"The use of 'sodomy' "provide(s) an unnecessary offense to the gospel."
To which I respond: I'm grateful we agree 'sodomy' is an offensive word, but why is it offensive and is the offense bad or good?
For two thousands years Christians have used words with 'Sodom' as their root to refer to men copulating with men. And this use has always been offensive because those reading or listening understand that it's an explicit reference to what happened at Sodom--namely God destroying them by his fire from Heaven. Make no mistake about it. That's the center of the issue and it's why I asked in my original post whether we are ashamed of God's judgment of the Sodomites? Whether we are willing for that judgment to live on in our language as an example, warning those souls tempted by this sin? If this association is not "Gospel," what is it? What exactly do I need to hear when my heart is unbelieving and I am having sex with other men?
by David and Tim Bayly on December 30, 2011 - 9:15pm
Hating God's large laws (think the Seventh Commandment), the New York Times is hard at work promulgating her own infinitely small ones. Think for instance of the need to divest ourselves of evil toys.
Traditionally, toys were intended to communicate parental values and expectations, to train children for their future adult roles. Today’s boys and girls will eventually be one another’s professional peers, employers, employees, romantic partners, co-parents. How can they develop skills for such collaborations from toys that increasingly emphasize, reinforce, or even create, gender differences? What do girls learn about who they should be from Lego kits with beauty parlors or the flood of “girl friendly” science kits that run the gamut from “beauty spa lab” to “perfume factory”?
The rebellion against such gender apartheid may have begun.
Girl toys are responsible for gender apartheid. So says the New York Times. With its newspaper of record such a nag, could anyone really be surprised that Manhattan's most marketable church is pervasively androgynous? (TB)
by David and Tim Bayly on December 27, 2011 - 12:11pm
See what just entered my e-mail inbox. It's Wheaton College pleading for even more money. They say their president, Phil Ryken, is convinced Wheaton is "positioned to serve as an increasingly vital base of operations for the global dissemination of the Gospel."
Yes, yes; of course. Everywhere I look, one more sign of Wheaton's service as an increasingly vital base of operations for the global dissemination of the Gospel smacks me in the face. Like this alumnus, Rob Bell. Surely we all see how the degree Bell bought from Wheaton's profs is the foundation of his creation of an increasingly vital base of operations for the global dissemination of the Gospel? If I were Dick Chase or Duane Litfin, I'd be thumping my chest in pride.
Ryken's hucksterism reminds me of Richard Lovelace returning to campus from an invitation-only meeting of PC(USA) liberal and conservative muckety-mucks back in 1982 or so...
by David and Tim Bayly on December 27, 2011 - 11:16am
An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it? (Jeremiah 5:30, 31)
You may want to dismiss it as looniness, but this assault against God's Order of Creation is rebellion against the God Who made us. It's not naive or misguided. It's evil. Attacks on God's Creation Order are all around us and we must recognize that each of them is a part of Satan's conspiracy to grease the descent to Hell.
Feminism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God made Adam first, then Eve. Thus those who conspire to place woman in positions where she teaches and exercises authority over man are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.
Homosexism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God made Eve--not Steve--for Adam. Thus those who conspire to legalize sodomy and promote sodomitic unions are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.
Veganism is a Satanic conspiracy against God's Creation Order. God created adam alone--both Adam and Eve--in His Own Image. He did not create animals in His Image. Thus those whose morality has descended to Veganism and the claim of personhood and legal standing for animals are rebels against Almighty God. They are false prophets calling souls to Hell.
Satan has conspired to paint each of these revolutions a pretty face. Feminism is a long-overdue correction of patriarchal oppression. Homsexism is a long overdue correction of homophobic oppression. Veganism is a long-overdue correction of speciest oppression.
Satan has also conspired to silence the Church of Jesus Christ...
by David and Tim Bayly on December 26, 2011 - 5:38pm
I need to know the recipe for the metaphors here. On the whole, it kind of makes sense. But how did a cow slip into her father's arms? And what's with the Jedi sword on the little guy's back? And surely that's a Baptist pastor. They teach this kind of thing at Southeastern, not Reformed, right? (DB: thanks, Jennifer...)
by David and Tim Bayly on December 25, 2011 - 4:00am
David and I wish each of you a very merry Christmas!
A Psalm of Christmas
Lord we blame the innkeeper for only giving you the stable when his inn was full but what about all the others who lived in Bethlehem that night when you were born. Why were all their houses that weren't full of guests fast closed against the one who contained you? God bless our little homes this Christmastime make them big enough to welcome you contained in those for whom the world has no room except a cold and lonely Christmas day.
by David and Tim Bayly on December 23, 2011 - 7:44pm
The offense of the ESV translation committee's debate over how to translate the Hebrew ebed and Greek doulos isn't so much their final choice of "bondservant" over "slave." Rather, it's the arrogance of the prior discussion.
Take, for example, Wayne Grudem's claim that non-scholars can't comprehend how slavery in biblical times differed from the slavery of blacks in the American South. Wayne says ancient slavery differed radically from the modern understanding of slavery in the following ways: 1) Ancient slavery was temporary and voluntary rather than permanent and involuntary; 2) Ancient slavery was not racially, but economically, based, and; 3) Ancient slavery had status and carried legal protections.
All this may be entirely true of many forms of ancient slavery. But what Wayne glosses over in his eagerness to rid Scripture of the unfortunate implications of the word "slave" is that the essential experience of slavery in Scripture was everything Wayne denies it to be. The paradigmatic slavery of Scripture is Israel's bondage in Egypt, a slavery that was permanent, racial and entirely lacking in legal protection.
by David and Tim Bayly on December 22, 2011 - 1:05pm
Even as the ESV translation committee has been deliberating the meaning of "slave," CTW's translation committee has been discussing the difficulties inherent in translating the Biblical word "beginning." In this video we draw back the curtain on the deliberations of this august body as they diligently strive to render God's Word for a new generation. (DB)
by David and Tim Bayly on December 19, 2011 - 12:44pm
Here are a couple responses to questions asked under the post of the ESV committee's video. First the question, then my response. (TB)
Is every use of the word "slave" now going to be changed to "servant"?
No, they are doing this gradually. Words indicating the ownership of men will be removed from Scripture at about the same rate as words indicating the federal headship of Adam (male inclusives such as 'adam' and 'adelphoi'). As mentioned above, footnotes often show...