Today I’d like to think a little more with you about Vines’s use of the term “gay Christian” (I also commend to you this excellent and stirring post
from my SBTS colleague and New Testament expert Jim Hamilton). This is
not a new descriptor, but Vines has infused new meaning into it. Authors
who have previously used it have done so with the understanding that
“gay Christian” is essentially equivalent to “born-again believer who
experiences, to some degree, ongoing same-sex attraction and who
willingly resists gratifying this desire.” Vines, however, uses the term
to essentially mean “born-again believer who experiences same-sex
attraction and indulges this desire in mutual, covenantal relationships
to the glory of God.” There is a vast and unbridgeable gulf between
these two definitions. Continue at Owen Strachan
Scriptures teach consistently that faith comes through the proclamation of the gospel, not through good works. Christ himself was not arrested and arraigned because he was trying to restore family values or feed the poor...The mounting ire of the religious leaders toward Jesus coalesced around him making himself equal with God and forgiving sins in his own person, directly, over against the temple and its sacrificial system. Michael Horton
The purpose of this Blog is to introduce men and women all over the World to the Doctrines of Grace; the 5 Solas; Reformation Theology and the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Showing posts with label Owen Strachan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Owen Strachan. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Should Christians Use the Term “Gay Christian”?
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Building a Godly Community: an Excerpt from "Risky Gospel"
Here’s an interesting reality: lots of people want to love God today.
That’s what they say. Check out the polls regularly printed in USA Today,
for example, and you’ll find that most people are not in fact hardened
secularists waiting to pounce like a hyena on any Christian they can
find. You may pick up that impression from the news media or talking
heads on TV, but that’s not how many people represent their desires.
Many folks want to get in touch with God. Of course, they don’t know
how, and many don’t really follow through. Without God’s redeeming
grace, our sin gets in the way of our best intentions.
But the point stands: a good number of folks would at least say that
they want to love God. I think you would baffle many people, though, if
you extended the question to this: “Do you want to love the church—an
actual, real, existing local church in your area?”
It’s at this point that a lot of people would drop out. They would
argue that they’re “spiritual,” but not really religious. They believe
in a living relationship with the Lord, not a ritualistic one. They can
worship God anywhere, and they don’t need to be confined to a building.
Perhaps, in fact, this voices your perspective. Maybe you’ve been burned by a church. You don’t associate
the local church with a place of joyful worship where you encounter the
transcendent Lord of heaven and earth. In fact, there are so many
people who have had negative experiences that I think it’s worth saying
what the church is not:
- The local church is not a social club for gossip, albeit with pews and a slightly odd smell.
- It’s not a place where you go to observe a whole bunch of weird rules that have no connection to everyday life. Continue at Owen Strachan
Friday, August 23, 2013
Can You Define the Relationship?
We are living in strange times — specifically, in the age of the abortion contracts, wedleases, and throuples.
In 2007, J.J. Redick launched his NBA career with the Orlando Magic.
Much ballyhooed out of Duke University, Redick entered games for
essentially one purpose: to hit three-point shots. This he did with
enough panache — and game-winning success — to make opposing fans all
over the country dislike him (it’s a Duke thing, too).
Though his on-court role was uncomplicated, it appears that Redick’s
off-court life was anything but. In the course of “seeing” model Vanessa
Lopez, Redick allegedly hired a legal team to draw up an “abortion
contract.” Basically, the document required Redick to “maintain a social
and/or dating relationship” with Lopez for at least one year as long as
she agreed to abort a child she claimed had been conceived by the
couple (Redick says no child was conceived). In addition, should Redick
decide he couldn’t “maintain” his “relationship” with Lopez, he would
pay her $25,000. Continue at Owen Strachan
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)