Angry Letter About My Same Sex Comments

© November 2019 Rev. Dr. Curtis Crenshaw, ThD
[This Article is longer than usual, and my Sermons on this blog are longer also.]

[This blog is in the form of a response to someone who took issue with my comments made some years ago about same-sex unions. My initials are CC, and for the writer’s initials, who is from Duke University, are OB. My letter was dated 5/7/13. I have not tried to clean up my grammar in this post, but I’ve still made it available.]

CC: Thank you for the reply. Sorry for my delay, but as dean of a seminary and pastor of a church, it is difficult to find the time. I will make some short replies. I’ll number my paragraphs the same as yours.

1. Whether people are happy or not with their transgender sexual operation is irrelevant. The question is whether it is holy, the right thing to do. In my article, I submitted that it was not right.

2. CC: I would like to see the research on some people being one gender in chromosomes and another gender in their genitals. I remain skeptical. As for being prejudiced in not wanting to attend a college where said college is justifying same-sex unions with transgender operations, that is moral discernment. I would not want my kids attending such. Conversely, why aren’t you in a Christian Bible college? You equivocated on my definitional of “prejudice.” I made it clear that prejudice, as used in our society, refers to discrimination based on color, not based on morality. Many black ministers, some of whom were in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King, have reacted strongly against those they say are “high-jacking” (their word) the Civil Rights movement and applying it to LGBT. A large group of black ministers in Memphis, TN took out a full-page ad several times in the local paper in reaction to gays, condemning in clear terms same-gender relationships, saying that did NOT represent the Civil Rights movement.

3. CC: In this paragraph, you said (OB): “Yes having children is impossible at the moment for male to female [transformation]. Yes, they can adopt. To be fair I guess everyone has their own standards on who should be able to adopt a child. I guess I am just silly and weird to want someone who would love the child as if it was their own and bring the child up to be a loving and caring individual who accepts everyone for who they are…. regardless if the person doing the raising of the child is transgender or not.” Continue reading

Did Christ Function as God While on Earth?

© by the Very Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw, Th. D. (Oct 2009)

In a former blog, I spoke of a Christology from above, by which we meant that it was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who was Incarnate, and that He remained God. Sometimes we don’t draw the obvious conclusion from who God is—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to the Incarnation, that God the Son cannot change. Even those who consider themselves conservative today have forgotten the Church’s teaching that Chalcedon in 451 clearly stated about the Son did not give up His deity in the incarnation. Moreover, we must not fall prey to the maneuver of allegedly believing in His deity while affirming that He did not use His deity in the Incarnation. Notice what Chalcedon stated in A. D. 451:

In agreement with the holy fathers we all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son; the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in manhood; like us in all things except sin; begotten of the Father before all ages as regards his Godhead and in the last days the same, for us and for our salvation, begotten of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion [the two natures did not merge in some way to form a third nature], without change [each nature remained fully what it was before the joining], without division [the two natures did not constitute two persons], without separation [the two natures were in union with the Person]; the differences of the natures being by no means removed because of the union but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis [another word for person], not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets of old and Jesus Christ himself have taught us about him, and the creed of our fathers has handed down.[1]

Amidst this wonderful theology, one point the fathers were making is that in the Incarnation, the deity of the Son did not change in essence or in function. Incarnation was by addition, not by subtraction. Continue reading

Preaching Jesus vs. Pleasing People

(c) 2008, The Very Rev. Dr. Curtis I. Crenshaw, Th.D.
(This pamphlet is free, but please look at our web
site for other publications: www.ftstl.com)

Luther Preaching the Gospel

“For the message of the cross is foolishness
to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved
it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

 

(This pamphlet is free, but please do not sell it. For other free items, go to my blog at https://curtiscrenshaw.wordpress.com/. To purchase some items go to www.ftstl.com. We also have items with www.Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble (www.bn.com). At either place type in “Curtis Crenshaw” without the quotes at both places for regular books and then type in my name for kindle books (Amazon) and for Nook Books (Barnes and Noble).

Suppose you visit a church.  The sermon is about how to succeed in life.  Point one is to be kind to yourself, for Jesus said that we must love our neighbors “as ourselves.”  It is negative not to love ourselves.  Point two is to think of positive thoughts, for how can you achieve success with negativism?  Thus, believe in yourself.  Point three is to follow three easy steps to financial success.[1] After all, God wants to bless His children, doesn’t He?

If someone who knew nothing about Christianity were to visit this church a dozen times, hearing basically the same things, would he understand what Christianity is all about? Does this sort of teaching help us to know Christ?

Now suppose you enter a Mosque.  You hear: “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.”  You attend a dozen times, and always hear that creed and the Koran explained.  Would you know what Islam is about?

What is wrong with this picture?  Can we win spiritual battles with materialistic mantras while Islam teaches their people the essence of their faith?

At the so-called Christian church mentioned above, there is no mention of sin, no mention of the Triune God, no mention of the Incarnation, no mention of the death of Christ on the Cross for our sins, no mention of His bodily resurrection or ascension, no mention of the Bible as the Triune God’s infallible revelation of Himself, indeed, no mention of anything that is distinctively Christian.  At too many local churches, the Bible has been turned into a popular psychological manual, and Christ-centered preaching has been traded for motivational pep-talks designed for self-improvement.  God may not be glorified, but worshipers go home happy, and that seems to be all that matters.

We are told that people do not want to hear about sin, judgment, and the crucifixion, but are the congregation’s preferences relevant?  Has the Church in the past taken its message from the people’s desires or from God’s infallible Word, the Bible?  Is the pulpit determined by the pew or the pew by the pulpit?  Let us consider a few reasons why preaching must be focused on the message of the Church and of God’s Gospel as revealed in the Bible. Continue reading