital that we not obscure the gospel by using rhetoric that virtually guarantees this misunderstanding.