Now, to some of the things Joel Osteen says that I believe as Christians we must be careful not to say because it conveys the wrong idea about what it means to be a Christian.

“I’m not against anybody. Or if people want to live together, that’s up to them. But, my faith, when we say marriage, I mean, I think about it, Piers, and all through the Bible there are, you know, hundreds of marriages but none of them are shown as between, you know, the same sex. And, again, I’m not against anything but I just believe that’s what the Bible teaches . . .”

This answer has many problems. First, we need to stop say that it is “my faith.” When we speak like this, we are implying to people that everyone is allowed to have a different belief system. It is not “your faith” or “my faith.” It is what God’s word says. Osteen had done well using the word “scripture” but then backs down to “my faith.” Such wording leaves the idea that another person could read the scriptures and get a “different faith” that would allow homosexual marriage. Osteen probably did not intend this, but we need to see what the world hears when we speak like that. The answer was simple. When the scriptures say marriage, it is never shown between the same sex.

But I am upset with all the backpedalling he does in that paragraph. “If people want to live together, that’s up to them.” This sentence makes it sound like he is okay with same sex individuals living together as long as they do not get married. I hope that is not what he meant and I assume that is not what he meant. But his words left the impression that one can have a “domestic partner” as long as one does not get married. In the same way, society has glorified “living together” or “cohabiting” rather than a man and woman getting married. However, any sexual contact or relations between two people who are not married to each other is a sin. Between two people of the same sex this is called homosexuality in the scriptures and between two people of the opposite sex it is called fornication or sexual immorality in the scriptures. Marriage is only between a man and a woman and only a husband and wife can engage in sexual conduct, according to the scriptures. It is not okay for people to live together in a sexual relationship, regardless of the two genders.

Further, why is Osteen saying, “I’m not against anything?” Why backpedal like this except that you are trying to soften your stance? You are against something, Mr. Osteen. You are against homosexuality and same sex marriage. Don’t be fearful to say that! To be a follower of Jesus means a person must be against all kinds of sinful activities that are condemned in the scriptures. Don’t say that something is a sin and then turn around and say that you are not against anything. Saying such things is a way to try to not alienate people, but the word of God alienates. The way for Christians to present this message is not to say that “I am not against anything,” but to say, “This is not my personal teaching. This is what God says. This is not my faith. This is what the scriptures teach.” We need to show people that this is not some personal opinion of ours. We are not promoting our personal faith or personal message. God’s word says homosexuality is a sin. That is why we believe what we believe. We are against homosexual activity and same sex marriage because God told us to be against it since he is against it. When we cave into language of “my faith” or “my beliefs” we are implying that another person can follow God and have a different belief.

The scriptures are the absolute truth which cannot be changed, whether we like it or not. Homosexuality, sexual immorality, and adultery are sinful because God says so in his Word. That’s the answer we must give when people ask for the reason for our hope and the reason for what we believe.

First, the positive. I appreciate that Joel Osteen came on television, and in the face of a fairly aggressive interview, calmly declared that homosexuality is a sin and that view will not change because his view is based on the scriptures. This is what needs to be declared openly and publicly. I appreciate how Osteen continues to present that message. It is not that Christians hate people. It is not that we are angry with people who practice homosexuality. It is the simple fact that the scriptures declare homosexuality to be sin, and time cannot change that truth.

Now, Piers Morgan clearly does not accept this answer and tries to catch Osteen by presenting that we are in a modern world. Morgan says, “Shouldn’t the scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. … Not everything in the scripture is, really, in my view, conducive to modern life. Like everything else, doesn’t it have to move with the times?” I was disappointed in how Joel Osteen answered Morgan’s attack. Now, I want to be upfront that I have not been on a national news show and cannot imagine the pressure of speaking off the top of my head on a hot-button issue. But the scriptures teach us that we need to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15). We have to be ready to respond to people in the world who use this. This argument made by Morgan needs to be addressed and defeated.

No, the scriptures do not need to be interpreted differently in the modern age. This is the problem with our society. God’s laws do not change. We are the ones who have to change to God’s laws and change what we are doing. We must stop trying to change the scriptures to match how we want to live our lives. If God is God, then it is about doing what he says because he is God, not what we wish God had said. Giving Joel Osteen the best of intentions, I believe that he was trying to make such a point, since he said there are other laws of God that cannot change, so this is one that cannot be updated, modernized, or made progressive. As Christians, we need to make an emphatic point to the world that we are to change to God’s laws and stop trying to change what God said.

Morgan then tries to use the “law of the land” argument against Osteen. Christians are to obey the law of the land. However, this was a missed opportunity to point out that the law of the land never supersedes God’s law. If the law of the land says it is okay to murder, that does not mean that people can murder because it breaks God’s law. This is no different than our current social condition on divorce. The law of the land says one can divorce for any reason. God says that divorce is only approved if in the case of sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9). Therefore, we must obey the law of God over the law of the land.

Up to this point of the interview, I think Joel Osteen has done fine. He missed some opportunities but he has said the scriptures teach. But then, in my opinion, he appears to do some backpedaling. Or, he at the very least says some things that can be completely misunderstood about God.

Part two of this post coming next…

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

“People need to understand that the ‘gay gene’ theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years,” he points out. “Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they’re much less likely to resist the gay agenda.”

Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. “Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they’ve lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization,” he states. (Hear audio report)

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

“It’s irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle,” he argues. “Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through — frankly, most effectively — a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

LaBarbera agrees. “Change through Christ is possible — and it’s one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate,” he shares. “Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how ‘in the tank’ they are for the homosexual movement.”

LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ — regardless of the sin.

Joel Osteen Wins First Ever ‘Worst Easter Sermon Award’

INDIANAPOLIS, April 28 /Christian Newswire/ — Chris Rosebrough, captain of internet based Pirate Christian Radio and host of the Fighting for the Faith Radio program announced on Monday that Joel Osteen is the winner of the “Worst Easter Sermon Award” for 2009.

“Every Christmas Christians whine and complain about secular and atheistic efforts designed to take Christ out of Christmas yet more and more Christian pastors have committed an even worse offense and have removed Jesus Christ and His victorious resurrection from the grave from their Easter sermons,” said Chris Rosebrough. “Far too many pastors have played the role of Judas and have betrayed Jesus. Rather than being paid 30 pieces of silver, these pastors have sold Jesus out for the fame and adulation that accompany having a ‘growing, relevant ‘man-centered’ church’.”

Said Rosebrough, “These Churches have stopped preaching the offense of Christ Crucified for Sins and His resurrection for our justification and have traded the Biblical Gospel for empty feel-good platitudes, and self-help mythologies that scratch itching ears.”

Rosebrough decided that it was time to raise awareness of this serious and growing problem within Christianity and to call these pastors to repentance by holding a contest on his radio program whereby his listeners would decide which sermon was the Worst Easter Sermon of 2009.

In preparation for this contest, Rosebrough screened nearly 100 sermons from churches across America and picked the 5 worst ones to be contestants for this new ‘award’.

The sermons Rosebrough picked for this year’s contest included:

A sermon that explored the “deep” spiritual lessons of the movie Slumdog Millionaire .

A sermon entitled “Beer Babes & Baseball”

A sermon entitled “Livin’ Venti” that encouraged people to live life to the fullest.

A sermon entitled “You Have Come Back Power”

And a sermon entitled “Easter in the Octagon”

This year’s winner of the first ever, Worst Easter Sermon Award went to Joel Osteen’s sermon “You Have Come Back Power”.

Commenting on Osteen’s sermon Rosebrough stated, “Jesus didn’t die and rise again on the cross so that you can have ‘come back power over life’s set backs’. Osteen completely missed the point of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and as a result he missed the entire point of Christianity.”

Said Rosebrough, “I wasn’t surprised that Osteen was the first winner of this award. Osteen is like the Tiger Woods of heresy, he takes false teaching to a whole new level.”

________________________________________

There are a lot of “winners” in that list. I am always mystified at church’s that teach spiritual lessons from movies. How about teaching spiritual lessons from the Bible? A movie may be a good illustration of a point, but must not be the source material of a lesson. “Easter in the Octagon” shows how influential mixed martial arts have become. While there is a necessity for marketing, I believe that the world can see through most of the gimmicks that churches push (Beer, Babes, and Baseball???, come on!).

http://www.olivetreeblog.com/2009/03/16/split-screens-in-iphone-biblereader-version-406/

The word “holiness” is synonymous with “wholeness.” So when we sing songs saying, “You are holy,” what we are really say is that I am broken and fractured. I am splintered. You are whole, complete, and lacking nothing. I am insecure, you’re not. I am co-dependent. I have issues, you have none. You have no kinks in your armor. And he says if you want to walk in that wholeness, there has to be discipline in your life.

That simply is not what holiness means…at all. While there is truth that we come to God with broken lives to be made whole, that is not holiness. Just because a word sounds similar to another English word does not make the two words synonymous. Holiness is about being set apart for the Lord, separating from things that are common, and in moral terms carries the sense of righteousness. You can refer to Mounce, Thayer or some other Bible dictionary and you will not find “wholeness” as the meaning of “holiness.” Mounce gives more than a page about the words “holy” and “holiness,” but let me quote one sentence:

hagiasmos (“holiness, sanctification, consecration”) is generally used in the NT the moral sense, referring to the process (or the final result of that process) of making pure or holy. (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary)

I strongly encourage audiences to search the scriptures and study what your preacher teaches. You have the rest of the week once the lesson is delivered to meditate and study on the things he taught. He may not be right. He may not have done his own homework, but is relying on someone else’s false information. Sometimes preachers just make mistakes. I know I do. Just because the preacher has gone to a Bible university, was trained in preaching, and has years of experience does not make him infallible. Nor does it make you inferior to him when it comes to examining and learning from the word of God. Examine what the preacher has taught. If his teaching is correct, then your study and meditation will go a long way to helping you grow in God’s word. If he is wrong, then you will not swept away by the error and can gently correct him the next time you see him.

The above example is a pretty bad mistake because it is easily avoided. Just a little study on the word “holiness” would have prevented teaching something false. If I had relied on this preacher’s work, I might have preached the same false information. Hopefully preachers will earnestly strive to put in the necessary work, preparation, and study before speaking to avoid such mistakes. Be sure to do your own work!

http://politicalfaith.wordpress.com/

“I am going to unpack this verse.”

“Let me unpack this word.”

Can we just explain the text? Can’t we just offer more details? Can we just say what this verse means? Can we stop unpacking?

It is time to retire “unpack” just like we need to retire the phrase, “thrown under the bus.”

“Unpacking” is not original. It is a tired, worn out slang that suggests the superiority of the evangelist over the congregation.

Thanks to the Christian Colleges blog.

http://www.christiancolleges.com/blog/2009/100-enlightening-bible-study-blogs/