How Can Christian Supporters of Gay Rights Be More Biblical?

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

A church in Alexandria, just about 20 minutes west of Yorktown, has recently been thrown into the national spotlight because of a situation regarding its former choir director. According to an article in the Ball State Daily News, the director, Adam Fraley, was forced out of his position at First United Methodist Church. The reason? Fraley is gay.

You can read about the situation here and here. Bottom line is the church has an interim pastor who does not accept Fraley’s lifestyle. Many in the church have protested the pastor’s position. About two-thirds of the congregation has left. But according to the DN article, Fraley will “continue to fight until he is welcomed back into the church for who he is: a gay man.”

Situations like this have become commonplace in our culture. Most of the ensuing discussions revolve around whether homosexuality is condoned by the Bible, or whether churches should employ homosexuals, or whether gays are being discriminated against.

But there is one significant topic that never surfaces in this debate. It is an issue that every professed believer should be concerned about, whether gay or straight. It is an issue that is near and dear to the heart of Jesus. I’m talking about the unity of the church.

When people in the church are insistent on pushing a particular agenda, no matter what it might be, the result is almost always dissension. Most Christians find a way to avoid the tension by seeking a church more in line with their convictions.

A Baptist, for instance, might find it impossible to coexist in a paedobaptist church; if so, he will find a church more in line with his convictions about baptism. A charismatic might find it impossible to coexist in a cessationist church; if so, he will find a church more in line with his convictions about spiritual gifts. A Calvinist might find it impossible to coexist in an Arminian church; if so, he will find a church more in line with his convictions about God’s sovereignty.

But rarely, if ever, have I seen a Baptist, or a charismatic, or a Calvinist “continue to fight” until the church was willing to overhaul its beliefs to match their own. And one reason we don’t see this is because Christians see the way peace and unity are highly exalted in the Bible.

Jesus prays in John 17:20-23 that his people would be “perfectly one.” Paul admonishes us in Eph. 4:3 to “be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace.” He also lists “dissensions” and “divisions” as examples of “works of the flesh” in Gal. 5:19-20.

It does not seem to me that there is much peace at First United Methodist Church right now. A headline in a local paper sadly summed it up: “Alex church torn apart by gay issue.”

Perhaps mistakes were made with regard to how Fraley was hired and “pushed out.” If so, the church should acknowledge its error and make it right. Whether a person is gay or straight, he or she should be treated fairly and with respect by his/her employer. A spokesperson for the United Methodist Church denied that the decision had anything to do with Fraley’s sexuality. It was a “personnel decision,” they said.

Whatever the case, there is nothing unfair about a church staying true to its official position on an ethical issue. The UMC Web site says: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.” To demand a United Methodist congregation to defy this position does not seem to demonstrate an eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace.

One of Fraley’s supporters said he believed in “accepting everybody for who they are, not what you think they are.” May I suggest that he and Fraley accept the United Methodist Church’s position on this issue for what it is? Would that not be the Biblical thing to do? Lord grant peace to First United Methodist Church in Alexandria.

4 Things to Remember If You Are Discouraged by the Moral Deterioration of Our Nation

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Ross Douthat has written an article in the New York Times in which he says same-sex marriage will inevitably be legalized in all 50 states, and that all that is left for proponents of traditional marriage now is to “find out what settlement the victors will impose.”

It’s a pretty bleak prognosis. But there are at least four things to remember if you are one who is discouraged by the rapid changes that are taking place in our nation.

1. The leaders of our nation have been appointed by God. Pontius Pilate was in a position of authority to deliver Jesus over to be crucified. In John 19:11, Jesus said to Pilate: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” Rom. 13:1 tells us that the governing authorities have been “instituted by God.” Our president, our Congress and our Supreme Court are in charge because God put them in charge. But remember — God can remove people from power just as quickly as he placed them in power. (Is. 40:22-23)

2. We no longer live in a pro-Christian culture. Back in the 1960s, it was socially desirable to be a Christian churchgoer. The church enjoyed a place of prominence and respect in the culture. That is no longer the case. Many observers say we now live in a “post-Christian” culture, which means the basic values and convictions of Christianity are no longer assumed or even desired. This is alarming to many Christians, but it is certainly not unusual. For much of history, the church of Jesus Christ has been a marginalized, maligned and sometimes persecuted group. The psalmist, writing about 3,000 year ago, captures what many Christians feel today: “My foes are vigorous, they are mighty, and many are those who hate me wrongfully. Those who render me evil for good accuse me because I follow after good.” (38:19-20)

3. We should not shrink back from speaking the truth. It does not follow from points 1 and 2 above that we should therefore resort to apathy or indifference about what is happening in our culture. Paul warns us not to take part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but “instead to expose them.” (Eph. 5:11). The psalmist says he hates “every false way” (119:128), and that his eyes shed “steams of tears” because people do not keep God’s law (119:136). As believers we should be prepared to respectfully but boldly take a stand for Christian truth, and take the hits that will inevitably result.

4. Our ultimate hope is not in the salvation of America. There is Biblical precedent for being passionate about one’s country. Paul suffered “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” because of the spiritual state of his fellow Jews (Rom. 9:1-5). He longed for them to be saved (Rom. 10:1). So it is good to long for revival in the United States, that our fellow countrymen might be reconciled to God. But the final culmination of God’s redemptive purposes will not be found in a “reclaimed America,” but in the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth, where godlessness will be eradicated and righteousness finally will dwell (2 Peter 3:13), where all of God’s people from a multitude of nations (Rev. 5:9) will gather around the throne and worship Jesus forever.

What Kind of Presbyterian Are You?

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

A startling statistic came to my attention recently while reading a history of American Presbyterianism called Seeking a Better Country. In 1776, Presbyterians accounted for 25 percent of the American population. By 2001, that number had plunged to just 2.7 percent (p. 259-260).

Of course the kingdom of God is much bigger than Presbyterianism, and I am happy to acknowledge it, but there is a reason why I am a Presbyterian pastor: I believe Presbyterianism is the best (though not a perfect) expression of Biblical Christianity. So this Presbyterian plunge is a concern to me.

But this begs a question – what does it mean to be Presbyterian? Some Presbyterians are as liberal as you can imagine (often found in the PCUSA), and some are as conservative as you can imagine (often found in the PCA, but more so in the OPC). Some historians would explain the decrease in Presbyterian membership by saying there is no distinct Presbyterian identity.

Much of this goes back to the 19th century, when there was a split between “Old School” Presbyterians and “New School” Presbyterians. Tim Keller has written a helpful overview of this historical development here.

Old School Presbyterianism
The Old School was concerned about maintaining strict adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith; upholding strong commitment to the five points of Calvinism; embracing something called the “spirituality of the church,” which teaches that the church should stay out of secular and civil matters.

An Old School Presbyterian might say something like this: “It has always been the tendency of the church to slide into apostasy and heresy, and the only way to avoid this is for the church to be zealous for doctrinal precision. The church’s responsibility is not to get sidetracked or entangled in cultural or societal issues, but to preach the Gospel in all its purity and sanctify the church.”

New School Presbyterianism
The New School, on the other hand, was more interested in working for social reforms; they were Calvinistic, but willing to allow for more wiggle room when it came to the Westminster Confession; they were “revivalistic,” which means they placed a stronger emphasis on calling people to a “conversion experience;” and they were much more willing to work alongside Christians of other traditions.

A New School Presbyterian might say something like this: “It has always been the tendency of the church to withdraw from the world while the lost perish, and the only way to avoid this is for the church to be zealous for conversions and cultural change. The church’s responsibility is not to get sidetracked or entangled in theological minutia, but to impact the world and reach the lost with the Gospel.”

My question: what kind of Presbyterian are you? What are the advantages of both schools? Is there room in the PCA for both?

Do Christians Need the Church? A Response to Donald Miller

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

In the ongoing discussion between the “traditional” church and the “emerging” church, Donald Miller is a guy who falls somewhere in between. I read his book “Blue Like Jazz” many years ago and found it engaging and endearing in a lot of ways. The book was popular enough to be turned into a movie in 2012.

Now Miller has emerged as the latest person disillusioned with the church. In a recent blog, Miller admits he doesn’t like traditional worship. He doesn’t like singing songs to God, because he doesn’t feel anything when he does, and he doesn’t like listening to sermons, because he doesn’t learn anything. As a result, Miller says he doesn’t “attend church” very often. In a follow-up blog, Miller clarified that he is not saying people should not go to church, but he did write that “most of the influential Christian leaders I know (who are not pastors) do not attend church.”

There have been a number of responses to Miller’s comments. To be honest, I haven’t read any of them. I’m sure many people are pointing Miller to Heb. 10:25, which tells us to regularly gather together. There are all those psalms (30:4, 47:6, 68:4, 95:1) that command us to sing songs of praise to God (many in a corporate context, like Ps. 84), whether we feel like it or not. When David pleads with God to restore to him the “joy of his salvation” in Ps. 51:12, it would suggest that even the man after God’s own heart struggled to always feel good about God. But it keep him out of the sanctuary.

We all want to learn from the sermons we hear, but we should not equate a sermon with a lecture, as Miller does. A lecture is designed primarily to convey information; a sermon is designed primarily to build faith (Rom. 10:14-17). A lecture is designed to make people smarter; a sermon is designed to make people holier. A lecture is a man-made tool for instruction; a sermon is a God-given means of grace.

But there is another reason to be concerned about Miller’s comments, and it is not often discussed in these dialogues about the church. The church is not just a place to sing songs and hear sermons; it is not just a place where we find community; the church is also God’s appointed custodian of the truth. Paul says in I Tim. 3:15 that the church is the “pillar and buttress of the truth.” To cut oneself off from the church is like diving into shark-infested waters without a cage or a life preserver. The chances of survival are not good.

Sometimes I wish there was a law that required all Christian bloggers and authors to take a class in ecclesiology before they started writing. But that won’t happen, so I’ll just leave you with the comments of Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck:

…the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch that is torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and therefore doomed to die. Only within the communion of saints can the length and the breadth, the depth and the height, of the love of Christ be comprehended.”

5 Books I Recommend Reading in 2014

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

In Proverbs 23:23, we have a Biblical mandate for buying good books: “Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction and understanding.” Accordingly, here are five books I read in 2013 (though they were not necessarily released in 2013), and I heartily recommend them for your reading pleasure in 2014:

What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (by Sherif Girgis, Robert George and Ryan Anderson). This is not an argument against homosexuality; rather, it’s an argument for traditional marriage. The authors make a pragmatic case (without appealing to church tradition or Scripture) that marriage between one man and one woman is actually good for children, for spouses, and therefore good for society and human flourishing in general.

A.Lincoln (by Ronald White). Abraham Lincoln is one of the most recognized names in history, so it seemed a wise use of time to read this recent (2009) biography of the great man. This book is consistently engaging, endearing and informative. It even includes a glossary of significant individuals so you don’t get lost in all the names. I was especially interested to learn that Lincoln, though a reluctant churchgoer, sat under the preaching of a Presbyterian pastor named Phineas Gurley, who was committed to the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Center Church (by Tim Keller). This is basically a textbook explaining Keller’s philosophy of ministry. Everything you ever wanted to know about Keller’s approach to worship, evangelism, preaching, church planting, discipleship, revival, contextualization and the basics of the Gospel is right here. This is worth multiple readings and careful study.

Pastoral Graces: Reflections on the Care of Souls (by Lee Eclov). Anyone thinking about getting into pastoral ministry should read this. It’s full of down-to-earth, practical advice for how to relate to people, and how to treat them with grace. Best advice: “Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.”

A Praying Life: Connecting with God in a Distracting World (by Paul Miller). There are some great one-liners in this book: “Learning to pray doesn’t offer us a less busy life; it offers us a less busy heart.” And, “Time in prayer makes you even more dependent on God because you don’t have as much time to get things done.” At the end, Miller offers a practical suggestion for how to keep prayer requests on index cards. I’ve been using this system myself now, and I’ve found it helpful in keeping up with the large number of matters I try to pray for regularly.

The Difference Between Richard Sherman and Downton Abbey

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

There has been lots of talk this week about Richard Sherman’s wild rant on national television Sunday night. Sherman, a defensive player for the Seattle Seahawks, had just caused a game-saving interception in the NFC championship game with San Francisco when a Fox Sports reporter put a microphone in his face. Sherman proceeded to call 49ers player Michael Crabtree a “sorry receiver.” He boasted that he (Sherman) was the “best corner in the game.” He yelled to the camera that no one should ever talk about him. He was defiant. He glared. And then he stormed off.

Afterward, I was surprised at the number of people who rushed to Sherman’s defense. We shouldn’t be critical of his behavior, people said, because none of us knows what it’s like to play in such a highly charged, competitive situation. Sherman was “amped up” and full of adrenalin. He was just being “real.” He went to Stanford and is apparently really smart. Apparently Sherman and Crabtree have a history of sparring with one another.

These disclaimers all have merit. Sherman did offer a half-apology recently, and he should get credit for at least restraining himself from using profanity. I guess it could have been worse.

My guess is that Richard Sherman will not be asked any time soon to guest star on “Downton Abbey.” It’s the popular British “Masterpiece Theater” drama that is now in its fourth season on PBS. Interestingly, “Downton Abbey” was broadcast while the football game was concluding. Some people probably had to think hard about which one to watch. What a clash of cultures these two programs represent.

“Downton Abbey” explores the relationships between some aristocrats and their servants in the early 20th century England. Each episode, for the most part, is a model of civility and decorum, where characters show respect to one another and emphasize the importance of etiquette, good manners and the pursuit of virtue. It is my theory that one reason the show is so popular is because it offers such a refreshing contrast to the coarseness of our culture. The dialogue seems to capture what Paul possibly had in mind in Col. 4:6 when he wrote,

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt . . .”

I realize there is a big difference between the NFL and PBS, and yes, I enjoy watching professional football, but the sport seems to increasingly be a place where boasting and bravado are excused and even celebrated. Ps. 12:3-4 says,

May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, ‘With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is master over us?’”

Of course we all say things in the heat of the moment that we wish we could take back. But I would suggest that our society could use a few more doses of Downton Abbey rather than Richard Sherman. And the Scriptures are clear: God humbles the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

5 Reasons to Start a Blog

Pastor Bob O'Bannon

Let me admit right off the bat: I am somewhat reluctant to start writing a blog. For one reason, I tend to be the kind of person who resists trends and is slow to jump on bandwagons. Secondly, I’m not sure I have the time to write regular blog articles. And thirdly, it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that there are people out there in cyberspace who would be interested in what I think about anything.

And yet I have decided that yes, I am going to start writing a blog. There are at least five good reasons for this:

1) A blog provides an opportunity to express ideas that are not appropriate in a sermon. As a pastor, the primary venue in which I express ideas is in the pulpit on Sunday mornings. And in the pulpit, I consider it my responsibility to relay what the Bible says, not what I have to say. In a blog, there is freedom to communicate ideas related to culture, music, movies, politics and other issues that can’t (and shouldn’t) be expressed in a sermon.

2) A blog provides an opportunity for people to know their pastor better. As much as I would like to know everyone at New Life in a personal way, it is simply not possible. Sunday mornings tend to be a frantic rush, and then we all go our separate ways for the week. I don’t get to see most of you until the following Sunday, when the frantic rush starts again. Perhaps a blog will assist in helping us know one another a little better.

3) Writing helps to bring ideas into clearer focus. It’s one thing to think you understand something; it’s quite another to actually put into writing what you think you know. Writing not only helps me clarify my thoughts, but it allows me to hear and learn from others as I have the privilege of interacting with their responses.

4) Blogging is a good way to connect with people. My hope is that, as I blog, I’ll meet new people with whom I have some things in common, and perhaps new relationships can begin. It would also be my delight if God in his grace would be pleased to use some of these blog posts to lead people even one step deeper into an understanding of the grace of the Gospel.

5) I like to write. To put it bluntly, I think writing a blog will be fun. I look forward to it. And my hope and prayer is that you will look forward to reading it. So let the blogging begin!