I Don’t Want to Be Nuanced
We don’t need to guess what God really believes about sexuality, abortion, and critical race theory. The Bible is clear about these things. It isn’t nuanced, so we shouldn’t be either.
One of the biggest criticisms I receive over my blog and social media posts is also one of the biggest compliments I receive.
Some people say I am not nuanced. But considering its meaning, that isn’t a criticism, it’s a compliment.
Actually, I think nuance is one of the biggest problems with evangelicals today.
I don’t want to be nuanced.
Nuance is one of the reasons why many professing Christians get abortions. 20% of American women who get an abortion go to church at least once a week. Meaning, 200,000 babies are murdered every year in America by people who regularly go to church.
Nuance is also one of the reasons why many Christians have embraced critical race theory. Nuance is one of the reasons why many evangelical leaders and pastors have become ineffective in rescuing people from critical race theory and deconstruction.
This is because many evangelicals believe it’s divisive to speak clearly on controversial issues.
The Oxford Dictionary defines “nuance” as “a very slight difference in meaning, sound, color, or someone’s feelings that is not usually very obvious.”
“Nuance” is originally a Middle French word to describe making something more cloudy, shady, or subtle. Meaning, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says—“nuance” is making something “so subtle you might miss it.”
So when some evangelicals say we should be more nuanced on controversial issues like abortion and critical race theory—they’re (intentionally or unintentionally) suggesting our words on abortion and critical race theory should be “so subtle others might miss it.”
Naturally, that explains why many Christians are confused about critical race theory. Nuance is also apparently why some evangelicals claim the Bible “whispers on sexual sin”.
But God doesn’t whisper on controversial issues. God isn’t nuanced. He isn’t vague.
You Might also like
-
Overture 9 from Arizona Presbytery Asks the 50th PCA GA to Amend BCO 7 By Adding a New Paragraph
Arizona Presbytery approved an overture at its January 19,2023 meeting, asking the 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to “Amend BCO 7 to Codify the Biblical Standard for Church Officers Related to Human Sexuality”
In 2022, the 49th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) , approved sending Overture 15 to the Presbyteries to consider ratifying wording for BCO 7-4. Amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) require that 2/3 of the Presbyteries give their assent to proposed overtures. Overture 15 failed to receive the necessary votes. This overture presents new wording for BCO 7-4 for the 50th GA to consider at its June meeting.
Overture 9 presents proposed wording to amend BCO 7 by adding a fourth paragraph on qualifications for church office. The overture presents some underlying reasons in its request to GA: It states that, “the preservation of chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior in oneself is an indispensable duty and qualification for office (1 Tim.3:2; Titus 1:5-9).”
It adds further, that “in the beginning God created them “male and female” after his own image and likeness and ordained the first marriage and family consisting of one man and one woman in sexual union, establishing the divine intention for human sexuality (Gen. 15 1:27-28; 2:24; 4:1).”
And furthermore, “any expression of sexual attraction or sexual intimacy that is not directed toward the fulfillment of a lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is contrary to nature and to nature’s God (Lev. 20:15-16; Rom. 1:26-27; Col. 3:5; 20 WLC28; WLC139; WLC148).”
The overture then proposes this wording to be added as BCO 7-4: “Men who deviate–whether by declared conviction, self-description, lifestyle decisions, or overt practice–from God’s creational intention for human sexuality are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”
An overture is a means by which a Presbytery can bring a matter to the GA for consideration. This overture will be considered by the 50th PCA General Assembly at its meeting in Memphis, Tenn., June 12-16, 2023.OVERTURE 9 from Arizona PresbyteryTo 50th PCA GA“Amend BCO 7 to Codify the Biblical Standard for Church OfficersRelated to Human Sexuality”
Whereas, the sins of officers are more heinous by virtue of their office (2 Sam.12:7-9; Ezek. 6 8:11-12; Rom. 2:17-24; Gal. 2:11-14; Jas. 3:1; WLC 151); and
Whereas, the preservation of chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior in oneself is an indispensable duty and qualification for office (1 Tim.3:2; Titus 1:5-9); and
Whereas, in the beginning God created them “male and female” after his own image and likeness and ordained the first marriage and family consisting of one man and one woman in sexual union, establishing the divine intention for human sexuality (Gen. 15 1:27-28; 2:24; 4:1); and
Whereas, any expression of sexual attraction or sexual intimacy that is not directed toward the fulfillment of a lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is contrary to nature and to nature’s God (Lev. 20:15-16; Rom. 1:26-27; Col. 3:5; 20 WLC28; WLC139; WLC148):
Therefore, be it resolved that The Book of Church Order Chapter 7 be amended such that a new paragraph, BCO 7-4, be added, to read as follow: (new words underlined):
7-4. Men who deviate–whether by declared conviction, self-description, lifestyle decisions, or overt practice–from God’s creational intention for human sexuality are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Adopted by the Arizona Presbytery at its stated meeting January 19, 2023Attested by /s/ RE Richard Wolfe, stated clerk
Related Posts: -
The Multiple “Adams” of Scripture
Jesus is the last Adam, not the second Adam. Moreover, this only makes sense if there really were other “Adams”—other people who were given the priest-king vocation of the first Adam to subdue and rule, and through whom the world would be blessed with God’s presence, such as Noah, Abraham, the nation of Israel, and David. Jesus was not just the fulfilment of myths; He was the fulfilment of what God made man to be, and always wanted him to be. Jesus is the climax of salvation history; a history that began with the creation of the first Adam.
Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). But did any other ‘Adams’ came before him? At least one, of course: the first Adam. But were there others who filled the Adamic role laid out in Genesis 1–2? In 1 Corinthians 15:45–47, there is an important contrast. Drawing on Genesis 2:7, Paul calls Adam ‘the first man Adam’, but he refers to Jesus in two different ways: Jesus is ‘the last Adam’ (v. 45) and ‘the second man’ (v. 47). Some think, therefore, that ‘second man’ is a synonym for ‘second Adam’,1,2 since as a ‘second Adam’ Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation.3 However, we must respect Paul’s precision—he calls Jesus ‘the last Adam’, not the ‘second Adam’. The term ‘second Adam’ does not appear in the Bible. Moreover, a review of biblical figures central to the history of redemption shows that the first Adam was not the only person given the Adamic commissions before the last Adam. We find that Jesus was the last in a series of ‘Adams’ whom God commissioned in much the same way as He commissioned the first Adam.
Adam: God’s first priest-king
Genesis 2:7 neither names Adam nor calls the ‘man’ God made from the dust the ‘first’ man. However, Paul makes that connection clear by adding the two words ‘first’ and ‘Adam’ to his quote of Genesis 2:7 in 1 Corinthians 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being [emphases added]’” (figure 1). Paul clearly believed that the ‘man’ made on Day 6 of Creation Week in Genesis 1:26–27 was the same man God made in Genesis 2:7. This is perfectly consistent with how Jesus, according to Mark 10:6–8, read Genesis 2 as an expansion of specific events on Day 6 of the Creation Week.4
Adam was a special man. He was the first ever human, and he is the father of us all: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).5 As such, he was given a special role. God gave him, with Eve, dominion over the earth: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (Genesis 1:28). Though this applied to Adam and Eve together, Adam was given the first task of exercising dominion over the earth by naming the animals (Genesis 2:19–20). Adam thus was given rule, and had a primacy of authority even among humans, since he is the one from whom all other humans have come. This all suggests Adam was the first king over creation.
The Garden of Eden was also special. God’s special meeting place with Adam was like the later tabernacle and temple.6 The golden lampstand in the tabernacle and temple likely symbolized the Tree of Life.7 The eastern gate to the Garden was guarded by cherubim (Genesis 3:24) just as the tabernacle entrance faced East (Exodus 27:13–16, Numbers 3:38) and both the tabernacle and temple were guarded by cherubim (Exodus 25:18–22; 26:31; 1 Kings 6:23–29). Furthermore, Adam was commissioned to ‘serve and obey’ God (Genesis 2:15–16). The same sort of commission, using the same words, was given to the priests and Levites who served in the tabernacle and temple (Numbers 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 1 Chronicles 23:32; Ezekiel 44:14).8,9 These points indicate Adam met with God and served Him in the garden ‘tabernacle’.10 They indicate Adam mediated God’s presence and blessing in creation. This suggests that Adam was the first priest.
… we suggest Adam was a priest-king: he ruled as a king over creation and served in God’s garden in Eden as a priest served in the tabernacle and temple.
Thus, we suggest Adam was a priest-king: he ruled as a king over creation and served in God’s garden in Eden as a priest served in the tabernacle and temple. But He failed in his role. He sinned by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God told him not to eat from. And so, sin, decay, and death came into the world and infected the human race (Romans 5:12).11 And the whole world was subjected to futility (Romans 8:20–22).12 Man had made himself futile, so God made the world he was set over futile and thrust Adam from His special presence in the Garden.
Noah: A new Adam for a new beginning
After Adam, things only got worse as his corrupted ‘likeness’ (Genesis 5:3) spread. His first son murdered another son (Genesis 4). All but the best of his sons was beset with death (Genesis 5). And the earth eventually became full of violence and evil (Genesis 6:5, 11). So, God decided to destroy the earth with a Flood. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8).
Judgment would come on the old world, but a new world would arise afterwards. God would start again with Noah as a new ‘Adam’ for a new world.13 So, as God brought the animals to Adam for him to name (Genesis 2:19–20), He brought them to Noah to save on the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20). And after the Flood, when Noah came out of the Ark, Noah took up a priestly role and offered up acceptable sacrifices to God (Genesis 8:20) (figure 2).
In response, God reiterated to Noah the blessings he gave to Adam (Genesis 9:1–7). God told Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply”. God gave them the kingly role of dominion over the animals. Although this time they were not commanded to take dominion; they were promised dominion. And this time the animals were given to them to eat, as plants were in Genesis 1. And, in light of the violence that existed before the Flood, new commands were given: no eating blood, and no shedding the blood of man.
But a new promise was also given: God would never again send a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow reminds us of God’s promise. Indeed, this promise indicates that, whatever floods have happened since, none have been so severe as to “destroy all flesh”. And only a global flood could destroy all flesh. Thus, Noah’s Adamic role reminds us that the Flood must have been global. The promises God gave after the Flood show that it was a new beginning for all creation.
Indeed, there are many literary parallels between Noah and Adam that suggest that Noah is a ‘second Adam’:Each is a father from whom all mankind is descended.
God’s bringing the animals to Noah for transport in the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20) is reminiscent of his bringing them to Adam for naming (Genesis 2:19–20).
Once the animals were on board the Ark, Noah was responsible for their preservation, fulfilling an element of man’s covenantal sovereignty originally assigned to mankind through Adam (Genesis 1:26).
God made a covenant with each of them—the Covenant of Creation14 with Adam and the New World Covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:9-17)—and each acted as a human mediator who represented all of mankind.
Each was given an earth, devoid of humans, and a command and a blessing to multiply and fill it with inhabitants (Genesis 1.28; 9:1).
Both had a relationship with the ground. Adam was created of the ground, and his name is derived from the Hebrew word for ‘ground’. In Noah’s case, the word ‘soil’ (Genesis 9:20 where he is called ‘a man of the soil’) is the same word translated elsewhere as ‘ground’ or ‘land’ (e.g. Genesis 6:7, 20).
Both had duties related to tending plants from which they could consume the fruit (Genesis 2:15; 9:20). Adam tended the garden that God had planted (Genesis 2:8) and Noah planted a vineyard (Genesis 9:20).
Both committed sins related to consuming fruit. Adam ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:7). Noah became drunk consuming a by-product of the fruit of the vine (Genesis 9:21).
The shame of nakedness was associated with their sins (Genesis 3:7, 10–11; 9:21).
Their nakedness had to be covered by others (Genesis 3:21; 9:23).
Both had to toil to maintain their livelihoods from the cursed ground.
Both of their personal sins introduced conflict into their families—Cain murdered Abel (Genesis 4:8) and was banished from his brothers (Genesis 4:12), and Canaan (Noah’s grandson) became a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:25–26).
Both had sons (Cain and Ham) who committed sins, which became defining sins for their age.
Both had immediate descendants who were cursed (Genesis 4:11; 9:25).
Both lived for almost a millennium—Adam, 930 years; Noah, 950 years.
The eventual death of each, as the result of the Curse (Genesis 2:17), is reported with similar words “all the days” (Genesis 5:5; 9:29).
Despite their sin, both walked with God (implied in Genesis 3:8, and 6:9) and both believed God and took Him at His word (implied in Genesis 3:20 and 4:1, and 6:22).Even though Noah is not called a ‘second Adam’, he acted in such a capacity.
Both knew that God required shed blood and animal sacrifices as a type for the ultimate Atonement which man needs to cover sin (Genesis 4:4; 8:20).
Both were blessed by God, with the same blessing (Genesis 1:28; 9:1).Read More
Related Posts: -
The United Methodist Reckoning
In following the developments over the past four years, one thing has been clear: The name United Methodist is not enough to hold together groups that no longer see one another as united. For a movement which once boasted of a church in every county in America, the splintering of this denomination is a time to mourn. Time to mourn the loss of biblical fidelity within the liberal strains of the movement. Time to mourn that conservatives must come out of the church rather than be party to the hypocrisy that says one thing about sexuality while ignoring flagrant violations.
There is no longer a First United Methodist Church in my hometown. The day after the vote taken to leave the denomination, the church pastor was outside scraping the flame from behind the cross logo painted on the glass doors and covering the church sign with a garbage bag. As of yet, there is no word on what the new name of the church will be.
The picture of black plastic covering church signs, logos scaped off, and contested debates about whether the church or denomination gets to keep the hymnals is one I imagine is fairly common across the country now. According to estimates, one-fourth of the churches within the United Methodist Church—the nation’s second largest Protestant body—have chosen to disaffiliate because the denomination has failed to be faithful to Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage.
The past four years have seen a flurry of attempts by Methodists to reckon with their own inconsistency on the topic of sexuality and biblical fidelity. The 2019 General Conference (the gathering of representatives from the United Methodist Church) passed the Traditional Plan, which would have affirmed the Book of Discipline’s statement that no “self-avowed practicing homosexual” could be ordained to the clergy and that homosexuality was incompatible with the Christian life. It also created a process for bringing charges against churches, individuals, and conferences that were breaking the rules. There was also a provision included that allowed churches to leave the denomination with their property, provided they did so by the end of 2023. Initially this would have allowed liberal denominations to leave, but following the announcement that some groups would refuse to enforce the Traditional Plan, it was conservatives who began to exit.
Read More
Related Posts: