Simple Simon may have been a great theologian ... who knows?

Faith is simplicity on the far side of complexity. The Trinity is a complex mystery; and yet the One Triune God is apprehended through simple faith—that of a little child, as it were. So, we can readily see that appreciation is not necessarily understanding; it is, however, as in this case a commitment to truth. Thus, the adage of St. Augustine that “I believe in order to understand” is an axiom that transcends the complexity of mystery. No scientists can pursue his research without believing that there is something in the test tube that can be tested. Theology is no different, either. He that comes to God, the Scripture says, must believe that He is and that he rewards those that diligently seek Him. God is not, therefore, that ever elusive character that we must find in a game of hide and go seek. No, He is real and may be apprehended, but only through faith that He actually is.

Unfortunately, some try to find God as an ostrich would with their heads stuck in hole in the ground as the world in general pivots around them. Their reason is the results of their own imaginative creation based on what they have chosen to see around them which is in fact a dark hole in the ground. However, in this case, the analogy starts to fall apart because ostriches do not have ears, and, therefore, it cannot be said of them that “having ears, they hear not” as in the case of those who chose to dictate their terms of understanding.

In his poem, Flower in the Crannied Wall, Alfred Lord Tennyson marvels at the mystery of complexity and simplicity of a small flower that he is able to hold in his hand. His understanding is beyond comprehension, he admits, but nonetheless this does not prevent him from appreciating what he holds in his hand. Nor should we be put off by a simple creed like “Jesus is Lord” simply because we do not understand the complexities thereof.

These lyrics of a song called “I Stand in Awe of You” by Hillsong capture the essence of faith expressed in the simplicity of worshipful faith —

You are beautiful beyond description
Too marvelous for words
Too wonderful of comprehension,
Like nothing ever seen or heard
Who can grasp you infinite wisdom
Who can fathom the depth of your love?
You are beautiful beyond description
Majesty enthroned above

And I stand, I stand in awe of you
I stand, I stand in awe of you
Holy God to whom all praise is due
I stand in awe of you

To stand in awe is not to fully understand, but to appreciate. Simple faith does that; for after all, we shall never fully understand, yet, we can embrace the far side of truth without understanding the complexities thereof.

I do not now, nor have I ever or shall I ever expect to understand the complexities of my wife, but that does not prevent me from experiencing the joy of married life. Knowing and loving God is not a dissimilar experience, either. 

It is interesting to me, that – 

He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” (Mark 9:36-37 NIV)

Amazing, isn’t it. To reach God in all of His complexity, Jesus starts with a little child as the first step forward. In essence He says, Welcome this simple little child in my name, and you welcome God beyond all of his complexity.

Think about it.

JimR/_
 

Did you really mean that?

Gloria Estefan song, ‘Words Get in the Way,’ I think expresses what many of us feel at time when trying to express ourselves; but first the stanza I have in mind—

Won't even start to cry
And before we say goodbye
I tried to say "I love you"
But the words got in the way

This, of course, highlights a common experience that we all have, and that is: We just cannot seem to find the right words to express ourselves. 

 

Being the amateur philosopher that I am, however, I cannot help but observe that love and other emotions are not something that you can just abstract, refine and pour in a bottle from which you can just take a sip from time to time to get the feeling across. Words in and of themselves are elusive and multifaceted; and as such, of course, mean different things to different folks. 

 

As Pentecostals (a term I prefer to avoid being lumped in with all the kooks who claim to have the spiritual gifts and, in my opinion don’t—or at the very least fall into the category of those of whom Christ said, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you.’” Matthew 7:21-23) … well, in any event, I do prefer to say, as Pentecostals we of all people struggle with trying to pin down an all-inclusive definition of what we sense when under the influence these gifts.  

 

At times, for instance, as in the gift of knowledge, we find it relatively easy to describe what God has shown us when compared to, say, the gift of tongues. With tongues we may feel good about it, but totally ignorant when it comes to understanding what has been said.  

 

Thus, we can readily see that words although necessary in understand may not, however, always be available when trying to communicate one’s feelings.

 

Words, however, are only part of the equation.  Words must be given flesh or if you prefer form, they must be in reference to a common experience or all we hear is “babble, babble, babble.”

 

So, words at their best are only as good as common experience allows them to be. You may not, for instance, have a notion of what a horse is, if you have never seen a horse, or better yet ridden one. Listen to words about a horse all day long if you wish, but only firsthand knowledge of a horse will bring you closer to what a horse actually is; and even then, certain aspects of the definition will still be lacking.

 

Therefore, we can reasonably say that words are never any more than approximates.

 

Let us, now, attempt to take one step beyond approximates. Can we do that? Well, yes and no. Yes, we can experience an iridescent semblance of the reality to which a word may point; however, the ever elusive reality it seems is in an ever elusive retreat mode. We cannot seemingly ever capture the moment, the object of consideration.

 

That being said, we as Christians are never left abandoned to the mercies of the ersatz. No, there is really something there, it is just beyond expression.

 

This observation is not without significance, however. I say that because Christ as the living word makes God possible not just as a word, but as an experience. Words are static, lifeless; whereas, the Word is active and full of life.

 

This to me is the most wonderful part of being Christian. We get to take part in not just understanding at best just a shadow of what The Word means, but we get to participate in the fullest extent of what The Word is and means. It’s not just head knowledge, words. It is actual and meaningful participation in a spiritual reality—that is, Christ the living word.

 

Is it any wonder then that Paul mused —

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13)”?

 

Why do I say that? Because God is love, and to understand God, there is no better way than to embrace that love.

 

 

Take care,

 

 

   JimR_/

My God Thinks Outside the Box . . .

Thinking Outside the Box

A.W. Tozer once wrote that—

The answer to the question, “Where did I come from?” can never be better answered than by the Christian mother who tells her child, “God made you.” The great store of knowledge in today’s world cannot improve on that simple answer. The scientist can tell us the secrets of how matter operates, but the origin of matter lies in deep silence, refusing to give an answer to man’s question. It is important for Christian believers to be able to stand firmly and positively in this declaration: “Thus saith the Lord!” Our chief business is not to argue or to persuade our generation. With our positive declaration of God’s Word and revelation, we make God responsible for the outcome. No one can know enough to go beyond this. 

 

I must say that in all my years as a professor of Apologetics, I have never found a better answer, either. Reason can take us to a logical antecedent but beyond that it is mute. We all know, or at least should know that reason operates inside a box—in our case a box of time and space and reasonable imagination; however, that imagination can never take us beyond that box and remain reasonable, as it were. Reasoning outside the box is only possible with revelation. Inside the box a virgin birth remains illogical, a fantasy beyond imagination; outside the box, however, through the gift of faith we understand that God thinks outside the box.

Now, since He created the box and decides what and when something will be placed in the box, it is his privilege to do just that. Virgin birth? No, problem, if and when it serves His purpose. All supernatural miracles fall in that category—that is, the category of His purposeful intentions; and there is nothing illogical about that.
 What are those purposeful intentions? Well, God is very clear about that, Scripture says that we are all “predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29).” In other words, it is His “purposeful intention” that we be conformed to the image of Christ. That’s our destiny in a summary. 

Now, the beautiful thing about this intention is that God will literally move Heaven and Hell to accomplish His purposes. John the Revelator tells us that He does just that, too. Read it for yourself, it’s there, Revelation 20:14 tells us Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Everlasting Fire (which is the second death), and in chapter 21, verse 2, John informs us that he saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and brought down to earth, so that God himself could dwell with us. Pretty awesome thoughts!

So, in essence we know that nothing, absolutely nothing—not even Hell can “separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39).”

Does that make me a Universalists? No, it just makes me a stickler for God’s word. And, God’s word assures me that the fear of Hell is no longer an option for me because God has greater plans for me. God can and will handle Hell and all the rascals that go there. So, I will simply leave the problem of Hell and what that verse means up to them—that’s their problem, not mine.  

Thus we can walk with the assurance, not of worldly wisdom, but with a reasonable faith that is made possible by a God who thinks outside the box.
Blessings—
JimR/

Christian agnostics . . . is that possible?

The story is told of a budding philosopher who set out on a search for truth, during the process he discovered Christianity. There were many aspect of this new discover that he liked; however, being the honest man that he was, he was not sure about some of the deeper mysteries of the religion, so he decide to wait before he embraced it full on. Unfortunately one day as he set about to meditate on this new religion in order to unravel some of the knots of doubts in this new discovery, he was shot with an arrow filled with a slow action poison. None-the-less, he resolved to get all of his questioned answered before he signed on. So, he continued in his pursuit. As he edged closer and closer to declaring himself a fully committed Christian convert the poison finally took his life.

At the time of his funeral a great debate broke out among his fellow philosophers as to whether or not he such be buried a Christian or an agnostic. Finally it was decided to bury him as an agnostic Christian, and so it was, and perhaps rightly so from their perspective.

The point is, Christianity is not a philosophy and, in my opinion, those that approach it as such are in for a great disappointment. I will also goes so far as to say that it is totally impossible to prove any of the claims of Christianity through the use of philosophy. I say this because all philosophy is open ended—there is always room for doubt; therefore, certainty is out.

Scripture speaks of this phenomenon when Paul writes to Timothy with criticism of those that are always learning but never come to any understanding, that is to say, any conclusion [2 Tim. 3:7].

Now, back to our story. Life in a sense is as if we have all be shot with a poison arrow at that time of our conception which slowly but surely works its way through our system until we eventually die. There is no escape either, as Alan Seeger's poem, I Have a Rendezvous with Death, so aptly reminds us. The sad fact is that most live their lives as it they have ever and a day to make up their minds on such an important subject as what happens when we face the Grim Reaper, and what can I do to assure a safe passage into something better?

As Blaise Pascal, the great French mathematician and philosopher once remarked—

“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.”

So, if we have the notion that we will ever have enough faith to answer all our questions, my answer is that no you never will; however, you can have enough trust to navigate the course of this thing we call life, and die with the full confidence that you have done your best and that you are comfortable with the choice to leave the rest up to God.

". . . suffered under Pontius Pilate."

The Apostles Creed, speaking of Jesus Christ, states that He “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” A rather innocuous inclusion some would say, just a matter of history, a paltry statement, nothing more.

I say, however, think again. It is not enough, in my opinion, to simply say that He died, was buried, and rose again; it is of utmost importance to know the conditions under which He suffered, and died.

Granted, the Jewish system wanted Him dead, but that is not the tragedy of this event. The real tragedy is that it was not only the Jewish system, but, indeed the world system. Rome wanted Him dead, also. For Pilate, therefore in was all a matter of power, politics as usual. Justice had nothing to do with it as far as Pilate was concerned. Maintaining a position of power, however, did. Pax Romana was first on the agenda, justice was incidental.

Sound familiar? Count the votes, Mr. President, and you win, but at what expense? Here’s some sobering stats on those who will never have a chance to vote, or even enjoy one breath of fresh air, Mr. President:

United States this Year 240,172.0	In United States today 1,692.2	US since 1973: Roe vs. Wade 57,732,036.0	US this Year after 16 weeks gestation 11,528.3
By Planned Parenthood since 1970 6,709,426.0	By Planned Parenthood this year 72,072.0	US this Year due to rape or incest 2,329.7	Black babies since '73 in US 17,319,610.8
Worldwide since 1980 1,328,811,663	Worldwide this Year 8,916,665	Worldwide Today 62,180 average	Worldwide Average About 1 per second

 

You will also notice, Mr. President, that included in these statistics are not only of your own race, but those of other nations, since you, too, are responsible for advancing your public agenda of Planned Parenthood through the various international agencies, including the UN with the use of our hard earned taxpayer dollars.

“…suffered under Pontius Pilate.”

At just the right moment in history, the Scripture declares that the incarnate Son of God was sent to redeem us (Galatians 2:4-7). However, in order for the Son to do that, He must first suffer under Pontius Pilate, be crucified, buried, and rise triumphantly, to conquer evil and to bring eternal life to all those who believe on Him.

That is the purpose of history. The sole purpose, I might add. All else is either preliminary or subsequent to that great event. History flows in and through Calvary as the seminal event of all ages, and, indeed, spans history to the far reaches of eternity.

Heaven is, and will never be the same because of Calvary—and this is not just religious talk, either; this is a fact.

But why Calvary, and why Pontius Pilate? Could not have God done it another way. The short answer is no. Not for a perfect God, that is. Calvary is the perfect answer of a perfect God.

How so, you say?

Well, first of all, at Calvary, God disarmed the Devil and his henchmen and made it public by triumphing over them through Christ (Colossians 2:15). 

Earlier Christ had said, “My Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)” and Calvary was God’s final answer to those that thought otherwise.

Calvary was the convenient answer to an inconvenient problem—the problem of evil. Calvary was therefore God’s way of exposing the expediency of politics. Calvary was God’s perfect answer to the problem of evil.  Calvary is God’s theodicy—His answer to the problem of evil; Calvary not only tells us why, but how. Evil exists because of choice, and choice because of freedom, and freedom because a God of love did not create automatons. Robots are incapable of love. Only a free moral agent is capable of that. I say, free because of obvious reasons, I say moral because love is a moral choice, and therefore a responsibility—and, reasonably so, I might add.

God is the essence of love. God is love, and those who are in harmony with God reflect that quality. Thus when we love our neighbor as ourselves we are in synch with God, and as such expressing our moral responsibility.

Calvary, the Passion of Christ, and, yes, even His temptations are permeated with Christ’s love—His love for humanity, for God, and for Himself.

Love is inextricably tied in with who we are, and who we are is inextricably tied in with our Creator in whose image we have been made. Anything of the opposite can only lead to an evil chaos.

So, it must be understood that the world is in the political shape it is today because without God moral responsibility has no beacon of certainty. Not only is that true, but man is incapable of love outside of God. We must first love God, and then, and only then, does the love for our neighbor attend. Thus, we can reiterate,

If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20 (NIV)

How then can anyone say, “I’m a Christian,” but in fact destroy the innocent and pass it off as just so much bio-mass that has been extracted from the womb. Is this not hatred of our brother, our sister? Most certainly it is.

Unfortunately, the history of this pseudo-Christianity, or false morality that disguises itself under the umbrella of a woman’s choice and one’s freedom is patently ungodly.

This is, of course, in line with the tenor of Scripture reminds us that:

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. (Timothy 3:1-9 (NIV)

I am, as usual, yours for the journey, but, more importantly, He walks alongside of us.

Jim_/

Why? What about, "Because?"

According to George Dvorsky there are 8 great philosophical questions that we'll never solve. His opinion is that there's a spat brewing between some theoretical physicists and philosophers of science. He writes—

"Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence. The bad news? These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension."

Here the 8 hard questions he asks for you to look at and ask yourself if you have ever asked them—

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Is our universe real?

3. Do we have free will?

4. Does God exist?

5. Is there life after death?

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

7. What is the best moral system?

8. What are numbers?

Chances are, you have asked yourself the first 7 questions, but not the last (unless, of course, you’re a nerd. No offence intended). How you answer them is, of course, another matter altogether. Personally, I like what one student of philosophy wrote on her final exam when the final, and only question was: “Why?”

It took her less time to answer that than it took me to write this sentence; her answer was: “Because!” And, guess what? She was right. I must say that she was a whole lot sharper than most of my students.

Hers was a simple answer, and as usual, the simple answer is generally the best.
May I say in regards to these 8 questions that after teaching apologetics to prepare students to answer these major concerns that I have, that I have given the simply answer up front. We start with “BECAUSE” and work out from there.

My reasoning is this. There is no “WHY?” unless there is a “BECAUSE.” God never expected us to start with the “WHYS of life.” So, we need to get busy and figure out the “BECAUSES.”

To put it another way. Faith is a given, not something we need to muster up. Pray tell me, where in all the pages of Scripture do we find God trying to convince us of His very existence, including His creation (numbers included!)? Where in the pages of Scripture do we find the Bible asking us if we have free will? As a matter of fact, where do we find any of these basic questions asked? The Book of Job comes about as close to addressing these questions systematically; however, the question is never an independent “WHY?” The question always rest on a “BECAUSE” this happens, then “WHY?”

Then why trust the Bible on these issues? Well, primarily because the Bible starts and ends with the “BECAUSES” of reality, not the “WHYS.” And, I trust it because it best answers the “WHYS” of life.

Complicated? No, not really. Think of it this way. What satisfies you most, the “WHYS” of God, or His “BECAUSES?” Think of the greatest “BECAUSE” of all,

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son.” (John 3:16)

Need we ask, “Why?” His “BECAUSE” already tell us why. God loves us, that why. As, a matter of fact, proof of that love is anchored in His very nature, since He loved us first, then he washed us. (Rev. 1:5) Normally, we want to clean someone up first, then love them, not the other way around. No so with God. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) And, the proof of that love?

Well, perhaps that old song by Minnie Steele says it best—

I REMEMBER WHEN MY BURDENS ROLLED AWAY⁺

I remember when my burdens rolled away;I had carried them for years, night and day.When I sought the blessèd Lord,And I took Him at His word,Then at once all my burdens rolled away.

Refrain 

Rolled away, rolled away,I am happy since my burdens rolled away.Rolled away, rolled away,I am happy since my burdens rolled away.I remember when my burdens rolled away;That I feared would never leave, night or day.Jesus showed to me the loss,So I left them at the cross;I was glad when my burdens rolled away.

Refrain

I remember when my burdens rolled away,That had hindered me for years, night and day.As I sought the throne of grace,Just a glimpse of Jesus’ face,And I knew that my burdens could not stay.

Refrain

I am singing since my burdens rolled away;There’s a song within my heart night and day.I am living for my king,And with joy I shout and sing:Hallelujah, all my burdens rolled away!

Now, I ask you, once we have experience that, must we ask “Why?” We already know “Why?” His ‘BECAUSE” tells us why. He loves us. 

Now, I am yours for the journey,

 Jim

P.S. The response to my latest book has been encouraging. If you haven't already, check it out. And, don't forget to pray for our ministry in the meantime.

⁺ Words & Music: Minnie A. Steele, 1908 (♫  ).

Truth is where you find it . . .

You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. — G. K. Chesterton 

This week, I have pondered on Paul’s statement that: 

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21)

Strange words, aren't they? Why in the name of commonsense would anyone in their right mind ever spout off a mouth full of foolishness to convince anyone of anything? Yet, we find this obviously well-educated man perfectly pleased with admitting that he was willing—not just willing, but eager, you might say—to become a fool for Christ’s sake.” (1 Cor. 4:10) 

What would ever possess a man to do that?

The true is, however, that Christianity has always run counter culture to conventional wisdom, particular on social and moral issues. Furthermore, Christianity and academia more often clashes than not; perhaps more than ever before—at least when it comes to creationism and evolution. Politically almost any imaginable sin can fly under the banner of freedom; except, of course, any act that may be construed to be politically incorrect, no matter how trivial.

Need I give examples? Ask Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball franchise, if he ever intends to use the word 'hoodie' again. Such are the trivialities of our political correctness. Want another one? Ask the former Pope Benedict XVI why he felt he had to apologize for a statement he made about Islam at the University of Regensburg in Germany in his lecture 12 September 2006. Ask both of them, and if they are absolutely candid about it they will tell you that it was not the politically correct thing to do.

Things like freedom of choice are part of our belief system that runs counter to the conventional wisdom? ? What about that?

May I suggest that, that all depends on what your choices are?

Then what about freedom to love as you please?

Well, I would have to answer that, that all depends on your definition of love and what you are in love with. For some love is expressed in a one night stand, or something far more appalling—like for instance I once read of a pedophile defending himself on the basis of love. He said that he simply loved children.

This whole scenario reminds me of what G. K. Chesterton once said—and that is,

“All that an insane man has left is his reason.”

So, logic and reason, particularly in the arena of morals and faith, must have a solid foundation on which to base conclusions. Otherwise, rightness and wrongness get all muddled up.

Let me give you a couple of historic examples. Prior to Christianity in the Hawaiian Islands it was perfectly acceptable for a brother to marry his sister to carry on the royal line. Another example of allowing society to pick and choose their morals at will is found in Polynesia on the Pitcairn Islands which was settled in 1790 by a group of British mutineers of the HMS Bounty and Tahitians. There up and until just recently young girls as early as 11 and 12 years old were forced to marry sometimes men in their 30’s and 40’s. Appalling, isn't it?
Yet, all of this made good sense to the royals of Hawaii and the bachelors in the Pitcairn Islands. Sure it was incest, and, yes, it was pedophilia, but it made sense to those folks.

Now, mind you, that is just in the area of morals. Let’s also take a close look at science and faith.
Who are we to believe here? Nothing, then the big bang? Or something, then creation? Jesus, then death? Or Jesus, then death followed by a resurrection?

The point being—although, the world at large doesn't get the picture yet—is that you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

For me, and you, of course, that something is faith; but not just blind faith, it must be faith based on something. And, that something is God and His Word, as in Jesus the Word of God and Holy Scripture as God’s written word. Leave that out of you syllogism and you are indeed a fool; but albeit, not for Christ’s sake.

This is why, Paul could say previously,

I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor. 1:4-9)

 For as Martin Luther discovered so many years ago,

For by grace we have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph. 2:8)

Now, the million dollar question is, “Do we really get it? Do we understand that our faith is God given, and that by grace? That we don’t deserve it? That, as a matter of fact, we don’t even understand it without Him telling us so.”

Such is the amazing grace of God—that we who were once alien and estranged from God and without the wisdom to understand why, are now made part of the Family of God. (1 Peter 2:11)

 Now, friends, that is true wisdom.

As usual, I am yours for the journey,

Same Sex Marriages . . .

Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight

J. I. Packer

In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.

J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.

Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.

My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.

In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV).

To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.

First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.

Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.

Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and "effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in physical sex.

In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.

Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.

With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.

Missing Paul's point

As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.

One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as "indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he is absolutely right.

The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is—in other words, we feel—that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.

Two views of the Bible

At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.

One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.

This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivistposition.

The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.

In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.

What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.

Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.

Spiritual dangers

In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.

First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.

Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?

Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God—actually asking him—to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy. How could I do it?

Changing a historical tradition

Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.

All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.

Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese's constitutional standards.

It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.

Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.

Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen.

Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.

More words from Luther come to mind.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.

J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.