Josiah Concept Ministries

This is the strangest TV wedding I have ever watched. I’ve seen it so many times, but it still makes me laugh every time. Joey really bungles the entire ceremony. But that’s just his character.

I posted this video because of a recent news item I read on people I call “Internet ministers.” I don’t know if that is the official name for these guys, but I’ll define the term now so that there is no confusion.  There are many organizations that offer ordination to anyone who applies for it.  No seminary education is necessary.  No training is necessary.  In fact, in many cases, you need not affirm even the basic doctrinal statements of the church (assuming that they even have one).  Like me, I figure that some people would see the sideline plot in season 7 of Friends where Joey is ordained online and then is able to perform Monica and Chandler’s wedding (and later, Phoebe and Mike’s wedding) and assume that it was only for TV.  Not the case at all.

In fact, this is a real thing that some people do.  Churches that exist only online offer ordination to anyone who applies (some ordinations are guaranteed,  while others stipulate some minimal and simple prerequisites).

Now, however, some of the weddings that have been performed by the so-called Internet ministers are being ruled as invalid by judges.  The officiator, according to the court, was not legally accredited as a person who solemnizes marriages.  That means the marriage isn’t valid, and thus the couple needs to go no further with divorce proceedings.  They aren’t married.

Had the show Friends continued, it would now be in its 13th season.  Monica and Chandler would be celebrating their sixth anniversary.  Almost time for that seven-year itch to kick in.  Maybe they introduce a love interest at Chandler’s office.  Then, Monica and Chandler find out that Joey’s ordination wasn’t legal, and thus, their marriage is not valid.

Time for the new love interest to swoop in.  Does she get Chandler?  Or does Monica win (again)?

What problems could this cause for Phoebe and Mike?  Remember that Mike never wanted to get married in the first place.  Maybe he’s unhappy and can walk away.  Time for David the scientist guy to reappear!

What if Joey had married Ross and Rachel?  I don’t think it would shake those two up a bit.  They’ve already been through enough together.  They would just get remarried after taking the news in stride.

It looks like we’ll never know the answers to these questions.  There isn’t a virtual seasons project for Friends on the web.

These are the kind of posts that happen when bloggers stay up late and get slap happy!  Don’t let this happen to you.  Go to bed at a reasonable hour.

The folks over at DefCon, who came to my attention as they fought viciously against the Creation Museum, have a new regular blogger. Although Eliza has posted with some regularity before, it looks like they have granted her full-time status as of today.

I mention this because her post today illustrates how atheists misunderstand our view of sin, and moreover sin itself. She is posting her thoughts on the latest political scandal to hit Louisiana: Senator David Vitter, who admitted involvement in a prostitution ring on Monday.

According to the Associated Press, Vitter rallied against the abysmal display of indifference toward corruption in political office. Ironically, this same indifference will be the key to his reelection. According to the article’s Man-on-the-Street interviews:

“He doesn’t know what’s going on in my bedroom, and I don’t care what’s going on in his,” said Robyn Beaugez, a 34-year-old insurance agent and registered Republican. “As long as he’s not taking money from taxpayers.”

Robin continues:

“Jefferson got elected and we knew what he did,” she said, referring to Rep. William Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat recently indicted on corruption charges. Jefferson was re-elected in December by a wide margin despite allegations he took $100,000 in bribes, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Ed Buchanan, a mortgage recorder, favorably compared Vitter to former President Clinton. “I’m glad he went to a professional instead of an intern,” Buchanan said.

To me, the most disturbing quote is this:

“The only way it could become an issue is if his opponent was a Pentecostal preacher. I say that tongue in cheek,” said Joe McKeever, director of missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

“Do you remember that quote about (former Louisiana Gov.) Edwin Edwards: ‘The only way I’d lose is if they catch me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl,’” McKeever asked. “Our expectations are abysmally low.”

The minister should be speaking against this sin! Instead, he’s just shrugging it off. Eliza thinks that this is the same attitude of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blog, who defends Vitter to the AP and in his blog.

Eliza, however, links to this article where Perkins spoke out against Mitt Romney for not doing enough to stop the flow of porn into hotel rooms. Then Eliza sarcastically remarks, “So, just to recap: it’s ok to sleep with a prostitute if you say you are sorry, but it is definitely not ok to offer pornography in hotel rooms. Good to know.”

Eliza wants readers to think that Perkins’s position is inconsistent with Christianity’s own stance on sin. While it is doubtful that Eliza does, in fact, understand Christianity’s view on sin, I have no way to know that for certain. Instead, I will demonstrate why Eliza’s own view is inconsistent. I believe that it is inconsistent on purpose to feed anti-religious right sentiment, which is exactly DefCon’s purpose for existence.

First, Tony Perkins is consistent with Christian values for defending Vitter but attacking Romney. Perkins is a personal friend of Vitter, according to the AP, a fact that Eliza fails to mention. As a friend, a Christian friend, Perkins should forgive Vitter (see Mat 18:21-22 and my commentary here).

One other thing that Eliza misses–on purpose, I’m sure–is what Perkins is defending. Perkins is not defending Vitter’s behavior, but is supporting his friend in his time of need. Perkin’s blog and press statement reflect this fact.

On his blog, Perkins said:

The statement by my friend and former colleague, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, was very disappointing. He admitted to a “serious sin” in a statement he released to the press on Monday, prior to news reports revealing that his phone number appeared on a long list of client’s numbers of the now infamous DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. [emphasis added]

And went on:

While I commend him on assuming personal responsibility and working to make things whole in his life, I cannot defend David’s behavior. Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community. Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official. [emphasis added]

I didn’t expect Eliza to point any of that out. Her position is very unbalanced, written specifically to incite readers’ emotions. She makes it sound as if Perkins considers Vitter’s actions as justified because they worked together on some issues. She fails to point out statements that I have quoted above, statements that flesh out Perkins’s relationship with Vitter and give a better insight to Perkins’s true position on this issue.

As Christians, we must forgive our brother not seven times, but seventy times seven times, which is a first-century Jewish idiom for infinity. Seven isn’t a cap or a limit, but the number of wholeness and completion. The Bible’s use of the number seven implies similar usage as we would use the English words or phrases “always” and “for all time.” In that light, we can better understand Perkins’s use of Proverbs 24:16.

Perkins told the press:

“There’s room to make a mistake and come back,” said Tony Perkins, an evangelical former state representative and head of the Family Research Council in Washington. Perkins, who calls Vitter a personal friend, said he would vote for the senator if he proves he has “moved on.” [emphasis added]

The key to understanding this in a way that Eliza does not is the words “moved on.” Christianity isn’t a calling to simply say “I’m sorry,” the way Eliza paints in her short post. It is a call to repent–that is, to change. After all, what did John the Baptist say? It wasn’t “Say you’re sorry and move on.” It was “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” (Mat 3:2, emphasis added) Change is implicit within the call to repent.
Perkins wants evidence that Vitter has moved on, has conquered this sin, before voting for his friend. And why not? The apostle Paul said:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [Rom 6:1-2]

Why would a person, saved by the grace of God, continue in a life that only leads to death? It doesn’t make sense. Repentance is a call for us to change our lives and live lives that are pleasing to God. As Paul states:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. [Rom 12:1-2]

Perkins is calling for that repentance–that change. If no call to repent was found anywhere within Perkins’s defense of Vitter, then Perkins would be inconsistent. However, the call for change is found both on his blog and in in his statement to the AP.

Eliza thinks that Christians are OK with sleeping with prostitutes if the john says he’s sorry, but we’re never OK with pornography in hotel rooms. Well, I think I have effectively answered the first half of that: we are never OK with sin, but we are called to forgive our own, always. I have shown that saying “sorry” is not enough, the person must repent. Now, I will show why Perkins’s position on Mitt Romney is still perfectly consistent.

This article has all of the answers. Romney has spoken out against the availability of pornography many times, and rallied to have it regulated. However, when he was a member of the the board of the Marriot hotel chain, he did nothing to stem the flow of it into the rooms. Romney didn’t even bring the issue up at a board meeting. He claimed to be unaware of how much revenue came from it. In this case, Romney is the one who is being inconsistent, not Perkins! Perkins was right to point that out. Again, silence on that issue from Eliza.

So let’s everyone welcome Eliza to the DefCon blog. Her inconsistent position, filled with cherry-picked details that fail to paint the whole picture of what is going on, along with her misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches will be just what DefCon needs to win more support from people who will read the short posts and not investigate the details. They will continue to see what DefCon wants them to see. They will continue to be incensed about Christianity’s seemingly inconsistent positions without investigating why we seem to have them–and in the process discover not only that they are consistent but also discover the Savior who first taught us.

That will continue to fuel more misunderstanding about the nature of sin and how it separates us from a God they refuse to acknowledge.

I’m writing this entry because a lot of what is contained herein needs to be said, and it needs to be heard by Christians who are confused by the whole issue of homosexuality. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. It is quite the hot potato within the church today, and I have made it perfectly clear that I believe with all of my heart that the church is handling this issue in the worst possible way. What I have not made clear is the appropriate way to handle this issue, because a way to handle the issue never presented itself.

First, let me make it clear that I do not accept that homosexuality is “normal.” I do not believe that it is inborn, either: we are not born gay, nor are we born straight. I will cover that momentarily. I believe that it is a perversion of the plan God has set forth in marriage, and I believe that the Scriptures that condemn it are quite clear on this fact. There have been many attempts by gay theologians and “gay Christian” activists to muddy the clear teaching of Scripture in this regard.

Some people may not be familiar with the Scriptural arguments in favor of homosexuality, so I will pause here to briefly explain them. There are six main Scriptures to which the gay community refers to as the “clobber passages.” They are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Pro-gay theologians have argued that these passages don’t really condemn gays, and that modern people are misinterpreting them.

Gay theologians say that the passages in Leviticus merely refer to temple prostitution and ritual sodomy, not the loving relationship shared by modern gay couples. This is probably going to surprise many people, but I’m actually not going to argue with that statement. The book of Leviticus was devised as a holiness code for priests, and it is only fitting that such a statement is referring specifically to that practice, and not to a loving relationship between people. I therefore agree that this is misused to clobber gays.

Deuteronomy is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel. Between God and a specific nation that existed in a specific time–the physical descendants of Abraham, not the spiritual ones. Modern Christians, the spiritual descendants of Abraham, can refer to this book to identify the sorts of practices that God disapproves of, such as homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc., but also can reason that some of these things are not applicable today. There is much theological debate about what parts are still applicable and what parts not, so we cannot say for certain here that we should condemn homosexual behavior on the basis of Deuteronomy.

I can say, with a degree of certainty, that it stands up to reason on the basis of this passage and of the account of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:23-24) that a strong case against homosexuality can be made. The honest gay theologian should at least be able to agree with me on that point.

Leviticus, a holiness code for priests, and Deuteronomy, a suzerainty treaty that is no longer in effect because of the disobedience of Israel, are hardly the most appropriate books of the Bible to use to condemn this behavior. They are important to discern which behaviors are acceptable to God and which are not, but they cannot be used the way that many Christians today try in regard to homosexuality. It then becomes open season for the detractors to throw out the ridiculous rules contained in these books, pointing out (rightly) that if we have dispensed with those rules, why not this one? I’ll cover why we should not soon, but for now, let’s look at the Pauline passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy as a group, because the same primary argument is used in an attempt to toss both of them out wholesale: the Greek words μαλακός (malakos) and ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs).

The pro-gay argument is that latter word has an unclear meaning, and that it is only ignorance that would have us translate the word as “homosexuals.” But this translation really isn’t far off if one pays close attention to the context:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Cor 6:9-10]

What is translated “men who practice homosexuality” here in the ESV are two Greek terms, μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης. The former literally means “soft,” and the latter is subject to much etymological debate. Can we ever know what Paul meant by these words, or is the meaning obscured by time?

Pay attention to the list itself: notice that it is divided into categories: sexual sins, covetousness, and finally, “white collar.” We have good reason, therefore, to believe that ἀρσενοκοίτης has a sexual connotation, since it follows sexual sins. It precedes sins of coveting, which could imply some sort of envy.

This fits homosexuality perfectly: they envy the rights granted heterosexual couples who marry, especially in today’s society. Therefore, putting this sin between sexual sins and sins of coveting is a nice fit. But this still doesn’t address another concern of the gay community: why did Paul use these terms instead of the most common Greek term describing homosexuality?

I believe that there are two reasons. First, the common term would have brought to mind the common practice of the day: an older man taking a young boy under his wing (among other things) to educate him and “make him a man.” Essentially, that term would condemn only this practice, not homosexuality in general. Paul wanted to use language that would have condemned all homosexuality, not just the practice of the day. He wanted terms that were more generic, terms that would survive the times. Why those particular words were chosen leads me to the second point.

The second reason is that Paul was trying to be descriptive of how a homosexual couple actually works. This way, he condemns both parties in the couple, not just one or the other. Nowadays (and I can assume in Paul’s day as well), gay couples consist of a “top” and a “bottom.” The top fills the role of the man, he is the one that “goes into” or “knows” the other, to put it King James language (ἀρσενοκοίτης implies a strong man and a marriage bed). By contrast, the bottom fulfills the role of the woman; he is “went into,” so to speak (the literal translation of μαλακός is “soft,” which fits the implied meaning nicely). Put another way, had Paul been writing today, he may have written “neither the sexually immoral, people who worship things of this world, cheats, homosexual ‘tops’ and ‘bottoms,’ thieves, money grubbers, drunks, crooks, nor embezzlers will inherit the Kingdom.”

This same argument works for the translation of 1 Timothy 1:10.

The pro-gay argument against the passage in Romans is that this refers to lustful relationships, not pure loving relationships. While I can’t disagree with this argument in spirit, since it does match the context of Romans 1, there is one flaw in this reasoning. Everything mentioned in Romans is going against God’s plan, God’s natural order of things. This implies that the gay theologian understands that God has the right to order creation as He sees fit. The gay theologian must also accept the Bible as the Word of God, the same way I do. It is standard practice to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So, are there any Scriptures that set a natural order to sexual relationships?

Of course there are! Genesis 2:21-24 tells us that God took a part of man to make woman, and that in order for a man to be whole again requires a woman, not another man. The same is also true for women. This account is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew, when the Pharisees ask about divorce laws. We can then assume that Jesus also intended marriage to be between a male and a female, not between members of the same sex.

I think that I have established that homosexuality is, indeed, a sin. It violates God’s natural order and has been consistently taught against in crystal clear Bible passages. The issue here is not weather a gay person is born or made, nor weather God still loves them or not; the bottom line is “According to the Bible, is homosexuality a sin?” I don’t think that any reasonable argument can be proposed contrary: homosexuality is a sin.

The problem I have lies in articles like this, from Dr. James White yesterday:

Homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives. It is a difficult thing to wrestle constantly with your conscience, to put out so much effort into convincing yourself that your sin is good, to call light darkness and darkness light. It is toilsome. Because of their state, homosexuals are particularly angered by anyone who would say “homosexuality is unnatural; it is directly opposed to God’s creative order, it is sinful, life-destroying, and God demands you repent from it.” And so, they are willing to lend their considerable financial (and hence politically powerful) support to any politician who will help them to suppress such speech, or to put it bluntly, to give them super-rights. They wish to be able to say, and do, anything at all: but, at the same time, they are willing to see the rights of others, especially their free-speech rights, denied. [source]

Again, I agree with Dr. White’s statements here. But the last statement ignores the fact that Christians, despite having God’s truth on our side, are no better than the homosexuals in our treatment of them. We somehow act like homosexuality is some kind of unforgivable sin, when some of us are guilty of it (and worse) in our lives. We treated these people, who want nothing more than equal rights with everyone, like dirt–as if their sin is somehow contagious. Adulterers, drug addicts, gamblers, and even child molesters are given second chances in church without batting an eyelash. Why not homosexuals? Why are they treated as some sort of heart-hardened unrepentant group that is seeking to destroy us?

To that end, I can’t say that I disagree with Lynette1977 in this post, where she asks the ultimate question: Why do gays stay in a religion that calls for their persecution? Christianity doesn’t call for the persecution of gays, but is it any wonder Lynette and others believe that it does? Look at the way Christians–even prominent apologists like Dr. White–behave toward gays!

The problem is that we’re putting the cart before the horse. The only existing condemnation for homosexuality is the Bible. I’m not denigrating the Bible’s importance, but I am trying to point out that fewer and fewer people are accepting it as a source for morals. This is the real problem that we, as Christians, must address first. We need to call for society to come back to a Biblical understanding of morals and creation first, then we can reason with them from Scripture to understand why something like that is wrong through God’s eyes.

To that end, organizations like Answers in Genesis are very worthwhile causes to support. Dr. Ham works tirelessly to promote a better and more Biblical understanding of the world.

Christians have lost the focus we once had on discipleship: building relationships with people without judging their lifestyle, and leading them to God’s truth through the Bible rather than trying to slap their faces with it.

So what’s my recommendation for dealing with the homosexual? Well, evangelize him or her the way you would anyone else, and then live your life according to God’s commands. Talk about it. Show them from the Bible why you do what you do. Let the Word of God speak for itself. If that person is truly motivated to shed the harmful behavior out of reverence for a new faith in Jesus, then great! You won a convert, you have a new disciple, and you didn’t even have to give away a new car to do it!

In short, I believe in relationships being the key to solving this problem, changing it one heart at a time, not proselytizing the entire group. As individuals accept Christ, Christ will motivate them to change in His time. Meanwhile, as for legislative measures to legalize gay marriages, I don’t see that we have other choice: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” [Mat 5:39]. It is obvious that God is sending our gay brothers and sisters a powerful delusion, so let’s not resist that overall. Let’s instead fight it by living the lives Jesus called us to live, and show the ones God draws to Himself how to do the same. Just like Proverbs also states. Pray for the wisdom to discern the difference.

It never fails to amuse me what a level of control that Catholic clergy holds over the faithful.  The faithful realize it on some level, but not enough (it seems) to break away from a tradition they’ve held all their lives.  It’s just easier to hold on, I suppose.  I’ve been there with other things in my life.

A young woman who posts at LJ under the pseudonym “peacefulcelt9“  had this to say in a recent post:

We are definitely married, but only civilly. We have made a lifelong commitment to each other with the intention to have children, so I dont [sic] see the difference. But no, our marriage isnt [sic] valid. It pisses me off, but I say, why not get married again? Its only going to be a small thing, just immediate family, and only 10 minutes long or so, just the vows and blessing. Since we already have our wedding certificate, we dont [sic] have to do that part again. The priest usually has a double responsibility of the legal as well as religious officiant, but he has to only do the religious aspect for us. [source, emphasis added]

The bold portion is exactly what, in my mind, constitutes a valid marriage.  No ceremony is described in the Bible, just the willingness to commit for a lifetime to the other person, described in Genesis and upheld by Christ.  That is the commitment I made to my wife on the happiest day of my life: May 30, 2005.  That is the commitment I intend to keep for the rest of my life.  I refuse to let any church tell me that my marriage isn’t valid; the intent in my heart is the only validation I need.

Later in that post, she said “Im [sic] sure we’re going to be reprimanded by the priest for not getting married in the Church to begin with, because we are technically required to, both of us being baptized Catholics.”  Why let a faith have so much control over you that you fear being reprimanded by one of its clerics?

A marriage is between a husband, a wife, and God.  There is no need to drag any church into this, especially one that gets as involved as the Catholic Church does.

The Church is a human institution, not a divine one.  They have no right to judge the validity of a person’s marriage anymore than I have that right.  Romans 14 has many, many spiritual applications.

I suppose this is why I’m not Catholic anymore.

Rook Hawkins has posted his commentary on the Resurrection (3 months ago… nothing like covering current events!) over on his “Blog of a Critical Historian.”  I’m planning on reviewing that and writing a response to it.  Assuming that there’s anything to actually respond to.

Deludedgod has written an essay about morality in the absence of God, which I will also read and write a response to.  Look for those under the Articles tab soon.

Meanwhile, tomorrow I will begin work on the NIV Quiz that I’m so tired of KJV Onlyists passing around uncritically.  That should hopefully be up by the end of the week.

With the potential of receiving some donation money from church, I also need to work on a ministry outlook for the rest of the year so that I can figure out a budget.  It is really difficult to write, post in forums, work on management tasks, and also work at Burger King.  One might say that I have my hands full compared to others who just do this work full time and don’t have a day job!

On top of all that, I also need to spend time with my wife!  Naturally, this takes priority over everything else.  The sad part is, I don’t get to see her nearly often enough between my work schedule and ministry time.  I miss her. 

A casual perusal of the web today has led to two future topics for blog posts.  I will exapnd on these thoughts in future posts.  For now, I wanted to catalog my initial reactions as much for myself as for my readers.

First, Internet dating service Match.com’s new slogan is “It Doesn’t Hurt To Look.”  That is a terrible way to think.  Why don’t you just make your slogan “Hey, Married People–Just Try Us Out for the Pictures that Members Post!”  Meanwhile, what does looking at all of these attractive members of the opposite sex do for the married person?  Well, first, it takes away adoration from the spouse.  Second, what you think about is what you desire.  Thinking about these women (or men) increases the desire to cheat.

So, as the Bible commands, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).  When you see temptation, conciously avert your thoughts where they should go: to your spouse.  James White has a series on Philippians 4:8 -

Think About These Things | Honorable | Just | Pure | Lovely | Commendable

Second thing is a blog post from Meditations on Meaning entitled “The Science is Clear: Marriage Should be Eradicated.“  I don’t have time for a reasoned response in the short space here, but I will respond in full very soon.

Obviously, even Jesus taught that marriage, as God fully intended it, isn’t for everyone (Matt 19:3-12, esp. verse  11).  But should we be so hasty to simply eradicate the entire concept?  The majority of the points that Dan makes in his post are true of our Western, individualistic culture.  This is the same issue that underlies the man-centered theologies I’ve discussed in the previous post.

For secular folks, eradication of marriage may be an option.  But for Christians, called to live as God commands, it means learning how to die to the desires of our sinful nature.  This isn’t an easy calling; it is one I struggle with daily.  But I thank the Lord for granting me the opportunity to try on each new day to live as a perfect offering to Him.  This is a higher calling, a calling to demonstrate God’s love to the world.