Sexuality, Idolatry and Such

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Revoice and the “Idolatry” of the Nuclear Family by Richard Phillips, senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC. He has been the chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology since 2000 and is series co-editor of the Reformed Expository Commentary series (P&R). (original source here)

When the Obergefell case was argued before the US Supreme Court to establish the right to gay marriage, many saw little threat to religious liberty. It became clear, however, that the approval of same-sex marriage would in fact result in the delegitimizing of the Christian view of sexuality and marriage in American society. Justice Samuel Alito noted that far from merely establishing equal protection to competing views, the official approval of gay marriage would “vilify those who disagree, and treat them as bigots.”

Something similar now seems to be taking place within the “gay Christian” circles of the church, as evidenced by the recent Revoice conference held at Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis. One of the surprising claims to come out of this conference was made by Revoice president Dr. Nate Collins. In his address titled “Lament,” Collins suggested that the homosexual community be compared to Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah. “Is it possible,” he asked, “that gay people today are being sent by God, like Jeremiah, to find God’s words for the church. . . [and] shed light on contemporary false teachings and even idolatries?”

The question can be raised as to whether there is a genuine analogy, as Collins sees it, between the poor oppressed of Israel in the days of Jeremiah and the homosexual community today which is joined not only by the afflictions of sin but also by a shared temptation to sin. But more significantly, when Collins goes on to identify the false teachings exposed by “sexual minorities,” he states that the presence of gay people in the church constitutes “a prophetic call to the church to abandon idolatrous attitudes toward the nuclear family.”1

I place Collins’ comments beside the effects of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision because they share a significant common feature. As Justice Alito pointed out, the right to gay marriage not only grants a freedom to one view but also denies freedom to its opposite. Likewise, the vision of human sexuality espoused by Revoice not only conflicts with but also excludes the biblical vision for sexuality and human society.

In both cases, Obergefell and Revoice, this collision is inevitable since the normalizing of homosexual behavior/desires demands a radical revision of human life. The Bible says that God created mankind “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) and then placed them in the covenant union of marriage involving a man and a woman. “It is not good for the man to be alone,” the Lord noted, and in direct response to this assessment he created the first woman (Gen. 2:18-22).

In contrast, a major theme of Revoice is that homosexual desires existed before the fall and are not in themselves necessarily sinful. Yet as we consider what the Bible says, homosexual desire has no way to fit into Genesis 2 and thus the ordering of human relations by our Creator. There is no male-to-male or female-to-female sexuality in God’s created design. Furthermore, Genesis 2 views the creation of nuclear families not as idolatry but as a vitally significant way in which man’s purpose in life is fulfilled. The words, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28), described not the worship of a false god but obedient faith in the one true God. If the fulfilling of mankind’s creation mandate involves idolatry, then the world created by God must inevitably be a different one from that which is described in Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore, if there is a prophetic call from those who seek to normalize homosexual desires, its message is that the Bible’s view of humanity and life must be recast according to the agenda of “sexual minorities.”

There are many reasons to have sympathy with the aims expressed by the Revoice conference, especially the genuine sorrows of those who experience same-sex attraction. But the doctrine of Revoice is not one that biblically faithful Christians can afford to view with sympathy. Either the biblical view of humanity, sex, marriage, and society is right or else it is wrong. Likewise, if gays represent a prophetic voice challenging the church to conform, then it is the traditionally understood Christian view of sex and marriage that comes under rebuke. It is for this reason that the PCA cannot afford either to endorse the Revoice message or even to stand by inactive as conferences like these are held in our churches. If the Bible is true, right, wholesome, and good, then the doctrine of Revoice must not be embraced, nor permitted in the counsels of the church. What is at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the commitment of our denomination to the truth of God’s Word and our embrace of the Scripture’s view of life and godliness.

1. Revoice 2018, General Session 2: Lament (starting at the 36:30 mark).

False Assumptions about Science

Posted on by
Reply

Article: “3 False Assumptions About Science” by Leah Baugh, staff writer at Core Christianity and Associate Editor of Bible Studies at White Horse Inn. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry before turning to theology and receiving a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies. (original source here)

Our modern society celebrates reason and rationality as the pinnacle of man’s virtue and ability. Particularly the field of science has been influenced greatly by the idolization of reason and logic as the source of all meaningful and true knowledge. The scientific method in particular has claimed rational superiority to any other method of determining reality. It is this superiority that has been used to exclude religion or faith as a viable mode of knowledge. Science has often been used to push God out of the picture.

Part of the reason science and God seem incompatible is a misunderstanding of what exactly “science” means. Unless you’ve worked in a scientific field of study, it can be easy to simply trust the experts without knowing how to check their conclusions yourself. There are several things to note when evaluating science and what it claims to say about faith, God, and this world. Briefly, here are three false assumptions about science.

1. Scientific conclusions are made up completely of empirical facts.
The results of hypothesizing and experimenting do not just produce objective facts. The information gained through the scientific method must be interpreted and can be interpreted falsely. Physicist John Polkinghorne writes,

In the first case, the facts that concern scientists are already interpreted facts. Most of the time you can’t see directly what’s happening. You have to infer it from the things you can see, and that inference requires the use of theoretical interpretation. (Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, 2-3)

He goes on to say that scientific conclusions are usually a mix of fact and opinion. Because of the interpretive element of the scientist, most scientific conclusions have a measure of uncertainty inherent in them.

2. The scientific method is the best method for gaining knowledge about everything.
Traditionally, science has made four claims about itself: rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism. However, these claims have been under attack, and the consensus about the ability of science to fulfill all four of these claims varies widely among scientists. The rationality of a scientific conclusion can be examined by looking at the presuppositions, evidence, and logic that went into reaching that conclusion. However, the bigger question to ask is what is the scientific method used for?

While this assumption is necessary for science to work, this presupposition itself both supports and limits science. Author Marilyn Robinson states the problem:

While the assumption of the intelligibility of the universe is still useful, it is not appropriately regarded as a statement of doctrine, and should never have been. Science of the kind I criticize tends to assert that everything is explicable, that whatever has not been explained will be explained—and, furthermore, by their methods” (The Givenness of Things, 14).

The mysteries of the human mind, the human self, history, and religion all operate outside of the basic assumption science makes in order to operate. The principle that everything is knowable only by this specific methodology is like assuming that everything can be measured by tablespoons. John Polkinghorne writes, “Science makes maps of the physical world that are reliable for some, but not every, purpose” (Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, 7).

Limitations of science actually come from within science itself. The best example of this is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Basically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot simultaneously know where a particle is and what it is doing. This is just one example of the strange world we find ourselves in that sometimes is rational and predictable and other times completely bucks our theories.

3. Science determines what is possible and not possible in our world.
The other fundamental problem is that science of the kind I have been talking about captures the realm of possibility and severely restricts it. Marilyn Robinson writes, “Possibility has been captive to a narrow definition for a very long time, ourselves with it” (The Givenness of Things, 14). If we assume science is the only way to determine not only what does happen but what can happen, then our view of the world is extremely narrow. A purely naturalistic explanation of the world cannot satisfy every aspect of human life. The mind, consciousness, self-awareness, and human history refuse to be captured by a purely materialistic definition.

In many ways, the great success of science has expanded our models of reality to include multiple worlds, realms, and dimensions. This expansion only cements further the realization that our planet is radically exceptional and that “our capacity for awareness is therefore parochial in ways and degrees we cannot begin to estimate.” (The Givenness of Things, 14).

With these considerations in mind, science can be used and supported for what it is and for the good it can achieve in helping us understand our world. Trouble arises, however, when scientism exceeds the limits of its reference and purpose. We must be willing to lift our eyes above the horizon of purely naturalistic explanations as we seek to understand the complex and multidimensional world we find ourselves in.