An article from the Herald and Review about TBC Missions

Dentist, Tabernacle Baptist Church members serve those in need of surgery, shelter

By JIM VOREL - H&R Staff Writer Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:00 pm

DECATUR - When dentist and former soldier Dr. Kelly Clark last visited Juarez, Mexico, in 2010 as part of Tabernacle Baptist Church's mission trip program, he decided to offer a little free dental work, unsure of what kind of response he would have. Two days later, Clark and his aching back had served more than 70 patients, who came to have painful, infected teeth pulled after hearing of the American missionary performing dentistry at no charge. Now, Clark and the Tabernacle Baptist group are going back again, and he's bringing his dental tools with him.

"My back will feel better, I'm just happy to help," said Clark, a father of two and owner of Decatur Dental Care. "There is a great need in some of these impoverished towns for assistance of all kind, especially in housing, which is the real reason for the trip."

This will actually be Clark's third time making the trip with Tabernacle Baptist, which has spent five days each year in a small town outside the city of Juarez, each time constructing small, simple homes for needy families. Although the size of these completed dwellings are only "what people here would think of as a garage," in Clark's words, the important thing is to offer any shelter to those who have none.

"We go into areas where a home consists of just some wooden pallets on the ground," he said. "In one place, we met a family of six that was living out of their van. With the building we create, we're able to put a roof over their heads and give them electricity."

The dentistry Clark also offers was simply a natural addition; a way to spend his evenings in Juarez helping people after construction work has halted for the night. The sophistication of his setup in the small town is extremely simple: a tiny room with a single folding chair for the patient, a table to hold dental instruments, and a head-mounted light for Clark to see by. But still, the residents are thankful for any dental attention.

"We numb up three people at a time to pull teeth, so we can do as many as possible in one night," Clark said. "All we're able to offer is extractions of teeth, but most of the time when the tooth goes, the infection goes with it. These people are thankful because some of them are living every day in pain."

This isn't Clark's first time performing dental work far from home. He also did the same duties in Iraq, during his service in the military from 2000-03. The army paid for his final two years of dental school, in exchange for Clark's service in the field, performing basic dental work for soldiers on the front lines, operating out of a small tent.

"I was assigned to a field unit far from base, using portable dental equipment," he said. "I had access to things like X-ray, pretty much everything I needed, except air conditioning."

That tent, however, looks like a fully stocked dental office compared to the scarcity of equipment and services available in the outskirts of Juarez. In his time there, Clark said he's never seen another practicing dentist, and that he believes most tooth problems are never addressed due to a lack of professionals or lack of funds. Couple that with the plethora of challenges facing those without a structure to call home in the area, and you have a community in desperate need of help.

"Anyone who feels the need to help should make this trip," Clark said. "You don't need to have any construction experience at all to help build a home for these people. You just need to be there and be ready to help and listen to instructions."

The number of members attending Tabernacle Baptist's trip to Juarez has slowly increased, from 11 in Clark's first year, to 14 the second, and 17 this year. The dentist has even brought along his two children, ages 8 and 10, in an experience he believes has helped open their eyes and broaden their worldview to the struggles experienced by the less fortunate around the globe.

"They were humbled by it, I think," he said. "They didn't speak the language at all, but by the end of our time there, they had befriended all the other children and we're hanging out, playing soccer. I think it's been a really valuable experience for all of us."

Substitutionary Baptism? Paul's teaching on the "baptism of the dead."

In our Sunday evening class we’ve been studying the views of Mormonism. One of the practices of Mormonism is baptism for the sake of the dead, were Mormons are baptized in the place of non-Mormon’s who have died with the belief that in the afterlife the “newly” baptized person (i.e. the deceased non-Mormon) will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

Quotes from Mormon leaders concerning the “baptism of the dead”

"The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead...Those saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at peril of their own salvation" (Joseph Smith, in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.356, 196).

"These are the principles in relation to the dead and the living...their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation...they without us cannot be made perfect---neither can we without our dead be made perfect...there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children...it is baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect" (Doctrine and Covenants 128:15,18).

Biblical Basis?

Mormons also believe that this is what Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:29 where Paul writes, “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Is this what Paul is speaking of? Can one represent another in baptism? [It should be pointed out here that Mormons also believe water baptism saves so therefore being baptized, an act of salvation, for someone else can be the means of another’s salvation.]

What is Paul actually teaching in 1 Corinthians 15?

To conclude the Mormon teaching of “baptism of the dead” from 1 Corinthians 15:29 is to complete ignore context and faithful exegesis. Let’s take a look at Paul’s teaching in the larger context of this passage.

1. Paul, in the first 19 verses of chapter 15, has focused specifically on the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. There were some within the Corinthian church who had started doubting this reality, therefore Paul deals with the proofs of the resurrection. In addition, Paul gives the theological implications if Jesus is not resurrected, namely we are still dead in our sins (15:12-19)

2. Next, in verses 20-23, Paul speaks of the order of the resurrection [Christ first, then those who are united with Him will be resurrected when He returns]. From there, Paul deals with the reign of Christ and the final destruction of death.

3. From this Paul questions, “what will those do who are not baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

Historical Context

Paul is writing to the church in Corinth. Corinth was surrounded by a variety of pagan religions. One group in particular was located in a city named Eleusis, just north of Corinth. This group practiced baptism in the sea as a guarantee for a good afterlife and anticipation of a future resurrection (see Homer in “Hymn to Demeter” pg 478-79).

The Corinthian church had demonstrated on multiple occasions to have been influenced by the beliefs around them, thus Paul’s writing to “set the straight.” An example of this can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 where Paul quotes the false teachers (“Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food”) but goes on to teach the Corinthians that the “body is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (6:13). {There are more examples of this kind of referencing in 1 Corinthians as well and in Acts 17 where Paul quotes their own philosophers as a means of leading them to Christ.]

Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29

So going back to 1 Corinthians 15:29, what does Paul mean then by the “baptism of the dead?” Paul, knowing of the practice and teaching of this pagan religion, uses them as an example. Since Paul’s primary point has been “if there is no resurrection, we are dead in our sin and our preaching is in vain (12-13)”, he uses the example of these pagans (those who were trying to be baptized for the dead) as an example to show than even the pagans see the importance of the resurrection otherwise they would not practice “baptism for the dead.”

One of the key phrases in the text is “otherwise what do people”. Therefore, Paul is NOT encouraging the practice and the Corinthians are NOT practicing such a ritual. Rather, Paul is trying to show believers the importance of the resurrection by showing them that if the pagans around them place such a great importance on the resurrection, how much more those who put their faith in the resurrected Christ.

Now some will respond that the above is not correct because the word “they” is not in the Greek text, namely “they are baptized on their behalf” rather than “you (the Corinthians) are baptized on their behalf.” However, the Greek word “baptizontia” is a present, passive, indicative, in the 3rd person, plural, meaning that “they” (3rd plural, the pagans not the Corinthians) are “being baptized” (present passive).

Therefore, Paul is simply using an example practiced by the pagans to illustrate how important even the pagans view the resurrection. How much more should we who have find our identity in the true resurrection…Jesus of Nazareth, the ONLY ONE who was baptized (the cross) on behalf of others!!!

Pastor Wes

A Christian response to the death of Osama Bin Laden

One of the questions Christians are forced to deal with is, "How should a Christian respond to the death of Bin Laden?" Some will argue that we should rejoice because justice has been served, while others will defend that the death of someone (regardless of how evil) should be grieved. So how should Christians respond to this event?


I personlly think a Christian should have mixed emotions.

On one hand, a Christian should grieve the death of Bin Laden. They should grieve the death of anyone created in the image of God, they should grieve because hell is real and those without Christ will face the eternal judgment of God, and they should grieve because it remins us of the sinfulness of mankind is a present reality. I understand why many will be quick to "rejoice" in this event (and will argue below the way in which one should), but we check our emotions in light of the gospel. Death is tragic, sin has consequences, hell is real, and Jesus is the only hope! Therefore, death, regardless of who, is to be grieved.

On the other hand, I believe a Christian can and should rejoice in the justice of Bin Laden's death. Notice the difference! There is a difference in rejoicing in the death of someone (small lens) and rejoicing in what the death represents (larger lens). Bin Laden was an evil man, who was responsible for the death of hundreds thus requiring his own life as a just consequence (Genesis 9:6). In addition, God has ordained government in the yielding of the sword to carry out such justice (Romans 13). In this, we can rejoice. Therefore, when asked the question, "Should a Christian rejoice in the death of Bin Laden or grieve over it?" My answer is "yes." Biblically we must do both.

Below are a few links that provide more perspective on this issue. I think you will find them helpful in thinking through this issue.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/05/02/the-trial-that-still-must-come-the-death-of-osama-bin-ladin-and-the-limits-of-human-justice/

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-god-glad-osama-bin-ladens-dead

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=91717

Pastor Wes

The Relationship between Church Membership, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: a position paper for Tabernacle Baptist Church.

By Dr. Wes Feltner (with help from Pastor Brandt Waggoner)

Over the past few years I have noticed that many in the church have struggled with issues related to church membership, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. I have often been asked to explain why we emphasize the necessity of church membership, why we do not recognizes “infant baptism” as biblical baptism, or why we only biblically baptized believers should partake of Communion. My hope is that this article will help you think through these issues, regardless of what position you hold, as well as give an explanation as to how we believe these issues work in relationship to one another.

Let me first give an overview of each element.

Does the New Testament teach Church Membership?

The simple answer to this question is “Yes.” Now if one is looking for the term “membership” one will not find such a word used in Scripture (although it does commonly use “members” of one another as in Romans 12 and other places). However, just because the word “membership” is not used does not mean the activity is not practiced. For instance, words like “Trinity” and “rapture” are not used either and yet such doctrines are taught in Scripture.

A biblical overview of church membership…

1. Broader Model: While not specifically addressing “church membership,” there is a broader model in Scripture of recording names who are identified with a specific people (i.e. Israel, believers in heaven, etc.). See Exodus 32:32-33, Daniel 12:1, Philippians 4:3, and Revelation 13:8, 20:12, 15. Again, this does not prove church membership, but shows a larger model recorded keeping identification.

2. Acts 2: In the early church, after individuals believed in the gospel and were baptized, they were “added” into the life of the church (2:41). Regardless of how one interprets this, there was clearly some distinguishing mark, after baptism, whereby baptized believers were identified as being a part of the community of faith.

3. Church Discipline: In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is rebuking the church for not expelling a man who is a part of the church but is living in serious immorality.

a. Paul writes: “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’ (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

b. Paul clarifies that he is not calling members of the church to avoid associating with those outside the church who are living a sinful lifestyle because they are expected to act in such a way. His concern is that these Christians not associate with people who call themselves Christians and are in the church, but go on living a sinful lifestyle. These people are to be expelled from the church. Now, if Paul differentiates between those who are inside the Corinthian church and those who are outside, clearly there is a way to determine who is in and who is out. In addition, how do you remove someone from the congregation if they are not a member of it? In other words, it is impossible to exercise discipline without having some way of identifying who is and who is not a part of the local church. Those inside the church were members who had made a formal commitment to the church and as a result the church leadership had counted them among their number.

4. Inside/Outsider Language: (1 Corinthians 14:23)

a. Paul writes: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?”

b. Similarly to the previous passage, Paul speaks of the “whole church” which is clearly not the universal church but all those who are members of that local congregation. He goes on to say that “outsiders” or “unbelievers” may enter. How would the Corinthian church know the difference if there was not some way of identifying who belonged to the “whole church” and who was an “outsider”?

5. “One Body” and “Membership” Language (1 Corinthians 12:12-16)

a. Paul writes: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many…As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.” (12:12-16)

b. This picture of a church as a body pictures individual Christians as the members of a human body. At the core of what it means to be a member of a local church is a commitment to the rest of the “body parts” (members). In order to have unity, a believer must know exactly what people they are committed to living alongside as a unified body, and make a whole-hearted commitment to seeking the good of this group as a whole. Membership is a requirement in order to know who the other “body members” are that we are committing to, in order to live the life that Christ, as the head, intends for His church.

6. Church Leadership: In passages like Hebrews 13:7, 17-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14; 1 Peter 5:2; and others, elders/pastors are exhorted to “watch over the flock” entrusted to them. How are pastors to care for the flock without having some way of knowing who is and who is not a part of that local congregation?

What does the New Testament teach about Baptism?

1. The Meaning of Baptism: Union with Christ

a. The public identification of union with Christ, symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

b. The public identification of new life in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:4)

2. The Subject of Baptism: Believers Only

a. EVERY New Testament baptism was someone who had repented of their sin and exercised faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-13, and others). Therefore, baptism is only for believers. Therefore, baptism is not baptism if the person is not a genuine believer in Jesus Christ. This would, of course, rule out people who have not exercised faith prior to their baptism or were unable to (as in infants) at the time of their “baptism.”

b. Note: It should be noted that baptism does NOT make you a Christian – it is meant to show that you are one. Baptism does not "save" you, only faith in Christ does (Eph 2:8-9). Examples of salvation preceding baptism can be found in Acts 10:44-48 and 1 Cor 1:14-17. However, given the importance and command of baptism, refusal to be baptized would cause concern about the genuineness of ones salvation.

3. The Mode of Baptism: Immersion

a. Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matthew 3:16)
b. Every New Testament baptism was immersion (Acts 8:38-39)
c. The very meaning of the word “baptizo” means “to immerse or dip under water.”
d. Conclusion: we believe strongly that the Bible teaches that baptism is only by immersion. This would, of course, eliminate sprinkling or pouring as legitimate forms of baptism.

4. The Importance of Baptism: Obedience

a. Following the example of Christ (Matthew 3)
b. Following the commands of Christ (Matthew 28)
c. Following the pattern of the New Testament church (Acts 2; and others)

5. The Timing of baptism: Post-conversion

a. Every New Testament baptism occurred after the individual exercised faith in Christ and was the visible sign in the early church of ones union with Christ (Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:11-12). Therefore, baptism is the first sign of obedience and testimony in the believer’s life. Though the believer is not necessarily baptized within seconds of exercising faith, it should be done sooner rather than later.

What does the Bible teach about the Lord’s Supper?

1. The Subject of the Lord’s Supper

a. Those who participated in the Lord’s Supper were individuals who were already believers in Christ and were in fellowship with other believers (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

2. The Mode of the Lord’s Supper

a. The Lord’s Supper has two specific elements involved, namely bread and wine (or the fruit of the vine). This is represented in the Passover feast, faithful to Jesus’ instruction with his disciples in the Upper Room (Luke 22), and Paul’s instruction to New Testament churches (1 Corinthians 10).

3. The Timing of the Lord’s Supper

a. Unlike baptism, which happens one time for the believer, the Lord’s Supper is repeated in the life of the church as the ongoing act of remembering the accomplished work of Christ and the future kingdom of God.

4. Different views on the Lord’s Supper

a. Transubstantiation: The Roman Catholic teaching that the bread and wine actually become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus due to an over-literal reading of Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, and John 6:54-56.

b. Consubstantiation: The Lutheran and Anglican teaching that the bread and wine co-exists with the flesh and blood of Jesus.

c. Remembrance: The Baptist (and other Protestants) view that the bread and wine commemorates and symbolizes the flesh and blood of Christ. It points back to the work of Christ on the cross and forward to His future return, just as the Passover feast pointed back to Israel’s redemption from Egypt and forward to the promises of God. I will not take time to list all the reasons but simply note that we reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation as biblical views of the Lord’s Supper.

The Relationship between Church Membership, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper

Before I discuss the relationship between these three, let’s look at a few key passages of Scripture.

1. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jesus charges his disciples (representing the building of His Church) with what is known as the “Great Commission.” Notice the order…

a. All authority is given to Jesus (through his finished work on the cross)
b. His disciples are to go into all nations (a call to preach the gospel)
c. They are to “baptize” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Baptism was seen as the public identification of conversion/salvation).
d. Then they were to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

2. The Early Church Pattern (Acts 2:41-42). The pattern in the New Testament was exactly the pattern that occurred in the early church.

a. Peter preaches the gospel (“Go to all nations”)
b. His hearers “believed” and were “baptized” (Conversion)
c. After their faith/baptism they were joined the fellowship of believers.
d. Then, as a part of the union with other believers, they “devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching, prayers, and breaking of bread (communion).” [“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”]

3. Conclusion: The order of the Great Commission and the practice of the early church was the…
a. Preaching of the gospel
b. Followed by faith/baptism
c. Followed by joining the fellowship of believers
d. Followed by participation in the life of the church (discipleship, prayers, communion, etc.). It should be noted that there is no biblical evidence of their being any different pattern than this in the Newt Testament church.

The Relationship between Baptism and Church Membership

The follow reasons outline why we believe baptism should lead to church membership and why baptism is required before church membership.

1. The Great Commission does not separate baptism and discipleship

a. The three participles in the Great Commission involve “going, baptizing, and teaching.” Therefore, when churches separate baptizing from the ongoing teaching and discipleship in a local congregation, they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.

2. The pattern of the early church

a. As seen in Acts 2, after they “believed” and were “baptized” the joined the fellowship of believers. Therefore, those who joined the fellowship of believers had already participated in believer’s baptism. Therefore, one should not be allowed into the membership of the church without first identifying with Christ through baptism.

3. Baptism symbolizes union with Christ and His body

a. It is true that the church exists universally (all believers) and locally (believers in a local church). However, the universal church is expressed through the local body of believers. Baptism points to union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) and union with Christ is expressed through the participation of the local church (Romans 12, 1 Cor 10:16-17, Eph 1:22-23, 2:16; Col 1:18, 2:19, 3:15, and many others). This is also why we should see baptism as a “church ordinance” and not simply an “individual ordinance.”

4. It is spiritual dangerous to baptize someone without their participation in the local church

a. In Matthew 28 and Acts 2, the Great Commission is not fulfilled without discipleship. Therefore, new believers need the teaching, accountability, and discipline of the local church. To allow individuals to be baptized and not be under the watch-care of the church is to undermine the Great Commission and is spiritually dangerous for the new believer.

The Relationship between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

1. The teaching of Matthew 28 and Acts 2

a. In both of these passages the Lord’s Supper falls after baptism. In Matthew 28, the Lord’s Supper would only qualify as being under the “teaching them all that I have commanded you” clause and consequently would not come until after baptism. In Acts 2, they did not “break bread” with one another until after they had participated in baptism.

b. In the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is always second in order of observance to baptism. There is no record of any person in the New Testament ever partaking of the Lord’s Supper without having first been baptized.
2. The Logical order

a. In addition, such order only makes logical sense. After all, since baptism is the initial sign of identity with Christ and His body, then a believer would NOT join with believers in partaking of the Lord’s Supper until they had first been identified with Christ in baptism.

3. Baptist Confession (TBC’s statement of faith)

a. Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. [The Baptist Faith & Message, 2000]

The Relationship between Church Membership and the Lord’s Supper

1. The teaching of Matthew 28 and Acts 2

a. As I noted above, the pattern in the early church was to join the fellowship of other believers before “breaking bread together.”

2. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

a. Paul states here that the “bread we break” is “participation in the body of Christ.” Now some will try to argue that this means the universal body of all believers. If such is the case, then one would need to answer the following:

i. When does the universal church gather the Lord’s Supper? It doesn’t! Because there is no such thing as the gathering of the universal church. The universal church is only expressed through local churches.

ii. To whom is Paul writing? A local church geographically located in Corinth. Paul is writing about “their communion” and “their participation” with one another. While there is no doubt there are implications for the universal church, Paul has in mind the local gathering of believers in Corinth.

b. Therefore, Paul’s teaching recognizes that “participation in the body” and “participation in the Lord’s Supper” are in relation to one another. This is why we believe that all those who come to the Lord’s Table should be active participants (members) and under the accountability of a local congregation.

3. The Logical placement of Church Membership and Lord’s Supper

a. In addition to the biblical evidence, it makes logical sense that membership within a local congregation would be a prerequisite before partaking of the Lord’s Supper given that the Lord’s Supper is a “church ordinance” and not nowhere in Scripture an individual act. Both the Passover meal and the Last Supper imply a specific group identity. It is very problematic for someone to argue that he or she can come to the Lord’s Table if they have refused to participate with the body of Christ.

4. Differing views on how the Lord’s Super relates to Church Membership

a. Open: anyone who is saved may partake.
b. Close: all baptized believers who are members of local congregations of like-faith may partake (this is TBC’s practice).
c. Closed: all baptized believers who are members of a SPECIFIC congregation may partake.

Common Objections/Questions

1. Should a church prevent someone from the Lord’s Supper over something as small as disagreeing on the “mode of baptism?”

a. This question assumes Scripture isn’t clear on the right mode of baptism or that baptism can be something other that what the Bible teaches. As a result, one would be asking a church to compromise the witness of Scripture for the sake of inclusion.

2. Isn’t the Lord’s Supper is a Christian ordinance given to the church universal?

a. The Lord’s Supper is not something that we do on our own as individuals, but as Christ said only as often as we commune or “gather together.” We celebrate the Supper as a church family, coming together to one table where we share in this meal as brothers and sisters. Christ has brought us all together into one family, and His presence is among us as we unite to celebrate Him. We “participate in the body of Christ” by sharing one loaf and one cup. Only Christians are invited to this fellowship, because only Christians are part of this family that will one day sit down at a table with Christ himself.

3. Jesus never mentioned baptism or church membership at the Last Supper?

a. One must keep in mind that Jesus is transitioning between the Passover feast of Israel to the New Testament act of Communion. There is no church membership mentioned because there is no church. Therefore, one must look to the instruction of the New Testament to conclude how these issues relate to one another.

4. What about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? He wasn’t a part of a local church.

a. First, it is likely that there was no church in Ethiopia at the time because the gospel was starting to spread.
b. Second, we are not given enough follow-up information concerning this situation as to discern what happened after his baptism.
c. Third, one should never take one example (of which we do not have all the surrounding information) and a make a universal principle out of it when the entire rest of the New Testament demonstrates to practice of baptism into the local body.

5. Won’t such “rules” seem unfriendly or unloving to visitors?

a. First, we do not view these as “rules” but as biblical guidelines.
b. While we will make every effort to be friendly and loving to visitors, being a friendly and loving church should not be equated to compromising biblical conviction. A local church cannot, even with good intentions, fail to maintain the proper administration of the church.

For His Glory,
Dr. Wes Feltner
Senior Pastor TBC

Like a virgin: what the first Madonna song teaches us about God.

It’s the time of year where almost every radio station you turn on, every store you go in, almost everywhere you go you hear Christmas music. Have you noticed how almost every Christmas song is about happiness or joy?

Songs like…
• “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire”
• “I’m dreaming of a White Christmas”
• “Joy the World”
• “We wish you a Merry Christmas”
• “Tis the season to be jolly”

Christmas is a very sentimental time of year. But have you ever stopped to realize that the events surrounding the first Christmas were far from sentimental or jolly.

The Gospels reveal the anger of King Herod as he orders the slaughter of children in hopes to eliminate the threat posed by this “Christ-child.” The shepherds who are out in the fields are all of a sudden startled by warrior-like (known as angels) beings announcing the birth of Christ. Joseph, a day-laborer, just trying to make ends meet is told that his wife-to-be is pregnant and he knows he had nothing to do with it. He is now asked to put everything on the line to accept this story that the Holy Spirit has conceived a child in Mary and that she has not been unfaithful.

And then there’s Mary. When we think of Mary we often think of her as a soft-spoken woman with a blanket over her head. She’s a peaceful and sentimental prop in a nativity set. But that is not the picture we get from the Scriptures. Mary is a poor, peasant, teenage girl who has just received the news that she will give birth to the Son of God. News that one would think would bring excitement, but that is not Mary’s immediate response. Mary is afraid!

The Anxiety of Mary

Luke tells us that when Mary receives the news she is scared to death (Luke 2:29). An angel speaks to her and tries to calm her down saying “do not be afraid” (2:30). And then Luke says she “makes haste” to go to Judah to see Elizabeth. While the birth of Jesus is wonderful news, one can hardly blame Mary for being frightened as to how this will all turn out.

Why would this announcement make Mary so anxious?

1. Economically: She is married to a day-laborer and now will have to support a child.
2. Martially: She will have to break the news to Joseph. Matthew tells us that apart from an angel speaking to him he most likely would have broken off the engagement and put her away.
3. Socially: She might end up being a single-mom, not to mention that having a baby during a betrothal was socially unacceptable (and against OT law).
4. Spiritually: And on top of that she has just been told she will be the mother of God? How’s that for pressure? Try leading the prayer at that family meal? Try leading the family devotion when your child is the Creator of the world?

So the news of this birth brings financial, marital, social, and spiritual problems. I’d make haste and flee to Judah too! This was not sentimental, it’s far from a “jolly season” in the life of Mary. The first Christmas is more like “God I trust you, but I’m scared to death.”

The first Christmas wasn’t sentimental, because life isn’t always sentimental. Life is full of marriages that are one fight away from separation, financial struggles, silence caused from the loss of a loved one, and the building pressures of negative pregnancy tests. You see, sometimes God’s richest blessings come when your soul is the most troubled. It certainly was for Mary!

The Affirmation of Elizabeth

So Mary makes haste for Judah to visit her relative Elizabeth, a woman who Luke tells us had been barren all her life until about 6 months before this. In that day if you were barren, it was believed that you were being punished by God for something. So Elizabeth was a woman who knew suffering.

Now Elizabeth’s response says something significant. She has known the pain of barrenness all of her life and for the past 6 months has known the joy of pregnancy only to have her younger relative, who has never known the sufferings and reproach of barrenness, reveal the news that she is conceiving of an even more miraculous child than her own. Can’t you see the temptation to say “I’m really happy for you” as she walks away crying in the other room?

But Elizabeth is secure in God’s plan for her life. She is not drowning in self-pity or unrighteous jealousy? There is great freedom that comes when you can joyfully embrace God’s story in your life without comparing it to someone else's. Elizabeth was secure in the plan that God had for her and it didn’t have to be the same plan God has for Mary. This allowed Elizabeth to encourage Mary in her time of stress. Even the baby within Elizabeth leaped for joy!

Elizabeth’s words ministered to Mary, it brought her comfort. Through the affirmation of Elizabeth, Mary’s anxiety turned to adoration.

The Adoration of Mary

Things started to settle in for Mary and the text says that her soul turned to God and began to worship him in a song. Mary has just been told “blessed are you among women” and yet her response is to turn and praise God rather than glorify herself. Mary not only magnifies God, but she rejoices in God. Her joy in God surpasses the pain and anxiety of life.

How is Mary able to magnify God and find joy in God? I believe it was Mary’s view of God. Mary says at least 10 things that serve as an anchor when we are frightened and uncertain.

i. God is in control (“Lord”) Mary calls God her “Lord”. Mary could magnify and rejoice in God even in her circumstances because God was in control, not her.

ii. God will deliver (“Savior”) Mary calls God her “deliverer”. Mary believes that God will rescue her and lift her up in her time of need. [*Important to note that Mary realizes her need for a Savior, she’s not perfect.]

iii. God knows my situation (“looked on the estate”) Mary says that God has “looked on her lowly estate.” In other words, God is not unaware of her situation, He knows what the consequences will be, He knows what the outcome will be, and there is a great comfort in knowing that He knows.

iv. God is for me (“will call me blessed”) Mary realizes that though this situation is a lot to bear, God is for her. However this story unfolds, God has promised that her name will be blessed.

v. God has done great things (“has done great things”) Mary takes inventory of God’s resume. He has done amazing things in the past, and He has not changed!

vi. God is holy (“holy is His name”) Mary mediates on the nature and character of God. God is good, and perfect, and everything He does is right. Holy is His name.

vii. God is powerful (“strength in His arm”) In the eyes of man, this story seems impossible. But there is nothing that is impossible with God.

viii. God is just (“brought down thrones”) Mary sees God as a just God who holds the proud accountable. If this birth is the plan of God, then those who try to stand in His way will be put to shame.

ix. God is merciful (“his mercy is for those who fear”) Mary knows that those who look to Him will be shown mercy even when they don’t deserve it. God takes the proud and humbles them; God takes the humble and lowly and exalts them.

“Praise you God that you take peasant girls and give them a name, thank you that you take a criminal on a cross and give him paradise, thank you that you take fishermen and make them the foundation on which you will build your kingdom. Thank you that you will take a baby born in a manger and a man from Nazareth and change the world. Thank you that no one is too lowly that you will not lift up.”

x. God remembers His promises (“Ab and offspring”) Mary realizes that God is doing something through this birth that is fulfilling a promise of long ago. God had promised Abraham an offspring, God had promised David a heir to the throne, God had promised, and what God promises, He always delivers. God has not forgotten his people!!!

Now that’s a song! Mary has gone from worrier to worshiper, from afraid of shame to her name being blessed before many, from lowly to lifted up, from anxious to adoring God. Mary put her faith and found her joy in the true and living God. The God who is in control, the God who saves, the God who knows, the God who is for us, the God who has done great things, the God who is holy, the God who is powerful, the God who is just, the God who is merciful, and the God who always fulfills His promises.

Maybe this season we would do well to turn off for a moment the happy, sentimental Christmas songs and sing the Christmas song of a frightened, teenage peasant girl who was scared for her life. Her song is not a song about a baby who "no crying he makes", but a song about a man who cried out, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” Her song is not a song about sleigh rides in the snow, but a Savior on a cross. Mary’s song was a song of faith! Will you sing with her? If you do, you may feel something inside you leap for joy!

Pastor Wes

Divorce and Church Leadership

Recently we studied the topic of “Divorce and Remarriage” in our Sunday night “Hard Questions” series. We were unable (due to time) to get to implications for church leadership. As promised, here our some notes to reflect on.

The debate really centers on the meaning of the qualification μιας γυναικος ανδρα, usually translated "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3 for both pastors (elders) as well as deacons.

A few cautions:

1. Too Inclusive: Some, in the name of grace, want to lower the bar and make it easier for people to qualify as elders or deacons. This is usually because someone “knows someone” who they think should qualify rather than starting with the Scripture.

2. Too Exclusive: Others will wish to raise the bar and make it more difficult to qualify.

3. We should not make the qualifications of pastor/deacon any more inclusive or exclusive than God does. We must let the text say what it says, regardless of how difficult or unpopular it may be. Scripture is not written to back up our preferences.

Views on “husband of one wife”

1. Polygamy: Some say the phrase should be taken to mean that a polygamist is not qualified to be a pastor or deacon. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase. Though I have been quick to dismiss this view in the pastor, there is a credible argument to be made on this point. D.A. Carson, for instance, argues that Paul is talking about those who have come into the church from the “outside” world, which would have had polygamist. As a mark of church leadership, pastors and deacons should be models for the “one-wife” picture of Genesis 2. Though credible, I am not convinced (yet) that this is what Paul is addressing directly (though indirectly in certainly applies).

2. Married, not single: This is remotely possible since the Sanhedrin—an elder sort of leadership body—required that its members be married, because a married man would be more merciful in his judgment. That Paul is requiring that all church elders and deacons be married seems unlikely, since Paul himself was not married, and actually argues for greater ministry freedom for the unmarried (1 Corinthians 7). The apostle Peter calls himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1: “Now the presbyters among you, I, who am fellow presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that will be revealed, exhort: shepherd the flock of God among you, being overseers....”

3. Moral Purity: This would indicate that a pastor or deacon must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on moral purity than marital status. Given the additional clause of “above reproach” moral purity is most certainly apart of the qualifications whether that is what is meant by “husband of one wife” or not.

4. One Marriage (no divorce): The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, meaning his has never been divorced. The problem with this view is that someone could be divorced and never have remarried and would not have broken this qualification theoretically. In other words, since singleness is clearly not apart of the discussion (see comments above) and a man has divorced by not remarried, one could not argue that “being the husband of one wife” has been broken based upon the divorce alone.

It is noteworthy that Paul doesn’t say “no divorce” he says “husband of one wife.” If that is what Paul meant, it would have been easy to make such a statement clear. In addition, the Bible provides grounds for divorce: adultery (Mt. 19:9) and abandonment of a non-believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:15). This does not settle the question about pastors and divorce, but it does tell us to acknowledge that a pastor, like anyone else, can be the innocent victim of a spouse’s covenant-breaking sin. Moreover, the biblical standards for the office of elder – which includes pastors – contain guidance about marriage.

Therefore, if a man can justly (keeping within biblical guidelines) divorce his wife it doesn’t not necessarily make him unqualified (it doesn’t guarantee that he is qualified either).

What it does mean?

Interpretations 1) and 3) are the most likely. Interpretation 4) seems to be unlikely, primarily because Scripture clear permits (though doesn’t command) divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19). Since, therefore, the phrase “husband of one wife” do not necessarily exclude a divorced man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider one must consider.

1. “Above reproach”: The divorce could have occurred in a way that disqualifies a man over this. The means circumstances of the divorce matter. If the man committed adultery and abandoned his wife and children, then he has broken this qualification. But if the man was the innocent party or and if the man has gained the respect of Christians and non-believers by his subsequent conduct in marriage, then I do not see why his divorce renders him less than “above reproach.”

2. “Manage his household well”: Paul links the man’s ability to lead the church as demonstrated in his ability to lead his family. If the divorce someone breaks this then he would be disqualified. However, if the divorce is not a reflection on the man’s leadership (and there are certain examples of this) then the divorce does not necessarily disqualify.

3. Did he remarry? If he divorced for non-biblical reasons and remarried then he is not a “one-woman man” and would be disqualified based on this qualification. See Luke 16:10 and Mark 10:10-12.

4. Is he sexually faithful? Regardless of divorce or no divorce, is he currently sexually faithful to his wife.

Additional comments on the phrase “husband of one wife”

“The phrase literally reads, "one-woman man." As simple as that sounds, it has been the subject of numerous interpretations....(some) have interpreted the phrase to mean that a candidate for overseer must never have been divorced in his life...But this seems to be too restrictive...in light of Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9, where he permits--though He does not promote--divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. So what does 'husband of one wife' mean? Taken in its most basic sense, it means that an overseer, if married, must be married to only one woman (which excludes bigamy, polygamy, and homosexuality) and must be devoted to his wife (which excludes promiscuity and an unhealthy marriage)." (Chuck Swindoll, Guide to 1st Timothy, pg 41)

"Paul is not referring to a leader's marital status...rather the issue is his moral, sexual behavior. Many men married only once are not one-woman men. Many with one wife are unfaithful to that wife. While remaining married to one woman is commendable, it is not indication or guarantee of moral purity. Some may wonder why Paul begins his list with this quality. He does so because it is in this area, above all others, where leaders seem most prone to fall. The failure to be a one-woman man has put more men out of the ministry than any other sin. It is thus a matter of grave concern. The Scriptures permit and honor second marriages under the proper circumstances....Still others hold that this qualification excludes divorced men, from spiritual leadership. That again, ignores the fact that Paul is not referring to marital status. Nor does the Bible forbid all remarriage after a divorce. In Matthew 5;31-32 and Matthew 19:9, our Lord permitted remarriage when a divorce was caused by adultery." (John Macarthur)

Final Comments

1. Therefore I believe what Paul has in mind is that to be the “husband of one wife” or “a one-woman man” means that…

a. If married, he is morally pure and faithful to his wife (obvious from text).
b. Not a polygamist (obvious from text).
c. If divorced, he was not the guilty part and the divorce was on biblical grounds (from other Scriptures and “above reproach” clause).
d. If divorced, the divorce did not bring reproach on his name nor bring question to his ability to lead and manage his family (from the “above reproach” and “manage his household well” clause).
e. If divorced and remarried, does the remarriage make him unable to be considered a “one-woman man?” If divorced and remains single (given the above is true) then he is still qualified as well.

2. Grace makes clear that all sin is forgiven in the cross, but it also calls for us to hold church leaders to a high standard.

3. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ and can (and should) serve in many other key leadership positions.

Pastor Wes

THE GAY GENE AND THE EVANGELICAL RESPONSE

The homosexuality debate is one of the most important issues facing the church today, specifically whether homosexuals are biologically predisposed or if such a lifestyle is a matter of choice. Most evangelicals are committed to the view that homosexuality is a self-consciously chosen sexual preference (and an immoral one at that). On the other hand, many homosexuals would argue homosexuality is caused, not chosen. According to such a view, homosexuals are born predisposed to such tendencies, often emerging later in life, but have been possessed from birth. So how should a Christian respond?

Relevance to the Homosexual Community

The possibility of biological factors influencing or determining an individual’s drive towards homosexual behaviors has significant implications for most homosexuals. First of all, many in the homosexual community see biological predetermination as grounds for recognized rights. “A major goal of the homosexual-rights movement has been to stipulate a biological cause of homosexuality, in order to shift the discussion of homosexuality from morality to minority rights.”[i] If homosexuality is caused from birth, and is therefore not merely the choice of the individual, advocates believe rights should be given to homosexuals like any other minority. For many homosexuals, biological determination removes any notion of blame and should lead to accepted sexual orientation. “It could gain them the civil-rights protections accorded any ‘natural’ minority…”[ii] It is important to mention that not all in the homosexual community are concerned with whether or not there is a biological connection, for them homosexuality is legitimate either way.

Biological predisposition also raises the question of whether homosexuality should become an accepted moral lifestyle. “It then becomes necessary to accept human sexual diversity rather than to find ways to limit it. The question becomes less of a moral one and more a statement of biological fact.”[iii] One should understand, however, that there is a difference between giving rights to homosexuals and accepting the lifestyle completely.

If there is a biological connection, many homosexuals will want to go as far as to say that homosexuality is therefore moral and given as a gift from God. “A homosexual man could claim that because he inherited the gay gene and did not choose a gay orientation by his own free will, he is morally innocent.”[iv] According to their view, if homosexuality is biological then it must be natural, and if natural, it must be moral. Many homosexuals even want to claim that God has gifted some with homosexual desires. Notice this chilling article written by a gay woman:

Yes, God has called me. He did not just choose just my mind, just my body, just my speaking ability, just my caring. He chose me—the total and complete me. He not only chose me, but he made me. He has gifted me and a portion of that gift is my being gay. Yes, being gay is a gift from God and we are called by this same loving God to be the best, total, loving persons we can be. To do this, we must learn to love ourselves as God loves us—completely, unconditionally, totally—with all our gifts, including, and maybe especially, our gift of gayness.[v]

The progression of thought is clearly seen. Genetic homosexuality starts with rights, leads to acceptability, and concludes, at least in part, with morality and God-given approval. The homosexual community claims “homosexual behavior is naturally occurring, morally blameless behavior which should find expression.”[vi]

The importance of the issue is obvious. The next question that must be answered is whether or not there is any proof to makes any biological connection with homosexuality? Does the homosexual community have any grounds to make a case for predisposition upon birth? Is homosexuality volitional or is it a matter of genetics?

Overview of research

Research related to Twins

One of the most common studies conducted concerning homosexuality and biological influence is the genetic similarities found in twins. A popular study, done by Bailey and Pillard, compared fifty-six monozygotic twins, fifty-four dizygotic twins, and fifty-seven nongenetically related adopted brothers.[vii] These experiments tried to pin point particular genes with particular traits. The idea is that the more genes an individual shares with another, especially in situations like identical twins, the more common traits that should be found. In this particular study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52 percent of monozygotic twins were both gay, 22 percent of dizygotic twins were found to be gay, while only eleven percent of adoptive brothers were shown to be gay.[viii] Bailey and Pillard did a similar study on lesbian women, and the results were practically the same. These results show, at least on the surface, that there seems to be some connection between the genes and the commonality of traits found. Bailey and Pillard concluded that genetics explain a significant amount of the reason why people have a homosexual orientation.[ix] Their study alone has left many believing that homosexuality is genetically caused after all.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis

This hypothesis, most attributed to Ellis and Ames, focuses on the 5th month of gestation for fetuses. They tried to show that sexual orientation is based upon the sexual differentiation of the gonads and the brain determined by the neurohormonal interactions.[x] Amounts of testosterone can affect the gonads and the hypothalamus to develop according to the male pattern. For a male, if there is not enough testosterone, female development could occur. Therefore, male homosexuality would occur from a feminization of the brain, while female homosexuality would occur from an overexposure to testosterone.[xi] There was a study done in 1985 showing an increase in female homosexuality and bi-sexual preferences because of over exposure to male testosterone. Similar experiments were done on female rats, when after injected with a dose of estrogen, responded with a release of luteinizing hormone (LH). The researchers thought there was evidence that a “feminized brain” was a result of early brain patters before birth.[xii]

Neuroanatomical Evidence

Another hypothesis given by Simon LeVay, tried to show how sections of the brain determined the sexual orientation of the individual. For homosexual men, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is smaller than that of heterosexual males. LeVay scanned the brain of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males.[xiii] His findings showed that a cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual males as in the homosexual males. This has left many suggesting that the INAH 3 is dimorphic for sexual orientation and may constitute a biological substrate for homosexuality.[xiv]

The Gay Gene hypothesis

Finally, there have also been studies done trying to show whether or not an actual “gay gene” exists. Dean Hamer did the most popular study in 1993, were Hamer and his colleagues tested 76 men who had homosexual brothers as well as homosexual tendencies themselves. They examined the X chromosomes of these men and found that 33 of 40 brothers shared similar chromosomes. Because of these high numbers, many researchers believed that chromosomes played a large role in determining the sexual orientation of the individual.[xv]

Critique of the research

Research related to Twins critiqued

There are some serious problems surrounding the research of Bailey and Pillard. The first problem is with the research itself. At least in part, the research that Bailey and Pillard conducted dealt specifically with identical twins, yet only 52% had a probable connection. Chandler Burr has it exactly right when he writes:

Ironically, what the study actually demonstrates is that homosexuality is not purely genetic. Identical twins—clones—have the same genomes exactly. If sexual orientation were 100 percent genetic, then 100 percent of all identical twins would have the same sexual orientations. But they clearly don’t. Only about 50 percent of them do, so the other 50 percent must be nongenetic.[xvi]

Even the 50% findings have been called into question. As Jones and Yarhouse point out, even Bailey himself acknowledges that some of their findings were flawed.[xvii] Research concerning twins also points to different conclusions as well. A study done by McDonald in 1992 found a high degree of discordance for sexual orientation for men and woman who were twins.[xviii] The evidence found in the studies related to twins is inconclusive at best.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis critiqued

As with the study on twins, other research has shown different results concerning the role of testosterone and its affects on the brain. A study done by Gooren (1986) “demonstrated that the LH response to estrogen could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual men and suggested that the findings of the preceding study may have been due to a failure of investigating the entire hormonal picture involved in the LH response.”[xix] In recent years the research for this hypothesis has become less convincing, especially in its effect on female orientation towards homosexuality. It is doubted that it results in any females, and even the findings for men lack solid evidence.[xx]

Neuroanatomical Evidence critiqued

Regarding LeVay’s research, it is widely held that his findings do not give any certainty and at best do not go far enough. Schoenfeld has pointed out that the brain is a product not only of genetic directions but also of early experience and social environment.[xxi] Therefore, since the brain is affected by many different factors, it is impossible to make conclusions by focusing on one area only.

Another problem with LeVay’s research is related to the individuals he used for his experiments. Most of the individuals he used died of AIDS, and therefore no attention was given to the type of sexual involvement practiced prior to death. A virus such as AIDS could have a tremendous impact on the INAH 3. There has been little research to result in the same kind of statistics that LeVay’s has reported, not to mention research that has shown larger structural differences in the brain for homosexual males.[xxii]

The Gay Gene hypothesis critiqued

The first main problem with the “gay gene” theory is that of replication. Chandler Burr has rightly noted, “Replication in science is everything…Researchers can do a study, find the answer to the question of life itself, but if no one can repeat the work and arrive at the same results, the effort is, for all practical purposes, worthless.”[xxiii] So far, Hamer’s research has not been replicated enough to cause a significant impact yet. Even now there seems to be little relationship between the chromosomal markers and the actual sexual orientation of the individual.[xxiv] Many other inconsistencies remain, such as nonhomosexual brothers who share the same chromosomal markers but not the same sexual orientation.[xxv]

In conclusion, given the research concerning the biological connection of homosexuality the results are at best inconclusive. Even those from the homosexual community admit, “That genes do play some role in homosexuality seems to be almost certain, that environment plays some role in homosexuality seems just as certain, but we are still a long way from sorting out the respective components.”[xxvi] However, what if in the coming years more research points us towards biological predisposition for homosexuals? How should evangelicals respond to this issue in the midst of a wide range, and often confusing, scientific opinions?

An evangelical response

Many evangelicals are perplexed concerning the issue of biological causality for homosexual lifestyles. The simple, off-the-cuff answer “it is just a choice” will no longer suffice in the face of twenty-first century research. Many conservatives have viewed homosexuality more as a lifestyle or a disease than anything having to do with biological orientation.[xxvii] However, as Chandler Burr points out, if all conservatives can say about this issue is “it’s a choice” they may find themselves with the painful reality of being proven wrong.[xxviii] The research has already been seen to be mostly inconclusive and unconvincing at the present, but what if the research leans towards a biological connection in the future? Will evangelicals be ready with the proper response? The fact is, despite what science concludes, evangelicals do not have to compromise biblical truth.

Biological Orientation would not eliminate responsibility for actions.

Every individual is responsible for his or her actions despite their genetic make up. Genes do not make us guilty; our evil actions and desires make us guilty.[xxix] In a postmodern culture, individuals are willing to place blame on anything but themselves. However, a genetic link to homosexual tendencies does not elevate one from the responsibility to avoid such actions. Accepting the fact that there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality no more excuses such behavior than does an overdose of male sex hormones excuse a heterosexual rapist of his behavior.[xxx] Dr. R. Albert Mohler correctly notes,

A genetic basis—unlikely in the extreme—would, if objectively established, not carry great theological importance. A genetic link may be established for any number of behaviors and patterns, but this does not diminish the moral significance of those acts nor the responsibility of the individual. Genetic links have been claimed for everything from diabetes and alcoholism to patterns of watching television.[xxxi]

Biological Orientation would not change the biblical view that all are born sinful.

The person contending with inclinations to homosexual behavior, then, ought to view such a predisposition as “a kind of symptomatic participation in the fate of the fallen world,” on the same level as our other inclinations to act in defiance to God’s plan for his creation.[xxxii] The Bible teaches that all of us are born sinful with a predisposition to sin. We are born with natures that hate God and desire nothing more than to live in defiance to His created order.[xxxiii] Chandler Burr may be right when he claims, “The gay gene is a remarkable vindication of conservative ideas about human nature and may offer one of the most devastating refutations of liberalism we have yet seen.”[xxxiv] As evangelicals who hold to the teachings of Scripture that all have sinful predispositions, a biological connection to homosexuality, if proven, does not affect the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Biological Orientation would still make homosexuality a biblically sinful lifestyle.

Even if homosexuality had proven biological tendencies, it would not change what the Scriptures teach us concerning homosexual behavior. Leviticus 18:22 teaches that homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Lord, while 20:13 speaks of it as a detestable act. Paul explains it in Romans 1:26-27 as a degrading passion that is unnatural, while also listing it in 1 Cor 6:9 as describing someone that cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Last, but not least, Paul also lists homosexuals beside immoral men in 1 Timothy 1:10. Although the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation would be questioned from many in the homosexual community, most evangelicals can agree that a biological predisposition would not change the stance of the Bible, but would rather serve to all the more prove it.

Conclusion

In a cloud of inconclusive data and in a culture of inconceivable challenges, the evangelical position is poised to make a stand. The issue is important on both sides of the aisle. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as natural and moral and the call for biological confirmation is louder than ever. However, the point is clear, no direct coloration can be established for biological predisposition to homosexuality, and if there was, it would not change the immorality of homosexuality. So whether homosexuality is caused or chosen, biological or psychological, the evangelical can stand up for truth no matter what the next season of science may bring.

[i] R. Albert Mohler, “When science is enslaved to social agendas: what should the church think of the ‘gay gene’ studies?” World Magazine 31 Jul (1993) 22.
[ii] David, Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[iii] Allan P Drew. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 47.
[iv] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 96.
[v] Unknown. “From Abomination to Blessing: The Gift of Being Gay.” Theological Pastoral Resources Aug (1981), 74.
[vi] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 482.
[vii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 35.
[viii] Ibid., 35.
[ix] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 72.
[x] Sherwood O Cole. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 92.
[xi] Ibid, 92.
[xii] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 63.
[xiii] David Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[xiv] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 79-80.
[xvi] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 47.
[xvii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene.” Christianity Today Oct 4 (1999), 53.
[xviii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 91.
[xix] Ibid., 93.
[xx] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 79-80.
[xxi] Drew, Allan P. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 44.
[xxii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xxiii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 42.
[xxiv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 80-81.
[xxv] Ibid, 81.
[xxvi] Geoff Puterbaugh, Twins and Homosexuality (New York: Garland, 1990), 117.
[xxvii] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm
[xxviii] Ibid, 2.
[xxix] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 109.
[xxx] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 96.
[xxxi] Mohler, R. Albert. “Homosexuality in theological perspective: toward an evangelical response.” Oct 29-31 (1993), 21.
[xxxii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 494.
[xxxiii] Romans 3:10-11, 23. Eph 2:1-3.
[xxxiv] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm