True Repentance comes at a cost - Psalm 6

There has been much discussion of late about the "apology" of various politicians for the immoral things which they had done which have become public.  Whether or not the voters "forgive" a politician or not has absolutely nothing to do with the forgiveness that is needed from God, for this form of political "repentance" has little or nothing to do with the real thing.
To actually repent of one's sins requires a broken and contrite heart.  If one brags of sin in private, treating it as a laughing matter, and makes excuses for that same sin in public, blaming it on someone else or trying to minimize it, how can this possibly reflect a heart that is broken before a holy God?
David, as a man of God, was also a man who committed heinous sins.  In his most egregious sin, David was brought to repentance through God's grace in the sending of the prophet Nathan to warn David that his sin could not be ignored.
In Psalm 6, David writes about the foes that oppress him which he realizes are a sign of the judgment of God against his sin.  In response he writes of the anguish caused by his guilt, "I am worn out from groaning; all night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears.  My eyes grown weak with sorrow; they fail because of all my foes." (Psalm 6:6-7)  It is the attitude of genuine horror and revulsion at our offenses, committed against God, that is the hallmark of true repentance.  Do not be deceived, those who "repent" for public consumption will in no way fool Almighty God.  It is only by throwing ourselves upon the mercy of God and trusting in the cleansing power of the Blood of the Lamb that we can find forgiveness, cleansing, healing, and finally salvation.

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

The Church in a Post-Christian society

Much discussion has occurred in recent years, and will continue to occur, regarding what the Church's response should be to the growing number of non-committed, agnostic, and atheist young people in the Western World.  One of the motivations behind the conscious decision made by Pastor Andy Stanley eight years ago to change his approach to evangelism is his desire to make a greater impact upon a post-Christian America.  While it remains to be seen if we truly are entering into an era of post-Christian society, after all a majority of Americans still self-identify (I know the accuracy of such things is debatable) as Christian and trends can run both ways, but given that a significant portion of Millenials and other young people have a negative view of the Church, Scripture, and God, it behooves us to consider whether or not we ought to change our ministry approach in response.  Those churches which have embraced a seeker-friendly attitude are one such attempted response.

Let me, however, offer a counter-point and word of caution.  If indeed our society continues in its current direction of removing the sacred and the divine in the process known as secularization, does it really seem wise for the Church to imitate them by downplaying Scripture, prayer, or worship?  Shouldn't we maintain our emphasis on the exalted nature of our worship services so as to provide a contrast to the secular world?  Aren't we showing the world what it is missing as God's Creation when we continue to hold high not only the authority of Scripture, but the sacred qualities of prayer and worship?  For a church to downplay its religious symbols and to make worship more approachable for the Lost by putting the Bible and God in a lesser role, is not making them more appealing to those who need God, but removing from them the one element that society without God cannot imitate, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
It is absolutely legitimate to hold a rally or have a special gathering that is seeker-friendly, but this cannot be what we allow our worship service to devolve into.  Why are we in the house of the Lord on his day?  To lift his name, to worship the Almighty, and to be molded and shaped as his disciples.  The Lost are absolutely welcome to join us, to observe our worship, and hear the Word of the LORD preached, but it would be a mistake for us to remove from our worship the things that make them uncomfortable.  The Lost should feel welcome in our midst, but they shouldn't feel comfortable, for the wrath of God abides on them until they repent; seeker-friendly can't change that fact, and the Church should never try to hide it.

Why did they go astray? Why the authority of the Bible is crucial.

After learning of the struggles in the United Church of Canada about defrocking a self-proclaimed Atheist minister named Gretta Vosper, those unfamiliar with this denomination (like myself, an American) were probably left wondering, how did they ever get to a place where a minister could openly denounce belief in God without being thrown out by his/her own congregation, let alone the denomination?  In its article on her "coming out" as an Atheist, the Toronto Star provided the answer: "In her sermons each Sunday, Vosper spoke openly about how she did not believe the Bible was “the authoritative word of God for all time” — a conviction she’d held long before her ordination, and one that is not uncommon among United Church of Canada clergy."  To Vosper, the Bible had long since become secondary.
If the authority of the Scripture is laid aside, if it becomes the words of men instead of the Word of God, there is nothing left to build upon, sooner or later, the whole edifice of the Church will come crashing down.  It is evidently not uncommon for a UCC pastor to view the Bible as optional, a position that Vosper learned, horrifyingly enough, in seminary.  There is no doubt that a similar story could be told about several American denominations, we have the same problem of abandoning the Bible here as well.
For those who don't understand all the hub-up about Andy Stanley's recent comments that we need to downplay the Bible and instead emphasize Jesus, it is the mess like the one the UCC finds itself in that frightens those who have taken umbridge with Stanley.  Andy Stanley has since responded that, “the Bible is without error in everything it affirms” and that he “believe[s] what the Bible says is true, is true,”  Where Andy Stanley was hoping to go with his message, and where those critical of that message were afraid his idea would lead, are not one and the same, but one would hope that both his supporters and his detractors can see why such comments aroused the response that they did.  
As a Church, and for myself as one of its many pastors, we must always be on our guard against the devaluation of the authority of Scripture, it is the Rubicon that we cannot ever cross.  Once that river is crossed, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is essential, Christianity without the infallible Word of God is Christianity in name only.

Why both right action AND right belief matter

In response to the action taken  by the United Church of Canada against the self-proclaimed Atheist minister Gretta Vosper, a blogger named Christian Chiakulas wrote that their decision to defrock her for her beliefs (technically, lack of any belief) is why mainline denominations are dying.  The full blog post explains his position, but in a nutshell it appears that he thinks that judging someone for his/her beliefs is wrong and that only our actions matter.  In the post Chiakulas quotes an author named Roger Wolsey as saying, “[Progressive Christianity] emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas…and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God.”  While this may fit the definition of Progressive, it certainly doesn't fit any historically relevant definition of Christianity.  And that is the whole point, what we're dealing with here is an attempt to redefine Christianity by refusing to define any belief, or lack thereof, as being out of bounds.  In other words, progressives like Chiakulas and Wolsey want to remain a part of Christianity whether or not they believe in Christ, whether or not they believe in God, and whether or not they believe in the Gospel, belief evidently has nothing to do with it.
To accept the notion that right belief doesn't matter you have to surrender to two fundamental presuppositions both of which are extremely dangerous and both of which are anathema to what the Church has been and stood for during the past two thousand years.  The first premise is this: There is no such thing as Truth with a capital T.  All truth must be relative, the Bible must be a collection of stories, not a revelation from God.  If there really is an absolute Truth, it would certainly matter whether or not a person embraces or rejects it, so Truth has to go.  The second premise: That mankind is inherently good.  If right behavior is all that matters, mankind must be capable, on his own, of being good.  This however flies not only in the face of human history, but of the explicit teachings of the Bible.  We cannot possibly please God, on our own, simply by doing what is right, because our very nature is sinful and we cannot fellowship with a holy God until we are reborn in Christ.  
Lastly, in his blog post, Chiakulas claims a remarkably stunning thing, "Jesus welcomed everyone who was willing to follow “The Way.”  Everyone.  And there was no religious test to becoming an apostle, other than a willingness to forsake all for the Kingdom of God."  What Chiakulas is failing to understand is that the disciples whom Jesus called to follow him were already believers in the God of Abraham, in the LORD, they already believed.  That Jesus allowed them to follow him until they saw that he was the Son of God, instead of requiring it first, was certainly not an affirmation that such a affirmation must come from them eventually.  That this claim of Chiakulas can be refuted by Jesus' own words, easily, ought to prevent someone from claiming it about how he conducted himself, but here it is.  If Jesus cared so little about what his followers believed, how could he say to them, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14;6)  And how could John end his Gospel with, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)  The list of Biblical quotes that utterly refute such an asinine assertion that Jesus didn't care what his disciples believed, could go on and on and on.  
What we belief absolutely matters, for as anyone remotely familiar with the writings of Paul knows, it is by grace we are saved, not by our works, when we call upon the name of the Lord.