The service is scheduled to take place at 11 AM on April 19th. The link to join via stream is located below:

Our Ash Wednesday service will begin at 6:30 PM on February 14th. This year we share worship with our friends at First United Methodist Church.

The service for Margaret will take place on Tuesday, February 13th at 11 AM. Here is the link to the livestream:

This evening I will be sharing a message from Revelation 10 – “Preparing for Service in a World Gone Mad.” The sermon will start around 6:35 PM. Please note that there will be no Didache group this evening.

Friends,

From time to time, I feel the need to address important and even controversial questions. I do so for the sake of the church, that we might minister with both truth and grace. Please note that this is a long post. You can read it in PDF format or directly below. God bless you!

A Pastoral Essay on Homosexual Practice and the Bible

We live in confusing times. The uncertainties and conflicts of this era impact every person in our nation. As Christians, we feel some unique tensions. We are called to claim our citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) and yet somehow still live as citizens on earth. We are called to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9) who know that we live in a spiritual warzone (Eph. 6:12). We are called to offer the gentle yoke of Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30) and yet stand for truth and God’s moral order. We feel these tensions keenly during June, a month that is now dominated by the national celebration of LGBTQ+ Pride. Our President has clearly communicated that the full resources of the federal government should be deployed to support LGBTQ+ causes. Moreover, the culture makers of Hollywood, elite media organizations, and academia agree that society must abandon any type of bigotry toward “sexual minorities.” And then we look at the church. Recently, the Church of England approved the use of set prayers and liturgies to bless same-sex civil unions. This same body has also explored baptismal celebrations for those who transition gender identities and choose new names. In the US, we can observe substantial conflicts taking place in the United Methodist Church and the Christian Reformed Church. In both cases, some voices call for “full inclusion,” some voices call for “biblical fidelity,” and some voices don’t know what to think and simply wish the conflict would go away.

First Presbyterian Church is a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. We believe that the Christian sexual ethic can be stated in simple words. God intends sexual behavior to be restricted to a husband and a wife joined together in a monogamous, life-long marriage. When someone does not live within such a union, God calls this person to live in chastity, refraining from sexual behaviors with another person. Moreover, both married and single Christians are challenged to cultivate a pure mind in which sexual desire is ordered and bounded and lust is subjected to self-control. These are traditional teachings of the Christian church as a whole and are the official positions of our congregation. No one who serves in office in our church should hold another perspective. Of course, we also accept that things in this world do not live up to the ideal. We wrestle with divorce, remarriage, sexual sin of various sorts, and questions concerning mental health and sexual and gender identity. We lean heavily on the grace and mercy of Jesus in the complexities of life. Because there is so much confusion on these topics, I think it is helpful for Christians to have access to basic resources that help in articulating what we believe. In that spirit, the following thoughts are a simple guide to our commitment to biblically grounded, traditional views of marriage and sexuality. I will set out a brief whole Bible case for our commitment to man-woman marriage. Then, I will work through four questions concerning our ethical commitments.

A Whole Bible Case for Traditional Marriage

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). Notice that this is a complementary pair. There is differentiation, and yet the two combined speak of totality. Other pairs follow in the Genesis account – light and darkness, sea and dry land, and, at the pinnacle of God’s creation, men and women (Gen. 1:27). Each of these complementary pairs ultimately points to a greater union – the union of God and his creation. God is not his creation. The creation is not God. There is differentiation and yet there is union. The creation account also gives us the foundational picture of marriage – a man and a woman cleaving to one another in a one-flesh union (Gen. 2:23-25). If we flip to the end of the Bible, we find several interesting statements. We are told that God will bring about a new heaven and a new earth, a renewed complementary pair (Rev. 21:1). We read about another marriage: the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:6-9). The vision of the eschaton is the vision of God and his creation in a renewed relationship (Rev. 21:3). Genesis and Revelation form the bookends of the Bible. All of history tells a story of union between those entities which are differentiated: God and creation, and Christ and his church. The purpose of marriage will one day be fulfilled in the bliss of the resurrection (Mk. 12:25).

It is in this context that we come to understand that homosexuality is not part of God’s moral intention for his world. In the Old Testament, homosexual sexual practice was forbidden for the Jewish people (Lev. 18:22). In the New Testament, Paul lists homosexual practice as a sin from which Christians have been redeemed (1 Cor. 6:9-11).^{See note below.} The references to homosexuality in the first chapter of Romans are particularly instructive. There we find that inappropriate sexual relationships (Rom. 1:26-27) are the consequence of a primal idolatry: people fall into these sins because they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped creatures rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Remember the teaching of Genesis. Homosexuality is a confusion of the narrative of the coming together of God and creation; hence it thrives in a culture dominated by idolatry. Just as idolatry is one creature worshiping another, so homosexual sexual practice is one sexual partner joining together with a different sexual partner in a relationship of sameness, not differentiation.

What about Jesus? Though many people assert that Jesus did not address the issue of homosexuality, his teaching clearly excludes homosexual marriage or homosexual practice from Christian morality. First, Jesus taught about the danger of fornication (Mk 7:21). Fornication was a category of sexual sins that involved various deviations from the ideal sexual standard. Same-sex sexual practice, which was common in the Greco-Roman world, was included in this category. No one could reasonably conclude from Christ’s position on sexual immorality, that he would have accepted same-sex relationships, as there is no evidence that his use of the word fornication deviated from standard first-century Jewish uses of the term. If anything, Jesus found the teaching of many in his context to be too lax (Matt. 5:27-30). Second, Jesus clearly affirms the vision of marriage taught in Genesis 2 (Matt. 19:4-6). Jesus affirmed the Genesis ideal, and the early church followed Christ in affirming the teaching of Genesis. For example, they held that elders serving in the church should be faithful in marriage to one woman (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). So, where does this leave us? The narrative of the whole bible affirms the traditional vision of marriage as a covenant union between one man and one woman. It was taught in Genesis. It was codified in the Torah. It was affirmed by Jesus. It was advanced by the early Christians. It was appealed to in Revelation. Now, we may take up four questions concerning our traditional views of marriage and sexuality.

Things change between the Old Testament and the New Testament. How can Christians eat shellfish yet continue to forbid homosexual behavior?

It is true that many behaviors were restricted in the Old Testament, and yet many of those restrictions are no longer binding upon Christians. The food codes of the Israelites fall within this category. It is true that the ancient Israelites were not permitted to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:10). Yet Christians do not have to follow this prohibition. What changed? Jesus explicitly told his followers that all foods were clean (Mk. 7:19). Moreover, the church in Acts determined that Gentile Christians were not required to follow the food codes (Acts 15:23-29). This trajectory reveals an important principle for biblical interpretation: Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture. New Testament believers are permitted to do things forbidden to Old Testament Jewish believers when the progress of revelation recorded in the Bible makes it clear that such a change is authorized. No such change is authorized concerning sexual immorality. Notice specifically what the early church leaders gathered in Jerusalem wrote to Gentile followers of Jesus: “…that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell” (Acts 15:29). No to the food codes. Yes to traditional sexual morality. In making this decision, the Christians were simply echoing Jesus who declared all foods clean, and who also affirmed the Genesis picture of male-female marriage as the ideal of sexual practice.

I see examples of polygamy and prostitution in the Bible. Does the Bible present a consistent vision of sexuality and marriage for us to follow?

It is true that various deviations from the ideal occur in the Bible. Polygamy is frequently practiced in the Old Testament. We also read of men visiting prostitutes (Judg. 16:1) and daughters having sex with their father (Gen. 19:30-38). Some defenses of same-sex marriage in the church suggest that either the Bible does not advance a consistent sexual ethic or that changing attitudes about practices such as polygamy show us how attitudes might change about homosexual practice. In the case of polygamy, we see a move from acceptance to rejection. In the case of homosexual practice, so the argument goes, we see a move from rejection to acceptance. There are two key principles of interpretation that are relevant to the question. First, there is a difference between what is prescribed and what is described in the Bible. Some passages tell a story without commending the behaviors. David’s actions regarding Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11) are part of the narrative. The inclusion of the story in no way suggests that Christians should normalize adultery and murder. Second, there is a difference between the ideal and a temporary permission to deviate from the ideal. This comes out clearly in Jesus’s response to the Pharisees concerning divorce. They argued for a lax view of divorce. Jesus asserted that this was not the ideal. Men could not pull apart what God had joined (Matt. 19:6). They then asked why Moses allowed a certificate of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Here is Jesus’s reply: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:8-9). According to Jesus, the Mosaic teaching was not about the ideal but a regulation designed to produce temporary justice in a specific context in which the ideal was out of reach for spiritual reasons. This is like how the Bible treats slavery. Slavery is regulated in Scripture without being forthrightly condemned, and yet the message of the whole Bible works to undo oppressive slave systems. How does this all apply to homosexual behavior? First, the Bible excludes homosexual behavior from the moral ideal. Second, the Bible never attempts to permit and regulate homosexual behavior. It is always disallowed, and there is no text that suggests that it can be engaged in appropriate ways under certain contexts.

Christians disagree about all sorts of things. Why can’t we just accept that Christians disagree about these issues and find some way to get along?

Christians disagree about eschatology, the sacraments, church government and a host of other issues. Given all the disagreements, shouldn’t Christians simply accept disagreements concerning sexuality? There are two reasons why we cannot do this. First, the Bible is clear on this issue, far clearer than it is on an issue like eschatology. Even when biblically oriented Christians disagree on an issue, they do so based on the text of the Bible. There is an appeal to God’s Word. To dispute the biblical view of sexuality is to appeal to sources outside of and opposed to the truth of revelation. It isn’t a debate about what the Bible teaches. Second, Christians have never disagreed on the basic shape of Christian sexual morality. We have debated many things. But most Christians (the vast majority) throughout history and living in the world today do not debate these issues. It is true that we sometimes disagree on peripheral issues of sexual morality. For example, Catholic Christians teach that priests are normally not permitted to marry, and some fundamentalists teach that re-marriage is not possible after divorce. But in both these cases, there is no question that the basic shape of sexual morality is left intact. No sex outside of a male-female marriage. The subjection of our desires to God’s will. The forbidding of fornication. In fact, the peripheral disagreements on sexual ethics work to highlight the central core agreements that exclude homosexual practice. 

Christians are supposed to believe in grace and forgiveness. Isn’t it unloving to limit LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church or to call homosexual behavior sin?

I must express appreciation for the heart behind this question. Of course, Christians are called to stand for gracious welcome. After all, Jesus died for us when we were enemies (Rom. 5:10), and Christ came to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance (Lk. 5:32). Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Lk. 19:10). All Christians, apart from the gracious love of Jesus, are lost sinners who stand in enmity against God. If it were not for the redemptive purpose of God, we would all be lost. We must never abandon the teaching of the radical gospel of Jesus’s death and resurrection. But notice that this gracious welcome hinges on the fact that we stand demerited before God because of our sin. God would not need to give us mercy through Jesus if we were not lost sinners. The above question is guilty of a fundamental confusion of categories. It confuses what God forgives with what God morally permits. God forgives things that he does not morally permit. If this were not true, then I would be lost forever. If LGBTQ+ people are to receive gracious welcome and hospitality in the church, then they must do so in the same manner that all people find welcome and hospitality in the church. They must come acknowledging the reality of sin and the need for forgiveness. The danger of this category confusion is that we would ultimately fail to offer people grace and mercy, instead choosing to say that the Bible’s moral commands are not binding. If the moral instruction that convicts us of sin is not binding, why would we ever come to God to receive forgiveness?

Conclusion

In this essay, I have sought to demonstrate that the whole Bible teaches a sexual ethic that holds monogamous, life-long male-female marriage as the ideal for sexual behavior. Moreover, the traditional sexual ethic also teaches that our desires must be properly ordered, and our lusts restrained. The church has taught this vision of sexuality for the entirety of its history. Most Christians in the world today also affirm this basic biblical sex ethic. This traditional view of marriage and sexuality is the official position of our local congregation, and it should be the view of our leaders. In closing, I would like to frankly acknowledge two things. First, we do fall short of the ideals of God’s moral instruction. We sin. We experience traumatic and unwanted things. The answer is not to abandon the ideal but to cultivate a loving, Christ-centered community in which people receive discipline, instruction, mercy, support, and meaningful relationships. Second, God’s grace is big enough and strong enough to help us in our distress. God’s grace can change those who experience unwanted sexual attractions. God’s grace can heal hurting marriages. God’s grace can bless those who know the pain of divorce. The gospel is good news for all sinners, including for those who identify as LGBTQ+. We must never abandon the truth of God’s Word or try to overthrow God’s authority. But we must also never abandon God’s love and the hope that comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to all people who come to him just as they are.

Note: Some people argue that the word homosexuality and its derivatives that are used in some modern translations of 1 Cor. 6 only appeared in the twentieth century and were inappropriately applied to the biblical accounts. In this argument, the modern practice of homosexuality is treated as completely different from what was practiced in the ancient world and what was written about in the Bible. Such folks argue that older translations do not use the word homosexuality and, therefore, we should not use 1 Cor. 6 to argue against homosexuality. This is a very weak argument. Whatever modern word we use, we use it to describe a practice that is communicated clearly in the Greek text. It is not the English word that matters but the behavior that the Greek words are trying to express. Even though pre-twentieth-century translations used different terms, the Christians who translated the verses still knew exactly what they were talking about. Those who try to make the above argument would almost have us assume that we could take a time machine back to 1842 or 1237 and find that there were either no homosexuals in the modern use of the word (people with sexual attraction to others of the same sex) or that homosexual practice was widely practiced by Christians of those eras. Either conclusion, of course, is ridiculous. People have struggled with this temptation in all periods of history and the church has always regarded homosexual practice as sinful. The argument from mistranslation, therefore, is unpersuasive. 

View and share this message from Pastor Scott. May God bless you this Lenten season.

I don’t know much about what happened on October 22nd, 1844, but I can tell you one thing that did not happen: Christ did not return and fulfill the words of Daniel 8:14. This might not strike you as important. You might respond that he didn’t return on October 23rd either, for what it’s worth. Yet for the thousands of followers of a simple Baptist named William Miller, the results of that day were a devastating blow. Miller had come to the conviction that Christ would return sometime between March 1843 and March 1844. When March passed by, some clever Bible reading added another seven months to the scheme. But, alas, the day came and went. Miller’s influence with the crowds vanished. Many were disillusioned. I can’t imagine the pain that this unfortunate experience caused for many who so deeply believed that Christ was on his way.

But not everyone gave up so easily. James and Ellen White decided that on October 22nd Christ did not come to earth but he instead entered the heavenly sanctuary to make atonement there. Moreover, there was a clear reason that he did not return to earth: the church had failed to keep the sabbath of the seventh day. What optimism! The Whites turned the disappointment of October 22nd into the beginning of a movement that would become a global denomination – the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. This may be one of the greatest examples in history of people who turned metaphorical lemons into lemonade.

October 22nd, 1844 came to be known as the Great Disappointment. It is that phrase that has been bubbling around in my mind this week. I did not calculate that the Lord would return on Monday, but I did intend for my family to pile into our van and set off for a vacation in Florida. Yet, that did not materialize. Instead, we were treated with a family round of COVID. As I write these words, I feel an unpleasant tightness in my face and a burning in my throat. I had hoped to be eating a Chick-Fil-A sandwich and getting ready to board the Millenium Falcon. I wouldn’t dream of comparing my suffering to the suffering of the old Millerites. But I am disappointed. Maybe most of all, I am disappointed for my kids. At this moment, I can’t really muster the optimism of the Whites. There is no speculation that my family has spiritually entered the heavenly Florida while our actual bodies are resting right here in Michigan. I am sure that we will reschedule. I know that we have much to be thankful for. But, I am, nonetheless, sad.

I don’t know much about what happened to you today. Or last week. Or five years ago. But I can tell you one thing that has happened: you have been disappointed. You have been hurt. Your expectations have been shattered. The plans fell through. The relationship ended. The test results came back and knocked you off your feet. I don’t pretend to have easy answers for you. Nor would I counsel you to come up with strange rationalizations like the Whites did after the Great Disappointment. There are, however, two truths that stabilize me right now and, I pray, would help you as well. The first truth is this: “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Psalm 115:3). God’s sovereignty is sweet news to the weary and the disappointed. What do you get if you reject the clear meaning of this verse? You don’t get relief from the suffering. You don’t get joy. Instead, you lose the thought that even your disappointments have purpose and your wrong turns still bring you home in the end. I would rather suffer with the firm conviction that God is not surprised nor set back. I would rather be disappointed knowing that this too can serve God’s glory and my good. The second truth is this: “Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God” (2 Cor. 1:3-4). I have been disappointed. But I can receive comfort from God at this moment. Then, I can give the comfort that I have received to someone else as they process their own hurts. What a beautiful arrangement! It is through the ugliest event that ever happened – the crucifixion of Jesus – that the salvation and mercy of God have been proclaimed and offered to the nations. Your tribulations are also little schools getting you ready to bless and comfort others.

I am disappointed that we did not go on vacation. But I am comforted to know that God has his purposes for this week. One of those purposes is to increase my capacity for empathy and compassion toward others who share in disappointment. As we await the second advent of Jesus, we are each commissioned to minister to those around us and to speak comfort to the hurting. To join in this work is not disappointing in the least.

It has been another lively year at First Pres. We engaged in crucial ministry, even as we continued to see convulsions in the wider culture and even in our local community. In many ways, it is a dark time in our nation. Political division has reached a fever pitch. Tales of violence and crime reach our news feeds every day. Sexual immorality runs rampant, especially in the continued normalization of LGBQT+ lifestyles. And the heinous practice of abortion remains in Michigan. Though I rejoiced to see the fall of Roe v. Wade this year, I was deeply disheartened to see our state so resoundingly support a culture of death through the passage of Proposal 3. The freedom to destroy life in the womb comes from hell and, therefore, is not freedom at all but the deepest of slavery. As I begin my report this year, I want to remind you that the work of the church is the liberation of the captives. The world, the flesh, and the devil offer slavery in many forms. The gospel of Jesus Christ shatters the chains.

The liberating work of the church begins in its ministry of teaching and study of the Word. This year, I finished up a series in Genesis, reflected on several passages from Mark’s Gospel, engaged in an in-depth study of John 15-16, and considered some of the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah. Wednesday evening Bible study continued, some folks coming to my study and some joining via Zoom. Our topic continued to be a verse-by-verse look at John’s Gospel. In Sunday school, we covered a range of topics in church history and practical theology. The ladies’ book group continued throughout the year, under the leadership of Becky Patten and Lisa Roberts. We also saw the launch of a successful short-term small group program. Five groups gathered together in the fall for 5-6 weeks and reviewed material from Bible teacher Chip Ingram on the task of prayer. Thank you to all our group leaders and to all those who attended.

Worship also held its fair share of excitement this year. Early on, we transitioned to a 10:30 start time for Lord’s Day service and bumped Sunday school to the slot before worship. Thanks to Dean’s able leadership, the music program thrived. We even added a music intern program that began in the fall with the addition of Ezra Blackwell to our fellowship. We witnessed the baptism of Jude Fawley, celebrated the Lord’s Supper on seven occasions, and received additional supply ministry from Deacon Aaron Lawrence and Pastor Jeff Kunkel. Lauren Scharstein, one of our missionaries supported through the Outreach Foundation, addressed us with an excellent Moment for Mission and Sunday school presentation. We also saw the Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday services move downstairs to the fellowship hall for a combined dinner-and-service format.

We were touched by grief this year. Members who passed away included Shelley Downey, Arlan Gilbert, Betty Diegel, Mary Bearman, and Onalee Foulke. Betty actually passed away in 2021, but her family invited me to officiate a service at the veteran’s cemetery in Holly. Thanks to Alan and Mitzi Dimmers for going with me and providing a wonderful German lunch afterward! Before Mary passed away, we were able to celebrate the wedding of Jay and Linda Bearman. This year also witnessed vow renewals for Bob & Lisa Roberts and Myrna and Warren Schneider

And what could I say of all the outreach and mission work that took place this year? Soup suppers kept running under the able leadership of Marsha Rollins and her team. We ran two sessions on Life Skills. This ministry continues to be a great encouragement to me. In 2023 and beyond, its name will become Strong Foundations, better reflecting its purpose and power. We helped out again with Loaves and Fishes, produced an amazing outreach video through the production skills of Quin Waters, and hosted an informational lunch on preventing financial scams with the help of the team at County National Bank. And what about the Jerusalem Marketplace? Brenda Barron and her committee (and basically everyone in the church) worked hard to make July 30th, 2022 a memorable day in the history of the congregation. There was indoor fishing, Middle Eastern-themed food, a replica of the ark of the covenant, face painting, and all sorts of goods for sale. Finally, I would be remiss to leave out the hard work that makes the Rummage Sale possible each year. As they have in the past, Barb Auseon and Connie Erholtz rallied a wonderful team to make this annual event happen.

Other things might be added in reflection on this year. The Buildings & Grounds team was hard at work, though much of the work didn’t have the visible and obvious impact that it sometimes does. But necessary maintenance is maybe more important than big remodels. You may have noticed a bucket truck, however, moving around the building when we had our stone treated in the summer to prevent moisture problems. Thanks to the generosity of the Bearman family, we are also beginning a redo of the front landscaping. This project will finish in Spring 2023. I should also make a note about finances for the year. Our congregation was very generous during a time of deep financial uncertainty. Our church investments took a hit, but our church members kept giving. In passing, I think it is worth noting that this year’s financial planning has demonstrated that investment income and testamentary gifts are becoming significant portions of our annual operating budget. In part, this reflects that though our overall membership declined this year, we have simultaneously sought to expand our ministry and focus outward to the surrounding community

To return to the theme of the introductory paragraph, I want to remind you that the ministry of the church is a ministry of liberation. The world brings people into bondage, but the message of the gospel provides the hope of freedom. I am sure that as our cultural decline continues, we will begin to see refugees from the madness coming into our churches. Will we be ready to receive the broken and the hurting who have been waylaid by the foolishness of a secularized, materialistic society? As 2023 moves along, I hope and pray that we will.

In Christ,

Pastor Scott Cress

Join us for service at 6:30 PM on Christmas Eve!