This Week's "Word and Walk"
Tuesdays and Thursdays, Pastor Scott leads a devotional featuring study of a book of the Bible and prayer. Click the button below to view the most recent devotions!
Greetings!Rev. Scott Jones has been an American Baptist minister since 1997. He was born in Des Moines, Iowa, growing up in Iowa and South Dakota. He received his Bachelor of Arts in vocal music at Iowa State University in 1994 and earned a Masters in Divinity from Northern Seminary in 1997. He was ordained in 1997 in the Mid-America Baptist Churches (Iowa and Minnesota). Scott is the 21st minister of the First Baptist Church of Greensburg.
Scott first responded to Jesus in faith as a young child and was baptized at age 13. He has been blessed throughout his life with wonderful role models in his parents, ABY youth group, and ABC summer camp, where he was invited to say “yes” to the Lord’s call on his life. His ministry is about worship, preaching, teaching, evangelism, and relationships. He uses his musical background to lead people into the presence of God. He is involved in our Region as instructor of New Testament with the Academy of Christian Training and Service (ACTS), our lay-pastor training institute. He also sings with the Irwin Male Chorus. |
Pastor's Newsletter
To be a Christian in today’s world means that we deal with hard truths. One of them is that humans’ lives are full of sticky complications. We bring them on ourselves quite often, or the people in our lives bring a steady barrage of their complex situations to deal with. If we want to have relationships with other, real people, we have to think through how to respond in a Christian way. There’s no point trying to run from messy situations; they will inevitably catch up with us.
This truth holds within the Church, for better or worse. If anything, the trend is gaining in speed and complexity, as our culture has rejected God as the source of truth. This gives people license to reinterpret freely all of the institutions that once incorporated Biblical precepts into their foundations. Churches have labored to maintain the Biblically orthodox understandings of those institutions, but they face unrelenting pressure to give ground, to compromise on the authoritative truth of God’s Word. The stratagems of the secular culture are quite astute. They’re always testing, testing: will you accept this? How about this? Surely you can’t object to this. You want to be on the right side of history, don’t you? You don’t want to be judgmental or condemning, right? They come up with scenario after scenario, testing for weak spots to see if we will hold our principles consistently. Those who control the culture always have the church on the back foot, always on the defense. Sadly, the snowball of compromise among churches, pastors and denominations is growing in size and speed.
For example, I would cite the media firestorm over pastoral counsel that was given in September 2023 by popular radio preacher, Alistair Begg. If you've listened to much Christian radio, you've probably heard Begg's unmistakable, Scottish accent. He is pastor of a megachurch in Cleveland, and widely sought as a speaker at various church conferences. Begg identifies himself as a conservative, Reformed (Calvinist) pastor. To be clear, I'm no Calvinist, myself. Still, I have found his work, and those of his friends (like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul) to be helpful at times. So long as they're not grinding away at their Calvinist axes, their preaching and writings can be quite edifying. As for Begg, I've always respected him; our other stances on theological issues have had much in common. On the issue of homosexuality, gender identity and marriage, for instance, his stated positions have closely followed historic, orthodox, Biblical teachings. Imagine the shock from his biggest fans, then, when he gave pastoral advice, five months ago, to a grandmother who was torn as to whether to attend her grandson's “wedding" to a transgendered individual. She was understandably concerned about preserving her relationship with her grandson, despite her strong, Biblical belief that he was about to do something blasphemous. Begg asked her two questions: 1. Does your grandson understand your faith in Christ; and 2. Does he know that your faith does not allow you to “countenance" (definition: tolerate) in any affirming way an unbiblical marriage? To both questions, the grandmother answered, “yes.” In that case, Begg suggested that she both attend the wedding and buy the “couple" a gift.
Begg told this story publicly, on a podcast anyone can listen to, so it was hardly meant to be kept a secret. Since Begg's comments were made known, they have been denounced soundly by other prominent ministers as well as more common pastors and people on YouTube. Those in support of Begg's new position have been very few; those against are the overwhelming majority. Indeed, he’s been dropped from a network of radio stations, and John MacArthur disinvited him from an upcoming conference. To be clear, Begg gave this advice while still insisting that the practice or celebration of LGBT lifestyles are clearly marked as sin in the Bible. I certainly agree with him on that point. So why the strong response from so many?
The advice I'd have given that grandmother is exactly the opposite of Begg’s, and I will give some of the reasons why in a moment. Before I do, let me point out: this is exactly the type of complicated, moral conundrum that is posed to today's Christian with a speed and variety that can make the head spin. It seems that we are faced with new dilemmas on a weekly basis. If Christians want their daily witness to stay consistent with their Biblical beliefs, they can no longer “cross that bridge when they come to it.” We need to think through what we believe, and the Biblical and theological supports for why we believe, in advance of new scenarios that might hit us unawares and put us on the spot. I am terrible at thinking fast on my feet, myself—my brain is less a microwave and more of a crock pot. I know I have to begin praying, studying and thinking before these situations come to me in the form of questions from my church members, or I won't be able to serve them as well as they deserve. And I'd suggest that it may be time for you to do the same before friends and family members surprise you with situations you never thought you'd encounter. Now that the stage is set, let me set out some of the reasons why I would have counseled that grandmother to stay at home on the day of her grandson's “wedding.”
Our love for God must be the first consideration in all things. Remember when Jesus gave His two-part answer to the question, “what is the greatest commandment?” His answer was “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” AND “love your neighbor as yourself” – in that order. The two loves are two sides of the same coin, but there is no question as to which is the most important: our first duty is to love, above all others, the One who is, by essence, love. God created us in love, and gave His Son as a sacrifice for our sins when we were incapable of loving Him. He is Creator, Redeemer, and King, and we can allow no love to take precedence over Him; that would be idolatry. When the authorities tried to intimidate the Apostles into silence, they asked whether it is proper to obey men rather than God. They were saying that love for God comes first. Thus, in all our daily priorities, actions and choices, our first duty is to glorify God through allegiance to His commands.
Our culture has framed a false equivalence between love and complete affirmation. Alistair Begg demonstrated that he'd been deceived by that false equivalence in his counsel to the grandmother. When he suggested that she attend and bring a gift, he said that the grandmother replied with a shocked, “what?” She was shocked because she already knew what the Bible taught on the subject; she was surprised that the renowned pastor would give such a reply. He explained to the grandmother (paraphrased), “by attending, your love might take them by surprise, but by not attending, you would confirm what he already thinks, that Christians are judgmental, condemning, unloving, and unwilling to countenance anything.” The problem with his response is that his premise is false. There are an enormous number of ways to express love to a prodigal family member or friend other than affirming that person in his/her sin. Begg should have counseled her to remind her grandson, “You know that, as a Christian, my duty is to be faithful to God first. My faith teaches that the path you have chosen is sin, and it's impossible for me to violate my conscience by attending your ceremony. But my love for you is rock-solid: I hope to spend lots of time with you in the future – I want to have you over for dinner, or we can go out for movies or concerts. I will always love you and want to spend time with you. So although I can't attend, never think that I'm rejecting you.” There you have it; it's not difficult at all. It's the same thing as your friend or co-worker inviting you to the bar for a drunken Friday night of what people call “fun.” You can take a pass on that event, but make plans for pizza and a movie on another night. When true friends know about your convictions and your continued affection for them, they'll respect you. If they don't, they're no friends at all.
Having said that, let's be realistic. It is true that the cultural narrative sounds like this: “If you claim to love me, you must affirm and celebrate every choice I make. If you do not, you don't love me at all; in fact, you are hateful, condemning, whateverphobic, etc.” As I said, that is a false premise, and it must be gently but firmly refused. The reality is that certain people might come with a request or an invitation that is also a test. They come with a pre-set agenda, and if you fail their test, they have already decided to part company with you after a hail of insults. The Christian is not bound in such cases; we are not bound to live as if untruths are true. If the grandson were to part company with his grandmother in Begg's scenario, she would not be drawing away from him. He would be drawing away from her. She would remain where she always was: ready with open arms to welcome him and forgive any insult.
Marriage is an institution created by God, for His glory. It is not the prerogative of humans to decide what it is and what it isn't. If this seems a controversial statement, it is only an indication of how far our society has distanced itself from the truth of God’s Word. The divine ordination of marriage goes straight back to the Creation, when God formed Eve to be Adam’s companion and helper through life. Each of them would amplify each other’s strengths and strengthen each other’s weaknesses. When God presented her to him, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Gen. 2:23) And verse 24 announces God’s inauguration of the institution of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” This is God’s signature and seal of approval upon what He has created. In the New Testament, both Jesus (Matt. 19:1-6) and Paul (Eph. 5:31) reference and affirm the Genesis account. Jesus sealed His blessing upon the wedding at Cana of Galilee with His first miracle, and Paul tells us that human marriage is a parable of Christ’s sanctifying ministry to, and eternal union with, His Bride, the Church.
Baptists often seem shy of the term “sacrament,” but marriage is still a means of grace by which the love and commitment of Christ to His Church is dramatized in a way more powerful and relatable, in human terms, than anything else could be. God knew what He was doing at His institution of marriage. It’s His handiwork, not ours, and only He can say what it is. This seems surprising in our modern context, because humans believe they can define whatever reality they want through laws, court decisions and cultural pressure. But regardless of what governments and courts decide, they are attempting to declare something that simply does not exist. They may decide to call it marriage, but it is no more real than a square circle or an odd even number. So to attend a counterfeit “wedding” is to participate in a falsehood. To go would be to participate in a lie. Worse than this: it would give tacit assent to what constitutes a desecration of a divinely-authored sacrament and an offense to God. The “couple” would be taking vows to continue in sin for the rest of their lives. To be there, even out of an expression of loving support? - my conscience could never permit it, and if I loved the person, it would make me weep openly to witness it.
Let us face the truth: despite what we may say, actions speak louder than words. Whatever statements we may issue to our unbelieving friends about our values, how we live out those values and make our choices will be interpreted as what we really think. If a Christian gave a consistent, verbal witness to a loved one that Biblically, certain things were right and certain things were wrong -- and then if he went against his professions by attending a sacrilegious, false “wedding” -- his presence and gift would be interpreted as affirmation by the loved one and other non-believers in attendance. That would jeopardize Christian witness to a degree that I could never counsel a person to do this. It is essential to keep the larger picture front and center: this is a Gospel issue, and eternal souls are at stake. If I really love someone, the supreme expression of that love would be a consistent witness, spoken and lived, to show that person the reality of human sin and need of Jesus as Savior. We all need to turn away from sin, trust in Jesus and follow Him as King. If that person I love is offended by my witness, it would be worth the relationship strain if one day, they come to Jesus and experience eternal life.
The last point I’d like to make at this time is that we need to properly understand the interaction between Jesus and sinners. When Begg was met by a tide of criticism by so many friends and leaders, he gave a follow-up sermon to defend his position. It was delivered a bit hotly; I think he’d have done himself a larger favor by letting the emotions subside. As it was, he said a few unfair things which seemed driven by emotion. One of which, he labeled those who disagreed with him as “Pharisees,” and contrasted their attitude with that of Jesus. Begg spoke of the Pharisees’ obsession with maintaining their purity; they went to great lengths so that the filthiness of sinful people could never defile their ceremonial cleanliness. Thus, they avoided all contact with Gentiles, Hellenized Jews, tax collectors, and even common people who were illiterate – they couldn’t read the Torah, and thus, were likely sinners in their ignorance. On the other hand, Begg lauded the “free and easy fraternization” of Jesus with sinners. He went to their houses, ate with them, and taught them freely. He was the Doctor who came to help the sick. Citing Luke 15, Begg said that Jesus is like the father who yearns to have the prodigal son at home. All of these things are absolutely right. And those are the kinds of examples Begg marshalled to demonstrate why it would be appropriate for a Christian to attend an unholy union.
The problem is that Begg left his depiction of Jesus half-finished—and he left out the more important half. It is true that Jesus freely befriended and ate with sinners; we rejoice that this is true! But, none of Begg’s detractors were playing the part of the Pharisee; none of them called for disassociating from sinful people. They were simply saying that as followers of Jesus, they could not come with them to the place of their sinful behavior and, by their silence, support them in those sins. Jesus did not sit and while away the hours conversing with prostitutes where they plied their questionable trade. He did not accompany drunkards to their drinking binges. He did not affirm Matthew or Zacchaeus in their swindling lives as tax collectors; He bid them to walk away from that life. Jesus did not affirm the adulterous woman in her adultery; He offered forgiveness, a second chance, and a command: “Go, and sin no more.” Some of Begg’s supporters have suggested that Jesus would be present and smiling at a transgender wedding; I would call that take blasphemous. Jesus befriended sinners to call them to new lives; He never sat, silent, in the face of sin to avoid harming a relationship. We all know that He gave plenty of offense in the service of loving, life-giving truth.
My brothers and sisters, it is more important than ever that we deeply know the Word of God and how it speaks to a great myriad of issues in daily life. We must study, pray and think, so that we will be ready when it’s time for us to offer counsel or make a decision that will either help or hinder our witness. We must also reclaim the balance that we are called to walk, keeping Truth in one hand, and love in the other. Paul calls us to this in Ephesians 4:14-16. Our culture insists on creating a dichotomy between truth and love; we must deny this premise. When we do, Paul writes that “we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
Your Brother and Servant--
Pastor Scott.
This truth holds within the Church, for better or worse. If anything, the trend is gaining in speed and complexity, as our culture has rejected God as the source of truth. This gives people license to reinterpret freely all of the institutions that once incorporated Biblical precepts into their foundations. Churches have labored to maintain the Biblically orthodox understandings of those institutions, but they face unrelenting pressure to give ground, to compromise on the authoritative truth of God’s Word. The stratagems of the secular culture are quite astute. They’re always testing, testing: will you accept this? How about this? Surely you can’t object to this. You want to be on the right side of history, don’t you? You don’t want to be judgmental or condemning, right? They come up with scenario after scenario, testing for weak spots to see if we will hold our principles consistently. Those who control the culture always have the church on the back foot, always on the defense. Sadly, the snowball of compromise among churches, pastors and denominations is growing in size and speed.
For example, I would cite the media firestorm over pastoral counsel that was given in September 2023 by popular radio preacher, Alistair Begg. If you've listened to much Christian radio, you've probably heard Begg's unmistakable, Scottish accent. He is pastor of a megachurch in Cleveland, and widely sought as a speaker at various church conferences. Begg identifies himself as a conservative, Reformed (Calvinist) pastor. To be clear, I'm no Calvinist, myself. Still, I have found his work, and those of his friends (like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul) to be helpful at times. So long as they're not grinding away at their Calvinist axes, their preaching and writings can be quite edifying. As for Begg, I've always respected him; our other stances on theological issues have had much in common. On the issue of homosexuality, gender identity and marriage, for instance, his stated positions have closely followed historic, orthodox, Biblical teachings. Imagine the shock from his biggest fans, then, when he gave pastoral advice, five months ago, to a grandmother who was torn as to whether to attend her grandson's “wedding" to a transgendered individual. She was understandably concerned about preserving her relationship with her grandson, despite her strong, Biblical belief that he was about to do something blasphemous. Begg asked her two questions: 1. Does your grandson understand your faith in Christ; and 2. Does he know that your faith does not allow you to “countenance" (definition: tolerate) in any affirming way an unbiblical marriage? To both questions, the grandmother answered, “yes.” In that case, Begg suggested that she both attend the wedding and buy the “couple" a gift.
Begg told this story publicly, on a podcast anyone can listen to, so it was hardly meant to be kept a secret. Since Begg's comments were made known, they have been denounced soundly by other prominent ministers as well as more common pastors and people on YouTube. Those in support of Begg's new position have been very few; those against are the overwhelming majority. Indeed, he’s been dropped from a network of radio stations, and John MacArthur disinvited him from an upcoming conference. To be clear, Begg gave this advice while still insisting that the practice or celebration of LGBT lifestyles are clearly marked as sin in the Bible. I certainly agree with him on that point. So why the strong response from so many?
The advice I'd have given that grandmother is exactly the opposite of Begg’s, and I will give some of the reasons why in a moment. Before I do, let me point out: this is exactly the type of complicated, moral conundrum that is posed to today's Christian with a speed and variety that can make the head spin. It seems that we are faced with new dilemmas on a weekly basis. If Christians want their daily witness to stay consistent with their Biblical beliefs, they can no longer “cross that bridge when they come to it.” We need to think through what we believe, and the Biblical and theological supports for why we believe, in advance of new scenarios that might hit us unawares and put us on the spot. I am terrible at thinking fast on my feet, myself—my brain is less a microwave and more of a crock pot. I know I have to begin praying, studying and thinking before these situations come to me in the form of questions from my church members, or I won't be able to serve them as well as they deserve. And I'd suggest that it may be time for you to do the same before friends and family members surprise you with situations you never thought you'd encounter. Now that the stage is set, let me set out some of the reasons why I would have counseled that grandmother to stay at home on the day of her grandson's “wedding.”
Our love for God must be the first consideration in all things. Remember when Jesus gave His two-part answer to the question, “what is the greatest commandment?” His answer was “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” AND “love your neighbor as yourself” – in that order. The two loves are two sides of the same coin, but there is no question as to which is the most important: our first duty is to love, above all others, the One who is, by essence, love. God created us in love, and gave His Son as a sacrifice for our sins when we were incapable of loving Him. He is Creator, Redeemer, and King, and we can allow no love to take precedence over Him; that would be idolatry. When the authorities tried to intimidate the Apostles into silence, they asked whether it is proper to obey men rather than God. They were saying that love for God comes first. Thus, in all our daily priorities, actions and choices, our first duty is to glorify God through allegiance to His commands.
Our culture has framed a false equivalence between love and complete affirmation. Alistair Begg demonstrated that he'd been deceived by that false equivalence in his counsel to the grandmother. When he suggested that she attend and bring a gift, he said that the grandmother replied with a shocked, “what?” She was shocked because she already knew what the Bible taught on the subject; she was surprised that the renowned pastor would give such a reply. He explained to the grandmother (paraphrased), “by attending, your love might take them by surprise, but by not attending, you would confirm what he already thinks, that Christians are judgmental, condemning, unloving, and unwilling to countenance anything.” The problem with his response is that his premise is false. There are an enormous number of ways to express love to a prodigal family member or friend other than affirming that person in his/her sin. Begg should have counseled her to remind her grandson, “You know that, as a Christian, my duty is to be faithful to God first. My faith teaches that the path you have chosen is sin, and it's impossible for me to violate my conscience by attending your ceremony. But my love for you is rock-solid: I hope to spend lots of time with you in the future – I want to have you over for dinner, or we can go out for movies or concerts. I will always love you and want to spend time with you. So although I can't attend, never think that I'm rejecting you.” There you have it; it's not difficult at all. It's the same thing as your friend or co-worker inviting you to the bar for a drunken Friday night of what people call “fun.” You can take a pass on that event, but make plans for pizza and a movie on another night. When true friends know about your convictions and your continued affection for them, they'll respect you. If they don't, they're no friends at all.
Having said that, let's be realistic. It is true that the cultural narrative sounds like this: “If you claim to love me, you must affirm and celebrate every choice I make. If you do not, you don't love me at all; in fact, you are hateful, condemning, whateverphobic, etc.” As I said, that is a false premise, and it must be gently but firmly refused. The reality is that certain people might come with a request or an invitation that is also a test. They come with a pre-set agenda, and if you fail their test, they have already decided to part company with you after a hail of insults. The Christian is not bound in such cases; we are not bound to live as if untruths are true. If the grandson were to part company with his grandmother in Begg's scenario, she would not be drawing away from him. He would be drawing away from her. She would remain where she always was: ready with open arms to welcome him and forgive any insult.
Marriage is an institution created by God, for His glory. It is not the prerogative of humans to decide what it is and what it isn't. If this seems a controversial statement, it is only an indication of how far our society has distanced itself from the truth of God’s Word. The divine ordination of marriage goes straight back to the Creation, when God formed Eve to be Adam’s companion and helper through life. Each of them would amplify each other’s strengths and strengthen each other’s weaknesses. When God presented her to him, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Gen. 2:23) And verse 24 announces God’s inauguration of the institution of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” This is God’s signature and seal of approval upon what He has created. In the New Testament, both Jesus (Matt. 19:1-6) and Paul (Eph. 5:31) reference and affirm the Genesis account. Jesus sealed His blessing upon the wedding at Cana of Galilee with His first miracle, and Paul tells us that human marriage is a parable of Christ’s sanctifying ministry to, and eternal union with, His Bride, the Church.
Baptists often seem shy of the term “sacrament,” but marriage is still a means of grace by which the love and commitment of Christ to His Church is dramatized in a way more powerful and relatable, in human terms, than anything else could be. God knew what He was doing at His institution of marriage. It’s His handiwork, not ours, and only He can say what it is. This seems surprising in our modern context, because humans believe they can define whatever reality they want through laws, court decisions and cultural pressure. But regardless of what governments and courts decide, they are attempting to declare something that simply does not exist. They may decide to call it marriage, but it is no more real than a square circle or an odd even number. So to attend a counterfeit “wedding” is to participate in a falsehood. To go would be to participate in a lie. Worse than this: it would give tacit assent to what constitutes a desecration of a divinely-authored sacrament and an offense to God. The “couple” would be taking vows to continue in sin for the rest of their lives. To be there, even out of an expression of loving support? - my conscience could never permit it, and if I loved the person, it would make me weep openly to witness it.
Let us face the truth: despite what we may say, actions speak louder than words. Whatever statements we may issue to our unbelieving friends about our values, how we live out those values and make our choices will be interpreted as what we really think. If a Christian gave a consistent, verbal witness to a loved one that Biblically, certain things were right and certain things were wrong -- and then if he went against his professions by attending a sacrilegious, false “wedding” -- his presence and gift would be interpreted as affirmation by the loved one and other non-believers in attendance. That would jeopardize Christian witness to a degree that I could never counsel a person to do this. It is essential to keep the larger picture front and center: this is a Gospel issue, and eternal souls are at stake. If I really love someone, the supreme expression of that love would be a consistent witness, spoken and lived, to show that person the reality of human sin and need of Jesus as Savior. We all need to turn away from sin, trust in Jesus and follow Him as King. If that person I love is offended by my witness, it would be worth the relationship strain if one day, they come to Jesus and experience eternal life.
The last point I’d like to make at this time is that we need to properly understand the interaction between Jesus and sinners. When Begg was met by a tide of criticism by so many friends and leaders, he gave a follow-up sermon to defend his position. It was delivered a bit hotly; I think he’d have done himself a larger favor by letting the emotions subside. As it was, he said a few unfair things which seemed driven by emotion. One of which, he labeled those who disagreed with him as “Pharisees,” and contrasted their attitude with that of Jesus. Begg spoke of the Pharisees’ obsession with maintaining their purity; they went to great lengths so that the filthiness of sinful people could never defile their ceremonial cleanliness. Thus, they avoided all contact with Gentiles, Hellenized Jews, tax collectors, and even common people who were illiterate – they couldn’t read the Torah, and thus, were likely sinners in their ignorance. On the other hand, Begg lauded the “free and easy fraternization” of Jesus with sinners. He went to their houses, ate with them, and taught them freely. He was the Doctor who came to help the sick. Citing Luke 15, Begg said that Jesus is like the father who yearns to have the prodigal son at home. All of these things are absolutely right. And those are the kinds of examples Begg marshalled to demonstrate why it would be appropriate for a Christian to attend an unholy union.
The problem is that Begg left his depiction of Jesus half-finished—and he left out the more important half. It is true that Jesus freely befriended and ate with sinners; we rejoice that this is true! But, none of Begg’s detractors were playing the part of the Pharisee; none of them called for disassociating from sinful people. They were simply saying that as followers of Jesus, they could not come with them to the place of their sinful behavior and, by their silence, support them in those sins. Jesus did not sit and while away the hours conversing with prostitutes where they plied their questionable trade. He did not accompany drunkards to their drinking binges. He did not affirm Matthew or Zacchaeus in their swindling lives as tax collectors; He bid them to walk away from that life. Jesus did not affirm the adulterous woman in her adultery; He offered forgiveness, a second chance, and a command: “Go, and sin no more.” Some of Begg’s supporters have suggested that Jesus would be present and smiling at a transgender wedding; I would call that take blasphemous. Jesus befriended sinners to call them to new lives; He never sat, silent, in the face of sin to avoid harming a relationship. We all know that He gave plenty of offense in the service of loving, life-giving truth.
My brothers and sisters, it is more important than ever that we deeply know the Word of God and how it speaks to a great myriad of issues in daily life. We must study, pray and think, so that we will be ready when it’s time for us to offer counsel or make a decision that will either help or hinder our witness. We must also reclaim the balance that we are called to walk, keeping Truth in one hand, and love in the other. Paul calls us to this in Ephesians 4:14-16. Our culture insists on creating a dichotomy between truth and love; we must deny this premise. When we do, Paul writes that “we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
Your Brother and Servant--
Pastor Scott.