I find it interesting that people often like to bring up science to back their theological theories and beliefs, as if science has authority over everything, including God. But should you bring up more authoritative science results, they suddenly reject it. Why? Because most often, they’re using science in order to justify their sin and sinful agendas.
In Winter, 2017, while manning the control board for Rebel Radio (which at the time was located in the NIU, Naperville campus building)., there was a tour going through the area. As they came by, I invited them into the studio to check it out.
One guy asked me if I have a job anywhere else, and I told him I’m looking, mentioning that I have a background in radio, and I’m also a minister, so I’m looking for something in one of those or in between.
As they all began to continue with the tour, one older fellow, who identified himself as an elder of his church, asked me about what sort of ministry I’m looking for, am I ordained, what denomination am I with, etc. I explained that I’m not ordained, for the Lord’s never called me to become ordained. However, I had been doing Youth Ministry for over 10 years, do have my M.Div. and a certificate in Youth Ministry.
When he asked me what I’m looking to do, I replied, “Anything that God calls me to do.” I then explained that I didn’t really want to do Youth Ministry anymore, but I would if God called me to do so. “I’m more interested in being maybe an Executive Minister or Associate Pastor, but I don’t feel qualified to be a Sr. Pastor.” We both agreed that such is more like being a CEO of a company, depending on the denomination or church size. Then he explained to me about how their Pastor is shared by a couple churches because they can’t afford to pay him for a full position. But to give an example, he then explained about how his minister’s gay and has a partner. Hearing this made me curious, so I asked him what denomination. He said United Church of Christ. I said I figured (that, or the ELCA).
In response to his reaction, I explained that I don’t believe in gay clergy and gave a very brief explanation about why. He said, “Oh, you’re more on the Catholic view.” I said, “No, I’m with the Biblical view.” He tried to say that the Bible’s not really clear about it, and I explained that it — it’s very clear, and Paul went into it, also. And to bring it back to the original conversation, I explained that I’ve read (and may still have) the UCC’s report on their take of homosexuality, and as one who’s studied the Greek, I can say that it’s a huge misinterpretation of the Greek, and much like a topical sermon where they bent the scripture to make it fit their agenda.
Bringing Science Into the Discussion
To counter my claim, he brought in information about a friend of his who has a Ph.D., and researched that on homosexuality and the Scripture, of course trying to give authority on his disagreement (but there are a billion false teachers with Ph.D’s), so I used the example about how the the gay gene doesn’t exist. I explained to him that all the researchers who attempted to repeat the results tried everything under the sun, but couldn’t find anything biological. Instead, they found that it was actually environmental. When I said that, the way this guy responded makes me wonder if he’s gay, because he immediately rejected that possibility, and had a personal experience-type of vibe to him.
To support his disagreement, he brought in his Ph.D friend’s research and said he found nothing like that, but instead explained that ‘in the same way that plants have male/female and become different from others, so we also have choices about what we feel (or something like that), and if we feel more comfortable being a woman than a man, then that’s OK, or natural’ (or something).
Returning to the Topic of Sin
Instead of allowing this rabbit trail to take us off the issue, I tried to bring it back to sin, but he wouldn’t accept it. His take was that we’re all human and imperfect. “You’re forgiven, so you’re good.”
But at that, I said, “Yeah, but don’t do it again. There needs to be repentance”. His argument was that we’re human and can’t help but to sin. I tried to explain though that a leader in the Church is held to a higher standard because he’s leading people (and explained about how a professor of mine in seminary actually answered his call kicking and screaming because he didn’t want to be held at a higher standard, should he fail). So I then tried to give an example of sin, asking, “I’m married. if I’m a minister and sleeping around, that’s wrong, right?” He said, “well, maybe, maybe not. What you do in private is your business.” (wow!)
He was trying to say that sinning is just natural because we’re human and can’t help it. But when I explained that sin separates us from God, he disagreed and didn’t want to hear anymore. He literally left the room in a hurry, fleeing, continuing to reject what I said. My last words were that if we’re part of the Body of Christ, we need to be held accountable.
Justifying Sin
Unfortunately, this is a common problem today (and apparently, was also in Paul’s day) – justifying sin. They’ve thrown away the Grace of God and everything about loving God back. Instead, it’s all about accepting salvation, continuing in your sin, and never repenting for your sin again. Yeah, we’re human, and humans sin, but as ones who’ve given our lives over to Jesus, we should be avoiding every opportunity to sin. Also, there’s that saying, “we were born this way”. Yeah, true, but once in Christ, we’re baptized and born again (from above). So claiming that we’re humans and that humans sin, so there’s nothing we can do about it, is rejecting Christ in our lives and the grace He’s freely given us; It’s accepting defeat – ‘Yeah, Jesus pulled me out of the mud-filled pool, but man, I just can’t help but continue to fall back into it.’ – Well, ya could if you walked with Jesus and kept as far away from the pool of mud as possible, because if you’re nowhere near the pool, you can’t fall into it, right?
There’s also the part about denying ourselves if we wish to be a disciple of Jesus – deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Him. But that denial of self is a huge part, for it rejects the sin that covered us previously, and yeah, we deny ourselves daily of this sin, but the main decision was when we said we wanted to follow Jesus instead. Paul also asked the exact question in Romans, “So then should we keep on sinning so we can experience the awesome grace of Christ more fully?” And his answer literally was, “HAYLL no!”
Why the Bible Can’t Conflict Itself
However, when you look at this discussion with the older fellow, yeah, he rejected being saved from his sin, but even worse, he justified his sin, and even rejected it as being sin. He wouldn’t even acknowledge that it was sin (and we’re talking about something that the Bible clearly says is sin – If it says in one place that homosexuality is a sin, and in another place that it’s not, then the Bible conflicts with itself, for it’s inconsistent. And if the Bible’s inconsistent or conflicts with itself, then it can’t be the Holy Word of God and has no authority. And if the Bible has no authority and isn’t the True Word of God, then nothing in it can be true, for now it’s only relative to what we want to believe is true, since there’s no way of knowing now. So when God tells His people not to be gay, and Paul rebukes homo and bi-sexuals, saying they have no part in the Kingdom of God, then any confusion anywhere else can’t exist – it all has to be the same stance. Otherwise, it can’t be from God, for God is known for being never-changing), but justified his right to sin, saying it’s natural and can’t be prevented.
Twisted Truth
And so, like I said in the beginning, this is an unfortunate issue among people who claim the name of Christ, and false teachers are teaching that this is correct. So the false teachers are as the blind, and their congregation are also blind, and as Jesus said, “The blind lead the blind and they both fall into a pit.” I tried to share the Truth with this fellow, but he rejected it. And it’s not so much that he’s blind, but that his eyes are closed. If he continues to keep them shut (or veiled), then yeah, he’ll fall into the pit with his blind leader. Will he open his eyes? I prayed he wrestles with our conversation and seeks God for the answers. I also prayed that he’ll realize the Truth and choose to follow it, instead of what he’s following now. I would love for him to realize the wrong he’s been taught and comes to fully accept, know, and follow Christ, but that’s in God’s hands now. I did my part in sharing the Truth. And that’s the problem, you see? When the Truth is twisted to where people are told it’s OK to sin, or to where it convinces sinners that such is not sin, they’ll become the most devout followers of that doctrine. However, when you use the same type of evidence to correct them, and show them the real Truth, they’ll reject it, even avoid you like the plague because they enjoyed sinning so much – they actually preferred the wrong over the Truth, even though the wrong will destroy them and the Truth will save them.
Reflecting On the Discussion:
Another interesting thing about this conversation is that he was the one who decided to bring science into the conversation in the first place (I wasn’t going to). I guess he was expecting to stump me with it, but I’ve done my research on the topic, also. The thing is though, if you’re going to bring in science as a source to back up your claim to truth, then you also need to accept the results of science when the results don’t agree with you. I mean, you can’t bring in science, claiming it as an authority, and then reject it when it disproves your side. But that’s exactly what he did – he brought science into the conversation in order to use his friend’s scientific research as authority to back his stance on sin. But when I told him of a scientific study done by many others in the biological field whose research all came up with different results, he rejected their findings. Why? Because their conclusions destroyed his preferred beliefs about his sin. Should I believe his 1 friend, just because he got his Ph.D. on such research, over the many others with Ph.D.’s who did the same research, and yet came up with a different conclusion? What sense would that make?
Please Leave a Reply