The Middle Way

“You should learn to call him ‘fleshly’ [of the flesh, not the Spirit] who thinks, teaches, and talks a great deal about high spiritual matters, but without grace.”

-- Martin Luther, “Preface to the Book of Romans,” in Commentary on Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1976), p. xviii.

In Part 1 of my review, I discussed the areas in which I found at least partial agreement with Rev. Parsley. In this post, I shall deal with those on which we disagree. Generally speaking, the problems I have deal with an attitude that to me resembles that of the Pharisees in Scripture:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-4a, 5 NIV).

Indeed, at the beginning of his chapter on Islam, he begins with this statement:

“I am not a spiritual person. I am actually a little suspicious of those who are. I have met too many granola people (fruits, flakes, and nuts) in my time. I do not have many dreams or dramatic spiritual experiences, and if I do, it is usually due to too much pizza before I go to bed” (p. 89).

A minister of the Gospel who is “suspicious” of those who are spiritual? And what is the point of being a Christian, but to develop a spiritual relationship with God? Perhaps Rev. Parsley needs to review the book of Romans; for example, “If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ… and if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, which lives in you (Romans 8:9b, 11 NIV, emphasis mine).

Homosexuality: A threat to marriage?

Rev. Parsley begins this chapter with guns blazing: Marriage, he writes, is being threatened by the gay agenda, therefore State and Federal Constitutional amendments are necessary to protect it. I do not understand how homosexuality can be a threat to marriage. The one has nothing to do with the other. The real threats to marriage in America are those posed by heterosexuals: sexual promiscuity and excessive resort to divorce, particularly on the grounds of “incompatibility.” As I noted in my previous post on homosexuality, I would agree that to expand the idea of holy matrimony, as established by the Church, to homosexuals makes a mockery of the family; however, to permit civil unions for secular purposes, such as insurance benefits, need not have the same effect. I dislike even this idea, but would not consider it a moral catastrophe if they were permitted by law, as long as they did not affect the right of clergy to refuse marriage between homosexuals.

In his book, Rev. Parsley tells the story about a radical gay activist who found a radical lesbian activist and eventually married her. It’s a great story, and not a unique one; but he uses this story to argue that homosexuality is not biologically determined. Are we confused here? Is it not possible that homosexuality (the tendency) is indeed biologically determined, but sodomy (the act) is behavioral? For example, is it not biologically determined when persons whose genes have the XXY chromosome mutation have some characteristics of both sexes? We know that genetics can determine that people have tendencies toward alcoholism or obesity, but we do not criticize them unless they drive while drunk or are extremely careless in the way they eat.

Please note: I am not defending sodomy against the Scriptures, nor am I minimizing (as Rev. Parsley seems to) the difficulty many individuals may face in their effort to overcome their homosexual desires. For some, just as with alcoholics and the obese, it will prove just plain impossible to overcome. I will concede this to Rev. Parsley, however: those who intentionally persist in sodomy pay a high spiritual price for doing so.

He cites instances where radical gay activists have threatened those who refuse to support their agenda with long-term hatred and vilification; yet one has to wonder whether Rev. Parsley is not stirring up the Bible-believing Evangelical with an attitude that is not Biblical at all. We need to remember that excluding the homosexual from our churches and society will serve only to keep them lost. We can disapprove of sodomy, while loving those who practice it as children of God, and showing them that they may receive his grace with repentance, just as is true with every other sin.

Islam: Reductio ad absurdum

Rev. Parsley clearly buys into the idea that the war on terrorism is the great “clash of civilizations” foretold by Samuel Huntington a decade ago; and he clearly treats Islam as an evil monolith that worships a false god.

I have read most of the Koran, and will be the first to acknowledge that I find most of it difficult to understand. It is written in a cultural setting very different from mine, appealing to a mindset very foreign to my own. However, I believe he distorts the facts in his three central assertions about Islam:

1. The God of Christianity and the Allah of Islam are two separate beings. He bases this on the Arabian paganism of Mohammed’s time, in which a father deity (which they did call Allah) had three daughters. However, the Koran repeatedly makes reference to the Jewish and Christian scriptures as a foundation of Islam (for example, suras 2:147 and 5:48). Muslims honor Moses and Jesus as prophets. This is not the message of a false God.
   
2. Mohammed received renditions from demons and not from the true God. Rev. Parsley bases his assertion on Mohammed’s life story: according to tradition, a spirit crushed him almost to the point of death and demanded that he recite. While this seems rather severe coming from the God of Jesus, is this so very different from the way God commanded Jonah to obey him?
   
3. Islam is an anti-Christian religion that intends to conquer the world through violence. This is a reduction to the absurd – the mirror image of some jihadist assertions that Christianity is an anti-Islamic religion that intends to buy its way to conquering the world. We cannot deny that most of the world’s terrorists today are Muslims; but it should also be clear by now that they do not enjoy the support of the entire Muslim community (witness the outcome of the Afghan elections just completed, and of the outrage in Iraq continuing to build against the resistance to its elected government).

My objection to Rev. Parsley’s discussion of Islam is the same as my objection to his discussion of homosexuality – he is inciting hatred. Hatred is not only anti-Christian, it pours gasoline on the terrorists’ fire. The only to stop this hatred is to prove by our Christian example that ours is the religion of love. Yes, we must defend ourselves against those who would strap bombs onto themselves, but we must recognize that the Wahhabis and the Taliban, while unfortunately part of Islam, are not the whole of it.

The Right to Life: What about love?

Let me stress at the outset that I believe in the right to life; and much of Rev. Parsley’s chapter on this subject resonates with me. He devotes the beginning of the chapter to a discussion on the relationship our Founding Fathers placed between the value of life and that of liberty, which he summarizes thus:

“The statesmen and heroes of the American republic have always understood that
whenever the principle of the dignity and sanctity of life is questioned, the
rule of law is automatically thrown into very real jeopardy.”

He then blames the persistence of legalized abortion on the barbarization of America as evidenced by what he calls Hollywood’s “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” mind-set, which results in denying the humanity of the victim (that is, the fetus); and on the profitability of abortion clinics, which he calls the “death industry.”

So where do I disagree with him? Only in this: He is more ready to punish those who would commit abortions, than he is to address the causes. He attacks sex-education classes as exacerbating the problem of teen pregnancy; and the way they are taught in public schools, this is true – because sex information not presented in a moral context is by definition presented in an immoral context. When it comes to sex, there is no such thing as morally neutral; but this is not an argument against informing youth of the facts of life. The solution, then, as I discussed earlier about public welfare, is to leave sex education to those who will teach it in a moral context; which is the church, not the state. To do so will require a proactive evangelism that reaches public school children outside the public school, which understands reality and is able to respond to it. This evanglism is one that reflects the higher Love that instructs us in the sacredness of sexual love. Rev. Parsley, by contrast, cries out for a political solution, one that makes the government do the church’s heavy lifting for it.

The reality is, we do not have a strong political consensus for making abortion illegal; and even if we did, it is bad public policy, for history shows us that in that way lay the coat hangers, the back alleys, and the deaths of unfortunate mothers as well as of their children.

One more question for our Evangelical friends: If life is so precious to you, why are so many of you such strong advocates of the death penalty? Aren’t we by that means snuffing out the humanity of those who are so sentenced, possibly denying them all opportunity to receive God’s grace through repentance? There are other penalties that can better deter crime by their example to others; such as life imprisonment without parole, especially if it includes hard labor. And if life is so precious to you, why do so many of you uncritically embrace America's involvement in foreign wars? I am not arguing against our continued involvement in Iraq, but I do feel that we rushed into it without adequately considering the consequences - and many Evangelicals were leading the charge into the war three years ago, as I recall.

We certainly need a Christian revival in this country, but that revival will come only from God, working through us at the grass roots. Individual Christians can influence constructive change in our society on their own and through their churches, as well as through government, but only when they understand and think about the issues on their own, not when they are stirred up by those who confuse faith with a political agenda. Government cannot legislate a Christian society, nor should it try. History has shown that Christianity and our society are both strengthened when we not only have a separation of church and state, but also (as I recently noticed on a bumper sticker) a separation of church and hate.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.

While I am not trying to be witty, I grant that the last two posts (and my next one, which is Part 2 of my review of Rev. Parsley's book) are extremely long, due to the subject matter.

I expect future posts to be much shorter and more frequent. Suggestions for topics are always welcome.

Probably no subject in public life is more filled with fear, anger, and hatred than that of public policy and the Church’s ministry toward those who prefer their own sex in love. Part of it comes from the homosexual community, who having experienced many issues in their own lives, find a large portion of the Christian community seeking to exclude them altogether, not only from the life of the church; but even from participation in the political and social life of the community. And part of it comes from that part of the Christian community which struggles with how one can at the same time respect the entire written Word of God and still follow Jesus’ command to love one another.

Generally speaking, I am not afraid to tackle controversial subjects; but to write and publish on this one requires more than the usual courage, for its discussion takes us to sexuality, which lies at the very root of our being. I can still remember a time when our society absolutely forbade its discussion in public fora – it was considered too sacred and too personal. Many conservatives in our society still feel this way more than thirty years after the “sexual revolution.” Remembering this past, and wishing to respect the attitudes of many people in the present, reinforces my conviction that any public discussion of sexuality should be dealt with only after mature reflection. Consequently, while “fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” I have taken care to move slowly – this post has been more than three months in the making.

What about the authority of Scripture?

Evangelicals argue that the root issue is that of the authority of Scripture, specifically the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:8), the injunction in Leviticus 20:13, and Paul’s attack in Romans 1:22-27. Since the Evangelical position is that the Bible leaves little or no room for interpretation, they have painted themselves into a corner that places them in direct conflict with the most basic teachings of Jesus Himself, who commanded us to love one another, help the least and the lost, etc. The Gospels also make it clear that that we do not have the right to judge others, lest we be judges (Matthew 4:4).

However the Liberals come close to showing contempt for the Scripture, particularly on the issue of accepting practicing homosexuals to the ministry. In their zeal to include homosexuals within the Christian fold, they have interpreted Scripture so freely that they risk showing contempt for it.

Issues we need to sort out

So, how do we find a Middle Way that honors all the teachings of our Bible, while respecting the dignity and addressing the needs of homosexuals? I suggest that we need to work through several issues:

1. We need to define sin. Christians use the term very freely, perhaps carelessly.


2. We need to make sense of the confusing science. Is homosexuality a genetic trait, in which case it cannot be fairly considered a sin, since the individual presumably could not correct it with any amount of effort; or is it a behavior, in which case it may properly be considered a sin, or at least an addiction that can be cured, albeit with great difficulty? One website that I have found helpful in trying to sort this out is New Direction, a Canadian website that specializes in issues of homosexuality. In their view, science supports the view that homosexuality is a behavior. Their site also exposes scientific flaws in several studies that have suggested the contrary.


3. Confusion between homosexuality (the tendency) with sodomy (the act). A homosexual who never goes to bed with another commits no sin, just as an alcoholic who never takes a drink does nothing wrong. All of the Biblical references used in condemnation of homosexuality in fact condemn sodomy.


4. Accepting that sodomy is no greater and no less of a sin than any other. It is subject to God’s judgment, but the one who repents of sodomy is entitled to the same forgiveness that we all receive when we repent of our sins and seek to change our ways. I believe that transsexuals (those who have surgically altered their bodies to become the opposite sex) have created a spiritually difficult condition for themselves, since the operation obviously cannot be reversed; however, under Jesus’ teachings, all people, regardless of sins committed, are children of God, and have the right to be treated fairly and with dignity.


5. However, we must also accept that one who persists in committing sodomy, or any other sin for which one has not repented, makes him unfit for the Christian ministry. Since the purpose of ministry is to lead people away from their sins, why should the church accept those who do not at least struggle with their own sins. What kind of a message does this give about our respect for our own ministry and teachings?


6. Accepting that our Declaration of Independence did not exclude anyone from the sentiment that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, “all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.”


7. Making a distinction between the sacred and secular purposes of marriage. While both address the creation of a stable home for the purpose of raising children, the purpose of sacred matrimony is to sanctify the union of a man and a woman, to make their intercourse lawful and holy, and to provide for the care of children. The secular purpose of marriage is to grant certain privileges under the law – joint ownership of property, access to family as opposed to single rates for health benefits, joint rates for tax returns, etc. To grant a homosexual couple the status of marriage makes a mockery of the union between a woman and her husband. It contradicts the well-established need for all children to have both a masculine and a feminine presence in the home, for that child to have the best opportunity to grow up with a wholesome self-identity. However, a State may choose to grant something like a “civil union” to a homosexual couple for the secular purposes, if the State’s community standards allow it, and the legislature of that State believes it to be sound public policy. I personally dislike the idea, but disliking the idea does not make it immoral, nor does it make carrying it out bad public policy.

An excellent book, reviewed a few years ago by Good News magazine, tells the story of a homosexual man who found his way out with God’s (and his family’s) help into a new life that has made him much happier. He now is married and has children. The book is Mario Bergner, Setting Love in Order. The New Direction site lists several other books that may be consulted.

In summary then, I see the duty of the Christian to speak out against gay-bashing as a heinous sin against our own faith; to welcome homosexuals into our churches as we would welcome anyone who stands in need of the grace that God alone provides; but to uphold the Church’s standards for ministry and marriage to preserve the dignity of both. In the eyes of the State, a homosexual is just another person, deserving of the same protections and subject to the same responsibilities, as anyone else.

I have studied this topic in the Scriptures, in publications, and on the ’Net, struggled with the issues by considering the lives of five homosexual acquaintances (one a transsexual), and prayed over what I would write here. This is where I stand. I can do no other.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.

Book Review

Rod Parsley, Silent No More (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2005), 182 pp., $19.99
[Part 1 of 2] (Part 2 was published Sept. 22 as "Where is the grace?")

Rev. Rod Parsley is pastor of the World Harvest Church, which is the largest-membership church in Columbus, Ohio, with an average weekly attendance of 10,000. He is also a television evangelist; and more recently, a speaker in demand in pulpits and on the lecture circuit. Naturally, this reputation had given him considerable influence, which he apparently wishes to use in the political world.

Last April, Rev. Parsley gained national media attention following an eleven-city promotional tour. This tour took the form of political rallies, which he keynoted, supported by such conservative luminaries as Rev. Alan Keyes, columnist Ann Coulter, and Ohio Secretary of State/gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell. This engagement of Rev. Parsley’s ministry with political activism sounded an alarm with me. Therefore, these two postings may prove to be less of a review, and more of a detailed critique of his book. (For press articles on this tour, see the front page story in The Other Paper [a Columbus alternative weekly], April 21-27, 2005; the Columbus Dispatch for April 17, 2005, p. B3, April 25, 2005, p. A1, and August 28, 2005, p. A1).

In subsequent public appearances, Rev. Parsley has reiterated a claim that the separation of church and state is a “lie.” He believes that the church is still “a sleeping giant that has the ability and the power for God Almighty to transform our nation from the heart and from the inside out.” Rev. Parsley is thus launching a frontal attack on the doctrine of the separation of church and state (about which I commented earlier: [LINK]), or indeed on any idea that the United States of America as a government should maintain a semblance of neutrality in its relationship with people of various religions. Let the reader judge whether or not he is advocating a theocracy.

Recently, when I discussed some of my differences with Evangelicals, a friend of mine said, “You really hate Evangelicals, don’t you?” Well, no, I don’t hate Evangelicals. In most respects, mainstream Protestants and Evangelicals share the same doctrines, especially in contrast with other Christian traditions. I admire the Evangelical contributions to Bible scholarship and their zeal for saving the least and the lost; and have prayed that we mainstream Protestants would catch that bug. However, I do believe that Evangelicals are dead wrong in their views related to the separation of church and state, and I vigorously disagree with them on how the Gospel is to be applied in the political arena. (For my views stated more positively, see my review of Jim Wallis’ Who Speaks for God?).

I bought Silent No More expecting my review to be a slash-and-burn of Evangelical politics run riot. In fairness to Rev. Parsley, I found that I agreed with about half of it. In this post, I shall address the areas in which I at least partially agree with Rev. Parsley, then in the next, I shall tackle the areas of disagreement.

A refreshing view on race

White Evangelicals are accused, with some justification, of reacting to the expansion of rights to African-Americans by forming churches and Christian schools in the suburbs. With this in mind, it was refreshing to read from a white Evangelical pastor that he is “still sadly forced to report that racism is far from dead in our country … How I wish I could report that we had learned from our tragic legacy of race hatred, that we had heeded the words of [those] who have called us to a higher vision.”

He notes (and I agree) that affirmative action programs have stirred deep resentments. And most tellingly, he observes that “Sunday morning is still the most racially segregated time in America.” Our churches have an “unfulfilled mandate” to reflect in their composition the diversity of our society; especially at a time when black, Hispanic, and other populations are increasing as a percentage of our overall population. Rev. Parsley has earned the right to criticize, because World Harvest is one of the most racially diverse congregations in Columbus. He cites several Biblical passages in support of his contention, notably Acts 13:1, which lists a Cypriot, a Greek, two Asians, and an African in the leadership of the church at Antioch. In Mark 11 (the “den of thieves” story), he notes that the sellers were operating in the Court of the Gentiles, thus blocking their access to the Temple. In defense of his clearing the area, Jesus said, quoting Isaiah 56:7, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Rev. Parsley continues this chapter by surveying the effects of persistent racism on black Americans, citing well-known health and economic statistics documenting gaps between the white and black populations. Because of this, he observes that the Nation of Islam (“Black Muslims”) appeal to many urban blacks because it preaches the goodness and nobility of the black race, something they may not hear anywhere else, but should be hearing from Christians, both black and white.

Why do we still have poverty and hunger?

“Why does poverty continue to be a plaguing problem in this, the richest nation the world has ever known?” Rev. Parsley asks. “Why are there still hungry children? Why are there families with no home? Why is there still a permanent underclass in this great land?” He refreshingly asserts that these are the kinds of questions that “should drive our national debate and inform our public policy.” So often, we hear Evangelical activists, such as Pat Robertson, blame the victim for their poverty, as they favor policies that deny the poor their hand up.

I agree with Rev. Parsley that much of the poverty in this country is the result of poor public policy, ranging from farm price supports to the handouts from the “War on Poverty.” Social welfare programs, “have more often than not rendered them impotent, dependent, and helpless,” an assertion he supports with considerable backup. He also blames social welfare programs for decreasing the benefits of work through higher taxes, reduced job creation at the lower levels, and made risk of starting businesses unacceptably high.

Rev. Parsley argues that we need a “compassion consensus.” Government help is needed to provide emergency support, but the primary responsibility for charity lay with the family, the church, and private institutions – not with the government. He quotes Franklin D. Roosevelt as telling Congress in 1935, “The federal government must, and shall, quit this business of relief. To dole out relief is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” To both statements, all I can do is to raise a loud “AMEN!” Our recent experience with the victims of Hurricane Katrina should underscore the validity of such an approach.

So what is the solution? Rev. Parsley says it is for government to get out of the way. Reduce taxation, remove industrial restraints, eliminate wage controls, and abolish subsidies and other constraints on free enterprise. As a result, “the poor would be helped in a way that AFDC, social security, and unemployment insurance could never match. Jobs would be created, investment would be stimulated, productivity would soar, and technology would advance.” While I generally agree with his approach, it will need some fine-tuning to ensure that these proposals do not have the unintended consequence of providing “welfare to the rich” while denying government sufficient funds to perform necessary services to help the poor.

Education needs reform

Rev. Parsley criticizes education on the grounds that it fails in its most basic mission of conveying true knowledge. People get information 24/7/365, but too many children go through school without the ability to read, write, or calculate. He continues for several pages with statistics and surveys that back up the point, one that should be more than familiar to any concerned citizen.

Part of the problem for Rev. Parsley is, we tend to assume that education is a process that can be finished. For all the talk of “lifelong learning,” Americans tend to assume that once the state fulfills its responsibility to graduate us from high school, our learning days can end. But the truth is, we really haven’t learned how to learn. If we do not learn wisdom, he writes, we cannot make information more than a jumble of data.

Rev. Parsley argues that we need education that helps children understand not only the what and where, but also the why. We need to teach our people how to discern truth. “Wisdom and truth are the only things that can insure that the great legacy of freedom, the inheritance of cultural greatness, and the blessings of progress will continue.” However, just as government cannot eliminate poverty by itself, neither can the public schools fully educate children on their own.

We are all familiar with instances where school principals have pressed a policy against all common sense. For example, a few months ago here in Columbus, a mentally-retarded child was raped at a local high school. The principal forbade a teacher from calling 911 to treat the child, because it was against policy to disclose such things to outsiders! Rev. Parsley blames the National Education Association (the teachers’ union) for seeking to control all aspects of education, even to the point of trying to keep parents out of the loop; for example by opposing “No Child Left Behind,” and attempting to suppress home schooling. We are all familiar with “political correctness” in schools (and universities!) and how they prevent students from discovering unpopular truths.

Rev. Parsley’s solutions fit most ideas of common sense. We need to resolve the funding problem of our schools, so that every child is adequately supported – but money is not the only solution to the problem. He strongly favors (as do I) expanding the voucher system. Let competition raise the value of education. Most private and parochial (though, too often, not charter) schools provide excellent education to their students, often at an affordable price even to families with modest incomes. Rev. Parsley closes the chapter with a touching story about his son, who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, to show that even special needs can be better addressed outside the public school system. If public school educators can’t take the heat, as Harry Truman might have said, perhaps they should get out of the kitchen.

Media: The enemy in our midst

Not much really needs said here. We all know from our daily lives and conversations the power that the mass media have on the culture of our people and their understanding of the world. Rev. Parsley, as one would expect, takes a strong stand against the sexual imagery frequently present in television and music; and devoted considerable attention to Janet Jackson’s notorious “wardrobe malfunction” in Super Bowl XXXVIII.

He calls television the “electronic Valium,” noting that it can be a tool to control society by inflicting pleasure, just as Aldous Huxley envisioned in Brave New World. Hollywood films are even worse in his view. Rev. Parsley goes on for pages with facts that are well known, but which he uses to remind us that the popular media are a problem for this society, one that has sapped the nation of its vigor and its moral vision.

Thankfully, he did not advocate the solution I most feared. He stopped well short of advocating governmental censorship. Instead, he recommends that his readers file indecency complaints with the Federal Communications Commission and become better informed about the quality of entertainment they want to hear or view. We should write sponsors, networks, and film studios when we find something objectionable. This strikes me as not only reasonable, but necessary to achieving a balance in entertainment options that better protects our children.


In my next post, I will give my personal views on homosexuality; which will lay some groundwork for Part 2, where I shall review the areas where Rev. Parsley and I disagree.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.