February 25, 2024 Pastor’s Roundtable
Pastor Dave Chambers
Pastor Ted Jolls
Pastor Tom Schierkolk
Pastor Jon Michael
February 25, 2024 Pastor’s Roundtable
Pastor Dave Chambers
Pastor Ted Jolls
Pastor Tom Schierkolk
Pastor Jon Michael
Alistair Begg is the pastor of Parkside Church outside of Cleveland. His preaching ministry is familiar to many through the Truth for Life radio program. Pastor Begg recently became the subject of controversy when he discussed his counsel to a grandmother whose grandson was marrying a transgendered person. The grandmother wanted to know if she should attend the wedding. Begg related that he asked if her grandson knew she did not affirm his lifestyle and marriage. When she answered that he did, Pastor Begg said, “I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.” (You can find the full interview here: https://www.truthforlife.org/resources/sermon/christian-manifesto-interview and a follow up response to his congregation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2bmFuA40T4)
Begg received a lot of backlash from Christians for his advice to her. American Family Radio removed Truth for Life from its lineup and others called for Begg to repent. In response, Pastor Begg said that he has no need to repent of his words.
Marriage is a major battleground today. Many Christians continue to proclaim the Biblical teaching that marriage is the permanent union of one man with one woman. Opposition to this teaching has been intense at times. Many in Christianity have found reason to soften or deny the Bible’s teachings about marriage.
Pastor Begg is theologically conservative with a long history of affirming the truths of the Bible, including a Biblical view of marriage. He has proclaimed without apology that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. In his response to the grandmother he made clear that the marriage in question is contrary to Scripture.
The issue Begg was addressing was not the legitimacy of homosexual marriage but the advisability of a grandparent attending what many conservative Christians would consider a gay wedding. Her question is entirely different from the permissibility or morality of homosexual marriage. Begg’s response does not indicate a difference of belief about marriage. His response suggests a difference of belief about the role of congregants at a wedding and a difference of belief about how best to show love to others.
The words “marriage” and “wedding” are not synonyms. Marriage is a union of people in a legally and socially approved bond. A wedding is a ceremony where the marriage union is joined. Marriage has a lifelong union as its ideal outcome. Sitting through a wedding may feel interminable, but, ideally, it is not a lifelong event.
Many believe attendees at a wedding are playing an active role in the ceremony as witnesses who give their support to the couple and affirm the legitimacy of the union. This belief has a long history. This view of attendee as participant is seen in the familiar ministerial injunction, “If anyone can show just cause why these two may not lawfully be joined in holy matrimony, let him speak now or forever hold his peace.” For those who hold this belief, attending a gay wedding gives unspoken approval of the marriage.
On the other hand, many see attendance at a wedding as nothing more than observation. The person attending may be expressing their affection for the participants, but attendance plays no active role in the joining of the couple in matrimony. For those who hold this belief, attending a wedding does not necessarily offer an opinion on the propriety of the marriage.
The Bible is clear about the nature of marriage, but says nothing about the responsibilities or role of those attending a wedding. Legitimate applications to weddings can be drawn from the Biblical teachings on marriage. Those applications must be recognized as responses to the Biblical truth, but not the Biblical truth itself.
The Bible does not speak about the congregant’s role in a wedding. Therefore, attendance at gay wedding must be treated as a matter of conscience. Sound, Biblical reasons can be offered for attending, or refusing to attend, a gay wedding. Each believer must carefully, prayerfully and Biblically consider his own response to this issue. Each believer must permit other Christians the liberty to do the same. Christians should not reject or malign someone like Pastor Begg, who has a long history of faithful Biblical teaching, because they disagree with the counsel he gave on a subject not addressed in the Bible.
Wicca and certain forms of paganism revere the earth as a goddess. Gaia, the Great Goddess and Maya are just a few of the many names given to Mother Earth. The common understanding of the earth goddess is that she is one deity among many. She is revered by some as the creator of all life and by others as the giver or the sustainer of life. This worship of the earth as divine is in direct opposition to the Biblical teaching that God alone is God, Creator and Sustainer. However, can Christians use Mother Earth as another name for God?
A person intending to give all credit to Jehovah, the God of the Bible, for the work of creation and for the work of sustaining creation might desire to call Him Mother Earth. Despite good intentions, the God of the Bible must not be referred to as Mother Earth. In common use “Mother Earth” is understood to be a reference to something other than the God of the Bible. This means identifying God as Mother Earth is confusing and misleading to the hearers.
More importantly, God does not permit His worshipers to innovate in their worship of Him. The book of Leviticus is a rule book for the Israelite’s worship of God. The Old Testament gives repeated examples of the consequences of worshiping God in a way other than the way prescribed by Him. The death and resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament ended temple worship and the Old Testament rituals. Jesus’ death did not alter the character of God or the necessity of worshiping Him as He prescribes. God must still be worshiped “in truth.” (John 4:24)
God has revealed Himself exclusively with masculine names and pronouns. None who desire to worship God rightly can refer to Him by feminine names or pronouns. God is declared in Scripture to be “Our Father,” never “Our Mother.” Those who desire to worship God in accord with His revelation cannot call Him by names or titles not given to Him in the Bible.
A handful of passages in the Old Testament describe God with feminine imagery. In Deuteronomy 32:18 God is said to have given birth to Israel. In Psalm 17:8 and Psalm 91:4 God is described as sheltering His child like a hen shelters her chicks. Do these and similar descriptions of God justify referring to Him as Mother? Every description of God using feminine imagery is a description of the work God does. God is never called by a feminine title. Instead, His care for His children is said to be like that of a mother, a nurse or a hen.
The Old Testament uses an abundance of images to describe God’s interactions with people. He is described as having horns, a mighty arm and an all-seeing eye. He is described as riding on clouds and breathing fire against His enemies. None of these are literally true, but are figures of speech intended to teach something about God’s interactions with mankind. The use of feminine imagery does not justify referring to God as Mother Earth any more than the use of barnyard imagery justifies referring to God as Mother Hen.
God has revealed Himself to humanity. God’s revelation to man defines God and in so doing limits the way humans can speak of God. God truly does care for His people like a mother cares for her children, but the people of God must not refer to God by any name other than those revealed by Him in His Word.
January 28, 2024 Pastor’s Roundtable
Thinking about the War between Hamas and Israel
Pastor Dave Chambers
Pastor Ted Jolls
Pastor Tom Schierkolk
Pastor Jon Michael
“God is in everything.” Those words sparked a lengthy conversation about the relationship of God to the physical universe. Christians who make that statement do not mean the same thing a Hindu or Buddhist might mean by a similar statement. The Christian might mean that since God is Creator of all things then all things contain an active part of God. Therefore, His being can legitimately be said to be in all of His creation. This asserts more than the existence of evidence of God’s creative work in the things He created, but that all things contain a part of God. This asserts that a piece of God is present in every created thing. Is this a Biblical assertion?
The Bible teaches that God is present everywhere. “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Psalm 139:7) “Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him? says the LORD, Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24) God is present everywhere in His creation and His presence fills all His creation. God is truly present in all places simultaneously. The Biblical teaching of the unlimited presence of God is not the same as the teaching that God is present in everything
The Bible teaches God is present everywhere while also remaining completely distinct from His creation. God is everywhere, but God is not in everything. Declaring that God is in all things blurs the line between creature and Creator, a line which the Bible draws clearly. Aside from the incarnation of Jesus, the Divine and the created are never described in the Bible as co-mingled. God is greater than all the world and is higher than the heavens. He cannot be contained by the universe or even by Heaven. (1 Kings 8:27) Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” Isaiah shows God is separate from His creation. He sits above the earth. He spreads out the heavens. He is infinitely greater than all His creation.
Isaiah 40:25 asks, “To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?” If God is in everything and everything contains the Divine, then what could be wrong with portraying God as a Sun, an elephant, a calf or some other created thing? Only because God is not in any of those things is it wrong to represent Him by an image of them. God is not in all creation, but “above all.” (Ephesians 4:6)
Understanding that God is always present with all His creation in all places and at all times while also always separate and distinct from His creation is not easy. The distinction is difficult but important. To mingle God’s being with His creation is to elevate the creation to the level of the Divine and to diminish the infinite, limitless God until He becomes equivalent to His creation. God is not equal with any or all of His creation. He is infinitely greater than all His works. None dare lessen His greatness. All must marvel at the infinity and intimacy of God who transcends all creation and remains present with each person.