Month: June 2011

Al Mohler is Right

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

I wonder, have I stepped into a beehive?  I have yet to get any flack but I wonder if it is coming.  I posted an article on my Facebook page titled: “Let’s Be Honest, A Lot of Christians Are Guilty of Homophobia“.

The article is in defense of the defense Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler gave about comments he made about homosexuality:

The Associated Press quotes Mohler as saying that homosexuality isn’t something that people can “turn on and turn off.” Mohler went on to say that “only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

At the SBC Convention earlier this month Mohler was challenged to answer for his comments. His words of defense were:

“I made those statements. They are not alleged statements. I made them.”

According to reports, he then went on to outline how Southern Baptists had been homophobic and had misrepresented homosexuality. Mohler even called the Southern Baptists to repentance on the issue. However, he did all of this while maintaining that homosexuality is a sin that needs a Savior. One report…  said that the convention responded with applause.

On my Facebook post I commented that what Mohler said is also true in my denomination, the PCA, and is true of many Evangelicals.  Shoot, if I am honest with myself, it is probably true of me to some degree.  But the suggestion that some responses to homosexuality are themselves sinful is not tantamount to condoning homosexuality or the Gay Rights Agenda.

I appreciate what the author of the article pondered:

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice? Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

That’s the thing. What is wrong with what Mohler said?  Is homosexuality merely a “choice”?  No doubt it is a choice in many respects. One can choose to indulge the desire or choose not to indulge the desire, just as with many expressions of sin.  It is this ability to choose that makes nonsense of the assertions that the Gay Agenda is somehow equivalent with the Civil Rights Movement of the Mid-Twentieth Century.  Folk could not choose to be Black of not.  Folks can choose sexual behavior.

However, what Mohler is pointing out is that sin is more than our behavior. However sin is expressed it is first  a condition of the heart and mind.  While choosing to not engage is preferable to hedonistic indulgence. it does not rid anyone of the condition or the consequential penalty. The wages of sin are death… Period.  This is true even if we suppress every inclination.

What Mohler is pointing out is that homosexuality is far more complex than a “choice” to act out on its desires and physical attractions.  He is reminding Christians that we need to recognize the true nature of sin – homosexuality and all types of sin.  And he is challenging us to realize we need a radical remedy. Fortunatley we have one. Mohler also reminds us of the power of the Gospel.

So, will I get any flack for concurring and posting the article supporting Mohler and his views.  Maybe a little.  But probably only from a few.  And hopefully not from anyone who actually takes the time to read the article.

Trophy Kids

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Who would have thunk it? Parents being obedient to their kids.  It seems to be a growing phenomena.

I have been noticing it increasingly over the past several years.  Parents whose lives revolve around the unceasing activities of their kids – especially sports.  Parents desperate for the approval of  their children, and fearing rejection.  Parents who let their children decide matters like what the family will eat for dinner, and where (or if) the family will attend church. I don’t know how many times in recent years I have heard a parent confessing: “He/She does not want to come.  He/She says it’s not fun.”

In one sense I can understand the dilemma.  No conscientious parent wants to alienate their child.  Social scholars have for years pointed out the dangers of un-attuned parenting.  The Bible warns against exasperating our children. (Ephesians 6.4) Some translations use the words irritate, provoke, or embitter as things we parents are to avoid.  And we have seen the effects of some previous generations that seem to have been guilty of those very things.  Perhaps you even experienced it yourself.  So many parents have made conscious efforts to engage their children, to become involved in their lives, to sacrifice for them.  All noble intentions and ideals. Maybe even godly.

But sometimes it seems as if the pendulum has swung too far.  The parents stop parenting.  Instead, the aim for some seems to be to gain BFF status.  They become indulgent because, as we all know, the best way to win any campaign or pageant is to be “liked”.

Here I do not even have in mind those parents who seem to be trying to relive their own childhood and teens years vicariously through their children.  No, I am talking about mature adults – godly folks, who have a genuine love for their children.    Folks who coach t-ball.  Soccer moms.  Chaperones for the middle school dances.  I am talking about people I respect and admire.  I have in mind people whose desire it is to leverage their popularity with their kids to instill values, even faith. What harm could there be in that?

No doubt conscientious parenting involves interaction, effort, and time.  So I am not criticizing those things. In fact, I have made those things priorities in my own parenting.  But an article in the July 2011 edition of The Atlantic, How to Land Your Kid in Therapy, prompted me to reflect on some of the trends in parenting I have been observing.  In short, the author of the piece, Lori Gottlieb, suggests that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of compliant parenting.

Continue reading →

Steak on a Paper Plate

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Steak on a Paper Plate

I am not sure I agree with everything he says, but Trevin Wax offers some very insightful thoughts worth considering about contemporary worship wars:

More and more churches are focusing on the centrality of the Word in worship.
The resurgence of Reformed theology among younger evangelicals, the reestablishment of a rock-solid belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures…, the revival of expository preaching… this wave that we’re riding is about to collide with an even bigger wave: the dominance of contemporary worship styles across the U.S. and the world.
For many churches, the biggest requirement for a “worship set” is novelty. We’re aiming for an experience. So we put together a worship service that is more influenced by the latest hits on Christian radio than by theology or history.
We also try to put people at ease. “Good morning… Let’s try that again, GOOD MORNING!” There’s a chatty, street-level style of worship that has become prevalent in evangelicalism. And I’m not sure how our pursuit of novelty and casualness in worship is going to mesh with hearing the Word of God expounded upon in all its glory.
Can a contemporary, casual service bring worshippers face to face with the glory of God in a way that buttresses and upholds the magnificent truths being expounded from the Word? I think the answer is yes, but not always.
It’s like eating steak on a paper plate.
My wife is an excellent cook. Her Romanian dishes dazzle my tastebuds, and her American cooking is terrific too. In the past couple of months, she has been using paper plates frequently. I understand why. We don’t have a dishwasher. She wants to save time setting the table, and she doesn’t want me washing dishes after dinner. Paper plates are easy and disposable.
But after a few weeks of paper plates, I told my wife, “Your cooking is too good for paper plates.” Slapping down a hot dog and baked beans on a paper plate in the middle of summer is just fine. But when my wife makes her famous pork chops and rice, or her Romanian cabbage rolls, or steak and mashed potatoes, paper plates just don’t cut it. I said, “Let me wash the dishes. But at least give us dishes!”
When it comes to worship, we are frequently told that form doesn’t matter. Style is not what’s important. I get that. I’m not downing contemporary music or advocating a return to liturgy, organs and hymns. I’ve been in contemporary worship services that have put me on my knees before the holiness and majesty of God. Cultural forms adjust and adapt.
But in worship today, there is a tendency toward casualness. The emphasis on feeling God’s closeness in worship may short-circuit the possibility of being transformed by a glimpse of the Transcendent One. There’s hardly any room for feeling awe in worship, and I can’t help but think that part of our problem is the form.
Form and content mirror one another. A church with serious Bible preaching is going to have a serious worship service (contemporary or traditional isn’t what matters, but serious it will be). A church with a feel-good preacher is going to have peppy, feel-good music.
Christians need to sense the weight of God’s glory, the truths of God’s Word, the reality of coming judgment, and the gloriousness of God’s grace. Trying to package the bigness of this God into most casual worship services is like trying to eat steak on a paper plate. You can do it for awhile, but at some point, people will start saying, “I want a dish.”
Trevin Wax is an Editor at LifeWay Christian Resources, and former Associate Pastor of First Baptist Church in Shelbyville, TN. This article appeared on his blog, Kingdom People – Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven http://trevinwax.com/ and is used with permission. I first read this piece on The Aquila Report.