A Tale of Two Baptists (Part 1)
Recently, two articles were posted concerning Baptists. On May 24 Monica Hesse posted the article, "How a southern Baptist Minister Came to Lead an LGBTQ-Affirming Church." On June 17, Tom Wade posted reasons which explain why he is no longer a member of the Baptist Church—because he compared its teachings with the Scriptures. These two posts explain why two people left the Baptist Church; the latter one was due to what the Bible teaches; the first one—although several pages long—never referenced a Scripture. It may prove beneficial to analyze both of them, beginning with the earlier of the two.
LGBTQ
The LGBTQ article follows the career of "Danny" Cortez, who first acknowledged in a sermon that he was questioning Baptist theology on homosexuality. He claimed to love the Baptist Church, and he was trained in their teachings, but he was rethinking that subject. He said he had "grown weary" of advising homosexuals that if they wanted to be Baptists, they had to quit practicing homosexuality or live a celibate life.
Does growing "weary" sound like a Scriptural reason for changing one's mind. Does anyone suppose that Jeremiah did not grow weary of admonishing the Israelites against their idolatrous practices? Why didn't he just give up and tell them idolatry was okay? How about Ezra? Did he grow weary of separating the Israelite men from the women they had no right to marry (Ezra 10)? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply allow those families (yes, some had children) to continue?
Perhaps, someone should have told Danny, "If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small" (Pr. 24:10). Apparently, Danny's weariness is a higher authority (to him) than the Word of God. It becomes plain that Danny lacks respect for what the Baptists teach; he thinks he is strong enough to reject what the Bible teaches, also.
He exhorted his congregation to become a "third way" church. That sounds clever; what does it mean? The basic concept is to agree to disagree. That way those who think the Bible opposes homosexuality would co-exist with actual practitioners of the sin. Does this third way sound like a brilliant solution? In reality, it is ridiculous. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad" (Matt. 12:30).
The Lord did not afterward add, "Oh, wait. I forgot. There is a third way; we can just pretend that no problem exists." It is hard to envision Jesus being so wishy-washy. Imagine if He had answered His critics that way in John 8. "Why don't we just agree to disagree on adultery? Some can choose marital purity, but we don't want to exclude those who live differently."
How can anyone think that sinful behavior can co-exist with those trying to live holy lives? After the Law of Moses was given, a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. God's judgment was that he should be stoned. Why not just have stick gatherers in the congregation alongside of those who refused to work on the Sabbath day? And why not have one group of blasphemers in the same congregation (Lev. 24:11-16)? It would be the Church of the Third Way. Both sides just agree not to talk about it.
Originally, Danny became a religious leader because "he wanted to help people go to heaven," which seems reasonable (although now he is helping them to run headlong into the opposite location; notice that there is no third neutral place). He believed at the time that God could change and transform people, which agrees with Romans 12:1-2, where Paul even commands transformation.
But none of the homosexuals Danny knew had ever made the switch. So the Scriptures must be wrong! That would include what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Some of them had been homosexuals, but now they had given up that sin. Notice that Paul writes: "And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of out God" (1 Cor. 6:11). The church did not permit homosexuality to exist within it, and no one fantasized about a third way.
Is it difficult to give up the sin? Most likely. It is extremely difficult for a drunkard to give up alcohol, also, but some in Corinth did that, too (v. 10), as did adulterers. Giving up stealing is probably hard for a covetous man. People become attached to their sins, but they can give them up, they can be forgiven, and they can be transformed. If Danny wants to think otherwise, he is free to, but he is wrong and opposes the Scriptures.
Danny's "friend" offered up a flawed parallel. She asked him if there was any way possible to make him fall in love with another man. Was there any way she could convince Danny with arguments or treatments to change his view of sexuality. Of course, Danny said no. The point was that homosexuals can't be changed, either. First, notice that this argument is not based on Scriptures. Second, the two perspectives are not equal. One of the reasons that a heterosexual cannot change is that he knows that homosexuality transgresses the will of God. If God authorized both outlooks, then one could freely switch to the other.
Another homosexual friend bemoaned to Danny "how much pain conservative Christianity had caused him and his friends." If only he realized they are trying to reach him so that he will not need to endure pain for eternity! Whatever pain he has endured at this point is negligible compared to the torment of eternal fire!
Danny apologized for what the church had done to him; he claims that this was a holy moment. No. It was a moment of calling light darkness and darkness light (Isa. 5:20). No genuine holiness is ever involved when one condones sin. Danny started out wanting to help people go to heaven, but he is cheering them on to torment. Not that he would have saved them with Baptist theology. By the way, why didn't he teach them that if they were saved, they could not lose salvation? So, they could have sinned with impunity. Oh, that's right. Homosexuals refuse to admit that they are sinning.
What About the Scriptures?
So what did Danny do with all the Scriptures that condemn homosexuality? Why, he simply explained them away. He studied history, and guess what he found out? Why, we don't understand correctly those Bible passages. Who would have thunk it? He decided that some verses were condemning "predatory relationships" and "abuse." Really? Which passages are those? Oh, yes, and some things are "lost in translation." Such as?
Moses told Israel, "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). Notice that this is not an instance of abuse or one man preying upon the other. Both of them have agreed to the sin; both have committed abomination. Both are responsible; their blood is upon them both. Homosexuality, period, is a sin.
Romans 1 teaches the same thing. Men left women and lusted for other men. They changed, didn't they? The women did likewise (Rom. 1:26-27). By the way, when they made these changes, they refused to retain God in their knowledge (v. 28). Just like Danny's friends. None of these involve the use of force; neither is any kind of abuse involved. None of the major translations are wrong in the way they have rendered these verses.
As it pertains to the Scriptures, the word fornication (from the Greek porneia) includes every kind of inappropriate sexual behavior. In Jude 7, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are described as having "given themselves over to sexual immorality" (ekporneia). The addition of the preposition intensifies the sin. Those men are set forth as an example, "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Another argument lacking Scriptural merit is set forth in a scene between Danny and his son. The song, "Same Love," came on the radio, Danny admitted that he liked it. When his son was certain that his father understood the meaning of the words, he was emboldened to admit his own homosexuality. Danny told him that he was "perfect, and he was beautiful just the way he was." The fact is his son is neither perfect nor beautiful. Neither is he acceptable to God, according to the Word.
And speaking of the Holy Scriptures, the song, "Same Love," attacks them. We should not be surprised when the profane attacks the sacred (John 3:19-20).
The right-wing conservatives think it's a decision,
And you can be cured with some treatment and religion.
Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition,
playing God. Ahh, nah, here we go.
America the brave still fears what we don't know,
And "God loves all his children" is somehow forgotten,
But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago.
Punctuation is added above because lyricists apparently do not ever study grammar. Someone named Macklemore, along with Ryan Lewis, performed this song, which hit #1 in Australia—but only #11 here. Notice the hostility, as well as the stereotypes. Right-wing conservatives think it's a decision. How about that? Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Jude were right-wing conservatives. Who knew?
This duo affirms that homosexuality cannot be cured by treatment or religion, but the fact is that they were cured or became celibate for the kingdom's sake in the first century (Matt. 15:18-20; 19:9-12; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Some have been rewired just as some have quit drinking alcoholic beverages. No one is playing God, but God has spoken on the subject.
Nobody "fears" homosexuality, but it is the case that they do not procreate; thus, they grow by influence. We don't fear adulterers, but what they do is wrong. Do we fear child molesters? We know that they can cause a great deal of damage. But all of these violate God's will.
Nobody has forgotten that God loves all His children, but He requires us—all of us—to give up sin. Jesus said that if we fail to repent, we shall all perish (Luke 13:3; cf. Acts 17:30-31). God's love makes salvation available to us, but if the gospel (which includes repentance) is spurned, it will not prevent God from casting us into the Lake of Fire.
We do not paraphrase the Bible; we quote it exactly, which is what some homosexuals despise. It's too plain. Some of it was written 3,500 years ago; Paul wrote only about 2,000 years ago. Would Macklemore and Lewis give it more weight if it were written last week? No, for then it would be too recent and untested. So, to whom are we to listen, the Word of God which has been validated by fulfilled prophecy and miracles or a hip/hop duo? Hmm.
The Southern Baptist Convention (to their credit) voted to expel Danny's church by a tally of 83-0. They responded by appointing a female "pastor," which is also against the rules. When a person or group departs from the Scriptures in one area, it usually does not take long to disrespect them in various other areas. One qualification of a pastor is to be the husband of one wife, "having his children in submission with all reverence" (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Women cannot meet that requirement.
Danny is now part of an LGBTQ congregation, which means they not only accept it but push homosexuality. They go so far as to cover the communion table with a Homosexual Pride flag, which is nothing less than blasphemy. There would be little difference between this and putting a witch's broomstick on the table. Moses gave orders concerning witches, too: "Thou shalt not suffer a which to live" (Ex. 22:18, KJV). Such desecration reminds one of Antiochus IV Epiphanes offering a sow on the Jewish altar. The temple had to be thoroughly cleansed after such a contemptuous stunt. This church has invited the wrath of God upon themselves; they are more than worthy to receive it. The idea of exalting an abomination such as homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) over the Lord's precious blood is repugnant, disgusting, and despicable (concluded on page 4).
The author of this article about Danny laments that the Southern Baptist Convention still includes homosexuality as a kind of "sexual immorality." The reason for that might possibly be because it is the truth. She considers that "refusing to evolve." First of all, evolution is a theory—not a fact; second, giving up holiness for corruption is not an improvement. Would she consider it evolving if we quit putting child molesters and rapists behind bars? Only God has the right to define sin, and Monica Hess is not Him.
At the close of the article, she affirms that "forward" and "backward" in relationship to God do not exist, but one can draw closer to God. No. Wherever God is, one can go forward to Him or backward away from Him. Those who attempt to justify sin are neither going forward or closer to Him. Rejecting His will puts one further away from Him. That's the reason it is called backsliding (Jer. 3:6, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 22). Perhaps critics of the Bible would know these things if they ever bothered to read it instead of going by what feels good to them (Pr. 28:26).