“John Piper may no longer lead a church, but he still has the heart of a pastor.” – Tim Challies

http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/i-slept-with-my-girlfriend-now-what

On the issue of sexuality, as in all things, we as Christians must display much genuine compassion while at the same time maintaining a biblical worldview. In this regard, Rick Phillips written an article entitled “Four Propositions on Homosexuality and Holiness”:

In response to the cultural tidal wave of gay-rights advances in America, Christians and churches are seeking categories to make sense of our situation. As the Supreme Court has legally normalized homosexuality, more and more people feel comfortable admitting to homosexual desires (i.e. “same-sex attraction”). A good number of them make this claim as church-going people who profess faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, one of the most heated topics for Christians today is how to relate same-sex attraction to the Christian life.

This topic came to my mind today as I read an article titled Godliness Is Not Heterosexuality. The author expresses concern that Christian parents are worried that their children might become same-sex attracted and thus be barred from a godly life. His answer is that same-sex attraction is not contrary to godliness. Having formerly thought that the “pursuit of holiness. . . equaled the pursuit of heterosexuality,” he now understands that “godliness, not heterosexuality” should be our aim. In reading the article, one sympathizes with the struggle that it reveals. Nonetheless, its argument involves a confusion of biblical categories. Can Christians, in light of the teaching of Moses and Paul, consider homosexual desire as compatible with godliness? In dealing with this question, let me offer these four propositions on homosexuality and holiness and then work them out in more detail:

1. All believers in Jesus are positionally holy (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:10).
2. Personally, all believers in Jesus are imperfectly holy in this present life (Phil. 3:12; 1 Jn. 1:8; Eph. 4:22-24; Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 6:12-13).
3. Homosexual behaviors and desires are contrary to holiness (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
4. Believers with homosexual desires must therefore strive for Christ-like sexual holiness, which is categorically heterosexual (Gen. 2:24; Rom. 1:27; Rom. 13:14; Phil. 4:13).

Let me explain these propositions and defend them from God’s Word: Continue reading →

This post was adapted from Packer on the Christian Life: Knowing God in Christ, Walking by the Spirit by Sam Storms, which is part of the Theologians on the Christian Life series.

“Why I Walked”

In 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster

authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help. (1)

J. I. Packer was one of those who walked out.

When asked why he walked out, he answered, “Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.” In other words, it was Packer’s confidence in the functional, life-directing authority of Scripture that led to this decision.

“My primary authority,” wrote Packer, “is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.”

Here we see that, for Packer, affirming biblical authority is meant not merely to provoke a debate but to give ethical direction to life. Regardless of what personal preferences one might have, irrespective of the cultural trends in play at the time, the Bible is the ethical standard by which Christians such as Packer judge their responsibility.

What’s Really at Stake

Packer then proceeds to exegete Paul’s thought in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 as justification for his decision to lodge this protest. There are only two ways in which we might miss Paul’s point and his directives. One is to embrace an artificial interpretation of the text in which Paul is conceived as speaking of something other than same-sex union. Continue reading →