I believe there are several important issues that we will face next month at the Annual Meeting.

What do you consider to be the biggest?

A KINGDOM VIEW OF RACE AND MARRIAGE

What Mitt Romney and President Obama Believe

Matthew 19:4, Acts 17:26a

By

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

A Message to be delivered at the Cornerstone Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas, May 20, 2012

“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,” (Matthew 19:4)

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” (Acts 17:26a)

God’s universe centers around His Kingdom. At the heart of His Kingdom is His Dear Son. His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom. His Kingdom is to rule over all the earth. The Bible is the constitution of His Kingdom. Love is the language of His Kingdom. Faith is the currency in His Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is the governor and guide of His Kingdom. Citizens in His Kingdom are often called Christians, and their allegiance and loyalty are first and foremost—to God who sits on the throne; and His Son seated at His right hand; and His Spirit that is our intercessor on earth (Romans 8:26). The Kingdom of God is God’s total answer for man’s total needs. Righteousness is the precious commodity in His Kingdom and is to be sought after (Matthew 6:33). The first and foremost responsibility of a Kingdom citizen is to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

The Bible says in Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” If righteousness will exalt a nation, what will unrighteousness, disobedience and rebellion do? Unrighteousness will abase or devalue a nation.

The purpose of this message is to speak prophetically to our nation and to President Obama and Mitt Romney on the subjects of race, family and the Kingdom of God. The very foundation, fabric, future and the definition of the family—as we know it today—is at stake. Redefining the family and expanding the definition of a family is a very serious matter that should not be redefined or expanded without sound, solid, scientific, sane, scriptural or even common sense reasons to do so. America needs to understand and weigh the full ramifications and gravity of this situation.

I am equally as concerned about Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and what the Mormon “Bible” teaches about race. If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States of America, for the first time in American history, we will have elected a President that ascribes to a “Bible” that teaches that “blackness of skin” is a curse. That is a huge obstacle that he will have to overcome, if he expects “blackness” of skin people to take him serious as a Presidential candidate. The media made a big-to-do out of Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s views on race, while they completely ignore Mitt Romney’s “Bible” view on race. This is the height of duplicity and hypocrisy.

As it relates to the racial views of Mitt Romney’s Bible and the same-sex marriage views of President Obama, my thesis is simple. History, Natural Law and the Bible are all in disagreement with President Obama and Joe Biden’s view of same-sex marriage. The Bible, the Constitution of the United States and majority evangelical thought are in disagreement with Mitt Romney’s “Bible” regarding its belief on race and other topics too numerous to deal with within the allotted time. My goal in this message is to advance the Kingdom of God as opposed to advancing any political party, personality, or people group. What does the Bible teach on the subject of marriage and race? God made a male and female and joined them together for the purposes of procreation, recreation, unification and evangelization of their offspring; and from one blood, He made all nations of men (Matthew 19:4-6; Acts 17:26). Therefore, I want to articulate a Kingdom response to (1) Mitt Romney’s “Bible” views on race (2) President Obama’s views or same-sex marriage (3) and to discuss, how should Kingdom-citizens vote given these realities?

I.        Mitt Romney’s Mormon “Bible” View of Race vs. The Kingdom of God

1. The Word of God—the constitution of the Kingdom—teaches, “God is no respecter of Person” (Acts 10:34); He has taken “one blood” and made all nations of men (Acts 17:26); and all men should be respected and treated equally (Malachi 2:10).
2. In the Mormon religion, The Book of Mormon is equally as authoritative as the King James Version of the Bible. Recorded in The Book of Mormon in The Second Book of Nephi, 5:21 & 25, are revealing thoughts about the Mormon view of the origin of darker complexion people and their attitude toward them:

“5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

5:22 And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.”

1. We get a deeper insight into the Mormon view of race as recorded in one of their four “Bibles,” namely, The Pearl of Great Price, also written by Joseph Smith (A Selection from the Revelations, Translations and Narrations of Joseph Smith, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., 1968, The Book of Moses (7:8-12), page 20):

“8. For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”

1. Also recorded in The Pearl of Great Price in The Book of Abraham, 1:24, (page 31), is a summary thought related to darker complexioned people:

“24. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.”

Clearly these Mormon “Bible” verses teach that Black people are “cursed,” “loathsome,” “despised” justifiably and derived the “blackness” of their skin color as a result of a Divine curse. The view of Mitt Romney’s Bible on race leaves me most uncomfortable with him occupying the Office of President of the United States. I question how the evangelical White community can support a man whose “Bible” contains these racist, wrong and unbiblical views.

II.      The Obama/Biden View of Same-Sex Marriage vs. The Kingdom of God

1. Marriage has everything to do with The Kingdom of God. Jesus compared the Kingdom of heaven to a king who arranged a marriage for his son (Matthew 22:2). When a husband and wife come together and produce a child, the three reflect the trinity of the Trinitarian God who made them. God established marriage to populate His Kingdom and spread His name to the generations (Psalm 145:4) that would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:27-28).

In Malachi 2:15-16, God makes it clear that a primary purpose of marriage was to produce “godly offspring”. That’s why the Lord hates divorce—but not divorced people.

“¹⁵But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one?
He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

¹⁶ “For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”

How can a same-sex couple produce a “godly offspring”? They can’t! It is biologically impossible, because God never intended for two person of the same sex to marry! Adultery and fornication are also sin in the Kingdom of God. The Bible also calls adultery an abomination (Hebrews 13:4).

1. In the Kingdom of God Jesus declared that marriage was God’s idea—not Sasha and Malia Obama’s. God set the parameters on marriage. In Matthew 19:4, in response to a question by the Pharisees regarding marriage and divorce, Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female”? Marriage 101 is that marriage is comprised of a male and female. The Word of God should not take a backseat to contemporary culture. Contemporary culture must take a back seat to the Word of God. Kingdom citizens/Christians should not compromise on this issue.
2. The testimony of history supports marriage between a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage violates the constitution in the Kingdom of God.
3. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not supportive of homosexual relationships. In response to a boy who wrote Dr. King admitting to having an attraction to other boys, just as he also was attracted to girls; Dr. King had this to say:

“Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony Magazine when he received an unusual letter.

“I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”  (religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people) (Emphasis mine)

Dr. King’s view on this subject trumps all of the current so-call Black leaders, who unfortunately have abandoned the biblical position and bowed at the culture of political expediency and correctness. My posture will remain true to the word of God! In the words of the old Negro spiritual when it comes to approving of same-sex marriages—“I shall not, I shall not be moved; I shall not, I shall not be moved. Just like a tree planted by the waters, I shall not be moved.” God has called the church to be the moral guardians of society, to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

The church cannot be seduced by the government, but rather, speak truth to the government. Jesse Jackson, Otis Moss, Jr., Al Sharpton, Michael Dyson and Julian Bond all need to be placed in an intellectually dishonest debtors’ prison for comparing slavery to the practice of homosexuality. This is an insult to the slaves and the entire African American community. The suffering of the slaves is so far greater than anything that so called “same-gender loving” people have experienced; how can these men compare people who prefer their primary identification to be their libido, in the same sentence with persons who were enslaved because of their racial classification that they had absolutely no control over. Most homosexuals claim that they discovered that they were homosexuals when they were 10, 15, or 25 years of age. Black people did not have to wait 20 or 30 years to discover they were Black. I dare you compare the plight of the slaves to the plight of the homosexuals. This is insulting, offensive and demeaning to compare the slave’s skin to their sin. This is not an issue of marriage equality, but an issue of moral sanity.

George Washington Carver was a strong Bible-believing Christian in addition to being an agricultural and science professor at Tuskegee Institute. He taught Sunday School weekly on the campus of Tuskegee Institute. He clearly viewed Genesis 19 as an illustration of the judgment of God on a nation that embraces homosexuality. While discussing Sodom and Gomorrah, Dr. Carver asked his class, “And what happened to these wicked cities?” He viewed the desire and activity of same-sex involvement as “wicked.” He then used his scientific talents to cause a sudden burst of flames and fumes to shoot up from the table, and the Bible students fled. He sure knew how to make Sunday School interesting and to illustrate his point. George Washington Carver taught against the practice of homosexuality. (George Washington Carver; An American Biography, by Rackham Holt, 1943, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, p. 198)

In September 1929 Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., published a series of sermons on sexual perversion, (as per an article written by John McWhorter entitled, “What the Harlem Renaissance Teaches about Gay Rights”). Powell stated that homosexuality was one of the powers that debased a race of people and could destroy the Black family.

“Powell considered this “perversion” to be “one of the most horrible, debasing, alarming and damning vices of present-day civilization.” He decried “contact and association” with gay people, considered them a threat to the “Negro family.” He hated homosexuality for “causing men to leave their wives for other men, wives to leave their husbands for other women and girls to mate with girls instead of marrying.”(http://www.theroot.com/views/what-harlem-renaissance-teaches-us-about-gay-rights)

It appears that politicians and preacher/politicians are teaming together to destroy the Black church’s strong opposition to homosexuality. This is also an attack on the Black family; and it is a vicious and violent assault of the kingdom of darkness against the Kingdom of God.

Augustine said:

“Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D.400]).” (http://www.gcmwatch.com/97/an-unbroken-witness-against-sexual-sin)

The truth of the matter is that the act of homosexuality is unnatural. A female biologically uniquely responds to a male in a manner that is biologically impossible for a male to respond to another male; thus proving that homosexual sex is unnatural. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Same-sex attractions are not innate or natural; they are produced from cultural or environmental factors.”

I agree with Rev. James Meeks:  “I love my President, but I love my Bible even more.” It is my conviction that Romans 1:32 forbids me from supporting anyone who supports homosexuality. Y-Love (a Black, male, Jewish rapper) illustrates this problem in his statement:

“‘I’m ready to find a husband,’ Jordan continued. ‘I’m ready to live without fear of being outed or the stress of keeping my whole self from people. And I’ve waited too long to do that.” (http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/jewish-rapper-y-love-comes-out-publicly-as-gay)

That is not marriage equality—that is moral insanity! Same-sex marriage destroys the natural argument analogy that Jesus used to explain Christ as the groom and the Body of Christ as the bride. Marriage between a man and woman is not discrimination against same-sex marriage, but is simply a standard.

III.    HOW SHOULD A KINGDOM CITIZEN/CHRISTIAN VOTE?

There are persons that say, no one should be a one-issue voter. I disagree. It depends on what that one issue is. If one candidate was advocating placing people of color back into slavery if he or she were elected, we would all become one-issue voters. If one candidate advocated paying females workers systematically less than male workers, those of us with females in our families would become one-issue voters. If a presidential candidate ran on a platform requiring all eighteen year-olds—male and female—to be drafted and to spend a minimum of two years in the military, there would be many one-issue voters, voting against this. There are certain single issues that rise to a degree of importance and impact, or violate one’s conscience and convictions to the extent that one would make a voting decision based on that single issue.

There is at least a single issue—the Mormon “Bible” race issue—that leaves Mitt Romney extremely askance as I look through Kingdom eyes. The same-sex marriage issue leaves President Obama extremely askance as I look through Kingdom eyes. It is my prayer that both men would have a change of heart so that I could have an option in voting. But if there is no change by Election Day, I will vote for other persons on the ballot, but I will not cast a vote for President.

Some people say, vote for the lesser of “two evils.” That I will not do. I don’t have to settle for lessor, because I serve a God who is greater, and He’s my King. At the end of the day, I agree with the Apostles; “…there is another king”—Jesus (Acts 17:7). Thank God that I belong to another Kingdom—the Kingdom of God. In His Kingdom, the definition of marriage is clear. In His Kingdom, every kindred, tongue tribe and nation are equally loved and accepted. In His Kingdom, the wicked shall cease from troubling and the weary shall be at rest. In His Kingdom, the gospel is preached to the poor. In His Kingdom, the hungry are fed; the naked are clothed; the sick and in prison are visited. In His Kingdom, He sits on the throne, high and lifted up. It is a scandal-free Kingdom.

If I’m allowed to write in a candidate for President, I will write in JESUS…Because that’s my King. He is a righteous King. He is judicious in His justice. He’s matchless in His mercy. He’s bountiful in His blessings. He’s merciful in His compassion. He’s majestic in His splendor. He’s holy, as none other. He’s awesome, in His acceptance of whosoever will—let Him come. He’s the Lord of life. He’s the Rock of Ages. He’s the fairest among ten thousand. He is a great Shepherd. He is a great Physician. He is a great Savior. He is a burden bearer. He feeds the hungry. He heals the sick. He governs, and He guides. If I have to, on Election Day, I will vote for Jesus. There is another King. His name is Jesus. Martin Luther said, “My conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me…here I stand!”

All hail the power of Jesus’ name
Let angels prostrate fall
Bring forth the royal diadem
And crown Him Lord of all
Bring forth the royal diadem
And crown Him Lord of all

The SBC Plodder cuts through the chatter and gets to the heart of things!

Our North American Mission Board has endured considerable criticism for supporting church plants that also have a relationship with some church planting network. We are regularly treated to considerable, breathless, blogging acrimony alleging all manner of things about NAMB and other church planting networks.

No matter that there have been few concrete examples offered of such things. But then facts usually don’t slow down bloggers from displaying a good dose of denominational indignation. NAMB has consistently stated that they only plant churches that conform to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. No one I know has pointed to a single church that does not so conform.

Understanding the scrutiny of such things, NAMB trustees adopted some guidelines for their church plants and other networks.

NAMB’s document is below:

                                       NAMB / Network Guidelines

The North American Mission Board encourages church plants to partner with their association, state convention, NAMB and the IMB. NAMB also affirms that some churches engage with other networks for mission and evangelism purposes in accordance with article 14 “Cooperation” of the Baptist Faith and Message.

NAMB does not affirm or partner with individual networks, but partners with Baptist Faith and Message affirming churches and planters.

In order to be good stewards of Southern Baptist resources and remain focused on our mission, the following guidelines must be upheld in order for a church plant to receive benefits from the Send North America church planting strategy. Church planting is a family activity, and we want to partner with those whose plans and commitments include
a commitment to the SBC family.

As such, we require that churches we support:

1. AFFIRM their doctrine, polity and practices are compatible with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

2. PARTICIPATE as an SBC church, and have their denominational commitment reflected in their documents, web page, and shared with the congregation.

3. COMPLETE and remain faithful to all the Send North America strategy requirements and policies.

4. GIVE faithfully the agreed percentage through the Cooperative Program.

5. COMMIT to serve as a faithful SBC partner beyond receiving support in order to partner with the future strategy of Send North America in planting additional churches.

Serious, reasonable, and sensible Southern Baptists (I recall state convention presidents, DOM, along with your ordinary blogger types) have raised questions about NAMB church plants and church planting networks. There are questions to be asked and discussions to be had on the matter. NAMB trustees felt the need to respond put this policy in place.

It seems to me that discussions around Acts29 and NAMB revolve around casual presumptions and potential problems rather than real problems. I want NAMB to plant SBC churches. When I’ve raised the question about this with NAMB people, the response has been that they only plant churches that conform to the BFM.

I have yet to see anything to dispute this.

Here is the cast:

• Nick Fury is Jesus - The consummate leader, always leading with perfect intentions and precise calculations.
• Captain America is Christians - The one with upright character and unmatched integrity. (Let’s pretend that Christians exemplify this regularly.)
• Hammer of Thor is Scripture – An other-worldly power, unstoppable when in the right hands.
• Iron Man is Pride – He is the walking example of pride – self-centered, arrogant, boastful. (Forget that he totally sacrifices in the end… that hurts my point )
• The Hulk is Young Calvinist – Well-meaning but destructive when let loose.
• Hawkeye is Holy Spirit – Precisely accurate, especially when aiming for the heart.
• Black Widow is Grace – Slightly sneaky, but leaves a mark when you cross her path.
• Satan is Loki – The wannabe king who is unfit for such rule.

Of course, I’m not very creative so please feel free to add to this or disagree!

Bart Barber has advanced an interpretation of the biblical qualification for becoming an elder or a deacon in the church, based on the ancient concept of the univira, that a man must be “the husband of one wife” or more literally, a “one-woman man.”  According to Bart, this is not a uniquely  Barberian concept, but was a common patristic interpretation. Univirae were women who were only married to one man in their lifetime. Timothy and Titus, the recipients of the books in which Paul used the term “one-woman man” would have almost certainly been familiar with this concept.

The exegetical argument goes something like this:

1. The concept of the univirae was well established in Roman culture.  Women who worked in certain positions in Roman temples were required to be married only once in their lifetimes.  If their husbands died, they were not permitted to be remarried.  There seems to be little question about this concept.  A univira was a woman who had been married once and only once in her entire life.

2. In 1 Timothy 5:9, Paul is speaking of the list of widows, and says that a woman that is to be placed on that list must be a “one-man woman” – a phrasing nearly identical to the phrase used in 1 Timothy 3 (for both elders and deacons) and Titus 1 (elders).  It is fair to assume that the meaning of the  phrases would be uniform.  Bart argues that the phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9 would likely have called to mind the univira concept.  The more common Greek phrase would have been “monandros” but the phrase is so similar in meaning to the word that Titus would have likely understood Paul to have been invoking the common univirae concept.

This would seem to me to be the bedrock of Bart’s argument.  If Paul intended and Titus understood Paul to be invoking the univira concept here, then it is fair to switch the genders in the qualifications for elders and deacons.  If 1 Timothy 5:9 is not invoking the univira concept, then the argument fails.

3.  Believing that it is reasonable to view 1 Timothy 5:9 as demanding that widows be univirae, Bart argues that the same concept ought to apply to the qualifications of elders and deacons as well.  I would say this makes perfect sense.  If it can be established that the phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9 demands that those on the list of widows be univirae (invoking the Roman concept) then it is also reasonable to say that such is the case for pastors/elders and deacons.  The phrases are so similar in construction that the meaning of one would govern the meaning of the other.

4. So, Bart concludes (though, at least in April of 2010 when he wrote the article linked to above, he held a soft conviction on this) that an elder or deacon in a church may be a person who has only been married once.  Essentially, leaders in the church must be male univira (don’t know enough Latin to coin the masculine term – univirum?).  They must not be polygamists.  They must not be divorced and remarried.  They must not be widowed and remarried.  One marriage.  The leaders of the church must be men who have only ever been married once in their entire lives.

Bart states that if his wife passed away (God forbid) he would leave the ministry if he decided to remarry.

I think it is fair to say that this is not a common view of this passage today.  We tend to argue between the three more common views – prohibitions against polygamy, against divorce, or for marital fidelity.  Biblical issues are not settled by popularity, but the rarity of this view does seem to make it harder to accept.

But, is it biblical?  Let us examine that question.

Examining the Univira Interpretation

First, let me say that engaging Bart is a little intimidating.  He is a scholar, I am a pastor who dabbles in biblical interpretation.  That is not some kind of false humility but a recognition of reality.  And Bart is gifted at theological argument.  Had God not called him to ministry he would probably be arguing before the Supreme Court or handling OJ Simpson-style trials!  So, I enter this arena with trepidation.

Nonetheless, I am not yet convinced that Bart is right about this interpretation and will engage it on the following bases.  The downside, of course, is that by the time this discussion is over, he will have likely convinced many of you that he is right and I am wrong!  Here goes anyway.

1. I am not convinced that Paul intended to invoke the univira concept in 1 Timothy 5:9.

First of all, by Bart’s own admission, the common Greek term for univira was monoandros, not “one-man woman” as was used in this passage.  If Paul had intended to refer to the commonly-known concept, why did he not simply use the commonly-known term?

Second, it seems odd that Paul would take a pagan concept from idol temples and impose that on both the widows list and on elders and deacons.  Is there another instance in the writings of Paul in which he takes a practice from idol temples and brings it into the church?  This seems to go a step beyond eating meat sacrificed to idols – basing leadership principles on practices unique to idol culture.

Paul is known to take common terms and baptize them into unique meanings.  He does this with the word “mystery” which he imbues with a unique meaning different from common usage.  He took a rare word from the Greek language – agape – and turned it into a representation of divine love.  But this does not seem like the simple borrowing and reinvention of a term, but the adoption of a pagan practice.

2.  I am not persuaded that the linkage of monandros ” (the Greek equivalent of univira), “henos andros gune”  (one-man woman) and “mias gunaikos andros” has been sufficiently established.  

This is simply an expansion on the point I just made.

Bart argues a sort of geneaology of these terms. Univira was commonly translated into Greek as monandros.  Monoandros is similar in meaning to henos andros gune and would therefore call the univira concept to mind.  Flipping the genders would carry that same concept into the mias gunaikos andros and require that pastors/elders and deacons never in their lives being married more than once.

I have already admitted that if the beginning of this concept is correct, the final gender switch is justified.  But, I think even Bart might admit that this is a strong and even harsh interpretation of this passage.  It seems to me that such an interpretation needs to be established as the best and perhaps only reasonable interpretation.

If the Bible is clear, it should be followed even if the interpretation seems harsh to us.  Those who support egalitarianism ignore the simple readings of scriptural passages because they find it unfair that women are prevented from holding pastoral positions.  We have to follow the dictates of the Bible even if they lead us where we would rather not go.  But the principle of male leadership is well-established in Scripture and is based on the simplest and clearest reading of every passage in the NT that deals with the topic.

Here, Bart is advancing a strict and restrictive interpretation that is based on weaker evidence (the identification of 1 Timothy 5:9 with the univirae concept); one that actually seems to be in contradistinction with the biblical teaching on marriage (argued below).

There are other equally compelling or even superior interpretations of the words that do not lead to these conclusion.  There are enough questions about the linkage of these terms that the interpretation fails, in my mind, to warrant implementation.

Again, in the absence of clear evidence linking monandros to henos andros gune, the interpretation is unconvincing. Bart describes it as “strikingly similar” but that does not seem like enough weight to me.

3. It appears that this view diverges from the general biblical teachings on marriage.  

Both Jesus and Paul advance the concept of marriage as a holy covenant in which God participates.  They honor marriage as part of God’s original intent and view it as sanctified and blessed.  In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul  honors the single state as advantageous and blessed, if one is able to live that way and if one is so called.  The single are able to devote much time to God’s work without being distracted by family matters.  But he also honors marriage.

In Ephesians 5 (and elsewhere) marriage is seen as a picture of Christ and the church.  Husbands are called to love as Christ loved the church.  Wives are to submit as the church to Christ.

Romans 7:1-3 emphasizes beyond contestation the fact that marriage ends at death.  When the spouse dies, the marriage is ended and the person is free to marry another.

If marriage is blessed and holy, if it is a picture of Christ and the church, if it clearly ends at the death of one of the spouses, why would the pagan-based univira concept be imposed on church leadership?

The univirae teaching seems incongruous with biblical teachings on marriage.

4. It seems that this concept penalizes obedience.

Each of the other qualifications for leaders in the church is a question of godliness or ungodliness, of spiritual maturity and holiness.  A man must be above reproach, self-controlled, not quarrelsome, not violent.  To fail in any of these areas is evidence that we have not yet been conformed to Christ in that part of our lives.  The character qualities are evidence of growth in becoming Christlike.

But if an elder or deacon’s wife passes away, his marriage is over.  He is then free to find a godly wife and marry her.  It is not sin to do so.  But are we to believe that by walking in obedience completely to the Word of God, by being a faithful husband, by marrying  godly wife after his first wife dies, that somehow he is no longer qualified to serve as a church leader?

I hate to apply human logic to biblical interpretation, but that makes no sense to me.

I discussed this with Bart in the previous post’s comments, and he brought up a very good point.  Women who walk in obedience to Christ are still biblically restricted from these positions of elder and deacon.  So, it is in the realm of possibility that a person walking in obedience to Christ could be restricted from leadership positions.

I would argue against that being the case here.  Paul, in asserting male leadership at home and especially at church, argues on the basis of the created order (Adam created first, then Eve), on the order of the fall (Eve was deceived)  - both of these points being made in the verses immediately preceding the passage on the qualifications of elders in 1 Timothy 3.  Male leadership in the Bible is rooted in God’s creation (in ways we do not perhaps fully understand).

But marriage is also part of God’s original intent – Adam and Eve were created uniquely for each other. It would go against created order to force singleness on those who are leaders in the church.

So, the issue of male leadership is rooted in the created order while restricting marriage would seem to be contrary to it.

5. There seems little value, intent or purpose to such a restriction.

Of course, God does not have to explain himself to me, but you can look at each of the other restrictions on leadership and explain why they are important and necessary to mature leadership.  Why does a leader need to be sober, self-controlled and gentle?  That is self-evident.  These are part and parcel of godly, servant leadership.

Why would a leader who was married and whose wife died be required to remain unmarried?  How does that affect his leadership?  It could, according to 1 Corinthians 7, expose him to lust and even immorality.  Is there some spiritual value in a univirae-like restriction on pastoral leadership?

And every other interpretation of this passage has a biblical symbolism attached to it – they uphold the value of marriage and family.  The view that “husband of one wife” restricts polygamy obviously speaks to the importance of monogamous marriage.  The anti-divorce view upholds the sanctity of marriage.  The faithful husband view reminds us of the need to do more than just stay married to one woman – a church leader must be a true servant leader at home, loving his wife as Christ loved the church.

What does the univirae model symbolize? What part of the sanctity and value of marriage does this bring to our remembrance?  It penalizes marriage instead.

6. Two speculative questions about this view.

These are not evidence against the view or even reasons to reject it, but are just more items of interest.  I should probably leave these off in fear that the discussion will be sidelined by these questions.

• Doesn’t the univirae concept sound a little bit like the eternal marriage concept of the Mormons?

I am certainly not accusing Bart of supporting a false faith like Mormonism or anything like that, but it seems that this view requires a view of marriage that survives death.  A leader – elder or deacon – is required to stay faithful to a marriage when the other is dead.

• Doesn’t it appear as a short hop between the univirae concept and the celibacy teaching that has been so problematic in the Catholic church.

Again, this is simply a sideline to the main argument.  But the idea that a man should stay single if his wife dies seems like one small step in the direction of the demand of celibacy which has caused so much trouble in the Roman Catholic church.

What I Believe

I remain convinced that there are better explanations of the phrase that the attempt to bring the pagan concept of the univira forward and read it into 1 Timothy 5:9.  Knight, in the NIGCT volume on the Pastoral Epistles, argues that the phrase “demands a life of sexual and marital fidelity. NIV captures the meaning of the phrase with the words ‘has been faithful to her husband.’”  Lea and Griffin in the New American Commentary argue that Paul would not “prohibit remarriage in v. 9 and command it in v. 14.”  They agree that it is “more likely that he was demanding faithfulness during her marriage to the single husband whom she once had.”  They also argue that a woman married more than once could fulfill this requirement if she had been widowed twice and been faithful to during those marriages.  The Baker commentary by Larson buttresses this by arguing against the “only one husband” concept.  ”Instead, being a “one-man woman” speaks of faithfulness and loyalty. This is reminiscent of the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12.”

The arguments presented in those commentaries are more persuasive to me that Paul’s intent in both the commands concerning the widows and those about elders and deacons have a broader focus.

A widow, to be placed on the list, and those men who would aspire to leadership positions must have been loyal and faithful spouses.  They must not have been polygamists.  They must not have broken their marriage vows by infidelity.  They must not have ignored or mistreated their spouses.  This is the kind of marriage-honoring, Christian maturity that is required of leaders in the church.

Though it’s quieted down a lot regarding Lifeway’s The Gospel Project, I thought I’d stoke the fires again. All the concerns about how some subtle Calvinistic influence will confuse church members and cause frustration and discord in otherwise non-Calvinist Baptist churches because of this material are a little melodramatic. After all, I’m quite confident that every one of those non-Calvinist Baptist churches has used one Calvinist work for years without complaining about its influence before.

And no, I’m not talking about Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.

I’m talking about a very Calvinist song. I’ve heard it said many times before that the hymnal contains the theology of the church. My wife was teaching some high school girls about the attributes of God and asked them to describe God in one word. I would have said something like “Holy” or “Love” or “Good.” The first thing that came to mind for these teenagers was “Beautiful.” It could be that’s just what girls think about. But a lot of the songs on Christian radio today emphasize God’s beauty. And that’s what came out of their mouths.

Songs have a strong influence on our lives. They inform our thinking, and to some extent, our theology. When I led music at our Hispanic church, I realized that a lot of the song suggestions I received reflected the theological views of the people who requested them. I also realized that I had to seek out those song suggestions, since I had my own preferences as well.

If The Gospel Project is dangerous to our churches, I think this Calvinist song is even more dangerous. Tear it out of the hymnal. Don’t sing it. Because if (and that’s a big if) The Gospel Project has a slight Calvinistic slant, this song is preaching Calvinism full bore.

For one, it emphasizes some of the five points of Calvinism. Obviously, it wasn’t written as a catechism or summary of TULIP, but it does have some points present, such as total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. It might even have unconditional election in there as well, but it’s much more subtle than these other themes.

The song attempts to describe the working of God through the life of a believer, from conversion to glorification. Prior to conversion the person was vile, a reprobate, lost in utter sin. When the song explains conversion, it makes no mention of the person making a decision to repent and believe or choosing to follow Christ. Instead it is covered completely from the perspective of God’s work on the unregenerate person.

As the song goes on, it fully emphasizes God’s persevering grace in the life of the believer. There’s nothing in the song at all about anything the believer does. Instead it emphasizes God’s sovereign control and outworking on the life of the believer.

Doesn’t that song sound like it should be banned from the hymnal for the sake of those unsuspecting non-Calvinist Baptist churches and their members? Couldn’t a song like that produce frustration and discord?

Any song that emphasizes the Doctrines of Grace and God’s sovereign grace should not be given a place of prominence to influence unsuspecting Baptist churches.

Song #104 in Lifeway’s new Baptist Hymnal.

Dane Ortlund, back in 2011 asked several pastors and scholars this question, “What’s the message of the Bible in one sentence?” In other words, “What’s the metanarrative of the Bible?” The metanarrative of Scripture is what redemptive-historical preachers are concerned with, since we believe the grand story of Scripture, as organized by God, is what He’s concerned with as well. Here are a few answers to Ortlund’s question (more answers here):

Dan Block:

God was so covenantally committed to the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him may have eternal life!

Craig Blomberg:

God is in the process of recreating the universe which has been corrupted by sin and has made it possible for all those and only those who follow Jesus to be a part of the magnificent, eternal community that will result.

Darrell Bock:

Mark Dever:

God has made promises to bring His people to Himself and He is fulfilling them all through Christ.

Kevin DeYoung:

John Frame:

God glorifies himself in the redemption of sinners.

Scott Hafemann:

The Triune God is the beginning, middle, and end of everything, ‘for from him (as Creator) and through him (as Sustainer and Redeemer) and to him (as Judge) are all things’ (Rom 11:36).

Paul House:

The movement in history from creation to new creation through the redemptive work of Father, Son, and Spirit who saves and changes corrupted people and places for his glory and their good.

Kent Hughes:

God is redeeming his creation by bringing it under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Andreas Kostenberger:

‘God so loved the world that the gave his one and only Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

Phil Long:

God, who made us and everything else, loves us and gave himself for us that we might live forever with him as new creatures in a new creation—the news is good!

Ray Ortlund:

The Lover of our souls won’t let the romance die, but is rekindling it forever.

Leland Ryken:

The message of the Bible is twofold: to show how people can be saved from their sins through faith in Christ’s atonement AND how to live all of life as a follower of God.

Tom Schreiner:

God reigns over all things for his glory, but we will only enjoy his saving reign in the new heavens and the new earth if we repent and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the crucified and risen Lord and who gave himself on the cross for our salvation.

Erik Thoennes:

Doug Wilson:

Scripture tells us the story of how a Garden is transformed into a Garden City, but only after a dragon had turned that Garden into a howling wilderness, a haunt of owls and jackals, which lasted until an appointed warrior came to slay the dragon, giving up his life in the process, but with his blood effecting the transformation of the wilderness into the Garden City.

In light of these answers, here are some pitfalls to avoid in redemptive-historical preaching:

1. Redemptive-historical preaching often does not emphasize the metanarrative.

The metanarrative, the grand story of Scripture, is the emphasis of redemptive-historical preaching, but these preachers often stop short of the metanarrative. Scripture doesn’t just detail God’s plan of redemption for sinners. It also includes: 1) God’s triune relationship with Himself prior to creation (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1), 2) God’s sinless creation and His relationship with sinless humanity (Gen. 1-2), and 3) God’s coming relationship with sinless creation and sinless humanity (Rev. 21).

2. Redemptive-historical preaching often details a very small portion of history.

The history detailed in Scripture begins with God’s Triune relationship between the three Persons prior to the existence of anything else (eternity past) and proceeds into eternity future in a New Heavens and New Earth. Redemptive-historical preaching details the few thousand years between eternity past and eternity future, even though the Bible speaks of both eternity past and eternity future. I realize most of Scripture details this small portion of history known as redemption history, but what does the redemptive-historical preacher do with the Scripture that details non-redemptive history? We can’t just ignore it, but instead must adjust our redemptive-historical emphasis, the metanarrative, based on this other history.

3. Redemptive-historical preaching often does not explain the purpose of entities who need no redemption.

The angels that did not rebel against God need no redemption, yet they are mentioned numerous times in Scripture. How do they fit into redemptive-historical preaching?  What is their purpose in the redemption of sinners? They serve a real purpose prior to redemption, during redemption, and they will after redemption is fully realized, but redemptive-historical preaching may miss their function due to not accounting for these entities who need no redemption.

4. Redemptive-historical preaching can encourage a lack of application.  

If redemptive-historical preachers aren’t careful, they’ll emphasize Christ’s redeeming work without ever answering the question, “How shall we live?” The Bible doesn’t just describe redemption, but also details how Christians who are citizens of the New Jerusalem should live while still present in this evil world. Whether it’s Old Testament saints living in response to trusting in God’s promise and coming fulfillment, or it’s New Testament saints living in response to Christ’s finished work and the coming completion of redemption, God’s people are still expected to live holy lives. This fact must not be ignored, neglected, or collapsed into the gospel. The gospel makes God’s people positionally holy and progressively holy. In other words, the fruit of the gospel is not only the further sharing of the gospel, but also lives transformed by the gospel. Of course, we never grow beyond our need for the gospel, and the gospel alone saves us.

Suggested Remedies

The remedy for the first three pitfalls is to begin with God’s Triune relationship, and then to fit all of creation and redemptive history under this umbrella. I call this the “history of existence theme.”

God enjoyed perfect fellowship with Himself, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, continually before time and creation existed [History of Existence Theme] (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1). He sought to continue enjoying Himself through freely revealing His Trinitarian holiness and love to and through creation (Gen. 1:26-28). He thus created all things, and allowed sin to temporally hide His holiness and love from sinners. God however set His redemptive plan in motion as detailed in Gen. 3:15. Satan would bruise Christ’s heal, but Jesus would crush his head. As a result of God seeking to continue enjoying Himself, He revealed His holiness and love to sinners by sending His Son to live a perfect life, to die for sins He did not commit, and to rise from the dead to reconcile sinners to Himself [Redemptive History Theme].  One day when Christ completes the redemption of His people we will enjoy God, His  Trinitarian holiness and love, forevermore.

It must be noted that I realize there’s danger is reducing God’s various attributes to “love” and “holiness.” For those who think this is too reductionistic, you could be less specific by not mentioning God’s holiness and love, and instead saying, “He sought to continue enjoying Himself through freely revealing His Trinitarian identity to and through creation.”

I believe this remedy will help redemptive-historical preachers avoid the various pitfalls mentioned above. First, God revealing Himself to and through creation is the metanarrative, and redemption history fits within this metanarrative. Second, God revealing Himself includes His Trinitarian relationship since God is Trinity, thus this small addition includes all of history, from eternity past to eternity future. Third, this remedy answers the issue concerning the purpose of those angels who need no redemption. They serve as part of the creation God is revealing Himself to and through. They serve this purpose now and will forevermore.

Finally, the remedy for a lack of application is to emphasize how Christians should live as a result of the gospel. They must pursue perfection while pleading the blood of Christ alone for their salvation. Due to God revealing Himself to and through creation as evidenced by the crucifixion and resurrection of His Son to forgive me of my sins, I will live a holy life while depending on Christ’s holiness in my stead alone.

What are your thoughts?

At another blog there is a post up about a church that is hurting.  And let me preface everything else to come by saying: a hurting church anywhere is a cause for all of us to weep.  This church is in pain because of the specter of disunity and division.  We should take the words of our Lord to heart from John 17:23, “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”  If we truly believe what Jesus says, then we truly believe that disunity and factions in church are ultimately a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel.

Disunity is damning.

And that should cause us to weep and to pray not only for the struggles in our own churches but also for our sister churches who are facing times of trouble.  (Side note: the idea of unity above must be tied to the truth and holiness of God.  It does us good to lay our pride aside and stand hand-in-hand with others who disagree with us on non-primary matters; but it does us no good to sacrifice the core truth of Jesus and his gospel on a alter of false unity.)

In this blog post, after sharing a letter of concern from a dear lady, the author concludes: “Do you hear this dear Christian’s anguish? Do you hear the cry of the unsuspecting church member who is being run over theologically and personally by Calvinists? This is where the rubber meets the road. This is no longer a theological debate. This is damaging the local church. Do you care enough to help stop it?”

I want to contend that such a response to the dear lady’s letter is damaging and also potentially damning in the disunity it creates as fearmongering.

The letter we read there, of course, gives us only one side of the story.  When problems arise, truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle.  But let’s work from the one side we have.  I won’t reproduce the letter in total here, but two words in particular come to mind when reading the letter: pride and arrogance.

The pastor in question who is supposedly destroying this church because of his Calvinism is described in a way that paints him as difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant in response to questions, and uses big words people don’t understand.

But these are not marks of Calvinism, Calvinists, or Reformed ideologies.  They are marks of a heart that does not understand shepherding in humility.  I have personally known, and know of (as I’m sure we all do) Southern Baptist pastors who are not Calvinists who are difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant, and used big words.  They have even split churches.

Should we sound the alarm bells?  Should we cry from the rooftops?  The debate is over, their non-Calvinism is damaging the local church, do you care enough to stop it?!?!?

Or should we focus on what the real problem is?

The letter also mentions the lack of having a revival or an alter call.  I agree with the heart of what the pastor of that church said—we can’t make revivals happen.  Only the Holy Spirit can do that.  That being said, having “revival” meetings or not is also not a mark of Calvinism or non-Calvinism.

I spent 3 years at a church during my college years that was not only non-Calvinist, it was anti-Calvinist.  Not once in that time did they have a revival meeting.  Here at the church I pastor now, the man who pastored before me was a self-identified Calvinist, they had a revival meeting almost every year he was here.  I’ve been pastor here for not quite two years, in that short time we have also had such a meeting.  We didn’t call it a “revival” by name, but it was an event designed to fire-up the members and reach out to the town, involving guest speakers, special music, and a whole lot of advertising.  I am also a self-identified Calvinist.

We did it because my theological beliefs inform me that not only has God ordained the ends—who will be saved, he has also ordained the means—the Gospel must be spread.  The only way for anyone to be saved, the only way for the elect to be saved, is to hear the Gospel message.  It is a necessity.  God will not let his elect be lost; the rocks will cry out if we are silent.  But Jesus didn’t give the Great Commission to rocks, therefore we will honor our God by spreading the Gospel in a variety of ways.  And whether or not you agree with the “God ordained the ends” part of that, we would all agree whether Calvinist or Arminian or that great Baptist norm in between that if we truly love Jesus we have no choice but to spread the Gospel.

So let’s cut the rhetoric and the fearmongering and the intentional disunity that flows from agendas to drive.

The problem is not Calvinism and Calvinists, the problem is when pride pops up on both sides of the aisle.  So can we have a little sanity, realize the issue, strive to be humble servants, and live in true unity?

(Where’s that picture of the rainbow people holding hands???)

Ed Stetzer’s 7-year-old daughter is hospitalized with  serious but as yet unidentified illness.  Please pray for her and for the Stetzer family.

Ed is updating his site, so you can go there for the latest information.

I saw a link to this today and thought that it was an amazing asset for bloggers. It is a listing of graphic insults from Martin Luther’s writings.  I do not know who compiled this list, but this is a great boon for us.

Instead of making up our own insults, we can just generate one from Luther himself!

Here is the link:  The Lutheran Insulter

This does tell us that the kind of interaction we often bemoan in blogging is not new at all!

Here are a few choice entries:

You are like mouse-dropping in the pepper.

You are worthy only to be mocked by the words of error.

You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.

You are undisciplined heads who out of utter perversity are able to do nothing in common or in agreement, but are different and self-centered in heart and life.

This is my favorite!

It seems I must have liars and villains for opponents. I am not worthy in the sight of God that a godly and honorable person should discuss these matters with me in a Christian way. This is my greatest lament.

This one is just about as good.

What bilgewater of heresies has ever been spoken so heretically as what you have said?

I’m planning to use that one the next time I’m in a kerfuffle.  (Get ready, Rick Patrick, I’ve got a few picked out….)