Woke in the WELS: An Honest Conversation about Sexuality: Video 1
Well, what do you know. Pastor Bill Monday - affiliated with 922 ministries (aka The Core, Mike Novotny, etc.). I've gotten a few anonymous tips about his ministry to homosexuals, but I hadn't followed up on those to date - mea culpa - I'll do that in the near future.
His co-presenter, Ben Dose, is "not a congregation member" but a "lifelong Lutheran" who struggles with same-sex attraction and is a self-proclaimed "representative of the LGBTQ community" who is here to "put a human face on it" and "bring a level of empathy".
First - one can struggle with same-sex attraction much as a young straight man might struggle with chastity or porn - but the Christian will deny himself and repent of his weakness and look to God for strength. They won't identify with their sin as Ben does in identifying himself with the LGBTQ community. Imagine that 'identify' language in any other context: 'I identify as a porn-enjoyer'. 'I identify as wife-beater'. We don't identify with our sin, we repent.
"but at the same time, I found that I wrestle with same sex attraction and have to figure out what it means for my life, how that intersects with my faith"
Now we're using the woke verbiage of intersectionality and internalization of sexuality. No, Ben! Stop looking inside yourself and look to Christ!
We move on to some teen conversation about visible sins and invisible sins and since we're dropped in midstream it's hard to divine the context other than the idea that the Church needs to be accepting of all kinds of sinners (yes!) and "regardless of what lifestyle you are in" (4m22s) (no!) "I was born this way, and I believe that is true" (5m25s) (no!)
Back to Bill and Ben: Bill suggests kicking off this study with the question "what would you say is the compelling message often heard by the LGBTQ community? And what events from Jesus' life are used to advocate this message?" (7:10). Good Lord. Does Paul look for the good in the sodomite community in Romans 1? Are we asked to see the virtues in Sodom and Gomorrah? And then a true/false question: The Church needs to be accepting of everyone. Explain your reasoning."
(That would be false my dude. If a satanist shows up in their garb with a pentagram and says I have to accept them as they are in worship, no, as a Christian I can explain to them that God's Word norms our worship and your defiant presence is either a distraction or an appearance of syncretism. If the same person showed up in street clothes and said they were a satanist but open to hearing about the Gospel and listening to the message we proclaim... sure.)
After the intermission there is a discussion on acceptance which is fair but a heavy acceptance on "wanting to understand your story." Acceptance and understanding their internals precede Law and Gospel, and I just don't see that anywhere in the New Testament. I had a pastor tell me "Well, Jesus didn't lead into the conversation with the woman at the well about her sexual indiscretions." No, but he did ask the question that provoked the conversation! "Go get your husband" when He knew there was no husband! Jesus brought this to light, and it brought the woman to faith. The thought that we need to garner a relationship before telling them about their sin is a similar mistake to the one Novotny makes, assuming we have all the time in the world to convert a person. We don't know that persons' time of grace or when God returns in glory. We must work while the day is called Today.
Ben at 12:26 says we can't just look at Leviticus saying "a man shall not sleep with a man", shut the Bible and say "no" - that would be cherry-picking. What is he getting at? Bill affirms and says we need to take the "whole Bible in context." What 'context' mediates Leviticus? Then we break away to the next panel discussion without any kind of clear exposition about what Bill is referring to. The Bible condemns homosexuality without equivocation!
We return to our student panel where the concept of "cherry-picking" come up a lot and that we should "read the Bible in context" without much explanation, seemingly saying you can't just look at Leviticus or Romans 1, but without explaining how the broader context changes the truths we find in those passages.
Back to Ben and Bill - Ben says that empathy "necessitates us putting ourselves in [homosexual] shoes." The Bible never speaks this way! David in the Psalms never talks about empathizing with the heathen. Psalm 1 opens up
"Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night."
Bill goes on to say (20:06) that saying "this is what precisely the Bible says here or there" is a "holier-than-thou" attitude. It is, in the sense God is holier than thou, and we're simply sharing what our holy God has to say!
They close out with the WWJD argument, which I've heard from my Pastor, but we should dismiss those arguments out of hand. Jesus had a vocation that I do not have. I can't fashion a whip and clear out the bake sale at my church, much as I might like to. Jesus gave me prescriptive texts in the Bible which tell me how to act. I follow those.
Multiple references to the "single life of Paul" - dedicated to the ministry of the Church of course - as an analog to the concept of the celibate gay. This seems like a theme that might be picked up in future videos.
Closing thought from Bill:
"This is all about accepting people where they are at."
A doctrine of demons.
"We need to understand a little more about the LGBTQ ideology."
No, we don't.
"and even look at ourselves and realize we're all broken"
Stick with Biblical categories - we are all sinners, in need of a Savior. And there is a distinction between repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners
There is an overriding theme throughout of Christians not being as accepting as the LGBTQ community and we must repent and be more open, instead of sharing God's Truth about the LGBTQ community, which might mean *gasp* law.
Comments
Post a Comment