Meredith Baxter played the mother on the television show, Family Ties, and today on Today she announced that, after three marriages and five children, she had decided that she would try being a lesbian.

There goes what’s left of my childhood.  I don’t know what’s true anymore.  I suppose that next I’ll learn that Alex Keaton (Michael J. Fox) never was a Republican; that Bo Duke dated my governor; and that Mrs. Brady was messing around with Greg.  Never mind.

Here is a serious question:  has anyone else noticed that gay couples, especially lesbians, still reflect a typical relationship in that one of the partners plays the role of the man (e.g., Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow)?  Doesn’t this imply that even those engaged in unnatural sex recognize an underlying natural law?  That there are limits to human rebellion?  That even our sin will be shaped by the way God made us?

Here’s a follow-up:  if you’re playing the woman role in a lesbian relationship (e.g., Portia de Rossi), why would you prefer to play that role with a “butch” rather than with an honest to goodness man?  Could you just as easily switch teams and fall in love with a man (e.g., Anne Heche)?

I recognize that these questions may be sensitive to some, but they are honest questions that I have.  I am being vulnerable by sharing them, so please be kind in your responses.

In light of the comments on my last post, I think that some of you may appreciate Doug Philips’ interview with Chris Castaldo, who recently published Holy Ground, a book which explains his conversion from Roman Catholicism to evangelicalism.  Doug’s interview probes the essential issue of justification, and how it is presently held by Roman Catholics.  Doug, a Baptist pastor and friend who is loaded with both theological wisdom and a gracious spirit, also comments on The Manhattan Declaration.

Update on 12/1/09: Kevin DeYoung has a nice summary of the pros and cons of signing the Manhattan Declaration here.

In light of our recent discussion about homosexual practice, I thought that you might want to know about and even sign The Manhattan Declaration, a joint statement from Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christians (it was written by Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson) which defends our religious freedom to live by the teaching of Scripture and participate in the public square.

Look here for Al Mohler and Kevin DeYoung’s reasons for signing it, and here for evangelicals who won’t.

I almost never sign anything, but I did this time.

Matthew Westerholm sent me this link to an atheistic organization that is meeting a real need.  For $110, Eternal Earth-Bound Pets will rush to your house within 24 hours of the rapture and rescue your beloved pet which is left behind.  The only flaw in their business model is that many dispensationalist pretribbers were taught that the earth and its non-souled inhabitants don’t matter, so it may be difficult to get them to spring for their pets.

I love their FAQ’s page:

Q: How can we trust that you’ll honor your service agreement, afterall, you ARE atheists.
A: Being an atheist does not mean we lack morals or ethics. It just means we don’t believe in God or gods. All of our representatives are normal folks who love and live for their family, are gainfully employed, and have friends of varying beliefs.  Some of us are married to believers. Many of us volunteer our time at food banks, animal shelters, meals on wheels organizations, etc.   We fully endorse the “Rule of Reciprocity”, also known as “The Golden Rule.” We just happen not to believe in God(s).  Belief in God does not ensure righteousness, nor does non-belief imply immorality. Jesus understood this. Please reference Luke 10, re “The Good Samaritan.”

Q: When the Rapture occurs, how long before my pet is rescued?
A: The timing is contingent on the number of subscribers we have in each state/region and travel distance.  Our rescuers know that this is a time sensitive service.  Pets’ lives are at stake.  We will limit the number of subscribers in each zone so that any given rescuer will not be over burdened. Naturally, we must anticipate that there will be widespread chaos and confusion immediately following the Rapture that could impact travel times.  Thus, we are targeting a maximum of between 18- 24 hours from realization of the Rapture, to animal rescue.

Q: If my pet has special needs, can you accomodate them?
A: Yes. Our contract form includes room for specific care instructions, medications/dosages, preferred foods, even any favored pet toys that should be brought from your home to your pets new home.  While we expect most animals to be stressed because of your absence etc.,  we do ask that if your pet is prone to aggressive behavior that you note this on the form so we can take precautions to ensure the rescuer’s and your pet’s safety.

Q: What if one of my family members are left behind. Will you still take posession of my pet?
A: That depends. When the rescuer arrives, if your loved one wants to retain possesion of the pet, the pet stays in the home.   We expect in these circumstances that the pet will offer the family member some comfort and stability given the trauma of what has occurred.  If the family member prefers, we will adopt the pet per our contract.

Q: How can your rescuers possibly pay for my pet’s care for only $110.00?
A: The $110.00 initial fee for one pet is not for the cost of their care.  It is to compensate the rescuers for their travel, cover website expenses, and provide a profit margin.  The rescuers have agreed to adopt your pet as their own and care for them as they do their own pets, at their own expense.

Sometimes I’m told that I shouldn’t be critical of Pete Rollins for denying revelation and the resurrection of Christ because his message can reach people that I can’t.  My response is that’s probably true, but what message is he reaching people with?  It does no good to jump into the quicksand to rescue your friend if you forget to bring the rope.  You’ll both drown.

Yesterday a blogger named Ranger posted this comment from my September 3 post on Pete’s writings:  “Honestly, I disagree with Pete, but enjoy his writing. Unfortunately, I read him first because a friend of a friend became an atheist after reading Rollins and thinking that Satre and Camus did it much better, and if this was all Christianity had to offer in response to Existential criticism, then it wasn’t worth believing. I’m sure there was much more to the story, but since it wasn’t a personal friend (and since I now live on the other side of the world), I couldn’t invite them out for a cup of coffee to discuss the historic Christian response to the existential crisis.”

Ranger reminds us that a false gospel not only won’t bring anyone to Jesus, and it may actually drive them further away.

On a personal note, I have the idea that Ranger is living in China, where I spent two wonderful years about 20 years ago.  Ranger, if you’re reading this and that is true, ni zai nar?

Many complementarians ground their belief in male headship in the authority-submission structure of the Trinity.  As Paul writes, “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).  A growing number of egalitarians (e.g., Kevin Giles, Scot McKnight) accuse these complementarians of pushing some novel view which borders on Arianism.  They suggest that if the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in any way—even if it is only in role or function—then the Son must be inferior to the Father—in an important way less than God, which cashes out as Arianism.  Even Millard Erickson, in his newly released Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, alleges that these complementarians have started down the wrong road which may end badly.

I have never understood this claim.  If the Son is subordinate to the Father during his time on earth (which everyone admits), then why in principle could he not be eternally subordinate?  Why can’t the Son-Father relationship which we see in time be a reflection of the Son-Father relationship in eternity?  Doesn’t Paul say that in the eternal future that “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all”? (1 Cor. 15:28).  If subordination exists in eternity future, then why not in eternity past?  Besides, Arius taught that the Son was a creature, less than God in his being, and no complementarian is saying that.

With that as background, last week my Barth class came upon his argument for the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father.  Understand that Barth has issues of his own when it comes to the Trinity—he is reasonably accused of modalism and he clearly denies the logos asarkos—but the presence of an eternal subordination in his writings at least proves that this view was not invented by evangelicals desperate to ground their belief in male headship.

Here is Barth’s argument:

1. Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the economic Trinity (the revealed Trinity).

2. There is no difference between the economic and immanent Trinity (the hidden, transcendent Trinity).  Barth says this because any distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity would separate God himself from his revelation and open the door to the possibility of natural theology, which Barth hates more than anything.  If God differs from his revelation, then we might be tempted to do an end around his revelation and attempt to know God in some other, natural way.

3.  So Barth reads the Son’s subordination to the Father in the economic Trinity straight into the immanent Trinity.  Barth says that we should not be surprised to learn that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, because God is humble.  A humble Son does not fight about rights but gladly submits to his Father’s will.

Here is what Barth says (Church Dogmatics IV/1, p. 200-2):

“Is it a fact that in relation to Jesus Christ we can speak of an obedience of the one true God Himself in His proper being?  …We have…to affirm and understand as essential to the being of God the offensive fact that there is in God Himself an above and a below, a prius and a posterius, a superiority and a subordination.  And our present concern is with what is apparently the most offensive fact of all, that there is a below, a posterius, a subordination, that it belongs to the inner life of God that there should take place within it obedience.”

“…It cannot be explained away either as an event in some higher or supreme creaturely sphere or as a mere appearance of God.  Therefore we have to state firmly that, far from preventing this possibility, His divine unity consists in the fact that in Himself He is both One who is obeyed and Another who obeys.”

“…The second idea we have to abandon is that—even supposing we have corrected that unsatisfactory conception of unity—there is necessarily something unworthy of God and incompatible with His being as God in supposing that there is in God a first and a second, an above and a below, since this includes a gradation, a degradation and an inferiority in God, which if conceded excludes the homoousia of the different modes of divine being.  That all sounds very illuminating.  But is it not an all too human—and therefore not a genuinely human—way of thinking?  For what is the measure by which it measures and judges?  Has there really to be something mean in God for Him to be the second, below?  Does subordination in God necessarily involve an inferiority, and therefore a deprivation, a lack?  Why not rather a particular being in the glory of the one equal Godhead, in whose inner order there is also, in fact, this dimension, the direction downwards, which has its own dignity?  Why should not our way of finding a lesser dignity and significance in what takes the second and subordinate place (the wife to her husband) need to be corrected in the light of the homoousia of the modes of divine being?”

“As we look at Jesus Christ we cannot avoid the astounding conclusion of a divine obedience.  Therefore we have to draw the no less astounding deduction that in equal Godhead the one God is, in fact, the One and also Another, that He is indeed a First and a Second, One who rules and commands in majesty and One who obeys in humility.  The one God is both the one and the other.”

Driving at dusk in West Michigan in November is a bit like being dropped into a game of Frogger.  The deer are rutting and running this time of year, and last week a buck sprinted across the road right in front of my little car.  Unless that happens tonight, my 1990 Honda CRX will turn over 200,000 miles on my way home from class (I bought it used in 1993).  I’m not sure how long its body can hold out—the other week I bolted the bumper to the frame to keep it from falling off—but the engine sounds like it will run until Jesus comes.  Which reminds me, will there be Hondas on the new earth?  Is my little car a sign of the kingdom—the “already” to Chrysler’s “not yet” “not ever”?

Some of you may be interested in hearing my interview with Michael Horton on his “White Horse Inn” radio program.  You can hear the podcast here, and while you’re there you should check out his blog and Modern Reformation magazine.  Mike’s organization is one of our leading voices for sane and sound teaching, and if you aren’t already learning from them, you’re missing God’s best for your life.

Thank you for your provocative and helpful comments on my previous post (“three questions”) concerning homosexual practice.  I learned from you that churches and religious organizations are legally allowed to discriminate against practicing homosexuals and that no, there is no solid ground for a gay-friendly redefinition of marriage.

I didn’t think I needed to say this, but for the record, I stand with the Bible against every form of sexual sin, including premarital, extramarital, and enthusiastically marital sex.  So while I am not condoning any of this—except the enthusiastic part—the topic of this post is not about that (though I can’t stop you from bringing it up).

Adam’s question in the thread about celibacy in the Old Testament raises an interesting question.  My initial response is that God tolerated rather than accepted polygamy among the patriarchs.  But I can imagine Adam raising the next logical question, “In that case, why can’t we tolerate homosexual marriage?”

Which brings me to today’s question:  which do you think God thinks is worse, polygamy or gay marriage? I’ll put Randy down for “War!”, but for the rest of you who actually try to stay on point, I’d be interested in hearing your line of reasoning.

Note #1:  It’s clear that our society thinks that polygamy is more perverse, while African cultures would uniformly say that it’s gay marriage.  Why do these cultures differ, and do one or both differ from God’s perspective?

Note #2:  Don’t tell me that all sins are the same.  I agree that is true on one level (all sin is rebellion against God), but it’s obvious that some sins are more perverse than others.  Ask yourself if you’d rather have your neighbor curse at you or shoot you, and you’ll know what I mean.

Note #3:  To those of you who think that my question is too negative—“which do you think is worse?”—feel free to switch it and tell me which sin you think is better.

If you enjoy history you will love James Gaines’ Evening in the Palace of Reason.  I picked this up on the advice of Gene Veith, who said that you should put down whatever it is you are doing and read this book.  I happened to be grading papers at the time, so I did.

This book isn’t quite what I expected.  Veith’s comments led me to believe that I was going to read an epic showdown between Johann Sebastian Bach, representing classical Christian orthodoxy, and Frederick the Great, presenting for Enlightenment rationalism.  This is roughly true, though Gaines’ treatment of Bach’s visit to Frederick’s palace is more subtle than the classic confrontation implied in Veith’s review.  I think that this is for the good, as Gaines’ understated approach lends authenticity to his story.

Gaines begins Evening in the Palace of Reason by describing how Frederick the Great, who had always loved music, called an elderly Bach to his court to embarrass him with an impossibly difficult musical assignment.  The bulk of the book then retreats into the lives of Bach and Frederick, and in alternating chapters, explains what led them to their fateful encounter.  Along the way you’ll learn a lot about life in the 17^th and 18^th century German lands and the finer points of Bach’s musical compositions.

Most significant for me was Gaines’ explanation of what Bach was doing in the various movements of his music.  I hadn’t realized that Bach was a musical scholar, communicating through his music much like authors speak through their books.  I will never listen to his music the same way again.  Gaines observes that the depth of Bach’s music makes even Mozart’s work seem light by comparison, and you don’t want to know the implications for Yanni.

If you love history you probably have already read this book.  If you read this book you will fall in love with history.

Perhaps in part because of the recent election, the past week produced another round of finger wagging at conservatives who oppose gay marriage.  From the religion columnist of the Grand Rapids Press to Newsweek and Jon Stewart, we were reminded again that we are mean-spirited, afraid, stupid, and hopelessly out of date.

I support the human rights of all people, including (but not especially) homosexuals.  In the interest of advancing the conversation, I will ignore the name-calling and ask three questions which the left must answer if they seek public legitimacy for their views (rather than resort to their current strategy of argumentum ad baculum—i.e., appealing to the big stick).

1. What is our new and improved definition of marriage? If marriage is no longer a covenant between one man and one woman, then what is it?

2. What is the source of this new definition? It doesn’t come from the scriptures or tradition of any world religion.  It doesn’t come from natural law (as most junior high boys could tell you, the possibility of gay penguins does not overturn the basic facts of biology).  Are we grounding our new definition in social convention?  If so, is that a suitable foundation, or have we just taken a giant leap down the slippery slope?  If our definition of marriage is grounded in something as ephemeral as social norms, what happens when these social norms change?

3. While it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in most employment opportunities, the majority of our churches and religious organizations are constrained by the Word of God to not hire unrepentant, practicing homosexuals.  Are we committed to provide an exception to these groups?

Last week’s election in Kalamazoo included a referendum that would outlaw “employment, housing and public-accommodation discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification.”  I am assuming the bill passed (is that true, Ray?), but what bothers me is that I didn’t read anything in the Press story about an exception for churches.  If a practicing homosexual pushed the issue and applied to become an associate pastor in Ray’s Kalamazoo church, could Ray be sued or jailed for dismissing the applicant for this reason?

Perhaps this is a moot issue for some reason that I’m not aware of.  I may be missing some key piece of information.  But unless our zeal for the human rights of homosexuals includes an exception clause for churches and parachurch organizations, I can envision a day when our pastors are in jail and our churches and schools are sued into oblivion.

One of the left’s arguments against criminalizing abortion is that we would have to arrest the numerous mothers who had one.  Well, this argument cuts both ways.  Are we prepared to jail thousands of pastors and presidents who refuse to hire practicing homosexuals on religious grounds?