They say Doug Wilson is racist, but he proves that the shoe probably fits on the other’s foot better than on his.

Beginning with Margaret Sanger’s contempt for “human weeds,” the pro-abort contingent has waged an unrelenting and very clever war on the black future. They have been very successful in this because of the radical abdication of black men. These black men have abandoned their children, and they must be called to repentance. What they are doing is twisted, demented. Sin always is.

Black skin is a gift of God, a gift that only God can give. When He gives it, as He is beginning to give it in the womb, that gift should be honored and protected. It should be honored and protected, in the first instance, by the black father of that child. But a black father will not and cannot do this if he has a black heart. He cannot do it if he pimps out his women, and places his black legacy to be slain on the Altar of Eight Thrusts. As we stare at this ad, flummoxed at the blindness, we have to remember that only God can give a black skin, and only God can take away a black heart. He will do that when someone summons up the courage to preach the gospel to black men.

By the way, before the usual suspects start to yell about my different uses of “black” in the previous paragraph, alleging my racism with loud screeches — as is their custom — I will simply point out that English uses the word black as a term of condemnation (e.g. blackguard, black heart) and honor both (e.g. Black Watch, Black & Tan). So if you want, go right ahead. Yell about etymological racism if you like. Go through the roof with it whenever some Republican tool tries to save Medicare through minor adjustments of the payouts. In the meantime, some people have noticed how many millions of our black children you have slaughtered, and we have noticed the quisling fathers.

A God-Centered Sexual Ethic
1Corinthians 6:9-20

Intro: Remember that Corinth was afflicted with the love of philosophy and rhetoric. They wanted that which sounded good and seemed wise. It didn’t matter whether or not it was right, they just liked fine sounding and wise sounding things. (Cf. Acts 17:21 They spent their time either hearing or telling new things. Beware the itch for new things when the old will suffice.) Their pride led to division. Now, remember that James told us that envy and strife are accompanied by every evil work (James 3:16). It is no wonder, then, that Paul had to rebuke the Corinthians for the approval of a church member committing incest (1Corinthians 5:1-13). A proud and envious person who is striving with others is never satisfied, and that person is very likely to seek out his satisfaction in any place and manner that he can find it, except in God.

It is in this context that Paul establishes a God-Centered sexual ethic.

1. The Relationship Between Worship And Sex :9-11

They were once sexually immoral, but God has forgiven them and cleansed them of these things. The gospel of Christ is a message of sacrifice of self as well as good news that God gives us that which is better. Having cleansed them of their sins, God has given them Himself.

That being said, immorality is idolatry. Note the downward spiral of sin in Romans 1:18-17. The worship of the Creator is traded for the worship of the creature and carnal passions. It is not that the carnal passions are wrong, but outside of the context of worship of God, they are filthy and immoral, and they lead to that which is unnatural in the pursuit of pleasure and satisfaction. One only need observe the glorification of sex and the objectification of people in our nation to recognize that immoral sex is an act of misdirected worship.

True worship leads to monogamous, heterosexual pleasure. Note that the mandate given to Adam and Eve was not only to take dominion, but first to be fruitful and multiply. This mandate is about imaging forth God. It is about worshiping our Creator and showing His greatness through the way that we live. Being fruitful means having sex and raising children. Note also that there is pleasure associated with it, because Moses said that the man and woman were to cleave to each other, and that they were naked and not ashamed (Genesis 2:24-25). Man and woman were to enjoy their union, and they were unashamed in their union.

Later, Solomon wrote and exhorted his son to rejoice with his wife (Proverbs 5:18-19). Note that he was not instructed to rejoice in his wife, but with his wife. That is, he was told that he and his wife were to together find joy. That joy will first be in God, and then in each other. In other words, the joy that Solomon’s son was to have with his wife was the joy of worshiping Christ through expressing their love for God by loving each other.

This should be not be surprising to us, because husbands are told to have a God-Centered love for their wives- a gospel-motivated love. We are to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25-33). This love is certainly a sacrificial love, but it is also a love that seeks to nurture, protect, and give joy to one’s wife. This includes giving emotional support and sexual pleasure.

Included in the issue of sex and worship is the issue of sexual flirtation and lust. They are both wrong. Jesus told us as much in Matthew 5:27-30 as He warned us against lust and the fact that it will lead to sin which could damn our souls.

2. Make Love As Worshipers Who Understand That God Has A Plan For The Body :12-14

Paul is probably repeating a statement that they made as an excuse for their sexual improprieties: “We are not under the law, so all things are lawful for me”. Paul says that, all things may be lawful, but not everything is helpful, and we are not to be brought under the power and dominion of anything. Only helpful things are truly lawful, and nothing should be lord of our lives other than Jesus Christ.

In saying this, Paul is still relating sexual morality to the gospel. We are not the servants of sin, but the servants of righteousness (Romans 6:17,22), and have been changed from being people dominated by sin (1Corinthians 6:9-11). With this in mind, we should not let sex rule our minds, hearts, and actions. Only Jesus should have that sort of power over our lives.

In verses 13-14, Paul anticipates their arguing that, since we have appetites for food and a stomach for food, that we should also be able to use our sexual appetites and organs to satisfy ourselves. Paul states that God is indeed in favor of our enjoying sex- the body is “for the Lord, and the Lord for the body”. God is not against fleshly pleasures, but He expects us to enjoy fleshly pleasures within the context in which He has created them to be experienced and enjoyed. Note how Paul is no prude at all, but he states that God is in favor of our pleasure. He doesn’t speak only about the negative aspect, but tells us where true pleasure is to be found- under the Lordship of Christ and as worshipers of Him.

To show just how much God is for our bodies, Paul states that the resurrection is proof that God is in favor of the body. Just as He raised up Jesus, He will raise us up from the dead (Cf. Romans 8:11). God is in favor of the body and fleshly pleasure! The body is the Lord’s, and is to be used in worship of Him.

3. Make Love As Worshipers Who Understand That Their Bodies Belong To Jesus :15-20

Our bodies are joined to Christ. Not only are we in Christ (See 2Corinthians 5:17), but we are part of the body of Christ (1Corinthians 12:13). This means that there is a union between us and Christ. We are not physically joined to Christ, but we are spiritually joined to Christ. Our bodies are made and redeemed so that we would give spiritual worship to Christ. That is why physical sin is not merely physical, but a matter of worship, as we have already seen.

When one is sexually joined to another, there is a one flesh union. This is not the same as marriage, which includes a lifetime commitment, but it is still a matter of two bodies joined as one. Being joined to Christ in a spiritual union, those who take the bodies which belong to Christ and commit sexual sin are actually dishonoring Christ. He is dishonored, not only because of our misusing His members; but, our members, being His members, means that we involve Him in our sin, in a sense. Those bodies which represent Christ here on earth surely are misrepresenting Him when involved with a harlot. Not only so, but the fact of most prostitution occurring at idolatrous temples meant that Paul was working hard to help the Corinthians to see that they were to fully leave idolatry.

Not only is sexual sin a sin against Christ, but it is sin against one’s own body, Paul says. John MacArthur says, “No sin has greater potential to destroy the body.” While other sins are apart from the body in that their effects are most often toward others more than toward ourselves, fornication is a sin against (Greek eis= into) that radically affects our bodies. The intimacy brought about by being joined to another is more than physical. It is an emotional intimacy. The damage that can be done to our bodies is indeed physical, and that of such a degree that it can kill us (See Proverbs 5:11,21-23;6:26-35;7:22-27) and condemn us, and that is an extremely emotional thing. In other words, all other sins do not have such a radical effect both immediately and in the hereafter as fornication, and especially that which is connected with idolatrous worship.

But, to take the issue of fornication being a sin into/against one’s body further, we must understand that our bodies are temples. We are desecrating the temple of the Holy Spirit. We remember that God does not take kindly to folks disrespecting His temple (See Leviticus 10:1-3;2Chronicles 26:16-23). No longer do we go to the temple to worship, but we are the temple. We sin into/against our own bodies because we desecrate the very holy of holies. Paul intends to shock (And I’m sure that he does so.) the Corinthians by making fornication analogous to having sex in the holiest place in the temple. In other words, fornication is sacrilege against our own bodies, the temples of God.

Not only so, but we are temples of the Holy Spirit because we have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The gospel truth is that Christ died to make us holy unto Himself (cf 1Corinthians 6:9-11;Ephesians 1:3-7;Titus 2:11-14). A God-Centered sexual ethic remembers that Jesus died to purchase us so that we could/would worship Him and find joy in Him more than in any other passion.

How do we glorify God in our body and in our spirit? We do so by seeking our joy first in Him, then by sharing our joy in Christ by showing Christian love in our sexual activities. We show love in that respect in two manners: 1. by refraining from sexual sin which is theft (1Thessalonians 4:1-8). We steal by taking that which is not our own- it is not our own because we are not married to the person, and it is not our own, because it is not ours to give to one who is not our spouse. 2. by passionately pursuing Christ and showing our joy in Christ to our spouse by being faithful to them as Christ is faithful to us. Not only so, but that love seeks to encourage the joy of our spouse just as Christ came that our joy might be full (John 15:11).

This is by no means an exhaustive study and exposition of the passage that is before us. Neither is it an exhaustive study of biblical sexual morality. I trust, however, that God will use this study to help us to understand where true joy is found (in Christ alone), and to lead us into the experience and sharing of that joy as we commit ourselves to enjoying God in the marriage bed. “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled…” (Hebrews 13:4)

There’s been a firestorm lately regarding the words of Pastor Charles Worley of Maiden, NC. Pastor Worley quite intemperately stated that the solution to the issue of homosexuality and homosexual marriage (He spoke from the pulpit in response to President Obama’s endorsement of the legalization of homosexual marriage.) would be to incarcerate all homosexuals behind an electric fence and drop food to them until they died out.

I’ll not link to any posts that take sides on the issue excepting one: Denny Burk makes the following statement in a post entitled Justified Censure Of A Reckless Pastor.

This pastor’s words are abominable and deserve condemnation and censure from all Christians. This is the kind of thing that props up caricatures of Christians and which harms the progress of the gospel. Anyone who would talk like this in a sermon is not qualified to be a pastor.

 

Granted, Pastor Worley spoke intemperately. I shall also grant, however, that Pastor Worley is not necessarily disqualified from the pastorate based upon this one set of actions. It is possible that he finds that he erred by not presenting the sin of homosexuality in light of the love of God. It is possible that he repents. I tend to think that any of us could speak intemperately from time to time. The question that determines his qualifications is more one of whether this is a pattern of behavior with him, and whether he repents of speaking intemperately and hastily.

The qualifications of Pastor Worley are not the intent of this post. What is the aim of this post is a connection between Worley, Burks, and a post from Russell D. Moore regarding the Catacombs and Christians.

Burk stated,

The video is picking up a good head of steam on the internet, and a lot of people are starting to pay attention to it and to make judgments about Christianity. Countless news organizations are pushing the video with the implication that this is how Christians in general feel about homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth… This is the kind of thing that props up caricatures of Christians and which harms the progress of the gospel.

Moore comments about the Christians from the days of Constantine and following:

the catacombs and the cathedrals both remind us of two things: God’s sovereignty in sending down the faith, and the frailty of humanity as stewards of that faith. We can’t romanticize the early persecuted church…

If we only see the catacombs, we could valorize smallness and persecution as, in and of themselves, equivalent to holiness. And we could ignore our responsibility to, as much as possible with us, protect future generations from persecution. If we only see the cathedrals (whether of the ancient sort or of the local suburban megachurch), we could tend to identify godliness with bigness, and authority with “influence.”

Notice that Burk is concerned (and rightly so) that Worley’s words may/will hinder the spread of the Gospel and be used to prop up misrepresentations of Christians.

Moore is concerned (though not addressing Worley at all) that we remember the Christians of the Catacombs and remember our responsibility to protect future generations of Christians from persecution.

As far as I know neither Burk, Moore, nor I believe the homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God. I do not think that we shall bend on that issue. This is not about hiding our candles under baskets in order to escape ridicule and persecution. Not at all. Neither is this post about compromising on morality and Christian truth.

This post is a call for Christians needing to be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. We need to use wisdom in our speech and give no reason to the haters of Christianity to blaspheme and call for the eradication of religion. The careless words of Pastor Worley do much worse than insinuate that he harbors a strong antipathy to homosexuals, they endanger future generations of Christians by helping perpetuate the idea that Christians are haters who are violent and  a danger to society.

Pastor Worley is not living up to his responsibility to live wisely so as to “protect future generations from persecution”. Perhaps, instead of being called upon to step down from the pastorate, he should be rebuked for reckless endangerment of future generations.

It seems that rational discourse is dead in our day. Instead of trying to compete in the world of ideas, it is becoming more and more common to simply go on the attack in an attempt to silence those with whom a person disagrees.

That is the case in the attack on Vision Forum. Now, however you may disagree with Doug Phillips and the folks at VF, understand that this attack is dishonest and vile.

I can assure you that, if I knew how, I would not do this to an atheist.

Today, in the early hours of May 17, Vision Forum began to receive the first in an ongoing and unprecedented attack to neutralize our website. The attack coincided with what appears to be a concerted and ongoing effort from within the atheist and homosexual community to manipulate an online poll to VF readers, and transform the VF Facebook page into a forum for homosexuals and opponents of Christianity to mock Christianity. The attack successfully curtailed our ability to make some products available to customers today, successfully undermined the integrity of an online poll, and was successful in placing profanities, blasphemies and offensive content on our Facebook page.

Here is the story as we presently understand it:

Vision Forum is a ministry dedicated to the defense of the Christian family. We believe that God alone has the right to define marriage and it is intended to be between a man and a woman. Over the course of the last week Vision Forum has been posting articles expressing our opposition to President Obama’s declaration in favor of same-sex marriage. We have pointed out the anti-Christian and unbiblical nature of the president’s support of homosexual marriage. We have pointed out that his declaration promotes an agenda which is inconsistent with the historic statutory and common law foundations of Western law which are rooted in Christianity. We have also pointed out that the president has unleashed a nationwide campaign of scoffing at Christianity and the biblical definition of marriage.

Yesterday, we launched a poll through Doug’s Blog which asked the question: Do you support President Obama’s declaration favoring same sex marriage?

As of midnight last night there were just under 1600 votes, approximately 90% of which expressed disapproval for the president’s support of homosexual “marriage.” By 7:00 in the morning, that number of votes had jumped to just under 25,000 voters and the demographic had switched to close to 90% of Vision Forum readers voting in favor of the president’s declaration. We realized that something fishy was going on for there to be a 2000% increase in pro-sodomite voting during the early hours of the morning.

The D-DOS Attack On Our Website

But something else was also afoot:

Around 3 AM CDT, Vision Forum began experiencing a Distributed Denial Of Service (D-DOS) attack on the Web site VisionForum.com. This type of attack uses large numbers of compromised computers, hundreds in this case, to send repeated requests to a Web site in an attempt to overload it. The result is that it can become very difficult, if not impossible, to use a website under such an attack.

If you were one of the hundreds of people who had problems loading the Vision Forum pages today, it is because of this D-DOS attack which coincided with the efforts of others to populate our Facebook page with inappropriate material, and to undermine the integrity of our poll.

What is Causing the Inflated Pro-Homosexual Results?

At the time of this writing the poll shows more than 50,000 voters, more than 47,000 of which support same sex marriage. The numbers are growing with almost exact frequency each minute and the proportionality of the votes have remained a general constant, at least since we have been tracking it first thing this morning.

Is this a case of the “people speaking”? Hardly!

Continued here.

Image via Wikipedia

Homily 4
Romans 1:26, 27
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.”
ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Now when he was discoursing of their doctrines, he put before them the world and man’s understanding, telling them that, by the judgment afforded them by God, they might through the things which are seen, have been led as by the hand to the Creator, and then by not willing to do so, they remained inexcusable. Here in the place of the world he sets the pleasure according to nature, which they would have enjoyed with more sense of security and greater glad-heartedness, and so have been far removed from shameful deeds. But they would not; whence they are quite out of the pale of pardon, and have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men. And here too the judgment of Paul is worthy of admiration, how having fallen upon two opposite matters he accomplishes them both with all exactness. For he wished both to speak chastely and to sting the hearer. Now both these things were not in his power to do, but one hindered the other. For if you speak chastely you shall not be able to bear hard upon the hearer. But if you are minded to touch him to the quick, you are forced to lay the naked facts before him in plain terms. But his discreet and holy soul was able to do both with exactness, and by naming nature has at once given additional force to his accusation, and also used this as a sort of veil, to keep the chasteness of his description. And next, having reproached the women first, he goes on to the men also, and says, “And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman.” Which is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another. And reflect too how significantly he uses his words. For he does not say that they were enamored of, and lusted after one another, but, “they burned in their lust one toward another.” You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endureth not to abide within its proper limits. For everything which transgresseth the laws by God appointed, lusteth after monstrous things and not those which be customary. For as many oftentimes having left the desire of food get to feed upon earth and small stones, and others being possessed by excessive thirst often long even for mire, thus these also ran into this ebullition of lawless love. But if you say, and whence came this intensity of lust? It was from the desertion of God: and whence is the desertion of God? from the lawlessness of them that left Him; “men with men working that which is unseemly.” Do not, he means, because you have heard that they burned, suppose that the evil was only in desire. For the greater part of it came of their luxuriousness, which also kindled into flame their lust. And this is why he did not say being swept along or being overtaken, an expression he uses elsewhere; but what? working. They made a business of the sin, and not only a business, but even one zealously followed up. And he called it not lust, but that which is unseemly, and that properly? For they both dishonored nature, and trampled on the laws. And see the great confusion which fell out on both side. For not only was the head turned downwards but the feet too were upwards, and they became enemies to themselves and to one another, bringing in a pernicious kind of strife, and one even more lawless than any civil war, and one rife in divisions, and of varied form. For they divided this into four new, and lawless kinds. Since (3 Mss. whence) this war was not twofold or threefold, but even fourfold. Consider then. It was meet, that the twain should he one, I mean the woman and the man. For “the twain,” it says, “shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24.) But this the desire of intercourse effected, and united the sexes to one another. This desire the devil having taken away, and having turned the course thereof into another fashion, he thus sundered the sexes from one another, and made the one to become two parts in opposition to the law of God. For it says, “the two shall be one flesh;” but he divided the one flesh into two: here then is one war. Again, these same two parts he provoked to war both against themselves and against one another. For even women again abused women, and not men only. And the men stood against one another, and against the female sex, as happens in a battle by night. You see a second and third war, and a fourth and fifth; there is also another, for beside what have been mentioned they also behaved lawlessly against nature itself. For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.

Philip Schaff, vol. 11, The Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

if Cisco or any other company wants to make it a requirement that every employee and vendor personally accept the behavior of homosexuality or homosexual political goals such as same-sex marriage, then tell us directly. Broadcast it to the world. Cisco can’t and won’t because such a requirement would be a clear violation of the religious protections codified in the Civil Rights Act, and it would result in a mass exodus of employees and customers.

Instead, they create an oppressive culture of political correctness under the false banner of “inclusion and diversity” to achieve the same ends. They tell the world that they value and encourage “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas” while they punish or intimidate into silence people who have “different perspectives, styles, thoughts, and ideas.” While Cisco executives would never admit this, their actions reveal this twisted truth: Cisco values homosexual behavior more than honesty, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

via Cisco Fires Marriage Defender Frank Turek – Latest Victim of Homosexual Intolerance » Americans for Truth.

This sort of tolerance in practically any other circumstance would be seen as the despicable and prejudicial discrimination that it truly is.

We don’t have to agree to get along.

Neither do we have to bow to public opinion to do a good job.

Cisco, and companies like them, will find themselves regretting these sorts of decisions in the future.  Good workers are hard to come by.  One day they’ll see that they need folks who are good workers, regardless of their views on hot button issues.

It seems that the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship International has before them a resolution on sexual abuse.

It is getting some interesting comments on Sharper Iron, with several of them being against it for various reasons.

There is also a blog that supports it, and a FaceBook page for supporters of it.  A “recovering fundamentalist” has an interesting take on the resolution.

These are good words.  In the end, the FBFI is not a legislative body, and these folks are still Independent Baptists.  The resolution has no teeth, as the FBFI can enforce nothing.  I also think that there is a sense in which it is too little, too late; especially when Chuck Phelps is slated to speak at the FBFI meeting.  This seems to be an attempt to save face.

The greatest resolution regarding abuse in the church is the resolution of a church and its leadership to follow Jesus with all of their hearts.  I think you know how the rest would work out…

Related articles

• The “Non-Networked” Network’s Resolution (iamarecoveringfundamentalist.wordpress.com)
• Schaap Responds to The 20/20 Coverage of Sexual Abuse And Coverups in IFB-dom. (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

For the life of me I cannot understand how a mythical Adam will not lead us to a mythical Jesus.

A mythical Adam and a mythical fall certainly would seem to lead to a myth of sin, damnation, judgment, and a mythical Jesus.

Just musing…

Image via Wikipedia

In my mind Historic Fundamentalism as a movement was a good thing.  Sure, there were probably excesses.  Human are normally people who go to extremes in almost everything they do.  The goal and the purpose seems to have been honorable, however.

What went wrong?

Why is fundamentalism now distrusted and maligned?

Why is “fundamentalist” synonymous with “extremist”?

One of the issues is the fact that separation became an issue.  Some decided that they would rather not separate from error, but dialogue with those in error in an attempt to win them over.   Personally, I don’t think this has as much to do with the demise of fundamentalism as a movement as the following issues do.

Fundamentalists began to retreat from culture.  Instead of engaging and transforming culture, fundamentalists began to isolate themselves.  They did so to such an extreme that Carl F. H. Henry wrote a book entitled “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”.  His contention was that the fundamentalists’ understanding of the Scriptures should have led them to social activism in a redemptive context.  They failed in that respect.

In their retreat from culture and their separation from those in error fundamentalists began to separate from one another over various non-fundamental issues (dress, hair, Bible translations, music, etc.).  They committed a sort of intellectual and spiritual incest by creating their own institutions of learning and actively resisted learning from evangelicals or anyone else, choosing to recycle their students by bringing them into their faculty.  (This is a generalization, but it is an observation from this writer’s experience.)  This led to further isolationism, a clannish spirit within fundamentalism, as well as a growing anti-intellectualism.

Here we are today with fundamentalists struggling to find their identity.  They wonder what a fundamentalist is.  What does he believe?  And, should we even care?

It is this preacher’s contention that it does matter, and that we should care.

It is for this reason that we have this blog.  We long to call people back to the fundamentals of the faith.  We long to help those who have been hurt by extremism.  We long to point out error for the sake of helping those who are in error.

We have been down the extremist route, but we are Fundamentally Changed, though we are Fundamentally The Same.  We are fundamentalists with a capital “F”.  We have not abandoned that.  We have abandoned legalism.  May we encourage you, dear reader, if you are in legalism, to do the same?

Related articles

• If You Wish to Speak Against Fundamentalists, Read Fundamentalists (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalist Hermeneutics (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalism and Hate (pastoralmusings.com)
• Historic Fundamentalism and Young Earth Creationism (pastoralmusings.com)
• Fundamentalism, Funeral Protests, and Koran Burnings (pastoralmusings.com)

 

Despite all the many other ways in which Southern Baptist churches cooperate, Southern Baptist officials have propounded the doctrine of local church autonomy as an excuse for denominational do-nothingness on clergy sex abuse. This religious rationalization rests on an island that is void of any moral ground. If Baptist churches cannot cooperate on a shared strategy to better protect children against clergy-predators, they lose moral credibility and they betray the very faith they profess.

via Associated Baptist Press – Opinion: John Jay report holds lessons for Baptists.

There is a legitimate complaint here.  Local church autonomy should certainly not be an obstacle to churches cooperating by at least having a process by which issues could be reported, investigated (with the cooperation of the local church), and at least the possibility of a database of proven offenders being provided for those interested.

Related articles

• The John Jay Report: Why the Woodstock Defense Won’t Do.. (thecatholicthing.org)
• The New John Jay Report on Clergy Abuse in the Catholic Church (psychologytoday.com)
• John Jay abuse report raises two big questions.. (osvdailytake.com)
• Bill Donohue: Abuse report’s failure to note role of homosexuality ‘unacceptable’ (catholicnewsagency.com)
• Child abuse tests how the church relates to the secular world | Catherine Pepinster (guardian.co.uk)
• NH Man Found Guilty of Rape of Tina Anderson (abcnews.go.com)