The contemporary buzz word that seems to be the mantra of this generation is the word open minded. This mantra is heard at school, on TV, at the workplace, and increasingly has become a part of our contemporary church culture. After all, if one does not acquiesce to the social pressure to be, well, open-minded, then one will be deemed a religious fanatic, uneducated, or the dreaded of all pejorative labels, fundamentalist. Yet, I think this is a term that needs to be explored a little further because it can be both positive and negative.

To be open-minded can be a very positive characteristic. After all we are finite beings who do not posses all the truth. Consequently, a genuine humbleness needs to be embraced lest one be blinded by his pride and leave his views uncritically tested. Sometimes beliefs are embraced as though decidedly biblical by individuals, yet these same individual’s attitudes are devoid of the necessary humility that one needs. I have pastored long enough to see Christians, young and old, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, be blinded by a dogmatic stance on a certain issue or passage of Scripture. Humility is a necessary prerequisite for attaining truth.

Yet, this quest to be open-minded is often ill conceived. While no one has all the truth, as Christians we can know where the primary source of truth lies, which is the Bible. To base our primary source of truth on reason, feelings, or even natural revelation is courting the danger of being deceived.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the first cry to be open-minded did not come from a supposedly rational, superior mind that sought to encourage the intellectually inferior, more conservative thinking person who was purportedly “cling” to some antiquated view that has clearly been proven false. To the contrary, the first cry for open-mindedness came from Satan himself! As a matter of fact open-mindedness as it is known today is his favorite toy. In Genesis 3, Satan tempts Adam and Eve to disobey God's command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What strategy does he choose to employ? He tells them (in direct contrast to what God clearly stated) they “surely wouldn’t die”. “The tempter's strategy is to undermine our confidence in the plain meaning of God's word! It's a subtle appeal: on the surface, it appears to be an appeal to humility, to our inability to know things with perfect clarity”.  

While open-mindedness poses as humility, it is really rooted in pride. It says one can arrive at truth apart from God’s clear revelation by simply reason alone. In the aforementioned passage, God clearly states that Adam and Eve were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet Satan counters that command by stating did God really say?” What he was getting them to do was to shun the clear teaching of Scripture, and render it null and void by elevating reason over revelation. In this way man is now ostensibly bestowed with the ability to know more than God. Satan was asking Eve to be open-minded and not to confine herself to such rudimentary constrictions as God’s Word.

What the serpent does is attempt to minimize the dangers of what happens when one rejects God’s word, and falsely accentuates the benefits of doing so. In this was his appeal to Eve to be open- minded. Satan would love to redefine truth seekers as people who seek truth from every source except God’s word. These people would seek truth “with their own autonomous rationalistic mind and standards”. As for me, I too shall seek truth with a rationalistic mind and standards but never at the expense of God’s word. His ways and thoughts will always be higher than the highest standards.  

The week has been quite a treat for us. Michelle and I arrived at Liberty University on Sunday night after a 10 hour trip. Michelle is taking one of her required resident classes while I am doing research for my last class (I graduate with an M.Div. next month.). I am so ready for a break! I have spent the past 13 years in school, so I am getting sick of school (finally). Michelle is finishing up her Master’s degree as well. However, she might not be done quite yet. Liberty offers a nice doctorate that she is thinking about pursuing. She joked that after she received her doctorate we would be known as “Mr. and Dr. Orr”. The thought of that may force me to get my doctorate.

The highlight of my week so far happened on Tuesday. I took off to the Baltimore, MD area where I would have a mini MyChurch reunion. On the way there I went through Washington DC. While I didn’t get a chance to meet Voice in D.C., I did get lost in D.C. Hey that might be my future screen name. It definitely has a ring to it.

From there I arrived at Pastor DATM’s house. It was such a joy to meet him. We visited for about an hour or so, then it was off to meet Sue, Cathy, and the gang at Calvary. We had a blast. From there we went to dinner where we met Mike from Mike and Laura.

I thought I would give a brief snapshot of this Mini MyChurch reunion since only a few were able to join in.  

 

Pastor DATM and I have been talking to one another for some time. Over the past several months we have really gotten to know one another. If you don’t know Pastor DATM, he has a rare neuromuscular disorder that is progressive and will eventually take his life. Even so, Pastor Dave is upbeat and we had a blast meeting each other for the first time. It really seemed as though we had known each other forever. We had so much to talk about. One thing that I appreciate about Pastor DATM is his desire to serve the Lord. Most people under similar circumstances would have given up. Not Pastor DATM. As matter of fact, he does more for the Lord than most people who are perfectly healthy, which is a testimony of his love for the Lord.

 

One of the first people I was able to meet was Pastor Mark. Upon arriving at the church and being introduced to Pastor Mark, I was immediately taken on a tour which enabled me to see all that God has done at Calvary. It was evident that the hand of God is on both Pastor Mark and Calvary and their heart for the lost.

Pastor Dan was the one who took me on a tour of the church. This gave me an opportunity to get to know him a little better. We were able to discuss theology, apologetics, church growth, and blogging. I found Pastor Dave to be very knowledgeable about these issues and a great person to talk to. I could have talked to him for another hour, but Chinese food was calling.

Sue is an incredible lady who is totally dedicated to the ministry here at MyChurch. Her dedication is incredible. As being a part of the Admin Team, I am aware of how much she truly does here. While she would never say that, I thought I would. I was so excited to be able to finally meet her. She is a total riot.

 

Cathy is also a total riot. I laughed my head off. I found her to have a zeal for the Lord and a zeal for life. One of the things I found out was she may be a prophetess. Towards the end of our dinner I got a doggy bag in order to take home my leftovers. She teased me that I would not eat the food, but I would throw it away as soon as I got home. The next day, I was getting ready to leave and go back to Lynchburg when Mike reminded me to get the leftovers out of the fridge. I then realized that I had left my food in the car all night so I had to throw it away. Cathy, you were right J

 

During our dinner, Mike, Cathy, Sue, and I decided to call Carebear. We all spoke to her one by one as we passed around the phone. This was totally cool. Another person was added to the MyChurch Mini Family Reunion.

When I met Mike for the first time in person (We have talked several times on the phone) I had a bit of an adjustment to make. As many of you know, Mike’s profile is a picture of Lucy and Dezi Arnez, so I had to get Dezi’s image out of my head.

I found Mike to be a person you feel like you have known all of your life. Talk about hospitable, I felt right at home. After getting back to his house, we had a chance to discuss many different things from theology, to apologetics, to family, to politics. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversations.

What clearly emerges here is the result of what happened almost a century ago during what is known has the fundamentalist/modernist controversy. The controversy started within the Presbyterian Church during the 1920’s and 30’s when the Presbyterians were deciding how they were going to deal with science, the biblical criticism movement, along with other issues. One of the results of this movement was that the Bible could not be fully trusted, that it had errors, to which sowed the seeds of what we see today. This allowed for an interpretation of Scripture that would allow a William Placher arrive at the conclusions that he did. This has led to what George Barna calls “theological anarchy.”

David Malick argues that “the primary argument posed by those who desire to see an accepting community is that the Apostle Paul did not write general prohibitions against homosexual activity, but against abuses in homosexual activity – specifically pederasty.”[2] In a study done by The Committee on Church and Ministry by the Illinois South Conference of the United Church of Christ states that the two most common forms of male homosexuality in Paul’s day were pederasty and the abuse of slaves.”[3]  Therefore, texts found in Romans and 1 Corinthians are interpreted as referring to pederasty not homosexual monogamous relationships. Proponents see Paul’s rejection of homosexuality as rejecting the idea that adult males were allowed to have sexual relationships with young boy slaves. This exchange would be seen as exploitative, where as two adult males, for instance, in a committed, monogamous sexual relationship would be seen as being ordained by God.

As a matter of fact such ordination would be seen by the proponents of homosexuality as being part of God’s diverse creation. This idea finds it genesis in Galatians 3:27-28. In this passage Paul offers three different antitheses of different social categories dealing with race, class, and gender. While none of the antitheses speak of homosexuality, proponents of a more inclusive church see the passage as advocating inclusion. Paul was eliminating social categories for the purpose of creating an egalitarian society where no one group would be excluded. Every group would have equal value in the Kingdom of God. Thus, not only were class, race, and gender distinctions removed by Paul, they reason, but the spirit of the text demands a much broader diversity. In essence “another minority group which has experienced oppression by the majority would now be granted status as full participants within the Christian community. [Paul would have] added the freedom of another of God’s tyrannized persons -- the homosexual.”[4] Hence, homosexuals, which are who God created them to be, would not be excluded by the Church. Moreover, this passage that indorses inclusion should be used, advocates reason, to interpret other texts. Inclusion advocates believe that it was never God’s plan to exclude persons involved in monogamous homosexual relationships, but only those who engage in homosexual relationships that are geared towards exploitation or violate the monogamy principle.

There is a significant number of Christians, who affirm that homosexual relationships of any kind militate against Scripture. It is their belief that homosexuality is not part of ones identity (essentialist view), but is adopted by choice often times as a direct result of cultural acceptance (Social constructionist view).

The opposition to the homosexual lifestyle is not an easy one. Big business, politics, science, the arts, television, the cinema, and even the sports world have championed this cause. Those who may oppose the lifestyle are seen as people who hold antiquated beliefs, full of hate, bigotry, and whatever new adjective that can be dreamed up in order to postulate a certain pejorative characterization. To be sure, there is a militant resistance towards anyone who does not affirm the homosexual lifestyle. Indeed, those people will be publicly chastised in the media as being profligates of hate. Nonetheless, those who oppose the lifestyle see it as a worthy debate because the health and stability of our nation is at stake not to mention the authority of the Word of God and the eternal destiny of people. So it is with this mindset that those who oppose the lifestyle hold to.

There are many Scriptures one needs to address if one is to look at this subject in a comprehensive manner, perhaps the best argument that the Bible does not ordain the practice is when one realizes that not once is homosexuality ever mentioned in a positive light in the Bible. It is always mentioned with negative connotations. Homosexuality is always addressed as being a sinful behavior. While the Church has known this for almost 2,000 years, it is only recently that advocates have begun to reinterpret the Bible to ordain this behavior.

The reason I wrote about this controversial issue is not because I am a flaming fundamentalist (lol). “The reason [I} address the subject of homosexuality is that God does. He knows this is not His intention for the people He made and dearly loves. He knows that homosexual activity is destructive and hurtful.” Consequently, He sought to warn people that this behavior leads to hurt, pain, and destruction, and Christians motivated by the love of God (not hate or self-righteousness) should do the same. .