- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA Letter to His Son
- Next Post »Become a Friend of the Blog
A La Carte (4/12)
- 04/12/10
- 12
Too Much Cross of Christ? - Gordon Cheng asks this and answers with help from John Stott. “Is it possible to be focused too on the cross of Christ? The answer has to be no. In fact, the nastiest pieces of theological misguidance that I’ve come across have lost any sense that the cross of Christ is where we find everything—our sin, God’s love, his judgement, our salvation, and the mystery of Trinitarian theology working itself out in a place beyond our comprehension. However…”
Can Animals Be Gay? - This seems like a silly question, but it has very important ramifications. Dr. Mohler takes it on.
Our Daily Grind - Danielle at 6YearMed has written another good blog post.
Wallpaper - Here is a collection of amazing wallpapers to help dress up your computer a little bit.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (12)
Great links Tim. A big special thank you for the wallpaper link. My desktop needed a freshen up.
Be careful. While following a link to one of the wallpapers, I was met with some pretty inappropriate advertisements and images. Just FYI.
I respectfully disagree with Gordon Cheng. Any teaching/preaching of one aspect of Christian theology can be “too much” if that aspect comes at the expense of others.
I would submit that some denominations and Christian thought-groups fail to take people beyond Good Friday. Much of their theology is stuck there. Their adherents fail to develop a theology and a worldview that include the empty tomb and Pentecost. Yes, it is impossible to have either without the cross, but without the resurrection, we are “men most pitied,” and without Pentecost, there is no Church.
No one can claim that we have an underdeveloped view of what it means to be sinners confronted with the cross of Christ. Yet the Bible also calls us saints and lays out a strong theology of what that sainthood entails. How then is it that we often hear solely about our status as sinners, yet almost never hear what it means to be a saint? This is the result of failing to take people who have come to the cross beyond it and to the empty tomb and Pentecost. It is a massive hole in our preaching and teaching, and it may very well exist because of the very issue Cheng says can’t be.
It would be terrible to divide over such a glorious wonder such as the cross, and it is with great care that I will even attempt to comment on said question. Please, this is not a treatise, so I hope those who read will be gracious as I cannot possibly qualify everything I will say here.
That said, I tend to agree with DLE. He raises a worthy point in how it is crucial that we hold to a full gospel, not minimizing any aspect, but to view and embrace by faith the life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
By this I am in no way diminishing the cross of Christ, because it is in the very light of the cross that I am able to see the accomplished work of Christ which has won for me such a great salvation, taking me beyond the cross (never forgetting it or diminishing it’s power or wonder) into the newness of resurrection life; that blood-bought reality of overcoming the enemies of sin, the world and the devil in real time.
In an attempt to honor God, it is a temptation to zoom in so close that one loses the panorama of God’s redemptive plan. But piety is only honorable when, in fact, God is honored. When piety becomes it’s own adornment, we are no longer glorifying God, but our own “righteous rag.” The cross was the means by which God was reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19), but it is not the end.As Paul said,”Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” 1 Cor. 15:12-14 (ESV)
It is to the utmost honor and glory of God that I uphold every aspect of the gospel in wonder and walk in the love, power and sound mind that is mine in Christ.
Totally agree DLE. I had similar reservations while reading the article, but couldn’t eloquently express them, so thanks for doing it so well!
No, animals can’t be homosexual.
All these supposedly homo animals are not having sex, for crying out loud. They are just hanging out, or preening, or watching the nest, or any number of activities. None of them are doing it.
Is a dog that h***s your leg interested in you sexually? No, he is just a dumb dog.
IMO, Mohler picks and chooses what he considers examples of the result of sin versus what God has wired into His creation.
Can animals be homosexual? Who knows? Does it matter? Does it have any bearing whatsoever on what God requires of us, the only members of His creation who bear the distinction of being image bearers?
I am amazed at the foolishness of this line of reasoning. I marvel more that Christians feel the need to disprove it lest the homosexual community score one against our side.
It matters not what behaviors the animal kingdom engages in. We may look to the created order to see something of the glory of God, but it is in His written Word that He clearly reveals His will. Nature will only provide us glimpses. Glorious glimpses to be sure, but it is in the Word that we find specific revelation as to His character and Law.
I had friends who bought two guinea pigs as pets for their children. Two guinea pigs soon became four and so on and so on and so on…. If you know anything at all about guinea pigs, you know that they are prolific breeders. One of the reasons why is that they will mate with any other guinea pig- be it parent, sibling, or offspring. I shudder to think that what is a normal pattern in that particular species should ever be used as a defense for the “normalcy” of incestuous relationships within our own.
I would urge Christians not to get caught up in the debate of what is going on in the animal world. Look to the Word. It is our light and guide and we venture into dangerous territory when we lose sight of that.
It’s all about equivocation. I think the reason people think that “homosexual animals” is a valid argument is because they are reacting to people who say that homosexual behavior is “unnatural.” They mistake the sense of “unnatural” in this context to mean “not found in nature,” when it means something more like “not properly according to our nature.” We CAN do things that are not according to our nature. It is not according to our nature for mothers to kill their children. Under normal circumstances, there are a thousand built-in (God-given) things that prevent a mother from doing so. But it does happen. However, that is obviously “perversion,” in the broadest sense. It means something has gone wrong. It is within the limits of “nature,” but it is not according to our “nature.”
It may be “natural” for some animals to engage in sexual or pseudo-sexual acts with members of the same sex and species. But that in no way implies that it is “natural” for us. Maybe it would help if, when given the opportunity, we clarify what is meant and not meant by “natural” and “unnatural” in this context.
Well put, Pentamom.I like what you said, “We CAN do things that are not according to our nature. It is not according to our nature for mothers to kill their children. Under normal circumstances, there are a thousand built-in (God-given) things that prevent a mother from doing so. But it does happen. However, that is obviously “perversion,” in the broadest sense. It means something has gone wrong. It is within the limits of “nature,” but it is not according to our “nature.”
The degree of perspicuity required to Biblically defend such arguments in this hour is great. You hit the nail on the head with this one.
Not true. Bonobo monkeys have been observed to engage in anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus.
The above comment was meant to be a reply to Anonymous @ 4:48, who asserted “No, animals can’t be homosexual. All these supposedly homo animals are not having sex, for crying out loud. They are just hanging out, or preening, or watching the nest, or any number of activities. None of them are doing it. .”