Recent anti-gay comments by two Baptist pastors “show a complete lack of understanding of how to minister to those struggling with this particular temptation.”
Again, if we’re using the OT Law as our guide, why did he stop with gays? Why not put adulterers in a large electric fence and drop in food to feed them? Or kidnappers? Or those who strike or curse their parents? Or those who fail to control their dangerous animals? Or those who profane the Sabbath (Saturday, by the way)?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Greg,
One could be then one could also not see the value of those other tenets, they simply may have far less relevance and value to a governments context.
One could be then one could also not see the value of those other tenets, they simply may have far less relevance and value to a governments context.
[Lee][dmicah] Lee, the line you are taking doesn’t make sense. Maintaining that the statement bears some validity because it might be pertinent to his congregation? This is merely euphemistic way to say it’s ok to say whatever you want from a pulpit without scrutiny. He did not clearly communicate the nature of homosexuality. He trivialized the issue with a silly illustration. His many years of ministry are beside the point. You are correct that we can’t know his full track record. But this statement can be judged, assessed and rebuked. It is not arrogant. It is called discernment.
Okay Micah, try to focus. You’re insisting on personalizing something that I think I made pretty clear I have no intention of personalizing.[Lee] And the reason I have posted on this thread and not the other, more specific one, is to address the concept, not the individuals involved.
The article was about an SBC official who dissed as irrelevant to any Gospel ministry not one, but two Baptist preachers here in NC based on sermon snippets and commentary with apparently zero relationship with either. Pull up any number of disenchanted fundamentalists websites and you will find this to be a common practice. We’re supposed to be a more erudite bunch here on SI, yet it seems we’re overly eager to take the same simplistic approach—find a snippet of some sermon we have issue with and a commentary from someone whose toga is in a knot about that sermon, its subject matter, or its presentation and heap our self-righteous judgment on it with them.
Frankly, if I do happen to live 250 miles away from any given pastor (which I do from Pst. Worley’s ministry), do not know him, and recognize that he has been in the Gospel ministry for as long as I have been alive then I do think that I would be arrogant to cavalierly toss him under the bus over one very ill-advised rant that has at its core a correct premise (in this case, that God abhors sodomy).
In this day of instant sound byte info when our collective attention spans are about as long as a gnat’s hiccup I find it beyond curious how those in the community of the church are willing to sound off with such definitive judgment about individuals and ministries based primarily on the these sound bytes and the blog posts of people they really don’t even know, completely disregarding any sense of ministry legacy or relationship. I expect such reactions from those that walk in darkness. I would like to think that spiritually minded individuals are above that.
Lee, where did the SBC official “dis as irrelevant to any Gospel ministry” these two pastors? From the article above that I read, he simply criticized their comments.
Dmicah is absolutely right…we are not judging their entire ministry, we are judging these specific comments, which are outrageous and foolish.
And saying we shouldn’t judge his comments because of a correct premise at its core? That’s ridiculous. If I said (from the pulpit, mind you, not just in private conversation), “I think we should round up all adulterers and castrate them” you wouldn’t say, “Well, maybe your comment was ill-advised but at its core your premise is correct because God does hate adultery!”
A pastor can set aside his entire “ministry legacy” with one “ill-advised” action or comment. I’m not saying this pastor set aside his entire ministry legacy with this particular comment, but comments such as this are revealing about a man. It’s possible that he will eventually apologize, and I hope he does.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[dmicah] Lee, I have asserted that I can make a judgment call about a snippet from a sermon. It’s perfectly acceptable, biblical and not arrogant. I specifically said that I didn’t call into question his years of ministry. The statements can be called into question, I don’t care how much experience you have. If he committed adultery, would you weigh his many years of ministry against the one affair, or would condemn the deed? Would it be wrong to even draw a conclusion?Okay, once more from the top. I am speaking conceptually, not personally. If we want to bash Worley let’s move over to the Worley bashing thread (http://sharperiron.org/filings/5-27-12/22767) and have at it. I certainly have not intended to call you arrogant. I have tried to self-illustrate in referencing arrogance, but it could be logically asserted that I think Stith’s statements illustrate arrogance since my self-illustration mirrors what he seems to have done from the limited information we have.
So, slowly read that and let what I am saying sink in. His statements can be assessed, even in isolation from ministry. If you think that is arrogant, that’s your opinion, but you can’t judge me by what you would or wouldn’t do.
Bob Stith, a noted SBC something or other, made very public judgment about 2 Baptist pastors in NC—Sean Harris and Charles Worley. Worley has 50+ years of pastoral ministry; Harris something less. Worley pastors a (likely) blue collar congregation in what appears to be a relatively small town in the foothills of NC. Harris pastors a large work in Fayetteville, which probably means strong military presence. Diverse congregations at every level. Your congregation, wherever it may be, is likely to be equally diverse in ways not representative of either of these. That does not even take into account the personality differences, generational differences, cultural influence differences, socio-economic differences, etc., represented in the pastors.
But in his judgment, as referenced in the Washington Post (spiritual giants all) Stith asserted that these 2 men “show a complete lack of understanding of how to minister to those struggling with this particular temptation.” A very public, and very far-reaching (the WP has national circulation) statement which effectively discredits any ministry qualifications these men have or have had, and all done without any hint of relationship at all, or even that he has actually spoke words eyeball to eyeball with either of these men.
In my OP I stated “Pastoring is relational and passionate. Snippets of video sermons without the context of relationship, even if the entire context of the sermon is presented (which few are), rarely give the full grasp of what is being communicated and the purpose of that communication…” and concluded with “…I think we err in jumping on the judgment bandwagon so readily even when the broadcast communication is easily perceived as being ‘over the top’ by almost anyone’s standards.”
Without addressing either individual that Stith critiques, or their statements, it is not consistent with Scripture nor the cause of Christ to, as brothers in Christ, judge that which is specifically in the context of a pastor and a local assembly. This has a very wide application although this specific application involves the LGBT agenda and some apparently vitriolic statements.
Lee
Without addressing either individual that Stith critiques, or their statements, it is not consistent with Scripture nor the cause of Christ to, as brothers in Christ, judge that which is specifically in the context of a pastor and a local assembly.Lee,
This is the crux of your argument, and it is patently false. There is no prohibition in scripture about local church context making fruit evaluation somehow off limits to everyone except the members of the church. When a preacher says something that is wrong, he should have every expectation of being called on the carpet. If this is not representative of the greater ministry of these two men, then it is incumbent on them to respond is such a way to make that clear. These statements are exactly what they have been presented to be, unscriptural, and no amount of posturing or contextualizing can make them any more acceptable (or less repugnant).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Greg, thanks for the support. I like your adultery/castration illustration. It is applicable.
Alex,
You dodged my comments about your misapplication of John the Baptist’s testimony by simply “shouting.”
Here’s some deep grace in the form of admonition. From your obliviousness to condescension, to the OT hermeneutical misstep, to the defense of the defenseless, to the misappropriation of the life of John the Baptist, your ideology appears to have harnessed your reasoning in the straightjacket of tautology. Simply stringing together polysyllabic words on a forum does not sound reasoning produce. It comes across like logic’s version of Short Man Syndrome.
Alex,
But he need not consider how reprobates view the church and the Christian faith, he need worry about how he accounts to his Master in heaven. He may be wrong but you are just as wrong suggesting he must consider how the mind reprobate views the church and the Christian faith as determining convictions and utterances of such.He would if he wanted to do ministry like Jesus. The incarnation of the Messiah was in and of itself the ultimate consideration of culture and context. He became flesh not only to communicate the Father but to understand the frailties and temptations created by human weakness. Worley is not doing this. I think you know it and are simply digging in your heels for an argument. You’re way too intelligent to be throwing in Leviticus passages to justify his comments. Any first year Bible college student can pick that anachronistic argument to shreds. You seem to imply that I am somehow condoning homosexuality. This is not true. I am simply pointing out the blatantly obvious in that Worley’s statements are not biblical or rational or in any way provide a benefit to the kingdom of God.
You dodged my comments about your misapplication of John the Baptist’s testimony by simply “shouting.”
Here’s some deep grace in the form of admonition. From your obliviousness to condescension, to the OT hermeneutical misstep, to the defense of the defenseless, to the misappropriation of the life of John the Baptist, your ideology appears to have harnessed your reasoning in the straightjacket of tautology. Simply stringing together polysyllabic words on a forum does not sound reasoning produce. It comes across like logic’s version of Short Man Syndrome.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Without addressing either individual that Stith critiques, or their statements, it is not consistent with Scripture nor the cause of Christ to, as brothers in Christ, judge that which is specifically in the context of a pastor and a local assembly.Lee,
This is the crux of your argument, and it is patently false. There is no prohibition in scripture about local church context making fruit evaluation somehow off limits to everyone except the members of the church. When a preacher says something that is wrong, he should have every expectation of being called on the carpet. If this is not representative of the greater ministry of these two men, then it is incumbent on them to respond is such a way to make that clear. These statements are exactly what they have been presented to be, unscriptural, and no amount of posturing or contextualizing can make them any more acceptable (or less repugnant).
Or as someone said:
[James 3:1] Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[dmicah]
Here’s some deep grace in the form of admonition. From your obliviousness to condescension, to the OT hermeneutical misstep, to the defense of the defenseless, to the misappropriation of the life of John the Baptist, your ideology appears to have harnessed your reasoning in the straightjacket of tautology. Simply stringing together polysyllabic words on a forum does not sound reasoning produce. It comes across like logic’s version of Short Man Syndrome.
I believe you have done an excellent job in demonstrating just the thing you are protesting.
Now here is a great blog about the issue of homosexuality and the law:
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/07/homosexuality-questions-answe… Robin’s Readings and Reflections
And here are a few selective quotes for those who would complain about the value of the criminal, moral and or ethical law in mandated for the Theocracy of Israel in the OT.
The reason Paul could quote the Sinai law when addressing Gentile children is because, through faith, Gentile believers have now been grafted in to God’s covenant family (Rom. 11:17). The result of Gentiles coming into the covenant is that they are heirs of covenantal laws and promises of the Old covenant. Therefore, “Rather than neglect Mosaic law,” writes Jason Fletcher…, “Christians have a theological responsibility to seek in the law given to shape the nation of Israel insight into God’s will for nations generally. This is because Mosaic law was never intended exclusively for Israel; its ethical principles originate in the character of God and are foundational to the creation order. Moreover, Jesus does not abolish Mosaic law but authoritatively reveals its underlying ethical intent, and Paul, although critical of the misuse and powerlessness of the law, also affirms its abiding ethical authority.”
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/07/homosexuality-questions-answe… Robin’s Readings and Reflections
And here are a few selective quotes for those who would complain about the value of the criminal, moral and or ethical law in mandated for the Theocracy of Israel in the OT.
The entire evangelical community is agreed that there are parts of the Old Testament that are still relevant and there are parts that have been fulfilled. Although it is not a straightforward matter to know what fits into what category, all evangelical scholars agree that the prohibitions against homosexuality are still relevant. I’d like to explain how we can know this.He further adds (bold mine):
In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul tells Timothy that “All Scripture is…profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Paul was not referring to the New Testament when he said that, since the New Testament hadn’t been completed and canonised. He was referring to the Old Testament. Now if the moral laws of the Old Testament had been done away with, how could one use the O.T. for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?
When Paul was writing to the Ephesians on the subject of parental authority, he rooted his teaching in the moral authority of Old Testament law. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honour your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise: ‘that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.’” (Ephesians 6:1-3)
The reason Paul could quote the Sinai law when addressing Gentile children is because, through faith, Gentile believers have now been grafted in to God’s covenant family (Rom. 11:17). The result of Gentiles coming into the covenant is that they are heirs of covenantal laws and promises of the Old covenant. Therefore, “Rather than neglect Mosaic law,” writes Jason Fletcher…, “Christians have a theological responsibility to seek in the law given to shape the nation of Israel insight into God’s will for nations generally. This is because Mosaic law was never intended exclusively for Israel; its ethical principles originate in the character of God and are foundational to the creation order. Moreover, Jesus does not abolish Mosaic law but authoritatively reveals its underlying ethical intent, and Paul, although critical of the misuse and powerlessness of the law, also affirms its abiding ethical authority.”
[Alex Guggenheim] The reason Paul could quote the Sinai law when addressing Gentile children is because, through faith, Gentile believers have now been grafted in to God’s covenant family (Rom. 11:17). The result of Gentiles coming into the covenant is that they are heirs of covenantal laws and promises of the Old covenant. Therefore, “Rather than neglect Mosaic law,” writes Jason Fletcher…, “Christians have a theological responsibility to seek in the law given to shape the nation of Israel insight into God’s will for nations generally. This is because Mosaic law was never intended exclusively for Israel; its ethical principles originate in the character of God and are foundational to the creation order. Moreover, Jesus does not abolish Mosaic law but authoritatively reveals its underlying ethical intent, and Paul, although critical of the misuse and powerlessness of the law, also affirms its abiding ethical authority.”
Alex,
By this logic, we should also go back to OT sacrifices and practices like not rounding the corners of our beards. You’re demonstrating a real misunderstanding of the NT and the work of Christ here. Hebrews and Romans 10 have major bearing on what Jason Fletcher is saying, as I http://sharperiron.org/comment/43846#comment-43846] noted in another thread .
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Chip Van Emmerik]You really think that Harris wants to punch some effeminate kid and Worley literally wants to fence in a bunch of gays and that is what they were communicating? Me thinks your grasp on reality is tenuous. They were communicating with their congregation in a manner their congregation could understand. Harris thinks his statement could easily have been received wrongly by those without (I doubt the military in his congregation gave it a moment’s notice) and offered a retraction. Worley I haven’t heard.Without addressing either individual that Stith critiques, or their statements, it is not consistent with Scripture nor the cause of Christ to, as brothers in Christ, judge that which is specifically in the context of a pastor and a local assembly.Lee,
This is the crux of your argument, and it is patently false. There is no prohibition in scripture about local church context making fruit evaluation somehow off limits to everyone except the members of the church. When a preacher says something that is wrong, he should have every expectation of being called on the carpet. If this is not representative of the greater ministry of these two men, then it is incumbent on them to respond is such a way to make that clear. These statements are exactly what they have been presented to be, unscriptural, and no amount of posturing or contextualizing can make them any more acceptable (or less repugnant).
Neither denied the Savior or proffered another Gospel. I’d join with you in a heartbeat to pronounce “Anathema” if that had been the case.
Both came out strong on the side of Scripture in expressing abhorrence for that which God abhors. Should a friend go to either of them and counsel them to be more circumspect in their speech? Absolutely. Should we join in with those who love darkness and publicly pillory them for unwise commentary and declare their ministry null and void? Obviously we have a difference of opinion.
Lee
[Jay]What is being demonstrated in your lack of grasp on the distinction between the church and the state. The state is not the context of being righteous in Christ to which this was being addressed, the body of Christ. As well, you lack an understanding of the distinction of the categorical use of the law both in the Romans passage and its general use.[Alex Guggenheim] The reason Paul could quote the Sinai law when addressing Gentile children is because, through faith, Gentile believers have now been grafted in to God’s covenant family (Rom. 11:17). The result of Gentiles coming into the covenant is that they are heirs of covenantal laws and promises of the Old covenant. Therefore, “Rather than neglect Mosaic law,” writes Jason Fletcher…, “Christians have a theological responsibility to seek in the law given to shape the nation of Israel insight into God’s will for nations generally. This is because Mosaic law was never intended exclusively for Israel; its ethical principles originate in the character of God and are foundational to the creation order. Moreover, Jesus does not abolish Mosaic law but authoritatively reveals its underlying ethical intent, and Paul, although critical of the misuse and powerlessness of the law, also affirms its abiding ethical authority.”
Alex,
By this logic, we should also go back to OT sacrifices and practices like not rounding the corners of our beards. You’re demonstrating a real misunderstanding of the NT and the work of Christ here. Hebrews and Romans 10 have major bearing on what Jason Fletcher is saying, as I http://sharperiron.org/comment/43846#comment-43846] noted in another thread .
The state can rightly uphold moral righteousness and do so by way of benefit from OT precedence. That has nothing to do with our righteousness in Christ or the law of Moses with regard to Theocratic blessings and righteousness. You are failing to distinguish a few contexts, hence you make an inapplicable argument.
You seem to believe once a person is righteous in Christ the state or government disappears along with its distinct protocol. This is a rather elementary mistake Jay.
The state can rightly uphold moral righteousness and do so by way of benefit from OT precedence. That has nothing to do with our righteousness in Christ or the law of Moses with regard to Theocratic blessings and righteousness. You are failing to distinguish a few contexts, hence you make an inapplicable argument.The state is composed of people who don’t believe the Bible and who certainly wouldn’t impose OT law on US citizens, Alex. We’re not a theocratic government here in the USA, so your whole argument falls apart before it even gets started.
You seem to believe once a person is righteous in Christ the state or government disappears along with its distinct protocol. This is a rather elementary mistake Jay.Alex, have you read the two passages that I referenced? Paul’s pretty clear that the OT law is done away with for NT believers. Read Galatians.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay
The criminalization of certain sexual perversions and immorality stemming frim the state’s recognition of the value of such reflected in the theocratic moral code does not, in fact, make the state guilty of imposing a theocracy. Where do you think laws regrarding criminalizing incest come from? Right, theocratic moral codes but magically you don’t protest these as if the state is imposing a theocracy. What part of “the state may find value in theocratic moral codes and adopt them for their non-theocratic government if they deem it applicable for social welfare without being guilty of the charge of attempting to establish a theovracy” do you not get?
OT law being down away with does not nullify moral
codes. The expression of the law being done away with
has a specific context which does not have in view the legitimate establishment of moral criminal codes by the state. You are over generalizing the passages thus misapplying them.
The criminalization of certain sexual perversions and immorality stemming frim the state’s recognition of the value of such reflected in the theocratic moral code does not, in fact, make the state guilty of imposing a theocracy. Where do you think laws regrarding criminalizing incest come from? Right, theocratic moral codes but magically you don’t protest these as if the state is imposing a theocracy. What part of “the state may find value in theocratic moral codes and adopt them for their non-theocratic government if they deem it applicable for social welfare without being guilty of the charge of attempting to establish a theovracy” do you not get?
OT law being down away with does not nullify moral
codes. The expression of the law being done away with
has a specific context which does not have in view the legitimate establishment of moral criminal codes by the state. You are over generalizing the passages thus misapplying them.
This post from Kevin DeYoung is not explicitly in response to Worley’s statements, but presumably that controversy was at least one of the prompts for these Ten Commitments:
[url] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/30/the-church-…
Good stuff.
[url] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/30/the-church-…
Good stuff.
Discussion