An Email Response: Why I Started this Blog

I wrote this email in response to some questions raised by a seminary student in Virginia. While writing it, I realized that I write best when I am asked questions or more specifically, when I am challenged. I preface this post by saying that I have great respect for the fellow student who wrote to me. He agrees with most of what I have written. I especially respect his demeanor in writing me. He is a kind person and has a great heart. With that said, I welcome all responses, questions, and challenges. I love a good debate!

I'll begin with my understanding of the theology of John Calvin, which I'll admit is not extensive as I have not delved into any of Calvin's systematic theology. If I understand Calvin correctly, he says that our salvation does not depend on any type of choice to believe on our part, but instead on whether or not we are one of God's elect. I guess I would ask, even if he does acknowledge that free will exists (which I was not aware of), what is the point of acknowledging that it exists? If the major question of our existence is salvation, and according to Calvin, our salvation is determined by God's election, not the Cross and Resurrection (which is really only a mechanism for God's election in Calvin's theology) or by any human choice to believe, then what point is left for free will? Perhaps, Martin Luther puts it more clearly in The Bondage of the Will, when he simply makes the point that free will does not exist, meaning our will is either bonded to sin or to the will of God. (I do not agree with this, but at least Luther is able to make a clear statement about free will within his theology of being saved by faith, not by works.) In Calvin's theology, it would seem that the only logical conclusion left for free will is that it does not exist. For that matter, if the will is broken, then it is not really free is it? Luther makes this clear in his theology. Excuse my ignorance if I am making any incorrect assumptions, but I feel that my understanding is pretty clear. And please, if you would, correct any misunderstandings I may have. That is after all how people learn.


I disagree with your view of sex however. At some point in my studies, I will go through the Scriptures and count how many times people are warned against sexual immorality, in the Old and New Testament. What a task! Yes, our desires are too small! This is just the point. Sex is meant to be the consummation of marriage. I would go as far as to call it part of the sacrament. In my understanding of sex, if you have sex with someone, you are married to them. Is this not the Old Testament understanding of sex and furthermore, also, the New Testament understanding of sex? Furthermore, just because people in the Old Testament went around having sex with a bunch of people does not mean it was OK. In other words, just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not mean it is acceptable to God.

God destroyed entire civilizations because of sexual immorality. (And if you want to disagree with me about Sodom and Gomorrah, I will just point to the story of Gibeah and the destruction of the Benjamites in Judges, especially Judges 19:22) It is clear this has been a problem since the beginning of time. You want a sacramental view of sex, read Song of Songs. Wow! Sex is a beautiful thing, when it is practiced within God's intentions for it, a monogamous relationship. You think that sex addicts enjoy sex? Absolutely not! Sex is a compulsion for them. It slowly loses its pleasure until they reach the point where it has no pleasure. Thank God for C.S. Lewis's thoughts on desire! God wants to fulfill our desires abundantly and yet we continue to look for ways to deny this by questioning what is clear in His Word. So, from the biblical viewpoint, and according to God's intention, sex and marriage should never be separated.

Just to paraphrase some of the other questions you raised: First, you asked, "As pastors and leaders today, are we called to make the Gospel understandable and convincing to today's generation?" Absolutely, but not at the expense of Truth. The Gospel is offensive in its very nature. We are called to make it understandable, but not palatable.

Second, you ask about the problem of pain (Theodocy; Thanks for bringing up that term by the way. I am not familiar with it, as I have just started my season in seminary). I would never attempt to make light of the pain and suffering of those struggling with bodily disease and mental illness by saying to them, "Pain is just a part of life." This would be incredibly insensitive and I consider myself a sensitive person. And if you notice in my previous email, I did not attempt to pose an answer to the why question, but I only pointed to the only one who has an answer, Christ. And Christ did not give an answer to Paul either, other than to say my grace is sufficient for you. I would never try to answer the question, "Why is there so much suffering in the world?," except by pointing to Christ. This may be inadequate for people, but why is it that I can meet people who have more joy than I do and yet they are dying of cancer? Only that person and Christ can answer that question.

To even compare my suffering to that of Paul is somewhat ludicrous, but I will do it anyways. What I am saying is that Paul followed God's will despite his suffering. I am not saying that God wants us to suffer or experience pain. What I am arguing against is what I perceive to be an American culture of escapism. Are you lonely, turn on the TV? Are you depressed, have you tried alcohol or drugs. Are you horny, look at pornography or go out and have a one night stand? I am not trying to say that we should just grin and bear our pain, but that we should do God's will in spite of the pain that we feel. At the risk of sounding cliche, we need to "take up our cross and follow Jesus." There will be ecstatic joy, those glimpses of heaven, there
will be intense pain, the times we have to call out to God and nothing else, but we will be following God's will, we will have the fulfillment of a life centered on Christ. I absolutely love the Book of Lamentations because it is honest about pain, but my favorite parts of the book are when the author gives praise to God in the midst of his pain. I especially like Lamentations 3:55-58 because it is similar to Psalm 30, one of my favorites. If you recall, I read the closing of it at the end of my testimony. The Lamentations verses are as follows:

I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit. You heard my plea: "Do not close your ears to my cry for relief." You came near when I called you, and you said, "Do not fear." O Lord, you took up my case; you redeemed my life.

And to answer your question of divisiveness within the church, I am concerned with this, but not at the expense of Truth. As I have said before, the Gospel is offensive, but it is more importantly True. I am concerned with making the Gospel understandable to people, but I am not worried in the least with making it palatable. Why should I be? The Christian life is hard, but is right, good, and rewarding beyond description. I would not trade it for anything in the world. I would never tell people that following Christ is easy. The Son of Man had no place to lay His head, why should we make concessions when we are preaching the Gospel?

OK, your next question was about walking the line between grace and holiness. I take the position of Bonhoeffer and say that many in the church are ascribing to cheap grace. The grace that God gives us through the person of Jesus Christ calls us to give up our life for the cause of Christ. A true encounter with Jesus Christ changes every part of our being. Again I must ask, why make concessions just because people disagree with us? The Apostle Paul certainly did not. What if he had agreed with those who said that Christ did not come in the flesh? The Gnostics who would say our souls are trapped in our bodies and salvation comes through some type of "special, spiritual knowledge." Furthermore, what if he said, that because our bodies do not matter, we can do whatever we want. He did not. He stood up over and over again and defended the Gospel, not to judge others, as he considered himself the worst of sinners, but to defend the cause of Christ!

No, the grace I know is a grace that calls me to the fullest life I could possibly imagine, more full than any talk of holiness could ever offer me. I get tired of talk about holiness in the church. I am called to submit to the will of God and boldly follow Him. We need to make the Gospel understandable yes, but palatable, absolutely not!

I think your final question was about anachronism. Well, in fact this is my critique of John Boswell's treatment of the Scripture in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. He is extremely anachronistic in his view that what Paul was condemning in Romans 1 was not homosexuality, but heterosexuals going against their natural sexual orientation and practicing homosexuality. Those who are "born homosexual" are therefore practicing what is natural to them. This argument assumes that Paul would have had a knowledge of sexual orientation, which he absolutely did not! In Romans 1, Paul says that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a result of idolatry, of lifting up created things over Creator God. Sexual orientation is a 20th century phenomenon that I wish did not exist. Why should I identify myself with who I have sex with? Isn't this what the homosexual agenda is defending? I can have sex with who I want and I am going to be proud about it, raising created men and women over and above Creator God. This is idolatry! I am not talking
about the repentant person who struggles with homosexual thoughts. I am talking about those who claim that if you do not accept that they can have sex with any adult they choose, any way they want, then you are a bigot. No, the Gospel is offensive and if it offends you that is just fine with me. This has nothing to do with judging other people. I do not do this, but I do stand up for the Truth.