This slick publication usually has several articles that I find particularly beneficial. I would say that it is a good use of Cooperative Program funds to publish this magazine, but after reading the next-to-the last article (not to mention the one-sided article on the Lord’s Supper, which I’ll address in a future post), I’m beginning to have my doubts. The article in question was written by Marshall Blalock, the Pastor of the historic FBC Charleston, SC and a member of the unofficial official Name Change Task Force appointed by SBC President Bryant Wright to “settle the question of whether such a change is feasible and whether it serves the mission of the Convention as a whole.” I have written previously why I believe that the formation of this Task Force, and the subsequent approval of its unauthorized recommendations by the Executive Committee, blatantly disregards the last stated will of the messengers of the Convention and possibly contravenes the Constitution and ByLaws of the SBC (here, here, here, and here).

Pastor Blalock’s article, entitled “SBC Name: A Case for “Great Commission Baptists,” was originally published “on his church’s Web site on February 23, 2012,” shortly after the “historic” announcement of the proposed nickname for the Convention. In making his case, Rev. Blalock actually undercuts the legitimacy and the stated reasons for the Task Force. The Name Change Task Force was asked to answer two questions, the first of which would have been dispositive of the entire exercise had it been answered in the negative, which it was. We would therefore not be having this discussion nor would we be voting on a proposal that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of our Convention’s governing documents.

Of course, the first question, “Is such a change feasible?” was answered early on. The clear answer, which everyone on the Task Force had to know or have reason to know going in — given the extensive legal work that had already been done on this issue –was a resounding NO! But, why let that stop you from pressing forward to come up with a new name instead? If it cannot be done de jure (according to the law), then why not do it de facto (in fact). And, that’s exactly what the Task Force has done.

Perhaps they did not envision this at the outset, but at some point, the idea of a new, less bigoted moniker, started to sound pretty good. Why wouldn’t it? After all, Pastor Blalock contends that there was “a significant portion of Baptists outside of the South (who) made a compelling case that a non-regional name would benefit the cause of missions.” The logical question would be, “Who?” Was a survey commissioned by Lifeway Research to determine this? Have the results been kept under lock and key like the GCRTF records? Inquiring minds (as opposed to “yes men” ) would really like to know.

What makes the Task Force’s nickname proposal all the more ludicrous is the explanation given by Pastor Blalock. In what surely is an unintended nonsensical statement, he writes:

“The task force was faced with two competing conclusions: a name change would create legal problems that could potentially harm our mission; and the name change would eliminate barriers and stimulate greater focus on the Gospel and the mission to reach lost people.”

How can one have two competing conclusions when it was clear from the stated purpose of the Task Force that the feasibility of a name change was a central element in determining whether to proceed forward with a name change? It makes one think that the unofficial official Name Change Task Force was not designed to study the feasibility of a name change at all. Rather, this whole exercise was designed to come up with a new name for the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do we even have the pretense of impartiality? When the Task Force did not get the answer that they already knew they would get, they then came up with the brilliant and unifying idea for the new descriptor or nick name or moniker or whatever.

I must admit that I did not see this coming. In a way to maneuver around the Constitutional provision that a name change must be approved by a 2/3 vote at two consecutive Annual Meetings, the Task Force believes that it can adopt an unofficial designation by a simple majority vote. Let’s read the words of Rev. Blalock to determine for ourselves if what the Task Force, and by extension, the Executive Committee of the SBC, proposes is just an unofficial, totally optional nickname or in fact a name change in all but the formal legal documents:

“The beauty of this plan is that none of the legal documents of any of our institutions or agencies will be affected or changed. The task force members are recommending that we adopt the name “Great Commission Baptists” in all of our work as we identify ourselves. The individual agencies and institutions would have to make the decision, just as individual churches would do as well. . . . Do we think, if the motion passes in New Orleans, that the name will be commonly used? We hope so, and we believe it will occur over time, but there is no guarantee. We are suggesting that we describe ourselves in all of our publications and communications as Great Commission Baptists. . . . ” (emphasis added)

It cannot be stated any clearer than what Pastor Blalock has stated. The end game is for the Southern Baptist Convention to no longer be known by that name, but instead by the new, less offensive name, “Great Commission Baptists” (GCB for short, not to be confused with the recently cancelled ABC television show of the same initials). Let me be clear. This is a name change proposal. It clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and ByLaws of our Convention. This name change proposal — from the unauthorized creation of the Task Force to the final recommendation acquiesced to by all but a few of our Executive Committee Trustees who would not be forced into agreeing to such a blatant usurpation of power – has been and will continue to be divisive. I would urge every Southern Baptist messenger to vote NO when this proposal is brought to the floor of the Convention in NOLA. Only with a resounding defeat will those in power realize that the Southern Baptist Convention continues to be a Convention of cooperating conservatives who disdain heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!

“The president sets the policy.  I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.  And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”

If the Vice President, a practicing Roman Catholic, doesn’t “see much of a distinction” between traditional marriage and gay marriage, then he perhaps needs to take remedial catechism classes as well as Biology 101. I’m not sure that would help, given that Biden also supports the unfettered killing of unborn children in utero. Come to think of it, so does President Obama. That Christian politicians — both Catholic and Protestant — have been able to use the Mario Cuomo defense, “I’m personally opposed, but I don’t let my private faith inform my public positions,” has become trite. And, this triteness has led to moral decay and rot in our nation. It makes you wonder whether or not these politicians even believe what they say or are just trying to pull one over on an increasingly gullible public. I’m kidding. I know the answer to that one.

Watch former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, himself a practicing Catholic, and see how uncomfortable he is with the gay marriage question. He doesn’t seem to have evolved as much as fellow Catholic Biden has on this issue. Of course, being locked in a tight U.S. Senate race with former Sen. George Allen probably makes Kaine a bit more evasive on this issue. Most Democrats will try to avoid all discussion on the gay marriage issue until after the election. In many swing states, such as North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio, Democrats still need the votes of “Reagan Democrats,” those who are socially conservative, but continue to support Democrat candidates, including President Obama.

Although the timing of the announcement came as a mild surprise, most political observers were nonplussed when President Obama publicly shared how his stance on “gay marriage” has finally evolved. I’m not sure that there were too many people left who did not think that President Obama would come out in favor of same-sex marriage. It’s amazing how Democrat politicians’ views on the pressing moral issues of the day — abortion and gay marriage — never evolve in a way that you would not expect. From Bill Clinton to Al Gore to Dick Gephardt (at one point all Southern Baptists and all pro-life), most Democrat politicians, including the current President and Vice President, seem to end up with unrighteous beliefs that will not exalt our nation, but will bring further reproach upon it (see Proverbs 14:34).

That is also the conclusion that prominent Southern Baptist African-American Pastor, the Rev. Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr., seems to have drawn from what he describes as President Obama’s “betrayal” on this issue. In a scathing rebuke to the President, Pastor McKissic writes:

President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Bible is crystal clear on this subject, and the Black Church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His endorsement is an inadvertent attack on the Christian Faith. America is now a candidate for the same judgment received by Sodom and Gomorrah. This was a sad, sad day and a very bad decision, by our beloved President. The moral impact of this day and decision is equal to the military impact of AL-Queda when they attacked the Twin Towers on 911. Today’s announcement is a moral earthquake equivalent to a tsunami or hurricane that will have far more devastating results than Katrina. (read Dr. McKissic’s full response here)

Lest you think that Pastor McKissic comes at this issue with a deep-seated hatred of President Obama, you would be wrong. McKissic, the Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, submitted a resolution to the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting which asked the nation’s largest Protestant body to, among other things, “celebrate the historic nature of the election of President Barack Hussein Obama as a significant contribution to the ongoing cause of racial reconciliation in the United States.” With some revisions, this resolution was adopted by a near unanimous vote of the messengers meeting in Louisville, KY (for full disclosure, I was a messenger at the meeting and voted in favor of the resolution). In addition to his resolution, Dr. McKissic has spoken about what he saw as disparate treatment that President Obama has received in some Christian quarters:

McKissic said members of his church voted both for and against Obama, and he doesn’t have a problem with that, but to suggest members of his church who voted for Obama aren’t Christians goes beyond the pale.

“I don’t question people’s Christianity based on how they vote,” McKissic said. He said questioning Obama’s profession of faith “is not playing by the same rules” that Southern Baptist leaders used with President Bush, who rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and was a member of, or regularly attended, several churches significantly to the left of most Southern Baptist congregations theologically and politically.

Finally, in his May 9, 2012 response to the President’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage, Pastor McKissic also makes reference to “the President that many love and admire” and “our beloved President.” I think anyone would be hard pressed to label Dwight McKissic a “hater” of President Obama. In fact, I think it might be safe to say, after reading his response, that Pastor McKissic is both saddened and deeply troubled by the President’s unprecedented endorsement of same-sex marriage.

While I have never met Pastor McKissic, I have become personally acquainted with him through various online interactions. Even though we may not agree on every issue (who does?), I have come to appreciate his prophetic voice and approach to the Christian life (and, I’m not just saying that because he promised me great pork ribs and oxtails the next time I’m in the DFW area). And, herein lies the question that is on many people’s minds the day after this historic announcement: Will the Black Church hear Dwight McKissic’s voice — the voice of one crying in the wilderness of our fallen culture –  and will they be willing to follow Dr. McKissic’s lead on the seminal moral issue of our time? Or, will African-American Pastors remain silent? The choice could not be more stark!

Silence is golden.”

Perhaps Andy Stanley’s defenders (and there are many) would do well to remember the above maxim. It seems that the longer Stanley remains silent in the face of questions regarding his use of a confusing sermon illustration during his April 15, 2012 message, “When Gracie Met Truthy,” (click here and then hit Part 5 of the ”Christian” Series) the more his defenders speak out on his behalf. However, instead of putting this story to bed, the convoluted defenses only raise more questions about how Andy Stanley and North Point approach the issue of homosexuality. In response to my original post, “Andy Stanley’s Soft Landing On Homosexuality,” and in response to subsequent posts by Dr. Albert Mohler (here), President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Denny Burk (here), Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern’s Boyce College, some have argued that we have “misunderstood” Andy and have missed the point he was trying to make with his story meant to illustrate the tension between grace and truth. A typical response can be seen in the comment stream of Scot McKnight’s post, “Andy Stanley, Right and Good,” at his blog, Patheos:

This has been an exercise in missing the point. The point of the illustration is that we are called to love people that are difficult to love. Can you think of a better example of loving a difficult person than inviting your ex-husband and his current boyfriend to your home regularly for meals and family celebrations and to church?  The dust up over the details miss entirely the point of the story and in fact confirm the need for the whole series.

This defense, or a variation of this defense, has been offered up as a way to shield Andy from questions arising from his confusing illustration. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Andy Stanley’s illustration was misunderstood and that he was trying to make one point (either about the ex-wife’s reconciliation with her ex-husband and his partner or about adultery being sin), but that his failure to mention the sin of homosexuality was not some intentional shift in his beliefs on the matter. Let’s also give Andy Stanley the benefit of the doubt and assume that his illustration was not meant to be some sort of trial balloon which he clearly and creatively floated to see whether or not a shift in theology and/or methodology on the homosexual issue would get off the ground.

Viewing the illustration in the best possible light, it’s still hard to avoid the rather obvious conclusion that the telling of the well-illustrated story, even if unintentional, has caused confusion and consternation, not only with folks like Drs. Mohler and Burk (not to mention myself), but also with some members of NPCC. For Andy’s defenders to try to argue that no one could have been confused by the illustration is simply not credible. I will admit that I can be easily confused, but when prominent Evangelical leaders are flummoxed and when the story gets picked up by Christianity Today (here), The Christian Post (here), and Baptist Press (here), it becomes harder to argue that the illustration was crystal clear.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have used a story to illustrate a point within my sermon and the illustration came up short. Perhaps I didn’t think through the story and how it would be perceived. Maybe I didn’t finish the story before moving on to another point in my message (it’s happened on more than one occasion). Whatever the reason, when I have spoken or written in such a way that my words were misunderstood, I usually go out of my way to clarify what I meant. That seems like the right thing to do. Why would I intentionally leave people in a state of confusion when I could easily remedy the situation? Wouldn’t it be an act of love and grace to help people better understand the message that God had for folks instead of leaving them hanging with uncertainty. After all, God is not a God of confusion.

That begs the question:  Wouldn’t it be fairly easy for Andy Stanley to issue some type of clarification as to how he and NPCC practice grace and truth when it comes to the volatile issue of homosexuality? Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do for Andy Stanley to issue a clarifcation to alleviate the obvious confusion that arose out of his illustration? Would it be better to leave people — including some of his own members — in a state of uncertainty or instead extricate folks from uncertainty and confusion? Perhaps Andy Stanley has not yet decided (at least publicly) how he will extricate himself from the horns of this very delicate dilemma.

I will only reiterate that I hope that I misunderstood what I thought I heard (or perhaps didn’t hear) in Andy Stanley’s illustration. I know which direction that I would like for Andy to go when he comes off the horns that he finds himeslf periously close to being impaled on. I am not a member of NPCC. I do not think that Andy Stanley owes me or any other non-member any explanation of what was, to many people (both members and non-members), a confusing illustration.  However, Andy Stanley and NPCC can’t have it both ways on this issue. It is hard to argue that no one outside of NPCC has any right to “question” what Andy said, particularly when his sermons are not only available on the internet, but he makes a point to address those who are watching online and on television. His ministry is public and influential. Andy Stanley opens the door for folks to at least ask questions, even if he doesn’t want to answer. I won’t say that I am “troubled” by Andy Stanley’s continued refusal to offer any clarification. However, his silence is perplexing and far from golden!

A dilemma is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is practically acceptable. One in this position has been traditionally described as “being on the horns of a dilemma“, neither horn being comfortable. This is sometimes more colorfully described as “Finding oneself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma”, referring to the sharp points of a bull’s horns, equally uncomfortable (and dangerous). (Dilemma – Wikipedia)

Not a good position to find oneself in, but that is exactly where Atlanta-area megachurch pastor Andy Stanley finds himself in today. After first seeing the story reported last Wednesday on SBC Tomorrow, I wrote a post on April 26 titled, “Andy Stanley’s Soft Landing on Homosexuality?” which critiqued one of Stanley’s recent sermons which appeared to condone homosexual behavior. On Tuesday, the story “got legs” when Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called on Andy Stanley to clarify his view of homosexual conduct. As of late Wednesday night — over two weeks since he preached the sermon in question — Stanley, the son of former SBC President and well-known pastor Dr. Charles Stanley of FBC Atlanta, has yet to issue any type of clarification in the face of mounting pressure on him to do so.

In addition to Dr. Mohler’s article, several other news outlets, including Baptist Press (which quotes my original article on this issue here), The Christian Post (here), and Christianity Today have either reported on or may soon report on this controversy. In the Post article, “Pastor Andy Stanley Responds to Questions Over Homosexual Stance,” Stanley’s response not only fails to clarify his ambiguous illustration, but only adds to the confusion. In an email sent to The Christian Post on Wednesday, Andy Stanley had this to say about the recent kerfuffle that arose out of his April 15, 2012 message, “Christian: When Gracie Met Truthy” (to watch, click here and then click on Part 5 of the “Christian” Series — the illustration begins at the 24:17 mark)–

“We are requesting that everyone watch the entire series: Christian. It concludes this Sunday. It’s 8 parts. That’s a lot of content to wade through. But I figure that’s better than a sound bite or an interview”

He also told The Christian Post that “he may issue a statement in the near future.” So, let me get this straight. Instead of answering a fairly straightforward question on his (and North Point’s) current position on homosexuals within the church (those who are openly living an unrepentant gay lifestyle as opposed to those who have repented of homosexual conduct but who may still struggle with that particular sin), Andy Stanley figure’s its better for folks to watch eight sermons (totaling approximately nine hours) instead of issuing a simple clarification. Most folks that I know or have read on this issue are not asking for a sound bite or an in-depth interview. Both of these appear to be straw men designed to obfuscate the real issue at hand. That issue has been put into high-definition clarity by Dr. Mohler:

Was this (Andy Stanley’s illustration) intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

We can only hope that Andy Stanley and the church will clarify and affirm the biblical declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, even as he preaches the forgiveness of sin in any form through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His affirmation of grace and truth in full measure is exactly right, but grace and truth are not actually in tension. The only tension is our finite ability to act in full faithfulness. The knowledge of our sin is, in truth, a gift of grace. And grace is only grace because of the truth of what God has done for us in Christ.

Andy Stanley, like Joel Osteen, is a master communicator. And, just like Mr. Osteen, Andy Stanley finds himself facing a dilemma of his own making. Does he answer Dr. Mohler’s questions from a solidly Biblical position and risk alienating the homosexuals that he admits have been attracted to North Point? Or, does he follow Joel Osteen’s lead on this issue (heaven help us), which seems to have evolved into a “homosexuality is sin, but it’s no different than any other sin” approach to one of the greatest dilemmas facing the seeker-sensitive, sin-condoning churches (mega and otherwise) in America?

With each passing day that he refuses to clarify his remarks, I am coming to some sad and startling conclusions regarding Andy Stanley’s position on homosexuality within the church. I again state that I hope I am wrong and that Andy Stanley will issue a clear statement which conforms to the Biblical principles of both grace and truth on the moral issue of homosexuality. There is only one way for Andy Stanley to not become impaled on the horns of this dilemma. But, that way will require him to do what other megachurch pastors, including Osteen and Willow Creek’s Bill Hybels seem unwilling to do — avoid capitulation on this issue by clearly and unambiguously declaring that he believes that homosexual conduct, according to God’s Word, is sinful and that this sin, like the sin of adultery, can be forgiven when a sinner confesses his or her sin, turns from it, and pleads the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse the sinner from all unrighteousness. That is real grace and real truth. And, there is no tension in that!

The people “in charge” of programming at NBC must be so desperate and so far removed from reality that they would be willing to even consider greenlighting shows for either of these two women. What were the suits at NBC thinking? Oh, that’s right. Most of NBC’s leadership — from corporate to news to entertainment — are so out of touch with the vast majority of Americans that they simply cannot comprehend why no one would watch — unless forced to do so as part of some torture program — anything “starring” the aforementioned “comediennes.”

Describing Barr and Silverman as comediennes is being charitable. From the moment that a fraternity brother “introduced” me to this new female comic on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (the real thing, not the Jay Leno or mercifully short-lived Conan O’Brien incarnations), I knew that I would never be a fan of Roseanne Barr. Vulgar. Vile. Hateful. Obnoxious. Loud. Rude. Idiotic. Clueless. I could go on, but you get the point. I can honestly say that I never sat through more than about five minutes of Roseanne, a putrid excuse for a sitcom. I love both John Goodman and Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory rocks), but the thought of me having to glimpse Roseanne Barr for even a split second, much less 22 minutes, would make me want to gouge my eyes out! Same with Sarah Silverman.

Not only are both Barr and Silverman completely and utterly devoid of talent that would appeal to anyone but rabid feminists and self-loathing people in general, but they are the very definition of ugly. No. I’m not talking about ugly from an outward appearance — although I would not object to anyone who presented that slam-dunk case — but rather ugly and vile from that which emanates from somewhere deep inside the souls of Ms. Barr and Ms. Silverman. From her intentional butchering of the National Anthem to her slams against any and all conservatives to her most recent inane (and dangerous) tweets about George Zimmerman, Roseanne Barr has shown herself to be a real piece of work. Unfortunately, that work is gross and deformed. Why anyone would waste their precious time watching anything with Roseanne Barr will perhaps be one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of our time.

Even more mysterious is why anyone would think that there is an audience — outside of L.A. and NYC — for Sarah Silverman. With each passing day, she shows herself to be just as vulgar and vile as Roseanne. And, that’s saying something. For a so-called comedienne to make a joke out of having an abortion (she posted pictures of her distended stomach and joked about eating a burrito that she joked was taken care of through an “aborsh”) is offensive and ugly. One can only imagine what kind of humor that Ms. Silverman and the writers would come up with in her new sitcom. Perhaps they will go after Down’s Syndrome babies. After all, since Sarah Palin has a child with Down’s, that is considered fair game by those on the “tolerant and compassionate” left.

But, not to worry. Apparently test audiences are not as enamored with Ms. Barr or Ms. Silverman as the braindead executives at NBC or the leftist sycophants that adore Barr and Silverman and their ilk. These test audiences must be located in flyover country where reason, common sense, and decency still prevails. For my friends and readers on the coasts, I believe there are small pockets of reason, common sense, and decency where you live, but they are simply not the prevailing norm in places like Hollywood, San Francisco, New York City, and Boston. Of course, I’m not so sure that even pockets remain in our nation’s capital. There are simply too many examples to list. That is a post for another day.

Notwithstanding the test audiences’ distaste for the new Barr and Silverman sitcoms, the powers-that-be at NBC will probably go all in with these two “talented” ladies. If they do, the National Broadcasting Company’s descent into madness will be complete. There will be no coming back from the abyss. Where’s Brandon Tartikoff when you really need him?

Bob and Cedric — the gay bullies or “street toughs” – in the hands of Jerry Seinfeld and co-creator Larry David, were meant to be humourous. But, as we have been told repeatedly in the last few years, there is nothing funny about bullying. Whether the victim of bullying is gay or straight, bullying should not be tolerated. Regardless of one’s beliefs about homosexuality, there is absolutely no place for engaging in or condoning any type of bullying behavior directed at those who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered. For Christians, the Bible is clear that all people are created in the very image of God and, as such, are to be accorded the dignity and worth of those made in His image. To do otherwise, either through words or actions that are bullying in nature, is the opposite of love that Jesus said we are to show to our neighbor.

That, however, does not mean that we should not speak the truth in love. To preach from the pulpit – as I do on occasion — that any sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful is neither hate speech nor does not it make me a bully. There are those, like Dan Savage, who would probably define bullying to encompass just such speech, even if that speech is spoken in a church. I reject that notion out-of-hand. For, to agree with that definition would be to limit both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Regardless of what laws may or may not be passed to curtail my rights (and the rights of others) to preach from God’s Word, I shall be forced to disobey those laws should they ever come to pass in this country.

Some might think this is much ado about nothing, but if those who share Dan Savage’s leftist views get their way, then all such speech with which they disagree or find objectionable will be outlawed. We have seen that trend on college campuses. We see moves to silence dissent and to stigmatize those such as Kirk Cameron who dare to publicly offer traditional views of marriage. The attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of religion — particularly on the issue of homosexuality — will continue to get more pointed in the days ahead.

Dan Savage, in his recent comments at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle, showed just how intolerant those on the left, including the gay left, can be. Using profanity and what can reasonably be described as bullying language directed at Christians in the audience, Savage launched into a tirade against the Bible and traditional views on marriage. I certainly do not have a problem with Savage airing his views. I would be the first to defend his right to spew whatever vile and utter nonsense he chooses to, but the forum at which he chose to launch his attack showed his complete hypocrisy on the issue of bullying.

The founder of the It Get’s Better Project, started in the aftermath of several high-profile suicides by gay teenagers, has been at the forefront of the anti-bullying effort in the United States. That is certainly laudable. However, what is not laudable and what is indeed the height of irony, is that the man who has done so much to bring awareness to the issue of bullying would himself become the bully. Perhaps he forgot that no one likes bullies — even gay bullies. But, then again, perhaps Mr. Savage is himself a bully. At least on this occasion, with an audience who thought he would be talking about bullying, he instead ended up giving first-hand illustration of what bullying looks like.

Laced with profanities (the video is embedded below), Savage’s anti-Christian diatribe was more than some of the high school students could take. (If the shoe were on the other foot and it was a “Bible-thumping” preacher telling this audience of high school students how sinful homosexuality was, would the outrage be the same? I think we all know the answer to that question.)  I’m not sure some of those who walked out had ever heard of Dan Savage or been exposed to his writings, but it’s probably not a stretch to think that the organizers of this event knew exactly what they were getting with him. After all, this is the same man who infiltrated the Gary Bauer Presidential campaign in 2000 in order to get the Republican candidate sick just before the New Hampshire primary. Wrote Savage about his exploits:

So, much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men — we will put anything in our mouths — I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack.

So, here we have an anti-bullying campaign advocate — one that President Obama has seen fit to endorse as a national leader in this campaign — using the same type of bullying tactics on students that he has decried. What hypocrisy. But, then again, this is the radical left. Will liberals and leftists — gay or straight — call out Mr. Savage on his bullying? I highly doubt it. Excuses will be made. Double standards will be employed. This is the SOP of the intolerant left. Preach one thing – do the complete opposite. However, if nothing else, Dan Savage has reminded us all of this: no one likes bullies, not even gay bullies!

I thought I was offering discussion on a post by Mr. Miller, “An Update on William Birch.” Some will perhaps remember William “Billy” Birch, the Southeastern Seminary student and “up-and-coming” Southern Baptist blogger who was a self-identified Arminian. As late as November 2011, Birch was writing posts warning of Calvinists in our midst, the same type of “warning” that he began decrying when Gerald Harris, editor of The Christian Index, penned his now infamous opinion piece, “The Calvinists are here.” Others will remember Mr. Birch for his arrest on sex assault charges this past March.

In a rather detailed update, Mr. Miller wanted his readers to be aware of what has transpired in Billy Birch’s life since his arrest in March. Much of the post dealt with the issues of repentance, God’s grace, forgiveness, and restoration. This last term, restoration, was never clearly defined by Mr. Miller. Did it include restoration into a right relationship with God? Was it a restoration to fellowship within the church? Was it restoration to a leadership role within the church. This issue of restoration to leadership was the impetus for my comment and questions:

I would wholeheartedly agree with what others have said regarding God’s grace and healing power being available in William’s life as well as the life of all those who fall into sin. None of us is beyond temptation to sin. I’m not sure many would disagree that we should follow the example of Jesus in showing “grace, kindness, and a forgiving spirit” to those who confess and repent of their sin.

However, what separates this case from others is that Mr. Birch was arrested, confessed, and entered into some type of deal with the State that reduced the original charge from a felony sexual assault to a misdemeanor sexual battery. That is certainly good for Mr. Birch, as a felony conviction would most likely render him a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. While we all would agree that God can and does restore those who have fallen into sin, what does that restoration look like in terms of leadership within the church? In light of the serious allegations that continue be uncovered regarding sexual abuse in our own Convention as well as in other Protestant and Catholic groups, is someone like Mr. Birch, who was charged with felony sexual assault and agreed to the lessor charge of misdemeanor sexual battery, eligible for leadership within the church ever? After a certain amount of time? I hope by asking that I am not running afoul of Dave’s warning, but these questions arise out of Mr. Birch’s case as well as other cases that continue to occur throughout the SBC. Restoration to fellowship is one thing. Restoration to leadership is something different. Thanks and God bless, Howell

Not only did Mr. Miller challenge my understanding of the legal process, but he did not address the key concerns of my questions, namely whether anyone with a criminal sexual assault or battery on their record (through either a conviction or some type of plea agreement) – including, but not limited to William Birch – is ever eligible for leadership within the church. That line of questioning, particularly as it regards restoration to leadership, was deemed off-limits in the discussion and was subsequently deleted (along with all other comments related to my original comment). I would not have even had to ask the questions had Mr. Miller been more clear as to William Birch’s intentions regarding future leadership roles within the church. However, as I re-read Dave Miller’s comment in response to this little kerfuffle, I am actually more disturbed than before. After all the off-limits comments were deleted, Miller wrote:

Here’s the fact, which I did not share immediately. William has no plans to ever be involved again in the SBC in ministry or leadership or anything. (emphasis added) Once he gets through this healing process, his intent is to go to another denomination to do whatever God leads him to do. (emphasis added)

Take just a moment to digest the import of that statement. William Birch, who admitted to sexually assaulting a fellow student at SEBTS and is now on three years probation because of that crime, has no plans to remain a Southern Baptist. Instead, according to Mr. Miller, he will go to another denomination “to do whatever God leads him to do.” What would this be? Why would he leave the SBC? We don’t know, but we do know enough to ask the question whether a person in Mr. Birch’s position (and there are scores of them both inside and outside the SBC) is ever eligible to serve in a leadership role within the church. That continues to be the pink elephant in the tent of the Southern Baptist Convention. Discussing the restoration of clergy sex offenders to leadership roles within the church should never be off-limits, even if some don’t like the direction that discussion takes us. To not ask these questions is to invite the elephant to make a bigger mess, not just inside the tent, but in the lives of the victims of clergy sexual abuse.

I suppose both of us could have simply misunderstood what Andy Stanley was trying to communicate through one of his sermon illustrations. Believe me. As one who has benefited from reading “Communicating for Change” and “Seven Practices of Effective Ministry,” I have come to appreciate Stanley’s ministerial philosophy, even if I don’t always agree with some of his methodology (multi-site church being the prime example). Even though Andy, the son of longtime Southern Baptist pastor Charles Stanley, no longer considers himself a Southern Baptist, I have never had occasion to question his theological convictions. After watching the aforementioned sermon, I can no longer say that.

Before I address the serious issue I have with Stanley’s sermon, I want to point out some of the more helpful aspects of his message. Using John 1:14 as his main text, Stanley clearly communicated the apparent tension between the Biblical concepts of grace and truth, a tension which Stanley believes is still a reality in our modern world (including within the Church). This tension can be seen in the person of Jesus Christ, who the Apostle John describes as being “full of grace and truth.” I agree with Stanley’s observations. In fact, most conservative Evangelicals would agree with the broad principle that Andy Stanley communicated in “When Gracie Met Truthie,” namely that holding both grace and truth in a balanced tension can sometimes lead to messy results.

However, it is when one begins to translate Stanley’s words into practice that one gets the sense that truth (or the moral law) must somehow take a secondary position to grace, at least in one major area. If you guessed that major area is homosexuality, then you would be a much better guesser than yours truly. Color me completely perplexed, dumbfounded, and otherwise confused by Andy Stanley’s one and only sermon illustration for how North Point manages the tension between grace and truth. If I’m understanding his illustration correctly (which I hope that I am not), then where Andy Stanley and his church land on this issue (his words) is soft. Soft, when it comes to the truth of sin, is not good. And, it’s not grace.

Those of you who have read my blog for any length of time will understand that I am a big fan of God’s grace — His unmerited favor toward sinners. The title of my blog, “From Law to Grace,” reflects my personal experience as a sinner (no, not just because I was a lawyer) who was transformed by God’s grace and who, because of that amazing grace, was transferred from practicing law to preaching grace. However, God’s grace has not abolished the Moral Law (or Truth) of God’s commandments, including His commandments dealing with sexual sin. Therefore, we are not at liberty to downplay or discount that which the Bible clearly labels as sin. And, based upon Andy Stanley’s detailed (including graphics) illustration, I am confused at best as to what he believes about homosexuality within the church, one of three areas he said his church struggles with the tension between grace and truth.

In illustrating one of these areas, he shared the story of a couple in his church who went through a painful divorce 5 1/2 years ago. This particular divorce involved adultery by the husband. However, it was not just any adultery, but adultery with another man. This (among other reasons to be sure) precipitated the divorce. After some time away, the ex-husband and his male partner started attending North Point, but the ex-wife was still mad at the whole situation (you don’t say) and did not want her ex-husband and his gay lover attending the same church as she and her daughter. In so many words, she told them to find another church in Atlanta to attend.

As the story goes, the gay couple started attending the Buckhead campus, which was closer to their home. Their first Sunday at the satellite campus of North Point was “Strategic Service Sunday,” wherein the church recruited people to volunteer to serve. Responding to this vision to serve in ministry, the couple — who were living an open, homosexual lifestyle — signed up to be on the “Host Team,” one of North Point’s Guest Services’ Teams. Do you think that it would be a problem for an openly gay couple to serve on a Host Team for a church? If you answered yes, then you are correct. If you think you know WHAT the problem is that would prevent an openly gay couple from serving on one of North Point’s Guest Services’ Teams, then you are probably as dead wrong as I was.

You see, according to Andy Stanley’s high-tech, graphically supported illustration — which was obviously well-rehearsed and not some off-the-cuff, half-baked story — the problem with the gay couple serving was not that they were in an open, homosexual relationship that had already destroyed one marriage and family and was about to destroy another one. Nope. The problem was that the partner of the ex-husband was still married to his wife and, according to Stanley — and his illustration — he was therefore committing adultery which precluded him from serving. If he would only get divorced, then he could serve because he would no longer be in an adulterous relationship. He would still be in a homosexual relationship, but that apparently was fine and dandy as far as the Buckhead pastor and Andy Stanley were concerned.

After I picked my jaw up from the floor, I had to re-watch what Andy Stanley had just said to make sure that I was not missing something. I really wish I could say that I was making this up, but I am sad to say that I am not. I would encourage you to watch the message for yourself (click here and then click on Part 5 of the sermon series — the illustration starts at about the 24:17 mark) and draw your own conclusions.

I fully understand that there will always be a tension between grace and truth. However, we are commanded in Scripture to speak the truth in love and to make sure “our speech is always gracious, seasoned with salt (i.e., the truth), so that we may know how we ought to answer each person.” After watching this message, I am confused as to how Andy Stanley would answer someone who is struggling with the sin of homosexuality. Stanley is a master communicator and I can’t help but think that his illustration was designed to communicate a particular belief about how the Church should apply grace and truth as it relates to the issue of homosexuality (although he went to great lengths to avoid mentioning homosexuality at all in his illustration). Jesus is full of “grace and truth.” When the issues are blurry, we can afford to err on the side of grace. When the issues are clear — and homosexuality is one of those issues – then we cannot afford to sacrifice truth for grace. If we do, the landing will be anything but soft!

Who could even imagine 15 years ago that a website would not only offer a bounty to prove someone’s immorality, but that this same website (which I will not link to) — itself a purveyor of immorality – proudly boasts that it is the “most recognized name in infidelity.” Regardless of one’s opinion of Tim Tebow and regardless of whether or not one believes that the Ten Commandments (including the prohibition against adultery) is true, there should be a general revulsion at the Madison bounty. You don’t even have to go all Pat Robertson — talking about “God’s punishment of the wicked,” – but if there was ever a reason for God’s righteous judgment, it would be for such evil and despicable schemes as the proprietors of Ashley Madison have unveiled.

Why should we be surprised, though, at the reprehensible actions of a website which promotes adultery? This is simply par for the course in our sex-saturated culture. I’m quite sure that Ashley Madison’s founder, Noel Biderman, is so warped in his moral view that he cannot even distinguish good from evil. According to Scripture, that’s not an enviable position for Biderman (or anyone else) to be in:

Woe to  those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20, ESV)

When committing adultery is considered good and remaining a virgin until marriage is considered bad and, when killing an unborn baby is considered good and giving birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby is considered bad, we have lurched precipitously closer to the moral abyss. How has our culture become so enamored with the dark and so embittered against the light? Has our culture become so debased that people would cheer, not just for Tim Tebow’s defeat on the football field (which is legitimate and understandable), but would also cheer his moral defeat as well? What does that say about individuals who would take pleasure in the moral failings of others?

Before you answer that question, put yourself in the shoes of Tim Tebow – the man, not the football player. Better yet, imagine Tim Tebow as your son, grandson, brother, or best friend. If people started actively rooting for you or someone you know to fall flat on their face – morally speaking – how would you feel? If someone was betting for your marriage to fail or for your son to mess up his life by getting hooked on drugs, would you view that as morally neutral or as morally repugnant? Would you simply laugh it off, not paying attention to the pleasure that others would have in your demise?

These are questions that we cannot ignore, particularly if we want America to avoid the moral abyss. In the end, this is not really about Tim Tebow. It is about our culture and the culture that we will leave our children and grandchildren. Most folks will either choose to ignore Ashley Madison’s vulgar bounty. Many will be tempted to ridicule Tim Tebow’s virginity. Some will defend Ashley Madison. That’s all well and good, but at the end of the day, “all that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.”  Too many good men and women have remained silent in the face of evil. When that happens, the moral adulterers of the world win. And, that’s not gonna be good for anybody! Let your voices be heard!

“This conference, announced with such fanfare, may well prove to be the undoing of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  I have no doubt that other sexual ethics topics will be addressed, but homosexuality will be THE topic which garners the most dialogue and discussion.” (CBF, Sexual Ethics & Muddled Baptists, June 1, 2011)

I wish I could say that I was wrong when I wrote the above statement last June. But, if Baptist Press’ reporting is any indication, those words proved all-too prescient. In a BP article entitled, “Gay issue major theme of CBF sponsored conf,” the opening paragraph sums up what was a far-too easy prediction:

Despite conference organizers’ best attempts to keep the Baptist Conference on Sexuality & Covenant focused on broader issues April 19-21, the conversation often centered on the topic of homosexuality.

In many ways, Moderate Baptists — including those who separated from the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990′s to form the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship — have been following a different path than their more conservative theological brethren. In no area is the divergent road seen more clearly than in the realm of sexual ethics, namely homosexuality. In the aftermath of this recent conference, co-sponsored by the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University and the CBF, it is becoming clearer that some Moderate Baptists would love to drive down the theological road which fully embraces homosexuality as compatible with a Biblical, Christian ethic. That one of these Moderate Baptists is the man who taught my wife and I Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid-1990′s makes this post all the more difficult to write.

In “Moderate Baptists: The Road Less Traveled,” a post that was published on August 4, 2010, I wrote this about Dr. David Gushee:

We can only speak from our own experience, but neither of us ever heard Dr. Gushee say anything that could have been construed as anything other than theologically conservative.  Dr. Gushee was (and I assume still is) a kind and thoughtful Christian educator who loves the Lord and loves his students. I do not presume to know how Dr. Gushee has arrived at the place where he is on his spiritual pilgrimage, but his writings today reflect the view of a different kind of Baptist.  Certainly different from what he taught in his Ethics classes at Southern.  Perhaps different from what he taught at Union University, serving under Dr. David Dockery, my former Theology Professor at Southern.  I do not begrudge Dr. Gushee or anyone else from choosing to follow the moderate Baptist road, but we need to understand where this road leads, both doctrinally and practically.

In that post, I took issue with Dr. Gushee’s characterization that an ordination service  — officiated by a female pastor and two female associate pastors, wherein the ordination candidate was also female — was “a classic ordination” and “very traditional.” I believe that the Bible teaches that the church offices of Pastor and Deacon are to be filled by only those who meet specific qualifications as set forth in Scripture. One of those qualifications, which, in my opinion, has not been nullified, is that candidates for these two offices be men. I am fully aware that there are women who have served or are currently serving as Pastors of Baptist churches. While some view Baptist churches with women pastors as so “heretical” that these churches have to be immediately disfellowshipped from associations without extending grace or due process, I do not choose to view it that way. I may disagree with a church who has called a woman as Pastor, but it certainly does not rise to the level of heresy for those churches which have called openly gay clergy to serve as Pastors.

Which leads us down the road less traveled with our Moderate Baptist brethren. In my earlier post, I shared another prediction that seems to be coming true:

However, far too often, it seems, the moderate road leads to more and more dangerous, and in some cases, heretical views.  First, women pastors.  Next, a struggle over practicing homosexuals as members of the church.

For all intents and purposes, it would appear that the “struggle” is over in the CBF. There maybe a few leaders and a few prominent churches who still hold to a Biblically conservative sexual ethic when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, but many Moderate Baptists are headed for the precipice over the full inclusion of practicing gay, lesbian, and transgendered folk within the Church. Singing the old hymn, “Just As I Am,” takes on a more literal meaning in affirming churches. There is apparently nothing to change in regards to sexual behavior outside of a husband (man) and wife (woman) marital relationship because Jesus will accept you just as you are. This would certainly seem to contradict 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 where the Apostle Paul reveals that those within the Corinthian church who had engaged in certain sinful behavior — among which was homosexuality — had been cleansed and washed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

How have Moderate Baptists, including my former Ethics Professor, Dr. Gushee, gotten to the point where they either fail to speak clearly that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore incompatible with a Biblical Christian ethic or actually embrace the gay lifestyle as fully compatible with a Biblical Christian Ethic? The short answer is that they allow experience, biology, genetics, sociology, psychology, and a whole host of other “sciences” to radically reinterpret Scripture. How else to explain Dr. Gushee’s use of “covenant language” to broker an understanding of how homosexuality fits within a Christian sexual ethic? Said Gushee:

“I have thought from the beginning that the very important thing we could talk about would be the issue of covenant. I believe that covenant is a, if not the, single best way that has emerged in the Christian theological ethic-ecclesial tradition to talk about what we are supposed to with our sexuality, and for that matter, our relationality.”

I would agree that marriage is a covenant that a man and a woman enters into in the presence of God and assembled witnesses. Marriage is more than a contract. It is a covenant obligation that God intends to last for life — “until death do us part.” However, one cannot simply use the concept of “covenant” to allow for any and all types of “committed relationships,” particularly if you are talking about sexual relationships outside of the Biblical mandate of “one man and one woman” (at one time). That only one speaker at this CBF-sponsored conference was willing to espouse a Biblical view of marriage and sexual ethics during the discussions on homosexuality is disturbing. But, even more disturbing is the lack of clarity by Dr. Gushee when it comes to who is eligible to enter into “covenant relationships.” Dr. Gushee was unwilling to state any clearly defined boundaries:

Gushee, though, stopped short of addressing who ought to be eligible for entry into such covenants and encouraged attendees to embrace the concept of “covenant” before it disappears. “I don’t think our main issue is the fierce and tedious fighting on the boundaries about which categories of people ought to be viewed as eligible to make covenants.”

What “fierce and tedious fighting on the boundaries” is Dr. Gushee speaking? Does he mean the tedious fighting over the legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage? Does he mean the fierce attacks of the radical homosexual lobby against churches who believe in traditional (i.e., “Biblical”) marriage between one man and one woman? Of course the main issue is who should be viewed as eligible to make covenants, particularly the covenant of marriage.

That a Baptist Ethics Professor — one who has taught at Southern Seminary, Union University, and now at Mercer, a former Baptist university — would be unable or unwilling to address “who ought to be eligible for entry into such covenants” gives us a pretty good indication of where on the less traveled road some of our Moderate Baptist brethren are. It’s not looking good. The question remains will any Moderate Baptists jump out of the car before it goes over the cliff and crashes on the rocks of heresy below? If this latest conference is any indication, I would predict a solid “NO” on that one.