Lent and the Soulforce Agenda

There is a sad irony having members of Soulforce and Equality Ride trying to enter our campus during the season of Lent. This is the time Christians world-wide give special attention to the final days of our Lord before His passion and death on the cross. What is ironic is that while Lent celebrates salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to “put away” sin, these people celebrate their gay “salvation—to be openly gay and Christian.” In Mel White’s autobiographical, Stranger at the Gate, published more than a decade ago, the so-called biblical foundation of his movement is also shown to be its fundamental heresy. 

Drawing upon the text of Genesis 19 Mel recounts how his personal study of this story (as a teenager) led to an understanding of the text that biblical and legal scholars had apparently missed for thousands of years! “The original Sodomites were not homosexuals at all!” White contends. Sodomy was inhospitality, not sexual perversion (hence the title of his book). Then, on the basis of this specious exegesis, he goes on to argue that gays, in fact, are merely fulfilling what God intended for them. Sadly, this vacuous argument has been taken up again and again by the followers of Mr. White. He makes three fatal errors here—first he misinterprets Scripture, then he assigns the cause of his sinful lifestyle to God. Finally, he changes what it means to be a Christian. The similarity with the satanic deception in Eden is remarkable. 

Even if the story of Genesis 19 is discounted, the particular practices associated with homosexual lifestyle are repeatedly condemned in Scripture with terms such as “abomination,” “vile affections,” “defiled,” etc. (cf. Lev 18, 19; Ezek 2, 3, 33; Rom 1, passim). They are also shown from experience and recent studies to be dysfunctional, self-destructive, and dangerous. Salvation in Mr. White’s scheme offers license to engage in practices which Scripture censures repeatedly and which experience proves to be deadly. 

But then, to go from here to adopt the fatalist notion that since God made me thus, I am compelled to live out His purpose for my life as a homosexual is clearly unjustified. For purposes of our discussion here, this is contrary to the nature of God reflected in His saving response—forgiveness, grace, and promise of a new life. This new life specifically includes victory over—not capitulation to—these sinful sexual practices (cf. I Cor 6:9-11). When Christ offered up His body on the tree, He did so “once for all” to “put away sin forever” (Heb 9:26). Salvation in the biblical sense, involves being set free from the bondage of sin—not to it. The Apostle Paul said it this way, “You are called to freedom . . . only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal 5: 13-14). 

But the most tragic outcome of all, given Mr. White’s apologetic for his own perverse and painful path toward sin, is that if we were to follow him in this path we would effectively cut off all mercy and love available for him and his misguided followers. If we accept that he is correct about these matters, we will be compelled to follow the chilling words of Rom 1 and “give them up.” Ironically, the only response that is truly compassionate is to give no quarter to their ideas. With Paul, we must cease not “to warn everyone night and day with tears” concerning these matters (Acts 20:31). 

From the One who suffered “outside the gate” (Heb 13:12-16), to set the people free from all their sins, we greet the stranger at the gate with words of hope and promise—and inclusion in the grace of God that brings salvation to every person who calls upon the name of the Lord. 

Dan Mitchell

Posted at 2:58 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Dan Brown Throws His Wife Under the Bus

Dan Brown denigrates Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and then throws his wife under the bus.
I wonder how much we can trust from a man who plagiarizes his book and then blames it on his wife, Blythe. On the talk show circuit he made sweeping claims of “historical” accuracy and fact. On the witness stand in court he couldn’t recall what he was doing during the year he ‘wrote’ the book, much less what Jesus was doing two thousand years ago. Making a buck at the expense of the truth apparently is one thing. Perjury is another.

However, Mr. Brown’s problems don’t end here. Plagiarism doesn’t happen doing research. It is only when a person appropriates the material as their own that one commits plagiarism. So, his effort to pin the blame on his wife shows that he either doesn’t know what plagiarism is, or he lied to the court. It sounds like Dan Brown makes a living lying about a lot of things. But courts don’t swallow the lie quite like his gullible readership.

One of Brown’s arguments is that his book is, after all, a fiction. To be sure, it is. But, like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it is a fiction with an agenda. Unlike the latter, its agenda is more sinister. When Harriet Beecher Stowe, sister of the famous New York Pastor, Henry Ward Beecher, wrote her story, it was based on fact. It was the fictionalized account of the life and times of Rev. Josiah Henson and the efforts by Christians and other abolitionists to bring an end to slavery. The cruelties endured by slaves were real, and so were the sacrifices made to bring change and hope to African Americans who had every right to share in the American dream established in the Constitution more than a half-century before.

Dan Brown’s agenda, however, would bring down the very One who’s finished work on Calvary established, once and for all, the full equality of all who share in His saving grace. Mary Magdalene knew that grace; for when she first met Jesus He changed her life. Mary is not to be confused with the prostitute of John 8. The New Testament never suggests this at all. But she is the woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons. Her gratitude and love for her Savior thereafter is evidenced by her faithfulness in standing by His side during His passion and death. When Jesus came out of the tomb, one of the first person’s He saw was Mary. She had made her way to the garden tomb with a broken heart and left with an unbelievable story. A story that all would soon discover was amazingly true—Jesus was alive!

Jesus had occasion to rebuke Peter for words inspired by Satan (Mt 16:23). One has to wonder if the seven demons thrown out of Mary have found a new home—with revenge on their mind. They must be ecstatic with how they have seemingly been able to rewrite the story, defame Mary's Savior, and replace Him with an idol in her image. The prince of lies has spoken again. Scripture exhorts us to discern the spirits. This one smells like sulfur.


Dan Mitchell

Posted at 11:21 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

What Concord hath Nashville with Geneva?

On the Founder’s page, recently, there was no small explosion of hysteria and ad hominem when an “outsider” dared to drop in for a visit. Well, perhaps visit is not exactly the right word—as when a skunk visits the garden party. The soft anthropic argument in science tells us that the reason the universe looks like it does is because we exist. That is to say, the sun appears to rise in the east because the earth is spinning in an easterly direction and we happen to be situated on its skin. Likewise, the Milky Way would not exist in our sky if we were located somewhere in the galaxy of say, NGC 1427A.

There is an old saying that “birds of a feather flock together.” People who live in a ghetto cannot imagine a world of trees, meadows, lakes and streams. And sadly, it is also often the case that people who live in opulence are blind to poverty. In this case, there exists a cluster of Baptists of a “feather,” ("flower?") who imagine that all true Baptists are in orbit around the star of John Calvin.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Calvin could be nice when he “chose?” to be. He was cordial to Christian refugees when they needed a hot meal and a place to lay their heads. And as history shows, he could also be quite convincing on matters Augustinian. Such was the tie between Geneva and Westminster—and Boston! But then, as Henry Dunster learned, Congregationalist doesn’t exactly translate to “Baptist.” Dunster was the first President of Harvard College. He was also summarily dismissed when it was discovered that he supported “baptist” ideas. Hawthorne documents well the fate of others in the new world who were tempted by such “heretical” ideas.

What I find ironic is that there are Baptists in America who are so removed from our history that they actually believe the guy who ran the soup kitchen was their daddy. And if someone from their intellectual family tree drops in with old tintypes of their real ancestors, they would throw him out before they would listen. But what I find even more disturbing is that this is so important to them. I mean, are not the ideas of Calvin more important than what institutions he founded?

Calvinism is a system of ideas—including paedobaptism, covanantalism, amillennialism, the rule of elders, TULIP, the “three forms of unity,” and the list could go on. Baptist life is defined by a discrete understanding of the nature of the church (note the small “c”) consisting of baptized believers who are so constituted because they have responded to the gospel. In most cases they are led by a pastor and deacons and they could care less what’s in the creeds because their unity is created and gifted by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in the formation of His body, the autonomous local church, under the preaching of the infallible Word of God.

A name says it all. When someone calls their point of view “Calvinist,” they are suggesting that the most important thing about them is their view of how God divides up the mass of humanity into elect and non-elect, and they celebrate the “grace of God” that included them. When someone calls themselves Arminian, they are choosing to identify with the importance of free will and human accountability for their eternal destiny. When someone says, “I’m not Arminian or Calvinist, I’m Baptist,” He has in mind an entirely different “set” or “gestalt” if you please. Why else would they use such names as Anabaptists, Neue Täufer, Dunkers, Brethren, and Baptist? Baptists are less interested in election than they are the priesthood of all believers. They are less concerned with building the kingdom of God on earth than the separation of church and state. Their memberships are entirely voluntary, unregulated by the state and characterized by discipleship and separation from worldliness. Persecuted and pilloried across Europe and even the new world, is it any wonder many even promoted pacifism and non-violence?

So who’s your daddy? Sometimes we don’t want to know. When I researched the story behind Dunster’s ouster at Harvard, I was chagrined to discover that it was a Mitchell ancestor who volunteered on behalf of the Board to give the suspect Baptist the boot! Mitchell later confessed, “His ideas were so convincing, I just knew they had to be demonic.”

drm
Posted at 11:08 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Creation Care and Evangelicals

In reaction to the recent call for "Creation Care" by evangelical leaders, including Rick Warren of "purpose driven" fame, Cal Thomas writes: If evangelicals make the environment another "cause," they are likely to be as frustrated and disappointed as when they exercised misplaced faith in politics to cure other social evils. Should they desire a real effect on the planet, let them return to the eternal message that has been given them to share with a world that needs it now more than ever." 
 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thomas15feb15,1,7556456.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true)

I guess I agree to a point with my old friend on this one, but it really has me wondering.  I suppose in this post-modern world we are all working with a "chastened rationality," so perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that Cal wants to pick and choose on which "issues" he will consider appropriate fodder for evangelical activism and which ones not. I tend to agree that unless we track weather trends back a half-millennium we probably don't have a clue what is unusual about global warming and what God could have predicted without appeal to His deity. On the other hand, Cal talks as if the evangelical shouldn't speak his mind on this issue even if Scripture, reason and conscience seem to dictate. Now I happen to think Rick is wrong on this one, but I will defend to the death his right to speak his mind--as a "Christian." If Cal really believes what he says to the Creation Care crowd, what is he doing publishing it in a secular newspaper? As a matter of fact, there is almost no issue on which Cal will not speak his mind--including in this article, his opinion on global warming--the very issue about which he denies Rick the proper right to speak. Speak on Rick. But be careful. If Cindy Sheehan starts quoting you, you might just want to consider what this attack on the American economy is really after.
Posted at 8:22 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink