From June 23, 2009 (long)

I wrote this awhile back on paper, and as I'm preparing to move, I figured I would write it out so I could throw the paper away. Maybe I shouldn't do that, but I am. Good story.

Sometimes my mind just races, and I can't keep up with it. Welcome, then, to my feeble attempt to catch up with my head which is currently sporting a headache. (advil break?)

It started with a youtube video that documented a few motions during the Southern Baptist Convention this year. The first motion was a call to boycott--hmm I think there's only one"t" in that word, oh well--Pepsi because of its endorsement of homosexuality. Near the end of this segment was also a motion to ban Mark Driscoll books from being sold in any SBC affiliated church, as well as to ban him from being a speaker at any SBC affiliated seminary/college.

My friend commented that it is for comments/motions/whatever you want to call them such as these which will lead to the SBC's downfall within 20 years.

(snack break)

Crunch, crunch go the white cheddar Cheez-Its! And I am distracted by the prospect of getting a Captain James T. Kirk tee for $9.99 (says so on the cracker box).

Thought number one from the video was that I am thankful to not be working with the SBC. That is selfish, I confess, but remember I'm just trying to catch up with my mind. Crunch, crunch..

I want to be more concerned with grace and justice. Who said, "when in doubt, grace?" Probably a former pastor the SBC would also ban due to cursing during a sermon. (And confession two: I struggle with whether this is okay or not.. but more on that later)

You see, the video led to a wild goose chase for me. I wanted to find out what was determined from the now dubbed "Mark Driscoll" motion. Instead, I was led in two directions. One way brought me to a church in Texas and the other led me to John MacArthur.

The Texas church had been ousted by the SBC, according to an article from The Baptist Press, due to its affirming of the homosexual church members. A little further investigation led to a vote by this church on whether to include homosexual members' photos in the church directory.

Thoughts race again. If only you read what I've listed, I wonder if you would have the same questions as me. Should the alcoholics' pictures be included? Should the adulterers'? or how about.. The church had to vote about this??!!

Upon even further investigation it seems (I can not say for sure) that these members were not only coming to church but were active and even part of church council. It seems that the pastor at the time was also (possibly) saying that homosexual Christianity was possible and acceptable.

I found a blog post written by a church member that praised the pastor's beliefs; another commented on the post that the said church was the only place a homosexual Christian could feel comfortable.

A million thoughts!!! Attempt to stop just listing facts and to explain myself. Oh, how I would like to use a disclaimer!!

I do not believe "homosexual" and "Christian" can be compounded. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. It is described as unnatural (Romans 1:26-27). Then there is the case of the sexually immoral person who, having such an unnatural relationship with his father's wife that even pagans hadn't considered it, is exhorted by Paul to be handed over to Satan "so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5). The passage continues to say, my paraphrase, that we should not fellowship with one who is sexually immoral. That is to say, we may hang out with those of the world who are immoral (hopefully in order that they may know Christ), but not with a brother or sister who is practicing such things. The list I refer to by saying "such things" also includes the greedy, idolators, slanderers, drunkards and swindlers, by the way. Do I even have time to talk about them? Hmm.. how does coupling "swindling" and "Christian" sound?

Inasmuch, I understand the SBC's concern with the church if indeed they are saying and encouraging homosexual Christianity to be acceptable. I do, however, also hope there are churches in Texas and the rest of the world that are willing to bring in and lovingly, gracefully lead a person to true repentance. Oh wait, only "God's kindness" can do that? I wish I really understood what rebuking within the church should look like, as that is a favorite among us with great logs impeding our vision.

To think it started from a youtube video. Which, after a phone conversation with my dad, I've already decided to share. Oh the places he may go with it! So, where was I?

You see, I also get taken aback at the second part of 1 Corinthians 5:5 which says, "[so that] his spirit [may be] saved on the day of the Lord." Is this expressing that there is hope for the sexually immoral? Is this going back to that thing about grace?

I have often wondered whether we could, as a church, embrace each others' sins differently. I still don't know how that is possible as there are slim to none when it comes to examples of how this works. But arent we missing the point when we refuse to forgive even a murderer when it was our own sin that murdered Christ? The story of the unmerciful servant comes soon after we are told to forgive 70 times 7. To forgive our brother, or fellow believer, no less. Yes, we are given a prescription of dealing with disagreements between brothers just before these two passages, and that if "he refuses to listen.. treat him as a tax collector or pagan" (Matthew 18:17).

So I ask, how did Jesus treat the tax collector Matthew, the very writer of the book in which we read these stories? Or the tax collector Zaccheus?

Grace. It's ridiculously inclusive (also not my words).

And then comes John MacArthur. I've already sighed knowing this part will be very hard to tackle. This comes in effort to further understand the SBC's approach to Mark Driscoll.

First came an article explaining their distaste for his speech, as he sometimes uses vulgar language. He was also asked to not come back for the second part of a radio interview--the first part of that interview was not put on the air either because the interviewer knew of Driscoll's "vulgarity." Apparently the radio guy didn't realize that Driscoll was coming to the show beforehand, or else, well I'm not sure what else. The article explaining all of this did mention that Driscoll had not used "vulgar" language during this interview.

The article had Bible quotes referring to Ephesians 4:29 and James 3:1 in boxes to the left and right of the article.

My stance on cursing is for myself. I don't do it. But, confession three, that is not to say I haven't thought them. I do look to the Ephesians 4:29 verse as a challenge to have my words "build others up according to their needs." And the James verses are also convicting, since I have hopes of being/continuing to be a teacher.

I have also been [rightly (amen)] called out on my sarcasm that has discouraged others to the point of putting up barriers hindering communication. Meaning, I'm not a very good example, even if in my heart I want to be.

Then there are other believers who curse. Many of them include dear friends and family. I love them. Sometimes I wince when I hear them say such words, mostly because they don't sound right. I don't believe them to be an outright sin though. Maybe it's because I don't fully comprehend what counts as "unwholesome speech." I mean, I feel like Paul had even used what could be considered bad words in his writings. Though, I also suppose we are striving to be more like Christ, not Paul.

And the "vulgarity" of Mark Driscoll extends past your basic curse words. What is meant by "vulgarity" is addressed expllicit talk about sex, particularly during a sermon series on the Songs of Solomon called "The Peasant Princess."

So we are back to this topic of sex.

MacArthur seems to be addressing that Songs of Solomon isn't as explicitly about body parts as Driscoll had taught. I say it this way on purpose. One of the comments from a male about Driscoll's series was that he had to turn it off because it was causing him to think bad thoughts. So now I am trying to be careful with how I phrase things, wanting to be sensitive to what may cause my brother to stumble.

The argument that came up amongst the comments for the MacArthur article was deciphering what Songs of Solomon is really talking about. I will stick to this verse, "Do not awaken love before it so desires" (SOS 2:7).

I'm a firm believer that good sex only happens between a married, believing couple. The hope is for Christ-like submission on both sides, which disqualifies all married non-believers. Sad, but true.

Also, I think it is possible for Songs of Solomon to be explicit in nature, although I could not say for sure. My study of SOS is, funny enough, limited to Driscoll's sermons. What can I say? His explanations are compelling.

Someone argued that it is fine to talk about R-rated material, just not during a church service where every age can hear.

Someone argued, reinforcing a lot what MacArthur wrote, that SOS is not explicit, and that the Bible is like K-Love. "Safe for the whole family."

I've sort of lumped these two together because they both took MacArthur's side for the most part, but still are against each other.

The Bible is full of R-rated material. Not just sex, but moments of brutal deaths (thinking of Absalom, or perhaps the Shechemites) as well. Neither of which I would want to teach little children; I would want to wait for a more mature audience.

Which leads to the not-on-Sunday option. Then when? I am afraid the ones who need to hear the messages of what a good marriage looks like, or the story of Christ's brutal death, most, are only coming on Sundays. If they come at all..

Driscoll's audience is the unchurched, 20s-30s crowd who probably (confession four as I am assuming here) aren't coming during the week. I feel like I just repeated myself, but I wanted to be clear.

And then I wondered if there would be another convention voting to take Songs of Solomon out of Scripture completely.

I thought of the person who would argue using Revelation 22:18-19, even though I would say the verse was referring specifically to the single book of prophecy, Revelation.

Often came the question of relevance. Is Driscoll talking about the risque (within the context of marriage that is) in order to be culturally relevant? Is cultural relevance a bad thing?

I need to sleep.