BLOG
Designed to Equip the Local Church for:
Strategically Relevant, Effective and Efficient
"Evangelistic-Disciplemaking" Sports Outreach
Strategically Relevant, Effective and Efficient
"Evangelistic-Disciplemaking" Sports Outreach
|
100 years before the American Civil War no Quaker held a Slave! Although some historians have argued that the Civil War was fought to keep the "Union" together, it must be clearly understood the reason the "Union" was dissolving was over the issue of slavery. Thus, slavery was indeed the cause of the American Civil War.
What was the driving force behind the abolitionist efforts of the Quakers? The bible! The bible not only clearly convinced the Society of Friends (the official name of the denomination that became known as Quakers) that slavery was an evil abomination, but also that all Christians were to make a difference...to make the lives of people better in every area of life. How did they accomplish this? How was it that Quakers held no slaves 100 years before the Emancipation Proclamation? Did they protest? Were they violent? Did they vociferously attack slave owners? Perhaps you could find an isolated incident in a history book, but by and large, they accomplished this great movement by engaging in loving conversations with those who held strongly divergent views. It is what the Friends describe as: "reasoning together." The leaders of the Friends Denomination walked up and down the eastern seaboard and lovingly asked all known Quaker slave owners to sit and "reason together." Those sessions led to heartfelt changes in slave owners throughout the country. I encourage all who will be attending this year's REACHgathering to take such an approach about contemporary issues. Let us come to REACH and "reason together," using the bible as our playbook and the Holy Spirit's inspiration (the Friends call that the Inner LIght) about this year's topics related to the redefinitions in regards to human sexuality and gender...and their relevance to the SR&F Community. These topics will be discussed both in the Theological Track and at "Wrestling at REACH." In Robert Harris's new book "Conclave," Cardinal Vittorio Scavizzi admonishes the Conclave of Cardinals who are meeting to elect a new Pope with the following words: "We need not a Church that will move with the world, but a Church that moves the world." Will we move the world...or flow along with it? Come "wrestle" with us at REACH ------------------------------------- Dr. Greg Linville is CSRM's Director of Resource Development Local Church Sports Ministry and Gender Issues
The is the final installment of a series of blogs excerpted from Dr. Linville’s yet to be released book. They explore the realities occurring in local church Sports Outreach Ministries in relationship to an evolving culture and shifting trends within sport, The Church, and society in general. The end goal is to aide local church Sports & Recreation Ministers to comprehend, and proactively structure, their outreaches with theological clarity, relational love and cultural sensitivity. This blog specifically provides recommendations concerning gender issues for Sports Ministers who are asking: “What’s a Sport Minister To Do.” Recommendations for Local Church Sports Outreach Ministries Regarding Gender-related Issues
Final Words The Church has a long history of lovingly and warmly welcoming all people regardless of where they are spiritually. Jesus is the consummate model… He winsomely engaged the “woman at the well;” eagerly associated with Zacchaeus; protected the “woman caught in adultery;” and lovingly comforted a grieving Mary Magdalene He found weeping at His grave site. Each of these people were far from being considered a saint. And while Jesus accepted them as they were, He loved them enough to confront their sin so as to move them to true discipleship that leads to eternal life, personal peace and a fulfilled life. His Church must do the same…lovingly, warmly and winsomely, welcome all to come and “belong” to the community in the hope that “belonging” will eventually lead to “believing;” which leads to “baptizing;” which leads to “behaving;” which leads ultimately to “becoming” a dedicated disciple of Jesus. The question a Local Church Sports Outreach Minister should repeatedly ask is: “How would Christ lovingly engage and serve each participant in their Sports Outreach?” The current divide over gender-related issues has caused a division the Church has not experienced since the Reformation and is of the magnitude of previous theological divides that resulted in the creation of three major traditions: Orthodoxy; Catholicism; Protestantism. While these three traditions have remained divided for centuries, and occasionally flared violent, they found the gospel demands a co-existence that lovingly tolerates the differences. It is my prayer this current divide will skip right past the violence, hatred and evil, and move quickly to loving toleration. I specifically challenge all “traditionalist” to set the standard for loving toleration. “They will know you are my disciples by your Love for one another.” Jesus as recorded in John 13.35 Next week’s blog will begin a new series – “Local Church Sports Outreach Ministry Syndromes – Leadership Imperatives This blog is an excerpt from Dr. Linville's yet to be released book. All rights reserved. For any reproduction right, including copying, computer reproduction, etc. contact: Dr. Greg Linville at CSRM International C/O The World Outreach Center 5350 Broadmoor Circle N. W. Canton, Ohio – USA 44709 or glinville@csrm.org Other blogs and articles on Local Church Sports, sports theology and ethics written by Dr. Greg Linville are archived at: www.csrm.org A Plea For Grace This set of blogs has discussed the most socially charged issue of the current day. The author seeks truth; desires to provide both questions and answers to further the discussion; engage in civil discourse; and most importantly provide a haven for love and grace. I encourage all readers to: “know your mind, but not have your mind made up.” As Martin Luther stated, I believe we should be open to being persuaded by Holy Scripture and evident reason (logic). I start by asking for grace when I don’t use the right term to describe something or someone, and I plead for forgiveness when I offend someone due to my own fallen nature which may lead to unintentional insensitivity, ignorance or hurtful language. My intent is not to hurt or injure anyone, but rather, it is to seek Christ’s will for all of us who are attempting to follow Jesus as we travel this path together. Recommended Books & References consulted for this series of Blogs – A select list of references relevant to this week’s blog (see previous blogs for a more extensive list of references)
Local Church Sports Outreach Ministry & Gender Issues #8 - The Relevance of Romans Chapter #110/15/2015 Local Church Sports Ministry and Gender Issues
The blogs in this series are excerpts from Dr. Linville’s yet to be released book. They explore the realities occurring in local church Sports Outreach Ministries in relationship to an evolving culture and shifting trends within sport, The Church, and society in general. The end goal of this series of Biblical exegesis is to aide local church Sports & Recreation Ministers to comprehend, and proactively structure, their outreaches with theological clarity, relational love and cultural sensitivity to all involved. This blog specifically examines the teaching of Romans chapter 1 concerning homosexual activity and same gender marriage. The Process The process for this series of blogs consists primarily of reviewing the work of others (scholars, apologists, preachers, thinkers) in reference to the selected passages and articulating the relevant issues with an end goal of encouraging readers to study the resources listed and referenced and then draw conclusions that can assist them in conceptualizing and implementing a Christ-honoring sports outreach ministry that is relevant, sensitive and loving. Romans Chapter One The difference in opinion continues between the revisionist and traditionalist camps. This time it is focused on the interpretation of Chapter 1 of Paul’s letter to the Romans. A Revisionist Perspective The main hermeneutical point from the revisionist view rests upon the assumption that when Paul wrote this letter to 1st Century Romans, he was addressing a 1st Century issue. In specific, revisionists believe Paul addresses hedonistic activities carried out in conjunction with the worship of pagan goddesses such as Aphrodite. Thus, revisionists interpret this passage as not condemning biblical homosexual activity in general, only specific hedonistic, uncontrolled sexual passions which are not biblically defensible. For further contemplation, I refer readers to the writings of Mel White cited below. A secondary set of revisionists arguments are offered by Louis Smedes. Smedes states that homosexuals he knows have not rejected God and thus are exempt from being associated with those being condemned in this passage. In addition, he states these same homosexuals cannot be condemned for exchanging their natural sexuality because they were born homosexual, not heterosexual, and thus, for them to exchange the natural would be to engage in heterosexual activity. The ultimate logical conclusion he makes is that if they are born homosexual they would only be condemned if they exchanged their natural homosexual activity for unnatural heterosexual activity. A Traditionalist Perspective The traditional view offers a decidedly different perspective. This difference begins with the belief that the ultimate author of Romans is The Holy Spirit who inspired Paul. It continues by stating The Holy Spirit is not referencing a 1st Century hedonistic culture as the basis for His condemnation of homosexual activity. Rather what He (the Holy Spirit) relates through Paul, is based on, assumes and affirms the Creation narratives of Genesis and all previous biblical condemnations of homosexual activity; not just a particular hedonistic variation of it. Therefore, traditionalists dismiss Smedes’s arguments as well. I refer readers to the work of Kevin DeYoung in regards to these matters in the 4th chapter of his book cited below. Identifying the Issues The crux of the disagreement comes down to two things: hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) & logic. Revisionist starting points in both areas weaken their arguments and traditionalists err in one key logical point. Hermeneutics - By assuming: a) Paul to be the ultimate author of Romans, rather than the Holy Spirit; and b) that this passage refers to 1st century pagan temple hedonism; revisionists appear to be eisogeting (putting into scripture what they want it to say). At best, the 1st Century hedonism would represent a specific time and place for application of the historical Jewish (and thus Christian) ethic concerning human sexuality (including a condemnation of all homosexual activity); not a rebuttal of it. Smedes’s arguments however deserve deeper reflection. Logic/Illogic/Logic/Illogic - The condemnations articulated in this passage clearly reference men (people) who are “un-Godly” and who “unrighteously suppress the truth” (v.18); those who “did not honor God” (v. 21); those who “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25); and those who did not “acknowledge God” (v.28). However, it does not logically follow that all who identify themselves as homosexual strive to be un-Godly or to worship the creature rather than acknowledging God. Put in a more positive way, it is logical to state some who claim to be homosexual sincerely love and strive to follow God. However, it would be illogical to state that just because they are Christians and love God, that they have a perfect theology when it comes to gender and human sexuality. Logically it follows that some of the Godliest people in the world; even those whose hearts desire God above everything else, including their sexuality; can misinterpret scripture and get it wrong. The bottom line however is that Smedes’s argument is fallacious (illogical) in two primary ways: 1) his appeal to knowing homosexuals who have not left the true worship of the true God and therefore stating their homosexual activity is justified, is a fallacious argument technically known as an ad hominem argument…or an argument that appeals to a person rather than addressing the argument itself; and b) his second argument fails because one of its premises it is rooted in the unproven theory that homosexual orientation is rooted in biological fact rather than being a lifestyle choice. At best, this particular passage would be a “draw” with the revisionist hermeneutic not properly acknowledging the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author of Romans and also needing a more convincing argument to support appealing to a 1st century rather than a centuries old ethic. Conversely, the traditionalist view is in need of a better perspective than to categorically condemn all people who consider themselves to be homosexual as not being Christians. When this section of scripture is added to the previous passages the result remains in the traditionalist’s favor. Revisionists win a decisive point in stating people who claim to be homosexual can in fact be Christians (even if they err in their theology of human sexuality) but overall revisionists gain little if any ground in the overall debate and still face an “arduous uphill battle” in establishing that homosexual activity can be biblically defended. The final conclusion awaits the exegesis of additional passages and the impact of the possibility of the afore-mentioned biblical a priori as potential “trump card.” Upon one’s final conclusion, there is the still further journey on how to apply the interpretations and assessments in sensitive and loving ways within a local church Sports Outreach Ministry. Next week’s blog will begin to explore passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This blog is an excerpt from Dr. Linville's yet to be released book. All rights reserved. For any reproduction right, including copying, computer reproduction, etc. contact: Dr. Greg Linville at CSRM International C/O The World Outreach Center 5350 Broadmoor Circle N. W. Canton, Ohio – USA 44709 or glinville@csrm.org Other blogs and articles on Local Church Sports, sports theology and ethics written by Dr. Greg Linville are archived at: www.csrm.org A Plea For Grace This set of blogs discusses the most socially charged issue of the current day. The author seeks truth; desires to provide both questions and answers to further the discussion; engage in civil discourse; and most importantly provide a haven for love and grace. I encourage all readers to: “know your mind, but not have your mind made up.” As Martin Luther stated, I believe we should be open to being persuaded by Holy Scripture and evident reason (logic). I start by asking for grace when I don’t use the right term to describe something or someone, and I plead for forgiveness when I offend someone due to my own fallen nature which may lead to unintentional insensitivity, ignorance or hurtful language. My intent is not to hurt or injure anyone, but rather, it is to seek Christ’s will for all of us who are attempting to follow Jesus as we travel this path together. Recommended Books & References consulted for this series of Blogs – A select list…
Local Church Sports Ministry and Gender Issues
The blogs in this series are excerpts from Dr. Linville’s yet to be released book. They explore the realities occurring in local church Sports Outreach Ministries in relationship to an evolving culture and shifting trends within sport, The Church and society in general. This blog examines Genesis chapter 19 as it specifically relates to homosexual activity and same gender marriage. The end goal of this Biblical exegesis is to aide local church Sports & Recreation Ministers comprehend, and proactively structure, their outreaches with theological clarity, relational love and sensitivity to all involved. The Process The process for this series of blogs consists primarily of referencing the work of others (scholars, apologists, preachers, thinkers) in reference to the selected passages, articulating the relevant issues, and drawing a few conclusions. Readers are highly recommended to read the resources listed below for a far more in depth look at these passages. Creation Narrative Accounts –Genesis 19 Once again, there are two diametrically opposed views about the narrative of Genesis 19. Mel White and others argue for what might be considered a revisionist view, whereas DeYoung, Stanton, Stott and others hold to the historical traditional view. These are both neutral terms to differentiate between the two different communities and are not meant to elevate or denigrate either group. The revisionist view claims the main issue for God’s condemnation of the city of Sodom has to do with the arrogance exhibited by its inhabitants…an arrogance that led to deep ungodliness on many fronts beyond human sexuality. This viewpoint also believes that the sin of the people of Sodom being referred to as abomination in Ezekiel was the sin of arrogance, not homosexual activity per se. However, White and others do acknowledge there was a specific homosexual activity condemned in Genesis 19. This specific type of homosexual activity is akin to rape and other abusive actions towards victims. Thus, White and others emphasize this passage does not condemn all homosexual activity, but rather only the victimization of another, be it homosexual or heterosexual rape and other forms of evil mistreatment and abuse. The traditional view offers a decidedly different point-of-view. Traditionalists appeal to one main opposing argument: a Biblical a priori argument. They maintain the rest of the Bible consistently condemns all homosexual activity (rape or otherwise), and this passage does nothing to counter that a priori. They do find common ground with White’s assessment that the sin of Sodom encompassed much more than homosexual evil, and God’s condemnation was levied for more than homosexual sin. They would further agree with White that any kind of rape or abuse is thoroughly condemned throughout the Bible be it hetero or homosexual. However, they very much counter White’s belief about what the word abomination refers to. They believe White uses a very faulty translation of Ezekiel 16.44-50 to substantiate his view that abomination refers to the arrogance of the men of Sodom. They claim the word abomination referred to by Ezekiel in verse 50 is clearly referencing any/all homosexual activity as an abomination – not arrogance. The main point of the traditional argument is again based on the totality of what the Bible teaches in reference to God’s condemnation and destruction of Sodom. The consensus of a traditionalist view is that the overarching teaching of the Bible, as found in many specific passages, states clearly that homosexual activity is a sin, and in yet additional passages, the Bible assumes (does nothing to counter the teaching) the sin of Sodom included the sin of homosexual activity, not just homosexual rape. The traditionalist community also maintains that all extra-Biblical references support the belief that the sin of Sodom was homosexual activity. I believe those holding this view would agree this passage cannot be used to defend homosexual activity as being Biblically defensible, and that while not clearly condemning homosexual activity in and of itself, it does not in any way support a revisionist view. Identifying the Issues When this passage is added to the previous passage (The Creation Narratives) the result is not much ground is gained by either side of the debate. Revisionist’s arguments still face an arduous uphill battle and traditionalist’s arguments remain inconclusive, although Genesis 19 would certainly fall in line with many other of the traditionalist views. As will become apparent over the next blogs in this series, what a local church determines to be biblical (Level #1 Theological Truth) will greatly inform how they organize (Level #2 Philosophical Principles) and eventually expedite their Sports Outreach Ministry (Level #3 Methodological Models). This organization will be guided by what a church believes about homosexual activity and those who claim to be homosexuals. Next week’s blog will begin to explore Leviticus 18 & 20. This blog is an excerpt from Dr. Linville's yet to be released book. All rights reserved. For any reproduction right, including copying, computer reproduction, etc. contact: Dr. Greg Linville at CSRM International C/O The World Outreach Center 5350 Broadmoor Circle N. W. Canton, Ohio – USA 44709 or glinville@csrm.org Other blogs and articles on Local Church Sports, sports theology and ethics written by Dr. Greg Linville are archived at: www.csrm.org A Plea For Grace This set of blogs discusses the most socially charged issue of the current day. The author is seeks truth; desires to provide both questions and answers to further the discussion; engage in civil discourse; and most importantly provide a haven for love and grace. I encourage all readers to: “know your mind, but not have your mind made up.” As Martin Luther stated, I believe we should be open to being persuaded by Holy Scripture and evident reason (logic). I start by asking for grace when I don’t use the right term to describe something or someone, and I plead for forgiveness when I offend someone due to my own fallen nature which may lead to unintentional insensitivity, ignorance or hurtful language. My intent is not to hurt or injure anyone, but rather, it is to seek Christ’s will for all of us who are attempting to follow Jesus as we travel this path together. Recommended Books & References consulted for this series of Blogs – A select list…
Local Church Sports Ministry and Gender Issues
The blogs in this series are excerpts from Dr. Linville’s yet to be released book. They explore the realities occurring in local church Sports Outreach Ministries in relationship to an evolving culture and shifting trends within sport, The Church and society in general. This blog examines the Creation Narratives as they specifically relate to homosexual activity and same gender marriage. The end goal of this Biblical exegesis is to aide local church Sports & Recreation Ministers comprehend, and proactively structure, their outreaches with theological clarity and relational love and sensitivity. Introduction to the Process The process for this series of blogs in terms of contemplating each of the passages, consists primarily of referencing the work of others: scholars, apologists, preachers, thinkers and then articulating the issues and drawing a few conclusions. Creation Narrative Accounts –Genesis 1 & 2 There is a definite difference of opinion about the Creation Narratives when it comes to determining a biblical ethic regarding homosexual activity. Dr. Mel While states the narrative accounts say nothing about homosexuality and therefore can’t be used to condemn homosexual activity and relationships. Kevin DeYoung has a completely different take on the Creation narratives. I believe DeYoung would agree with White to the point that the word homosexual is not used anywhere in the passage yet his main rationale for determining the passage condemns such activity is based on a much more significant biblical/theological foundation. In essence, DeYoung utilizes a valid theological principle in regards to hermeneutics (bible interpretation) called biblical apriori. This means the bible communicates doctrines, and the ethics that emerge from such doctrines, in overarching themes which are found throughout the bible. For DeYoung, the Creation Narratives clearly establish the foundation for the broader biblical support of hetero-sexuality and marriage being reserved for one man and one woman. On the importance of biblical aprioris, I believe White would agree with DeYoung, although not as DeYoung interprets this passage. As I understand White, he uses the apriori strategy to support his position for love being the highest ethic (see below). White would not agree Genesis 1&2 support traditional hetero-sexual marriage. I would encourage everyone to read DeYoung’s clearly articulated 5 rationales for believing Genesis 1 & 2 support marriage to be reserved only for one man and one woman, and also read White’s equally clear articulation of the Creation Narratives in his 5th premise of his apologetic for homosexual activity and marriage. The stark contrast could not be more apparent. Identifying the Issues If the Creation Narratives do in fact provide the foundation for hetero-sexual, monogamous marriage and activity as DeYoung believes, then White’s argument faces an arduous uphill battle. If White’s argument is irrefutable then at best, it leaves room for his main rationale for homosexual activity and marriage….which rests significantly on his 7th premise which raises the biblical apriori “love ethic” above all others. As will become apparent over the next weeks, what a local church determines to be biblical (Level #1 Theological Truth) will greatly inform how they organize (Level #2 Philosophical Principles) and eventually expedite their Sports Outreach Ministry (Level #3 Methodological Models). Next week’s blog will begin to explore Genesis 19 in regards to homosexual activity. This blog is an excerpt from Dr. Linville's yet to be released book. All rights reserved. For any reproduction right, including copying, computer reproduction, etc. contact: Dr. Greg Linville at CSRM International C/O The World Outreach Center 5350 Broadmoor Circle N. W. Canton, Ohio – USA 44709 or glinville@csrm.org Other blogs and articles on Local Church Sports, sports theology and ethics written by Dr. Greg Linville are archived at: www.csrm.org A Plea For Grace This set of blogs discusses the most socially charged issue of the current day. The author is seeks truth; desires to provide both questions and answers to further the discussion; engage in civil discourse; and most importantly provide a haven for love and grace. I encourage all readers to: “know your mind, but not have your mind made up.” As Martin Luther stated, I believe we should be open to being persuaded by Holy Scripture and evident reason (logic). I start by asking for grace when I don’t use the right term to describe something or someone, and I plead for forgiveness when I offend someone due to my own fallen nature which may lead to unintentional insensitivity, ignorance or hurtful language. My intent is not to hurt or injure anyone, but rather, it is to seek Christ’s will for all of us who are attempting to follow Jesus as we travel this path together. Recommended Books & References consulted for this series of Blogs – A select list…
|
Categories
All
ARCHIVES
March 2020
CATEGORIES
All
|