How should a Christian relate to those who practice homosexuality?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at beau.stanley@gracebrethren.org or viewfromthepugh@yahoo.com, or by leaving a comment on this post.

Last week I received a question via email regarding how Christians should respond to fellow believers who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. This is a great question, one that is extremely relevant in our current cultural situation. Permit me in this post to broaden the question a bit to this: How should a Christian relate to those who practice homosexuality?

It is important to establish first what the Bible says about homosexual behavior. In one of the least politically correct passages in the Scripture, Paul speaks of lesbianism (Romans 1:26) and male homosexuality (1:27) as “dishonorable,” “unnatural,” and “shameful” (ESV). The vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 contains two Greek words that denote the passive (malakoi) and active (arsenokoitai) participants in male homosexual acts. A form of arsenokoitai appears in the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:8–10 as well. Leviticus 18:22 presents male homosexuality as one of several prohibited sexual practices. The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20–19:29, especially 19:4–13) indicates that the destruction of these cities came about at least in part because of the homosexual practices of the inhabitants. When one looks at the biblical text, it is clear that God considers homosexual behavior to be a serious sin. 

Christians should speak this truth to homosexuals in love (Ephesians 4:15), but it is important to consider what that really means. Those who speak the truth in love are humble and cognizant of their own faults (see our prior post on judging). They genuinely look out for the best interests of the other person. They realize that transformation takes time and that homosexuality is usually tied deeply to perceptions of identity and worth. They aren’t unnecessarily offensive and they don’t call names. 

In fact, I am concerned that when relating to those who practice homosexuality, Christians are sometimes so focused on the “truth” part of speaking the truth in love that we forget the “love” part. I wonder if we would be so shortsighted when dealing with people who are engaged in other sins—some of which are prohibited in the same vice lists mentioned above—such as disobedience, lying, and extramarital heterosexual contact! When we view our relationships with homosexuals solely through the lens of challenging their behavior, we miss the charge to pray for them faithfully and to build bridges with them, bridges of acquaintance, friendship, and genuine, tangible care. Honestly, would we feel loved by “friends” whose only mission in the friendship is to confront us? Instead, let’s follow Jesus’ model of loving engagement—which caused Him to be criticized for being “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34).

There is also a biblical distinction that I should mention here, in light of the form in which this question was posed to me. The Bible directs Christians to be more relationally “open” to non-Christians who practice sin than to those who claim to be Christians and practice sin (1 Corinthians 5:9–11). Thus, regarding the unrepentant believer or professing believer who continues in homosexual behavior, eventually (not immediately—see the general pattern laid out in Matthew 18:15–17) the best course of action for a Christian may be to dissociate himself from that person, making sure he leaves the door open for future restoration and reconciliation (Galatians 6:1). 

Now it’s your turn. What are your thoughts on this important and sensitive question?

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

Complimentarity and the masculine soul

I think it’s interesting to consider how public opinion on the topic of gender differences has shifted over the years. People have always recognized the physical differences between men and women, of course, but since the 1960s it has been somewhat controversial to speak of non-physical differences between the genders. The reason for this is clear enough: some people feel that non-physical gender differences would imply inequality between men and women at some level.

The Bible is bold enough to present what has been called a “complimentarian” view of gender differences, though. Men and women, according to God’s Word, have distinct and complimentary characteristics on the non-physical as well as the physical levels. When the Scripture says that God created people as male and female (Genesis 1:27), it means just that: He created male and female people, not just male and female bodies. Besides this, men and women have distinct roles in relationship with one another. When instructions to husbands and wives appear in Scripture (see, for example, Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–19; 1 Peter 3:1–7), husbands never receive the same instructions as wives.

As Wayne Grudem and others have eloquently argued, the reason the complimentarian view of gender differences is not demeaning to either gender is that differences in characteristics and roles do not mean inequality of essence. We see an analogy in the nature of God Himself, who exists as a Triune being, three co-equal persons who have distinct roles. The Son submits to the Father (John 5:17–47; 1 Corinthians 15:27–28), not the other way around, but the Son Himself is of equal value, dignity, and majesty as the Father (John 1:1; John 20:26–29).

The bottom line for us, men, is that it is legitimate and holy for us to act like men, just as it is legitimate and holy for women to act like women. God has given us masculine souls, not just masculine bodies. To be manly in God’s eyes has nothing to do with the amount of sporting events one watches. It is to be a servant-leader who rejects passivity (see Robert Lewis’s Raising a Modern-Day Knight) and takes seriously what Richard D. Phillips calls The Masculine Mandate, namely, the mandate to work and keep (Genesis 2:15). It is also to value the complementary differences in women that men so often cut on.

What are your thoughts on gender differences? Have you been fortunate enough to meet people who are/were examples of biblical manhood or womanhood?

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

An NBA lock-in

It looks like the NFL lockout is coming to a close after the owners ratified an agreement last night, but I hear sides are really far apart in the NBA. I think I have found the solution to the NBA lockout, though. Let’s just get the players and owners to have a lock-in.

Yes, lock-ins are mostly a middle-school thing, but maybe the shoe fits here. Lock-ins are a lot of fun. Basically you get a bunch of people together in a building and they stay there for a night. The only one I remember participating in took place at an indoor sports facility. Unlimited batting cage tokens + intense personality = hands that look like shredded meat, evidently.

I’m not sure where they’d go, but maybe they could hang out in an arcade that features only “Magic vs. Bird.” Maybe they could rent out Latrell Sprewell’s house so that he can feed his kids—that was a concern of his some time ago, anyway. Maybe they could go to a big party barn and have face-painting and hide-the-revenue games. Maybe they could stay at St. John Arena and play a huge game of lockout knockout.

Are there colossal egos in play here? Sure. But I’m convinced that if you pump a little Rob Base through the speakers and have them together watch Chunk from Goonies do the Truffle Shuffle, everyone will be holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” afterward. 

Admittedly, there may be a better way to settle a dispute than to lock both sides in the same building for an extended period of time. There are some logistical challenges with this idea, too. Who will do the valet parking? Who will go through the buffet line first? Who will pay since everyone seems to be so strapped for cash?

If we can’t pull off the lock-in idea, maybe there really won’t be an NBA season after all. I, for one, won’t notice until playoff season rolls around in late September.

— Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

Should we seek rewards given for good deeds?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at beau.stanley@gracebrethren.org or viewfromthepugh@yahoo.com or by leaving a comment on this post.

Last week Stratton A. asked me to comment on the situation with the now-famous ball that Derek Jeter hit to reach the 3,000 career-hits mark. If you weren’t aware of it, Jeter hit a home run to get to 3,000 hits, and the fan who ended up with the ball, Christian Lopez, was classy enough to return the ball to Jeter. Lopez demanded no repayment from Jeter and got none.

Yes, it would have been nice for Jeter to offer Lopez some money for the extremely valuable ball, but others have stepped up and rewarded Lopez for his good deed. The Yankees have offered Lopez some sweet gifts, including great box seats for the rest of the season. An article I found at the Detroit Free Press’s site says that Modell’s Sporting Goods, Miller High Life, and Topps have also pledged to give perks to Lopez.

Stratton was particularly interested in my thoughts on “how the fan’s selflessness is being rewarded.” Well, I think it’s great that his selflessness is being richly rewarded! It is refreshing when people recognize good deeds and reward those who do them. Sure, the Yankees, Modell’s, Miller High Life, and Topps gain some nice publicity through the deal, but I’d like to think that at some level, the rewarders saw something good in Lopez and wanted to bless him for it.

This situation raises a question, though. Should we seek rewards given for good deeds? The answer may surprise you: Yes, we absolutely should. We should seek rewards from God, to be specific.

The concept of rewards from the hand of God is quite prominent in the Bible. A number of biblical passages speak of rewards from God and either explicitly or implicitly encourage us to seek them. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told his hearers to seek rewards from God rather than from man (Matthew 6:1–6; 16–18) and to store up treasures in heaven rather than on earth (Matthew 6:20). Paul said that God will reward Christians according to their deeds (1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 2 Corinthians 5:9–10), and the author of Hebrews said that it is impossible to please God if we don’t believe that He rewards those who seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). See also Luke 19:12–27; 2 John 8; Revelation 11:18; 22:12. 

Some believers object to the notion of seeking rewards from God, and say, “No, I don’t want a reward—I just want to do the right thing because it is the right thing.” I’d like to suggest that this is an unbiblical attitude. If God Himself said that we should expect and seek rewards, then who are we to argue against Him in pseudo-humility? Of course we want to do the right thing, knowing that it is the right thing, but it is glorifying to God when we expect rewards from Him, because we are recognizing that He is benevolent and true to His promises.

Sometimes we get into problems, though, because we try to dictate what we receive from God, or when we receive it from Him. He is the giver, and the rewards are given as He desires. Often we will not receive them in this lifetime.

We also get into trouble when we seek rewards from our fellow humans. The Sermon on the Mount encourages us to think about rewards from God rather than rewards from man. This is a practically helpful thing because, while Lopez was rewarded in this case, people don’t always react so kindly to good deeds.

Now it’s your turn. What are your thought on Lopez’s situation, or on rewards in general?

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

Misapplying Love & Respect

As a teacher, I find it somewhat disconcerting that people can totally miss important points that I am trying to make. Teaching can be a little like the children’s game of “Telephone,” in which the first person to speak says something like, “I like peanut butter,” and by the time the message hits the ultimate recipient, he thinks the message is, “Go Bucks, beat Michigan.” Sometimes people miss things because I am not clear enough. Other times they miss things because they want to miss them.

Unfortunately I have written proof of a time at which I missed an important point that a teacher was trying to make. The year was 2006, I believe, and Dr. Emerson Eggerichs and his wife, Sarah, came to Scottsdale Bible Church to present the Love & Respect conference. The material was really insightful. Unfortunately, my wife was sick and was not able to attend the conference with me.

After the conference, there was a book signing, and I took advantage of it. Dr. Eggerichs asked me what message I would like him to write in the book I had just purchased, and here’s what I asked him to write—which he kindly did:

Stacey—Sorry you weren’t feeling well but enjoy the book!

–Emerson & Sarah

As I made this request, I noted that Sarah’s reaction was somewhat warmer than Emerson’s, and though this may just have been reflective of personality or what the two of them had eaten for breakfast, I have since wondered if Dr. Eggerichs didn’t see through to the real meaning of my words:

Stacey—Sorry you weren’t feeling well enough to be here and find out how much you need to respect me. 

Eggerichs’ teaching on respect is what makes the conference really unique, and this teaching resonated deeply with me. Here’s the problem: I was focused on the way Stacey (a very respectful wife, by the way) should treat me, rather than how I should treat her! Dr. Eggerichs spends a good deal of time in the conference urging just the opposite, but I didn’t digest that emphasis because I didn’t really want to. I had totally misapplied the teaching of the conference before it was even over.

It is uncanny how often people attribute their marital problems almost solely to their spouses. Both spouses in a struggling marriage will usually have eagle-like focus on the alleged flaws of the other person. The biblical way, though, is to focus on our own hearts, and on how we can behave in a godly manner toward our spouses, regardless of how they treat us.

Love & Respect? Great stuff. In Ephesians 5:33, Paul tells wives to respect their husbands, and he tells husbands to love their wives. Men, let’s concern ourselves with how we can love our wives rather than how we can get them to respect us.

What about you? How have you seen these issues play out?

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

Of good times and bad times

Sunday morning I had what you might call an “Ugh run.”

For those of you unfamiliar with what I’m referring to, an “Ugh run” (I think I created this term) is a run in which you are going so much slower than you’d like that you look down at your watch and say, “Ugh.” Sunday’s run came in 35 seconds per mile slower than a time I ran about a month and a half ago on the same 3.3-mile route. I know this because I find a strange joy in tracking my workout regimen with nerdish precision.

Now, I was tempted to be a little depressed about the slow time, but I consoled myself with this thought: A few years ago, when my wattage output was somewhere between that of a two-toed sloth and that of an amoeba, I would have been really stoked with the time I ran on Sunday. It was slow relative to the times I have been running recently, but it was very fast relative to the times of years gone by.

Here’s a bit of Monday encouragement. You may look at your spiritual life and not be all that pleased with where you are right now, but I’ll bet that if you have been seeking to follow Jesus for a while, you’ve made a lot of progress over the long run. Consider the faithfulness of God in your life just as Psalm 136 calls attention to the faithfulness of God toward the people of Israel. Consider not only the sins you committed yesterday, but the maturity God has worked in you over the years.

And above all, keep running.

—Beau Stanley

(AUTHOR’S NOTE: Thanks to Dr. Glenn McElhinney for insights that led to this post.)

How should Christians react to the Casey Anthony verdict?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at beau.stanley@gracebrethren.org or viewfromthepugh@yahoo.comor by leaving a comment on this post.

On Tuesday the 5^th, Chris B. asked me if I would comment on the Casey Anthony trial in light of some of the angry responses to Anthony’s acquittal. While I didn’t follow the story closely, I’m happy to suggest some thoughts on how Christians should react to this verdict.

As much as it may seem that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter Caylee, I do not think that we should say that the justice system failed in this case. Del Tackett, an insightful Christian thinker, argued this point better than I could in a post published on his blog last Thursday (thanks, Jim A.). Our legal system rightly has a high standard of proof in criminal cases, and, as Tackett notes, the Bible places a high value on the testimony of witnesses. Apparently there were no sufficiently clear witnesses in this case, whether human or physical.

We need to have realistic expectations about what human legal systems can accomplish. It’s helpful to think of a distinction that Chris B. made in his email: the distinction between God’s justice and man’s. God’s justice is perfect; man’s justice is imperfect. Human legal systems will never catch every criminal, nor can they, because we humans are limited in knowledge and inherently biased. God, on the other hand, is omniscient (1 John 3:20) and unbiased (Acts 10:34). Because He is completely good (1 John 1:5), He will not be mocked by evil, but will punish the guilty (Nahum 1:3), whether or not human legal systems are able to punish the guilty.

We also need to expect unfairness and not be surprised by it. Even if Casey Anthony didn’t murder Caylee, someone apparently did, and it’s just not fair that a little child should be treated as Caylee was. But as long as sin exists in this world, unfairness will exist. It is absolutely a good thing for us to seek fairness, but for us to demand fairness is neither realistic nor biblical. 

We learn from Jesus Himself that our primary business as Christians is not to demand fairness, but to dispense love. If Jesus had demanded that He be treated fairly, no one would be able to spend eternity with God. Instead, Jesus endured unfairness in order to love people in the ultimate way (John 15:13). My suspicion is that if Christians were as adamant about loving people as we are about justice and fairness, the world would be very different.

I’m sure many of you followed the Casey Anthony trial. What are your thoughts on the trial, the verdict, or the reactions to the verdict?

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley

Actually, Someone knows when the drought will be over

The featured article in today’s Columbus Dispatch was an interesting piece from The New York Times detailing the major drought currently ravaging the South and Southwest. We Midwesterners got a ton of rain in the spring and early summer, but if the impact of the drought is as big as the article suggests it will be, we will be experiencing the drought soon enough, albeit indirectly.

The article was well written, but I would change the last sentence, which reads, “And no one knows when it will be over.” Actually, Someone knows when the drought will be over.

In one of the more memorable seminary lectures that I attended, a guest speaker in our Pastoral Ministry course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School contrasted the mindsets of urban and rural churches. Urban churches focus on growth, while rural churches focus on survival, the gentleman said. He also suggested that those in rural churches tend to have a much clearer sense of their dependency on God, because when the weather ain’t right, the crops ain’t going to grow, and nobody but God controls the weather.

I don’t know why this drought is part of God’s plan, but I would like to note that a severe drought like this one can call even urban and suburban people’s attention to our need for God. We picture ourselves as masters of our own destiny, but when it comes down to it, we are no more independent of God than a newborn is of her mother and father.

I’m afraid this message doesn’t really “sell,” but it is our helplessness before God that makes the good news of the Bible very good news. The good news begins with these truths: Because we are sinners, we are helpless to save ourselves, but God provided a Savior for us, Jesus of Nazareth. He lived a perfect life and died in our place, taking our sins upon Himself, and on the third day rose from the dead, literally, proving that He is the Son of God. All who place their trust in Him to save them from their sins and grant them eternal life will spend eternity with God. If you have never placed your trust in Jesus for salvation, you can do it right now, or if you have questions, email me at beau.stanley@gracebrethren.org. 

How has God convinced you of your dependency on Him?

—Beau Stanley

A working vacation

I just got back from one of the best vacations of my life. No, I didn’t go to an exotic location or spend a month unwinding. I took my oldest son, Isaiah, on a four-day camping trip to Indian Lake State Park with some friends.

I got emotional a number of times as I thought about and recounted the camping trip, and this caused me to do some reflection. The care and generosity of my fellow campers, who were more experienced than I at this, was a big factor in making the vacation special. The great weather was nice. The time away from my normal routine was valuable. Atop the list of blessings, though, was the chance to be with and care for my son for four days.

Since my wife was not along on this particular trip (our youngest is in two casts for a couple more weeks), I really had to be attentive to Isaiah’s needs. I couldn’t take my eye off him for very long. I had to entertain him with various activities throughout the day. I prepared all his meals. This might seem like it would be a challenging time. Actually, I did find it challenging, but wonderful.

You see, I have found that some of the best times I have with my sons are the times in which I am focused on serving them. Maybe you have noticed something similar in your relationships. The times when I am most intent on having what I want and pursuing my own interests, I often find myself strangely unfulfilled. When I serve my family, though this involves sacrifice, I find great joy.

This is even more the case when I get to serve them in the midst of a shared experience that is fun for everyone involved. How much better can life get than holding your sleepy son in the late-evening sun, looking out on a lake and wading in the water?

I guess Jesus was right when He said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35 HCSB)! Let’s look to do more giving and less receiving today, men.

Have you had a memorable serving experience with family or someone else?

(EDITOR’S NOTE—Photo: Nate & Nicki Woller)

Was the American Revolution biblically justified?

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at beau.stanley@gracebrethren.org or viewfromthepugh@yahoo.com or by leaving a comment on this post.

Both before and after I preached last Sunday on how a Christian should relate to the government, a question arose: Was the American Revolution biblically justified? As much as I would like to sidestep this question, it is a fair and legitimate question, especially given that the sermon was delivered one day before Independence Day.

Let’s first admit that those of us who love America are predisposed to answer the question, “Yes.” The question, however, is not, “Do we want the American Revolution to have been biblically justified?” but, “Was the American Revolution biblically justified?” Let me also admit at the outset that I am not extremely well-versed in the history of the Revolutionary War, so I am doubtless unaware of some of the relevant historical context. I also did not experience some of the significant injustices done by the British government, so the issue is not as personal to me as it surely was to some. With these things in mind, let us consider the words of Scripture.

As I expressed in Monday’s post and in Sunday’s sermon, there is a very clear call in the Bible for Christians to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1–6 and following; 1 Peter 2:16–17). The Bible rejects the proposition that a superior’s unjust actions are sufficient cause for a subordinate to disrespect and fail to submit to that superior (1 Peter 2:18–20). Jesus serves as the model here for enduring injustice. When Jesus was unjustly treated, He did not respond with disrespect and resistance, but entrusted Himself to the Father (1 Peter 2:21–23).

The Christian signers of the Declaration of Independence (not all were Christians) may have found support for the document and the subsequent revolution particularly in Romans 13:4: “For government is God’s servant to you for good . . . government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong” (HCSB). Some would argue that Paul presents a standard for governmental conduct within Romans 13:1–6. If the government fails to abide by this standard of conduct, it could be suggested, then lack of submission would be permissible and even proper.

I see at least two problems with this argument. First, Paul’s emphasis in Romans 13:1–6 is clearly on submission to governmental authority. He continues to discuss related topics in verses 7 through 10. Paul does speak of at least a portion of the role of government, but in the context, he is explaining God’s purposes in establishing governmental authority, not presenting an acid test by which one can tell if a governmental authority is acting properly. To suggest otherwise is to read more into the text than is present.

Second, I don’t see how we can get around the statement, “There is no authority except from God” (13:1 HCSB). This is as broad a statement about authority as one can make, and it was written to Christians who lived in a government (the Roman Empire) that tolerated and propagated the exposure of infants, emperor worship, unfair taxation, and so on. In other words, if Paul really meant, “Submit to the governing authorities as long as they govern according to godly boundaries and principles,” it’s hard to see how he could have written what he did, especially to the Roman Christians!

The truth is that every government ever instituted has failed to govern according to godly boundaries and principles at one time or another. No government has ever been completely just in its retributive function. Besides this, our own perception of justice, while not arbitrary, is imperfect. I may feel like the government is being unjust in a given instance and the guy three seats away from me in the same church pew may think the government is doing a fine job. If it were OK for us to disrespect and even rebel against the government when we feel it has overstepped its bounds or when it is acting unjustly, Paul’s words in Romans 13 would be virtually meaningless.

I suppose some might seek justification for the American Revolution in Just War Theory, which says that a war is justified if it is waged for a just cause. Augustine (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) felt that the Bible supported Just War Theory. I think this proposed justification is a stretch in light of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Again, the Bible commands submission to all governmental authorities, not just authorities that act justly (which none fully do).

Another consideration is that submission to the governing authorities is limited in one important sense, which I did not mention in the sermon: Christians should not obey the government when the government directs them to commit overtly sinful acts (Daniel 3:16–18; Acts 5:27–29). I wonder if this consideration was not in the mind of some who took part in the rebellion. Some may have felt that the British government was forcing them to commit sin in some way.

While I am sure that most if not all of those who supported the American Revolution were convinced that they were doing the right thing, I do not think I would have been comfortable participating in the Revolution based on what I know of the Bible and what I know of history. While I hesitate to say dogmatically that the Revolution was biblically unjustified, my sense is that if I had been alive at the time of the Revolution, I would have chosen to remain as neutral as possible, fighting neither for the American forces nor for the Redcoats. This would have put me in league with the early American Brethren, my theological ancestors, so to speak—a group that was ostracized and persecuted for this stance. Thus, I won’t find it surprising if some of you disagree with me, perhaps strongly.

Obviously I have not covered this issue exhaustively. Are there considerations I have missed? What are your thoughts? 

—Beau Stanley

Follow @beaustanley