Sin, Racism, and the Fall of Man.

There's been a huge amount of discussion recently about race in our nation. Though many would point back to the recent and tragic death of George Floyd as perhaps a tipping point, it goes back far further than anyone thinks. If you're thinking the trans-Atlantic slave trade, you're still way off. The problem began, in the garden of Eden.

We all remember the story of the fall, God creates a helper for Adam, whom he names Eve. She's deceived by Satan in the guise of a serpent. She breaks the one commandment at the time, and eats of the tree. After Adam has eaten of the same fruit proffered by Eve, they are fallen. They now know good and evil, and the heart and nature of humanity was plunged into sin.

Sadly, some of those sins is racism. The idea that one group of people is somehow better or greater than another based on innate and immutable characteristics. No, not the new nonsense word vomit that is the idea that somehow one must be in a position of power to be racist. That is nonsense of the highest order, and looks no further than the shores of our country while racism and sin are a global problem. This problem is not relegated to only "all white people are racist", but goes much further. In many Asian countries, racism is a form of normal society for example. Black people are looked down upon by many, and some believe this is a throwback to the second world war. At the time, Japan had imbibed the worst aspects of Darwinism, and believed themselves superior and further along the evolutionary timeline than anyone else. But I digress.

Racism is a figment of the sinful imagination. It is an expression of a nature warped by our sin. There cannot be true racism, as by definition we are all of one race, the human race. All the hatred is tribalism that has been influenced by the neo-Darwinian idea that because our earliest ancestors were amoebas, that we are somehow separate. That we are divided because of simple genetic aspects as inane as our melanin count. 

Only the Christian worldview shows us that we are in fact, all one. That we are all created in the Imago Dei, or the Image of God. Since we are all image bearers, it means we are all the same, that whether you believe God formed Adam and Eve fully from the dust of the ground and rib respectively, or that He raised two ape-like ancestors to consciousness, we all are deserving of respect and we all have the same ancestors. We aren't some separate species, we are the same species.

Sadly, a person I call a friend has recently drunk deeply from the misinformation being portrayed today, and has allowed his thinking to become shallow because of it. This was a recent, and very short, interaction he and I had. I've cropped out his name, as that isn't the point. I won't disrespect him in such a way. Here is the crux of the discussion.

As we see, he has responded to the idea that humanity is a single race with mockery and derision. He is an atheist, and so refuses to acknowledge his Creator. That Creator (God) made us all, and so we are one, whether we admit it or not. You see he cannot acknowledge such a fact, as it short circuits his worldview and the anger and angst in which he is currently comfortable. He doesn't understand that if all humanity realized and acknowledged that God is the Creator, that would end racism! Sure the sentiment won't end racism, but neither will blind anger and hatred of others. The idea of dragging down one group, in an effort to raise up another simply drags everyone down. It's the "crabs in a bucket" syndrome on a massive scale.

He goes on to mention the idea that "all lives matter is redundant". How so? In the holocaust that is abortion, do those lives matter? A good many of those abortions are performed on the unborn children of black women. Considering Planned Parenthood was created by the racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, I should think we should be railing against those live that are being ended in the thousands every year! Do black gang members' lives matter? Again, apparently not as we see protesting, not for the end of gang violence which also claims thousands of young black lives every year, but for the relatively small number of black men killed by police each year (17 in 2017). Don't get me wrong, any loss of life grieves my soul, and I do not wish to downplay the unconscionable killing of black men by the police, I simply want to put it into perspective.

We see the oft touted "no one is saying only black lives matter". You'll notice, I never stated that was the case. My entire point was that separating us into groups by skin color, highlights the differences, magnifies them and drives a wedge between us. Sadly many on the left today view the sentiment that "all lives matter" is racist. That it "erases black experiences". Nothing could be further from the truth, but that idea tips the hand of those who wish to further the divide. It shows that, instead of the large conglomeration of "us", they wish to divide us into "us and them". No one who says "all lives matter" is trying to erase anyone's experiences, but we are trying to bring everyone together, so that those awful experiences can be lessened, and we can all help bear some of the burden. Stating that idea, that we wish to bring back the state God intended, of all of humanity realizing we are one family, is a "participation trophy" is no more than a shallow ad hominem, stated by someone who is comfortable in their anger and who has allowed it to shut down their thinking to a shallow level. One that I know my friend is capable of dissipating. I know because I've seen his intelligence run circles around others who have employed similar shallow thinking and left his opponents running for the exit. I pray one day God will soften his heart to have faith in Jesus, and that I can get my friend back. God bless.

Woke Twitter Theology

Almost to a fault social media has become a cesspit of misinformation, angry ignorance and pure emotional nonsense. Sadly this often equates to rank heresy within Christianity and unsubstantiated or even blatantly unbiblical tripe. None so much as this article's focus. (https://twitter.com/FaithfullyBP/status/1255849452151148544)

     Let me introduce you to Benjamin Perry. A "minister" for Middle Collegiate Church. If you're expecting a statement of faith, there isn't one. Instead we have this:

So instead of a statement of faith, we have a vague, and rather gnostic (note the "divine spark" line) that tells us only that they place their idea of "love" above all else. You'll notice they also emphasize Jesus's skin color or financial status. This is the definition of the "woke church movement". They've defined the biblical Jesus out of existence with their definition of "love", as though the idea of allowing someone to ignorantly fall into hell was somehow loving. Their "Jesus" would never have overturned tables or chased others with a whip (John 2:15). Their Lamb of God would never have wrath towards those who rejected Him (Rev. 6:16). They outright reject the Jesus that laid out the biblical standard of marriage by quoting Genesis (Matthew 19:4-6). In fact, why don't we see what our apostate, heretical friend Mr. Perry has to say about Jesus:

So we open this thread with a direct and blasphemous rejection of God's view of homosexuality. Those verses are well trodden, there's little reason to bring them up here. To start with, the "queer" community is a misnomer. It's a loose collection of those who have decided that they would rather define themselves based on their sexual proclivities as opposed to a more fundamental characteristic. They've embraced their sin and are demanding you not only accept it, but to share in it and promote it. Exactly as Romans 1 tells us will happen. This isn't a "beautiful lens" to view anything through. It's a broken and distorted view in a mirror. Where one's own self if elevated above the precepts of their creator. The addition of the racial element is an obvious attempt at stirring up the "woke" emotions of those who read it. As if only white evangelicals hold to the view of scripture on marriage. Brother Voddie Baucham would beg to differ I'm quite sure. As for a "bi sexual Christ", the theological problems alone will take a decent amount to get through, setting aside the pure blasphemous nature of the short statement.

     To start with, one must remember, Jesus is the God man. He is fully God and fully man. To claim that He was also "bi sexual" would require that God the Father and the Holy Spirit be sexual in nature as well. This is because God the Son would have to partake in the actions of His body. This would also insinuate that God could not create the perfect human nature that was required in order for Jesus's death on the cross to be acceptable. For Jesus to have fallen in any way short of that would mean His sacrifice would have been insufficient, and means that God was incapable of saving His people. This would mean God was not trustworthy, and would mean that following Him would be useless. This would quite literally shatter not just the Triune God, but any and all aspects of Christianity. To believe this is to essentially be an atheist.

Theology is sexual? Chapter and verse please. The only time we see sexuality as a major portion of a theological view, it is in relationship to a cult or false religion. This is because they wish to shrink God down to where they can place Him in a box small enough to let them indulge in their sexual desires. Our culture didn't craft Jesus or overlay heterosexual constraints on Him. You'll notice Mr. Perry only quotes from outside sources. This is because there isn't a single iota of positive evidence within the pages of scripture to support his claims. Jesus was heterosexual, because that is how God created us. IRS what He also teaches us throughout scripture, not the least of which in Matthew 19 as was pointed out earlier. We also know by looking at the context of the time when Jesus lived, how He addressed them. He specifically responded to them by saying things like "have you not read…" or "it is written…". Outside the bible we have writings such as the talmud, with states "The Babylonian Talmud is one of the few ancient religious texts that makes reference to same-sex marriage: "'Ula said: Non-Jews [litt. Bnei Noach, the progeny of Noah] accepted upon themselves thirty mitzvot [divinely ordered laws], but they only abide by three of them: The first one is that they do not write marriage documents for male couples, the second one is that they don't sell dead [human] meat by the pound in stores, and the third one is that they respect the Torah.'" The talmud was finished around 500 a.d. "The Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law and Jewish theology. Until the advent of modernity, in nearly all Jewish communities, the Talmud was the centerpiece of Jewish cultural life and was foundational to "all Jewish thought and aspirations", serving also as "the guide for the daily life" of Jews." (Wikipedia).

     Touching briefly on the author Mr. Perry quotes, Marcella Althus-Reid is the auto of books such as "The Queer God" and "Queer Bible Hermeneutics". Here's a quote from her book "Indecent Theology": "In theology, and in revolutionary theology, it is discontinuity and not continuation which is most valuable and transformative, so the location of excluded areas in theology is crucial." So by her own words, "revolutionary theology" is based almost solely on an argument from silence. It is derived not from the text or information we have, but on that which we have no information. This makes it not only logically untenable, but in terms of its explanatory and scholarly ability, utterly useless. In fact I'd venture to say less than useless, but quite harmful in this regard as it runs absolutely counter to the texts we have.

No Mr. Perry, they are not "modern conventions". I notice you give no evidence to this claim, you simply assert it as if it were true. Again, I would go back to the biblical texts, and point to where God specifically lays out homosexuality and how it is opposed to heterosexuality. Paul even coined the term ajrsenokoivthß (arsenokoites)(1 Cor 6:9.) It legitimately can't get any clearer in its definition. "One who lies with a male as with a female". Its literal definition is 'koite' bed(where we get the term coitus) and 'arseno' man. As to these supposed "modern conventions" trying to enforce order, that would actually be God's demand as part of His law. Lust is a sin, and by its definition and by our nature that makes it unruly. Love, however, is not unruly when it is derived from God. What Mr. Perry advocates in terms of "love" is the anthropocentric view, where your own fallen nature defines the terms. The "disciple that Jesus loved" would take on a sinful aspect through Mr. Perry's view, once again nullifying the Trinity and Jesus's fitness to be our saviour. So that "baggage", as he puts it, is the "baggage" of God's word. Assertions such as we've been given require actual substantiation, we have seen none so far.

I hope I've hammered home the point behind what makes this blasphemous, heretical statement so ludicrous already. Let's try a quick list of the top 3:

1. For Jesus to have had homosexual relations would have negated His divinity by violating His word.
2.  This destroys the Trinity and Jesus's fitness to be saviour.
3. No evidence or argumentation is given. It's merely asserted.

"What if" questions are useless. They only expose the fact that you have no evidence for your assertion, you just want people to imagine it. Sorry, that's not how any of this works. In fact, to lessen the purpose and weight of the betrayers kiss that Judas gave Jesus, ignores the very purpose of it. Jesus had prophesied that He would be betrayed by the one who kissed Him. If it was "a reminder of others" then it loses all meaning. It would mean that quite literally any of the apostles could have been the betrayer at any time. Has anyone noticed that Mr. Perry's assertions only serve to undermine their own foundations?

Bottom line, YES! For it to be as you say, Mr

 Perry, God would have to be a liar. I'm also flabbergasted that you would try to put the conception of Jesus, for which we have ample evidence in the new testament, in the same boat as the idea that the same Jesus would be homosexual, something for which we have contrary evidence.

And at last we come to the end of this heretical insanity, and the true purpose of the thread shines through. Its claim that those who hold to a biblical view of love, those of us who believe Jesus when He tells us what marriage is *in His own words*, are actually violating Christ's teaching. You'll notice there's no biblical reference given (again!) to back up such an accusation, but why should we be surprised at this point? His use of the term "heteronormative" is laughable, as it's a term coined in 1991 by Michael Warner in a work on "queer theory". The entire basis of which is that "queer life" is a critique of heterosexual society. It's also telling that Mr. Warner is a secularist. So we have Mr. Perry, citing a word coined by a secularist to prop up an unbiblical idea, in an effort to shoehorn Jesus as being homosexual. You literally cannot make this type of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics up. The idea that "heterosexuality" is being ascribed to the text of scripture is insane on its face. The context and content of the bible are the framework through which we can even begin to understand what heterosexuality is and how we are to conduct ourselves in an effort to live right with God. He(God) sets homosexuality apart as being outside of His precepts for mankind, and against His law. Mr. Perry is attempting to shame Christians into thinking God is wrong. The "pernicious net" Mr. Perry wants to unravel is God's word. It constrains his fallen human nature, and he is rebelling against the God who created not just the words we read within the pages of the bible, but who also created Mr. Perry. He also created each and everyone one of us. 

     I know this article has been full of what Mr. Perry would label as "homophobic"(a complete misnomer as we do not have an irrational fear of homosexuals), but let me point out something. In that letter to the church at Corinth that I cited earlier in this article, Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, did indeed give us a list of those who would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. While this list isn't exhaustive, (it wasn't meant to be) it does end with this line: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."(1 Cor. 6:11). Isn't that an amazing statement? That no matter what you've done, you can be washed by Jesus! All it takes is your faith in Him, and He will gladly sanctify you in His name! God bless and keep you!