Tag: Church

New Study Available: Biblically Correct

~ Evan Lenow

I am excited to announce that my study, Biblically Correct: Engaging Culture with Truth, is now available at Amazon and CreateSpace. This is a 10-week study on ethics and cultural engagement designed for use in the local church. The study addresses some of the most important ethical issues of our day and helps us consider the biblically correct perspective on these issues. Some of the issues include: worldview, marriage, sexuality, life and death, and the public square.

While designed for large or small group use in the local church, this study may also be beneficial for individual use. You can click the links in this post or on the right toolbar to order the study. If your church is interested in ordering a large number of books, please feel free to contact me by clicking on my faculty profile link on the right.

If you want to see how one church used the study this fall as part of a large group teaching time, you can watch the videos from the women’s ministry at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN.

*Shameless self-promotion has now ended, and this blog will return to its normal content.

Guest Post: Redeeming Halloween

~ Evan Lenow

This is a guest post from my wife, Melanie. She originally wrote this post for Biblical Woman, the blog site for the Women’s Programs at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The post originally appeared here.

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”  John 8:12

 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.”  Matthew 5:14

I admit it. I really do not like October 31. I do not enjoy scary.  Call me 100% wimp, but the scariest thing I have ever willingly sat through is Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video and I had nightmares for days. Therefore, Halloween is my least favorite holiday of the entire calendar year. For me, it is the sharp thorn on the beautiful rose bush named “autumn.”

However, after having our first child, I discovered the innocent, child-like aspect of Halloween.  With her first princess dress at 18 months, our oldest daughter fell in love with playing dress-up. In her mind, Halloween was a time where she could wear her princess dress outside with her princess shoes. All of her friends would join us, wearing their princess dresses too.  Don’t forget the candy! If you are polite and say “please”, people give you lots of candy. This is Halloween through a young child’s eye.

Now, that little 18 month old is almost 9 and we have had to reevaluate how our family handles a holiday that is steeped in evil, yet has the potential to be redeemed for a holy purpose.  That holy purpose is reaching people who live in the darkness and sharing with them the Light.  So how can our families participate Halloween in a way that shares the Light and shuns the dark?

Halloween, by nature, is a dark celebration. But as God’s children, we are to be the light in a dark world. My children always dress up in a way that brings light and smiles to the darkness and scariness. What could break up the darkness, but a cute little preschooler twirling in a ballet costume? Or a little boy dressed as superman ready to fight the bad guys?  Because we are representing the Light, we do not dress in any way that resembles darkness or death. Our home is decorated with the bright red, orange and yellow hues of fall.

As a side note, I do warn my children that there might be others in costumes that make them feel uncomfortable. I am vigilant to watch for scary things where I either distract my children or remove them from the situation entirely. My kids always have the option to stay behind and not approach someone who is dressed up. Aside from saying “thank you for my candy,” this is not a time to work on manners. In other words, if my kids want to run away from someone or climb into my arms, they have full freedom to do this.

As we are on mission to take light into the darkness on Halloween, a wonderful thing happens. Those who are lost and need Jesus actually come to you. This is the reason why I cannot justify sitting inside my home and hiding out the night of Halloween – There are lost parents and children out there, and they are coming to my doorstep. If I would only open my door, I can share with them the precious Light.  This is an area where I am very grateful for the mission mind of my church home.  Our church puts on a “Trunk or Treat” time every year. This is an event where church members line up their cars, raise their trunks, and distribute candy. Our church has the privilege of being surrounded by apartment complexes. Halloween is a great opportunity to reach out to the children within those apartments.  The church members have a chance to talk with them and even put Scripture on the candy that is distributed. We take our children around to receive candy as well, but my kids know the main reason we are there is not to get candy, but to minister to un-churched families who need to know about Jesus.

My goal is to develop within my children a compassion for the lost.  So, the Lenow family gets all dressed up in our happy, cute costumes, packs our candy with Scripture verses on it, and goes to our church where we will meet hundreds of children who do not know Jesus.  During this time, we pray to impact families with the ultimate Light of the World. We also have good friends who are members of our church, but instead of coming to the Trunk or Treat at the church, they stay home and welcome their neighbors on their front door step. They know their neighborhood is full of lost people, so they pray that some will come to their door where they are able to minister to them in a way they haven’t done before.

Even if your church does not do an organized outreach during Halloween, you can have a night of outreach yourself on your doorstep.  Simply entertain trick or treat-ers at your front door and take the opportunity to talk with them or add something about your church or a tract to their candy. The parents and children who come to your door expecting candy can be changed by a loving smile and a friendly attitude that gracefully begins to talk with them about a God who loves them.

My goal for Halloween is to redeem the day to mean something that can be used for God’s glory. Yes, the day has evil roots. But God can still use me and my family to spread light in a dark world. Halloween is not a holiday to be celebrated by believers, but an opportunity that is not to be missed to radiate into a dark, lost world the bright light of the Gospel.

_________________________

Once again, this is a guest post from my wife Melanie. In addition to putting up with me, she diligently works to train our four children. If that were not enough, she also leads the One Heart women’s ministry at our church, Birchman Baptist Church. She holds a Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Engaging the Culture at Bellevue Baptist Church July 23

~ Evan Lenow

For those of you in the Memphis area, I will be speaking at Bellevue Baptist Church on July 23 at 6:30 for their Women’s Ministry Girl Talk event (sorry, women only–except me). We will discuss how to engage the culture with biblical truth. I will note relevant current events and how to engage an unbelieving world. Hopefully you will find this beneficial.

For more information and to register, go to http://bellevue.org/upcomingspecialevents.

Does the Denial of Same-Sex Marriage Inflict Undue Pain?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 3

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

This is part 3 in an ongoing series where I answer the arguments of 22-year-old Harvard University student, Matthew Vines. In the previous two parts, I addressed his interpretation of Genesis 2 and Romans 1. In this post, I consider his argument for same-sex marriage. Follow the links for Part 1 and Part 2.

As with most discussions regarding homosexuality, the focus eventually moves to the idea of same-sex marriage. As Mr. Vines has already noted in his argument (see part 1), he believes that homosexuals are commanded by God to join in loving, committed relationships. In addition, he believes such relationships should be recognized as marriage by both the church and the state. He also believes that denying marriage to same-sex couples inflicts undue pain on them, which is a violation of God’s command to love.

Vines presents his argument as follows:

Being different is no crime. Being gay is not a sin. And for a gay person to desire and pursue love and marriage and family is no more selfish or sinful than when a straight person desires and pursues the very same things. The Song of Songs tells us that King Solomon’s wedding day was “the day his heart rejoiced.” To deny to a small minority of people, not just a wedding day, but a lifetime of love and commitment and family is to inflict on them a devastating level of hurt and anguish. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christians are called to perpetuate that kind of pain in other people’s lives rather than work to alleviate it, especially when the problem is so easy to fix. All it takes is acceptance. The Bible is not opposed to the acceptance of gay Christians, or to the possibility of loving relationships for them. And if you are uncomfortable with the idea of two men or two women in love, if you are dead-set against that idea, then I am asking you to try to see things differently for my sake, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

When Mr. Vines speaks of inflicting devastating pain and anguish on homosexuals by denying them the opportunity to marry, he is attempting to quantify pain and pleasure and determine if one outweighs the other. However, such attempts at moral calculus are inconsistent at best. Instead, we should evaluate whether or not homosexual relationships accomplish the goods of marriage according to Scripture. One of the goods of marriage in Scripture is unity (Gen 2:24). This is expressed through love, commitment, and the sexual bond. While one could make the argument that same-sex relationships accomplish this good, they only do so in violation of God’s standard for sexuality—sex between one man and one woman in the context of marriage for a lifetime. Since marriage is not commanded, proponents of same-sex marriage are actually attempting to accomplish a good at the expense of biblical sexuality. Therefore, the evil inflicted by active participation in sin actually undermines any good that could be accomplished in a loving, committed relationship. Mr. Vines, then, has transferred the blame for sin from those in violation of God’s command to those who are attempting to uphold the clear teaching of Scripture. The other goods of marriage from Scripture are also violated by homosexual couples. Genesis 1:28 proclaims procreation as a good of marriage, but that is biologically impossible for same-sex couples. The other good of marriage is sexual fidelity. While one might make an argument for fidelity in a committed same-sex relationship, the biblical concept of sexuality is between one man and one woman. We even see this in Jesus’ teaching in Matt 19:3-12.

I think Christians can always do better when addressing the issue of homosexuality. We need to remember that homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin. In 1 Cor 6:9-10, Paul gives a vice list with a number sins, including homosexuality. However, in verse 10 he states, “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.” It seems evident that there were former homosexuals in the church at Corinth. The key here is the idea “former.” Paul said, “Such were some of you.” It was in their past, but God had redeemed them from this sin. They had repented and were being sanctified. We need to focus on this.

The argument that Mr. Vines proposes typically leads to labels. The label most often attached to supporters of traditional marriage is hatred or hate speech. Even if we focus on the redemptive aspects of the biblical message and the former status of those in the church in Corinth, I suspect that Christians who oppose homosexuality will continue to be labeled as hateful. However, this is a misuse of the term. It is not hateful to disagree with someone’s position.

Proponents of homosexuality constantly call for tolerance. Unfortunately, their understanding of tolerance is one-sided. True tolerance acknowledges the existence of differing opinions, but it does not require agreement or acceptance. Mr. Vines calls for acceptance of his view while being intolerant of those who disagree. While he does not use the term “hatred,” the idea is present in his statement that proponents of traditional marriage “inflict . . . a devastating level of hurt and anguish.” Our entire culture could benefit from discussing the actual arguments rather than labeling people as hateful.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.

Are Homosexual Relationships “Unnatural”?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 2

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

In the heated rhetoric of this political season, one issue that continues to be at the forefront of discussion is homosexuality. While much of the discussion has focused on rights and the definition of marriage, one young man has garnered national attention for making a different argument. Matthew Vines, a 22-year-old Harvard University student, has set out to defend homosexuality from a biblical perspective. Unfortunately, Vines has made grave errors in his attempt to defend what Scripture clearly condemns as sin. As part of an interview with The Christian Post, I was asked to respond to several of the arguments Vines has made. In order to provide the full context of the statements made by Vines, this series of posts will offer quotations from Vines and then my responses. Part 1 of this series can be found here.

The most significant biblical passage dealing with homosexuality is Romans 1:26–27. It is significant due to its length, context, and clear statements about both male and female homosexuality. For this reason, it is important for all discussions of homosexuality to address this passage.

Vines does not shy away from Romans 1. He states:

The idolaters are without excuse because they knew the truth, they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Paul’s subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern. The women, he says, “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. And the men “abandoned” relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God—but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Paul’s argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Paul’s reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. And that is exactly how he describes it.

But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.

In his discussion of Rom 1:26-27, Mr. Vines takes a very common approach by those who wish to support homosexuality. The crux of his argument is that Paul knows nothing of committed same-sex relationships. Therefore, the violation would have to be heterosexuals (by orientation) participating in homosexual behavior. The problem with this is multi-faceted. First, it assumes that Scripture is not fully inspired by God. Even if Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation, the Holy Spirit inspired the text. This would imply that God himself was not aware of the concept of sexual orientation and was incapable of framing the message in such a way that it would be clear.

Second, the idea that homosexuals have a “natural” inclination towards relationships with people of the same sex is in fact a rejection of what God has revealed about himself. Paul’s condemnation of idolatry in verses 22-25 is based on the fact that the unrighteous “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Part of the truth of God is what he has revealed about the creation. As told to us in Genesis 2-3 and evident in observing nature, God created two genders that complement one another in multiple ways, not the least of which is through biological differences making sexual intercourse procreative. To reject this natural sexual function of the body is to reject how God created mankind in Genesis 1-2. Thus, Mr. Vines is committing the same sin that he rests solely on the backs of those who worshiped false gods–exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Finally, Mr. Vines assumes as scientific fact that which has not been proven. He assumes that sexual orientation is permanent and part of one’s genetic make-up. However, there is no scientific study that proves Mr. Vines’ position. All scientific studies attempted to prove this suffer from small sample sizes and preconceived agendas.

The argument Mr. Vines puts forth falls flat theologically, biologically, and scientifically. By contrast, the traditional interpretation of Romans 1—that Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality as sin—remains the only consistent option when one considers the theological, biological, and scientific evidence.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.