When the Church Proudly Embraces Sin, does it invite the affliction of mental illness?

I believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. If you were to ask me if I believe in Mental Illness I would have to say that I do not believe in its intrinsic finality, whether it be psychosis or depression, schizophrenia or obsessive compulsive disorder, addictions or psychopathic behaviour and I acknowledge that many people, including Christians, suffer from these conditions. I prefer to suggest that we have been conditioned to accept these illnesses as natural and unavoidable. We've been told the statistics. The CMHA has said that one in 4 or 5 of us could be suffering a mental illness at any one time. This is an obvious exaggeration obtained by including everything from bad manners to psychopathic criminal activities. Nevertheless, whatever its actual extent, the rate of severe illness is still too high. The recent behavior of some church leaders, together with the virtual lack of teaching, in our churches, about the connections between spiritual and mental health, raises a stark question.

Is the church today promoting mental illness?

Bill Muehlenberg writes in 'When the Church Proudly Embraces Sin'
(see http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/16/when-the-church-proudly-embraces-sin/ )

'A half century ago A.W. Tozer preached these words: “This is the day of excusing sin instead of purging sin. An entire school of thought has developed justifying sin within the church and trying to prove that sin is perfectly normal, and therefore acceptable.”

If this was true back then, how much more so is it today? Indeed, we find examples of the church embracing sin instead of rebuking sin on a regular basis. And tragically, many of these churches take great pride in their affirmation and endorsement of known sin.

Consider this headline found in today’s press: “US Anglican church ordains lesbian bishop”. The article opens with these words: “A 56-year-old lesbian was ordained as a bishop by the Episcopal church on Saturday, reigniting an issue that has caused bitter divisions in the Anglican movement worldwide. Mary Glasspool became only the second openly gay bishop to be consecrated by the Episcopal Church – the governing Anglican body in the United States – after Gene Robinson was ordained in 2003.”

So how in the world can an entire denomination get things so wrong here? How can they simply throw out the clear teachings of Scripture on all this? There would be many reasons, but most have to do with embracing the homosexual agenda – hook, line and sinker – while rejecting the Bible as God’s authoritative word to us.

These so-called Christians have simply bought every myth being perpetrated by the radical homosexual lobby. There are many such myths, but one of the most often repeated ones is the idea that people are born homosexual. And amazingly some Christians have completely bought into this.

Thus they claim that “Homosexuality is a gift from God” or “God made me this way, so how can it be wrong?” As one example, a group of leaders and lecturers at one Melbourne theological institution wrote, “We believe God has made some people homosexual.”

A simple response is that God has not made anyone to be sinful. But because we live in a fallen world, everyone is born with a depraved and fallen nature. So even if certain people feel a same-sex attraction from a very young age, this does not make God the author of that attraction. It is a result of living in a fallen world.

Moreover, if God made people to be sinners (be it homosexuality or any other kind of sin), how can God then condemn such sin? It is simply not fair for God to condemn homosexuals or murderers or adulterers if God made them that way.

But people tend to argue from their experience back to Scripture, instead of letting Scripture be the judge of experience. Thus even if we concede with some that they may have felt same-sex desire for as long as they can remember, that still does not mean God made them that way. Nor does it mean that such desires are therefore acceptable. As psychologists Jones and Yarhouse put it, “The Christian church has never taught that all our desires come from God, has never taught that all our desires are good, and has never taught that every desire, even every good desire, ought to be fulfilled. A heterosexual man’s lust for a woman who is not his wife does not come from God and is not a good desire, and should not be indulged.”

The issue of a genetic basis of homosexuality cannot here be explored, although I have written extensively on the issue elsewhere. But even if a small percentage of the homosexual condition can be attributed to a genetic factor, that still speaks of living in a sin-stained world. And it still does not excuse people of not availing themselves of the saving and healing power of Christ to set them free from that situation. I again cite Jones and Yarhouse:

“At the broadest level all humans are heirs to a predisposition that we have not chosen and that propels us toward self-destruction and evil – our sinful nature. The plight of the homosexual who has desires and passions that he or she did not choose is in fact the common plight of humanity. We all face the same challenge: how are we to live when what we want is out of accord with what God tells us we should want in this life?”

And even if we are born with various desires which seem to real and so natural, we still have the ability to say no to them, especially when they are not in our best interest, or when they are clearly contrary for God’s design for us. We are not robots nor are we animals. We can say no to harmful desires and tendencies, and say yes to what is right.

Indeed, that is how civilization works. As William F. Buckley once put it, “Civilization is about curbing appetites”. No society can last long if it simply says we should give in to every appetite, passion and desire that comes our way.

Christians of all people should know this. That we should say no to passion and desire which is not in accordance with God’s purposes for us should be obvious to every Bible-believing Christian. Sure, in a fallen world we will all be born with proclivities, desires and tendencies which are not of God. But we certainly do not need to just give in to them.

In fact, even with this fallen and sinful orientation, we can still determine whether or not we act out those inclinations and desires. We are not so utterly fallen that we have absolutely no say in the matter. We still enjoy God’s common grace.

Believers should never excuse sin just because we have a leaning toward something, or a desire for something. The Christian life is all about saying no to bad desires, and doing that which is right. Even a non-believer does not excuse all evil by appealing to desire. We certainly do not excuse a child molester and say, “well, he was just acting out his natural orientation’.

Frank Turek puts it this way: “Let’s suppose that scientists someday discover a genetic contribution to homosexual desires. Would that give license to behavior? No, all of us have desires that we ought not to act on. In other words, we were all born with an ‘orientation’ to bad behavior, but desires don’t justify the behavior. For example, some may have a genetic predisposition to alcohol, but who would advocate alcoholism? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that justify pedophilia? What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to violence justifies gay-bashing? (Born gay? What if the gay-basher was born mean?). Desires do not justify behaviors. In fact, there is a word we use to describe the disciplined restraint of destructive desires – it’s called ‘civilization’.”

Because of the Fall, we all come into this world as sinful, selfish beings. But the good news of the Gospel is that God has come to deal with the sin question and to set us free from our addiction to self, to selfishness, and to every sinful desire. We are clearly instructed to resist and overcome sinful desires, not simply give in to them.

Turek is worth quoting some more here: “But let’s suppose that some homosexuals cannot change their orientation. Does that mean they cannot control their behavior? Why do we expect pedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals? Because we know pedophiles are human beings who can choose not to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else. We also demand them to resist their desires because our children will not be safe if they don’t….

“The truth is, sexual behaviour is not compulsory. It is always a choice. We all must resist our sexual urges at times. And while it’s not desirable, some do so for their entire lives and never have sex. That’s possible for people with any sexual desire. After all, if I honestly believe that I’ve been born with heterosexual desires, am I required to engage in heterosexual acts? Am I not capable of controlling my sexual desires and remaining celibate? If you claim that I am not, then you have also made the absurd contention that no one in the history of the world has ever been morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.”

The US Episcopalians should know better. But instead they have chosen to reject God and his word and have instead embraced the lies of the homosexual lobby. The Apostle Paul spoke about this situation 2000 years ago: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Rom 1:24-25).'

******************************************************

The Canadian Church is also abandoning its foundation. Its teachings about sin mirror its effectiveness in helping people with mental illness.

JUDGEMENT IS AT HAND!

Anglican Church in North America soars on motion of recognition from the Synod of the Church of England

It is recorded that Jesus spoke the following to His Almighty Father:
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

The following is taken from a letter written by David Virtue and can be found at www.virtueonline.org

2/12/2010
Dear Brothers and Sisters

The vote (at Synod), when it came, stunned everybody. There were visible sounds from delegates and then brief applause. At 309 to 69 (reminiscent of the Lambeth resolution 1:10 vote 527 to 69), members of the Church of England Synod, the governing body of the church, unanimously voted to affirm The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and to recognize its existence as legitimately Anglican.

It was immediately hailed as another stepping-stone in orthodox Anglicanism, separating the true orthodox and evangelical faithful from Western pansexual Anglicanism.

When you consider where ACNA was a mere two years ago, this is a giant step forward. From a bishop deposed in his diocese, publicly humiliated by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, and despised by liberal and revisionist bishops in The Episcopal Church, The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, (leader of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of a dying church into the pure, clear air of an Anglicanism that has identified with Scripture, the creeds, and the vast majority of Global South Anglicans.

The truth about why the vote went as it did was this. When the Rev. Canon Simon Butler (Sanderstead) got up and accused the motion makers of lying and invoked the ninth commandment about bearing false witness, he blew everybody away. No one, especially this august body likes to be told they are liars or potential liars. He overplayed his hand. Now the other truth is this; had the original Ashworth motion been allowed to stand, based on voting figures she would have lost, but only by 60-40 - that is 233-166.

The truth is, there is only a small handful of revisionists In the Church of England (unlike the US), the large majority of which are broad church but not necessarily liberal. Unlike their American counterparts they can be persuaded with solid arguments. TEC revisionists specialize in emotion and cries of homophobia. That does not play so well here. The British are rationalists. They don't get jerked around by emotional displays of feelings. Make your case or shut up. Appealing simply to emotion won't do.

First to acknowledge the victory was the Bishop of Winchester, The Rt. Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt who promptly said he would welcome Archbishop Duncan into his diocese to preach and confirm. Will this lead to more ACNA bishops crossing the pond to preach and perform Eucharist functions with the blessing of local bishops? Time will tell. Anyway you look at it, a door has been opened that will not now close. The liberals and revisionists can scream all they want, but this week the Anglican Communion lurched rightward and away from the secular humanism and political (read sexual) correctness that now fills Episcopal pulpits.

On hearing the news, Archbishop Duncan wrote to VOL to say that the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America is very pleased with the result. While not the original straightforward motion of Lorna Ashworth, the (Bishop of Bristol) Michael Hill amendment speaks of us "remaining in the Anglican family."You can only remain in something of which you are a part. Bishop Hill also spoke of his purpose "to encourage those in the Anglican Church in North America." That encouragement carried 309 to 69.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians affirm, in contrast to all other views, that history is 'his story', God's story. For God is at work, moving from a plan conceived in eternity, through a historical outworking and disclosure, to a climax within history, and then on beyond it to another eternity of the future. The Bible has this linear understanding of time. And it tells us that the centre of God's eternal-historical plan is Jesus Christ, together with his redeemed and reconciled people. --- From "The Message of Ephesians" (The Bible Speaks Today) John R.W. Stott

Our Christian doctrines of creation and redemption tell us that God wants (all of) his gifted people to be fulfilled not frustrated, and his church to be enriched by their service. --- From "Issues Facing Christians Today" by John R.W. Stott

One day (known only to the Father), when the gospel has been 'preached in the whole world as a testimony to the nations' (Mt. 24:13), the end will come. For Christ will return in glory, terminate the historical process and perfect his reign. --- Quoted from Bultmann's "History and Eschatology" by George Eldon Ladd in "The Gospel of the Kingdom"

Theology and the Scientific Method

It is sometimes stated that theological statements cannot be tested by the scientific method. This must be absurd. Any hypothesis may be judged according to whether or not its truth can be determined objectively. The major flaw in the scientific method, from the point of view of the theologian, is its insistence that the scientist has an explainable but minimal, even neglible, impact on his world. He or she devises and conducts an experiment to test a theory and hopes for confirmation from others to confirm observations, analyses and conclusions. He assumes that his observations were not influenced by his presence. Quantum mechanics has suggested that this is not entirely true and that reality is effectively determined as and when it is experientially observed.

The question of the existence of God has not been tested according to the scientific method precisely because the wrong experiments are tried. Is it possible to test the existence of a divine being? Might it be necessary to set aside the separation of the scientist from his experiment to perform an effective test? What if the scientist must be subjectively involved before a result can be obtained? This does not negate the condition that any conclusions must be subject to independent verification. It merely points toward the need to reconfigure the experiment. The method itself is not compromised.

In fact the theologian reminds the scientist that he/she is always involved subjectively in the pursuit of science and that his/her apparently negligible influence upon his/her experiments can be greatly multiplied in the application of his conclusions in the world outside the laboratory.

We live in a world in which monetary policy is not fully approved or even understood before it is implemented. Wars are waged without consultation and agreement. Expensive medicines are developed before cheaper alternatives are tried. Dangerous chemicals find their way into the ecosystem because ethical guidelines are not considered.

Assuredly, the social sciences are in a different category than the physical sciences. The proper use of the method requires that the scientist take into account his/her presence and modify his/her behaviour. Theology might then be restored to one of its honoured roles as monitor and cleanser of society's ills.