God Hates Shrimp, Sex with Animals and Bad Exegesis

I have heard of the site, God Hates Shrimp, and finally went over to see what it was more about. Although I do not advocate picketing against gay marriage or homosexuality, as it just seems stupid, I do believe that both are sins. They also say that they have set up the site to poke fun at Fred Phelps, which I think is a good thing, because that guy is crazier than Benny Hinn trying to preach the gospel for free. Godhatesshrimp.com is set up so that people will see that if you invoke any of the Leviticus laws you must advocate all of them, including prohibitions against fish without scales, such as shrimp.

There are many problems with this thought process, including the fact that God revealed to Peter that nothing was unclean to eat in Acts 11 and that Jesus said it wasn't what entered the man that made man profane, but what came out of the heart and mouth. Not only this, but this site tries to dismiss Paul's teaching against homosexuality and put forth that since Jesus said nothing against it, it must be fine. This is what happens when ones exegesis is combined with scissors and the thought process of Thomas Jefferson. You cut out whatever you don't like.

Beyond all this, their logic doesn't make sense. I must ask, if we don't allow Leviticus to rule our morals in any way because Christ is silent on such matters in the New Testament, can people now freely have sex with animals?

‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 18:23

Jesus never mentions sex with animals, so why not? Can we now eat shrimp, wear polyester, get tattoos and have sex with animals? (of course 3 out of the 4 are not sinful) Or, are we to take a look at the laws in the Old Testament and use them how they were supposed to be used? Meaning, separating the moral laws for men and the national laws for Israel. The biblical response, and intent of God, is to look at the moral laws in the Old Testament and still apply them for today. Morals do not change, but historical national laws for Israel do, since we are not Israelites living under the Theonomical rule of God. Of course this understanding only works if one believes in absolutes, which I am assuming those at this site do not believe in, as other post moderns are adopting.

It would be like saying that a tribe in Africa made two rules. You should never steal and women should not wear pants. In their culture, for their tribe, one is a moral absolute and one is a cultural absolute. Do not steal, transcends culture and time, where pants on their women is more of a cultural understanding of their tribe and time. If someone were to ask the chief why these two rules exist, he would be able to tell them the moral reasonings for one and the cultural reasons for the other. If their tribe then moves to the cities and decide that women can wear pants, that doesn't mean that stealing is now also okay. It is not a take all or leave all. But, this is exactly what this site and other emergent types are trying to envoke on the Bible and any that understand that God has moral laws and national laws.

So, God does not hate shrimp and and he still does not allow sex with animals, lying, murdering or homosexuality.

Read More......

Christian Mission in the Modern World

It's been a while since I have read John Stott, but this was definitely a book that will make me read more of him. This book is a necessity for anyone that considers themself a missiologist or is wanting a deeper look into what it means for us Christians to be in the world. Stott hammers away in only 190 pages so much depth that any review will leave the subject at hand wanting in a desperate way. It is still hard to believe that this was first written in 1975 as he hits some people today straight between the eyes with his theological and practical conclusions (myself included).

Stott hits on five subjects and really pinpoints them further for great discussion.

The Five Subjects that he hits are:

1. Mission

Stott breaks down the two movements that are most abused, which are evangelism only ministries and social action only ministries. After breaking down why neither of these are correct, he blends the two to show the biblical aspect of how these two need to work together, not separate.

2. Evangelism

Stott lays out what must be considered in evangelism. He shows the priority, the meaning and then unpacks what must be included while presenting the gospel according to Christ and the apostles.

3. Dialogue

In this chapter, Stott again shows the two extremes in dialogue. One where the dialogue is so open that you can't tell that a Christian is in the conversation and the other being where the Christian believes that no dialogue should be had with other religions. Stott shows a balanced view to this and gives great examples how this can work and has worked.

4. Salvation

Stott works to find the biblical answer to what this term means in the Scriptures. He works through what salvation truly is and the areas of difference within this. Some of these would be salvation from political oppression, salvation of sickness and poverty, etc. Then Stott answers the question of salvation theologically and shows why salvation is more than just what we see, but is really the salvation of what we don't see. Namely, salvation from God's wrath in regards to hell.

5. Conversion

In this chapter Stott gives a precedence for conversion to the Christian faith. He fights against the universalists and also those who believe that there is no need to be converted to Christianity because Christ can be found in other religions as well. After this defense, Stott then shows what one is converted to when converted to Christianity.

This book is so well rounded and Stott unpacks the extremes in each case above to even the heretical. He then gives the biblical reasons to balance the extremes or to deny the heretical and comes to conclusions. The arguments are very well thought out and linear so that the reader can follow very easily and understand the concepts and defenses put forth by Stott. I would urge any pastor or missionary to pick up this book. This book is something that would have helped the start of my study on the church's mission before going to deeper studies that I have already looked at. I would hope that people that are in the emergent circles (Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, etc) and also in the IFB circles would pick up this book to see their errors in the thought of Christian mission. Overall, this "introduction" is a great balanced approach to our mission as Christians as we work, minister, educate and evangelize the world as we know it today. Whether one is abroad or in their own back yard, this book lays a great foundation so that one sees their errors of extremism in any of the above named topics. Highly Recommended.

Buy at:

InterVarsity Press

Westminster Books

Read More......

Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be

This book was written by two guys who couldn't be more different in their background and writing styles. Kevin DeYoung is the young, Reformed pastor, that takes this subject on a very subjective theological level, exposing carefully the doctrinal errors found in the Emergent church. Ted Kluck is just the opposite. Also, young, but a former athlete (he would love to hear that I said former), former semi professional football player, current sportswriter, and unapologetically sarcastic and whimsical. He takes on the subject much like I would, exposing the errors with witty banter and "low hanging fruit."

The book layout was great. Each author took a subject and then the chapters went back and forth throughout. So, you would get hit with the longer, theological, linear chapters of DeYoung, and then read the shorter stories and witty rebuttals from Kluck. I really enjoyed this as you really got the feel from two totally different perspectives of what is going on in the Emergent church.

The book's purpose is to really help people just better understand what the Emergent church is and what it does, or maybe better put, doesn't stand for. The main people that are refuted would be the same if you looked on any blog, namely, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Tony Jones. What seemed to be the main focus of the entirety of the book would be the Emergent's focus on Kingdom living, instead of the totality of the work of Christ. In other words, more focused on morality, than understanding what is the first importance: the gospel.

DeYoung and Kluck came to the same conclusion that I have with the Emergent church and others that think just like them, which would be the fact that they are reacting to the more fundamental, legalistic churches, but doing so in the wrong manner. DeYoung and Kluck show that some of the questions that the Emergents bring to light are true and helpful to/against the mainstream church in America, but the way that they answer those questions are not only wrong, but actually harmful, and in some cases, flat out heretical.

The authors did much research for the material, so much so that they went to the different churches and events of this movement to "get their hands dirty". I found this book very helpful and know that those who are in the Emergent church will just see this as another "conversation" not worth having. But, for those who are on the fence or are starting to understand the Emergent problems, will find this a very helpful book on understanding the things that are going on with the Emergent leaders.

Actually, the best part of the book was in the epilogue, when DeYoung went through the churches in Revelation with special focus on Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyratira. This part was very balanced and showed how every church should try to take the good out of each of these churches and learn from them and also learn from the admonishment that Christ gives each as well. Of course, in the end, the idea was for the Emergent church to take a look at what is missing in their movement, which would be the very strongest part in the Ephesian church: defense of doctrine.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand the Emergent church in more detail. I just hope that people are able to learn from this book from within the movement and it isn't just used as ammunition to debate with. Link to Buy

Read More......