Scriptures teach consistently that faith comes through the proclamation of the gospel, not through good works. Christ himself was not arrested and arraigned because he was trying to restore family values or feed the poor...The mounting ire of the religious leaders toward Jesus coalesced around him making himself equal with God and forgiving sins in his own person, directly, over against the temple and its sacrificial system. Michael Horton
I recently read an article from a prominent blogger on the subject of
the new “gospel-centered” emphasis in books. He commented on various
books that applied the gospel to every area of life from the ivory
towers of theology, to the mom caught up in the chaos of home and
family. One quote at the end of his blog got me thinking: “There
is not yet a “Gospel-Centered Sex” book; however, it is probably on the
way and may well be very helpful! If a couple consistently applies the
implications of the gospel to the marriage bed, they will inevitably
have a healthier marriage.”
I was surprised by this and yet wondered how anyone would begin to
tackle that subject. For obvious reasons it is not a topic many would
tread upon lightly. Many Christians (myself included) have assumed that
remedying the “marriage bed” would lead to a healthier marriage. Continue at Marci Preheim
The sometimes is really important. Not all the time. It’s not what is normative or typical. It’s sometimes. And, at the same time, be sure that sometimes really means sometimes.
Real times. These are actual moments, or seasons, that never present
themselves as the anomaly they should prove to be in the long run. We’re
talking about a tangible pause from sex, however brief and limited the
stopping may be.
The biblical text on this topic is 1 Corinthians 7:1–5,
and though the meaning is pretty straightforward, the way this text
plays itself out in the life of the church can run askew in two
different directions. One error is to use this passage to support a
pattern of self-fulfilling sexual demands; the other is to use this
passage to fuel a culture of fear in the marriage relationship — and
both combine to produce damaging implications.
Let’s expose these misuses and then chart a course for the gospel-empowered sometimes of sexual abstinence in marriage.
Look at the Passage
First, here’s verses 3–5 of 1 Corinthians 7: Continue at Jonathan Parnell
Everyone has had to ask or answer the question at one time or
another: When it comes to the physical component of a dating
relationship, how far is too far? Can we hold hands? Can we kiss? Can we
do a little bit more than kiss? Should we even explore the physical
relationship a little bit to ensure we are compatible?
I am
accustomed to giving the easy answer: "It's not about how far can we go,
but how holy we can be. You are asking all the wrong questions!" That
may make me feel smart and a little bit godly, but it's not exactly a
satisfying or helpful answer.
In their book Sex, Dating, and Relationships: A Fresh Approach,
Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas offer an answer. They are aware of the
long history of legalistic answers and the many slippery slope or
fear-based approaches that have more to do with avoiding sexually
transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies than pursuing holiness.
They do not want to create a new law, but draw out an implication of the
deepest meaning of marriage. They are convinced that the Bible offers
us exactly the answer we are looking for. How far is too far? "Contrary
to popular opinion, the Bible does speak with clarity--objective
clarity--about what is physically appropriate between an unmarried man
and woman in a pre-marriage relationship."
They premise their
answer on the fact that the marriage relationship, and hence the sexual
relationship, is meant to be a portrait of the relationship of Christ
and his church. (Click here to read about the gospel and marriage.) In that way they begin not with law but with gospel. Continue at Tim Challies
Bold, black, and
beautiful, Beyoncé took center stage at halftime of Sunday night's Super
Bowl. Commanding the stage in a black leather swimsuit (?) and boots,
she strutted as she sang several familiar pop tunes.
She certainly grabbed attention. But what was the message? Writing for the Progressive Christian channel of Patheos, David Henson argued,
"If
what you saw was an offensive, inappropriate hypersexual display of
legs and barely covered unmentionables, let me suggest you saw only what
you were staring at, not what actually happened on that stage." So what
really happened? He writes:
Beyoncé's
performance Sunday night in New Orleans wasn't about sex. It was about
power, and Beyoncé had it in spades. In fact, her show was one of the
most compelling, embodied, and prophetic statements of female power I
have seen on mainstream television.
I agree that she powerfully embodied strength and boldness as the
world would see it. But I could no longer ignore the sexual
suggestiveness of her performance when she licked her finger, drug it
down her body, and wrapped her hands around her head. However you
interpret such an act, we can't deny that Beyoncé's performance carried a
message that sexuality and sensuality are powerful and attractive.
Women say they want men to stop objectifying them, yet I wonder. Are we helping our cause with hyper-sexual performances such as Beyoncé's?
I do not fault her alone. I believe she is a product of her
environment, the pop music industry. Sex sells, and she's a smart
businesswoman. I don't deny Henson's general premise, either, because
sexuality is also powerful. Beyoncé wields power in her decision to use only female performers and musicians and celebrates it in her song "Run the World (Girls)." Even so, I can't help but ask: How are we supporting women by celebrating when they flaunt their sexuality in public? Continue at Trillia Newbell
According the Bible, Satan prowls around like a lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8), but many times, he probably doesn’t have to do that much. I wonder if sometimes Satan sits back and laughs at us.
Marriage can be extremely messy. As sinners we can do dumb things in
marriage—we hurt one another; we make false assumptions and then
miscommunicate; we manipulate or say mean things to our spouse; we think
less about serving and more about being served. We don’t always follow
God’s Word or advice from godly leaders. We put our hopes in the world
or each other more than we put hope in God.
We don’t need Satan to ruin our marriage. We do plenty of unhelpful things on our own to ruin our marriages. I’m sure Satan enjoys having a front row seat, watching our folly and foolishness.
As the world’s leading AIDS researchers gather for the
International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report
that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has
continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which
it first appeared — gay men.
In a series of papers in the Lancet dedicated to the
dynamics of HIV among gay men — a group epidemiologists define as men
who have sex with men (MSM) — scientists say that the continued burden
of AIDS in this group is due to a combination of lifestyle and
biological factors that put these men at higher risk. Rates are rising
in all countries around the world.
In one study, led by Chris Beyrer, of the Center for Public Health
and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
researchers analyzed surveillance reports and studies of HIV among MSM,
including data that were part of routine United Nations reporting from
member nations. Rates of HIV among gay men ranged from 3% in the Middle
East to 25% in the Caribbean. In all reporting nations, rates were on
the rise, even in developed nations like the U.S., Australia and the
U.K. where HIV is declining overall. Continue at WintryKnight
Intro: Remember
that Corinth was afflicted with the love of philosophy and rhetoric.
They wanted that which sounded good and seemed wise. It didn’t matter
whether or not it was right, they just liked fine sounding and wise
sounding things. (Cf. Acts 17:21
They spent their time either hearing or telling new things. Beware the
itch for new things when the old will suffice.) Their pride led to
division. Now, remember that James told us that envy and strife are
accompanied by every evil work (James 3:16). It is no wonder, then, that Paul had to rebuke the Corinthians for the approval of a church member committing incest (1Corinthians 5:1-13).
A proud and envious person who is striving with others is never
satisfied, and that person is very likely to seek out his satisfaction
in any place and manner that he can find it, except in God.
It is in this context that Paul establishes a God-Centered sexual ethic.
1. The Relationship Between Worship And Sex:9-11
They were once
sexually immoral, but God has forgiven them and cleansed them of these
things. The gospel of Christ is a message of sacrifice of self as well
as good news that God gives us that which is better. Having cleansed
them of their sins, God has given them Himself.
That being said, immorality is idolatry. Note the downward spiral of sin in Romans 1:18-17.
The worship of the Creator is traded for the worship of the creature
and carnal passions. It is not that the carnal passions are wrong, but
outside of the context of worship of God, they are filthy and immoral,
and they lead to that which is unnatural in the pursuit of pleasure and
satisfaction. One only need observe the glorification of sex and the
objectification of people in our nation to recognize that immoral sex is
an act of misdirected worship.
True worship leads to
monogamous, heterosexual pleasure. Note that the mandate given to Adam
and Eve was not only to take dominion, but first to be fruitful and
multiply. This mandate is about imaging forth God. It is about
worshiping our Creator and showing His greatness through the way that we
live. Being fruitful means having sex and raising children. Note also
that there is pleasure associated with it, because Moses said that the
man and woman were to cleave to each other, and that they were naked and
not ashamed (Genesis 2:24-25). Man and woman were to enjoy their union, and they were unashamed in their union. Continue at Pastoral Musings
This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:
If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.
I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States.
I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.”
To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around.
I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you.
I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .
If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting.
I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized.
I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me.
I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild.
I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.
If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle.
If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
And then, my police state would force everybody back to work.
Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps.
In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.
By the time the couple made it to my office, their marriage was
already chaos. She had cheated on him, he had cheated on her, and
neither seemed remorseful. The problem, as they saw it, was that the
other was not satisfying them. The problem, as I saw it, was that they
had each spent years consuming pornography. Frequently subjecting their
minds to perverse pictures had created a pattern of thinking and of
arousal. And my counselees are hardly the only ones in this predicament.
The sexual climate of our culture is dominated by the pornographic.
The way most people think about sexual expression is tainted by
lubricity. True sexual morality is seen as inane and archaic. Sex and
sexuality are governed by the immoral, and the pornographic mindset has
cornered the market on all sex. In short: we live in a Pornopoly.
This monopoly has affected everything from sex education in schools,
to clothing styles for pre-teens, to the expectations of married men and
women in their bedrooms. The porn problem is not contained to
adolescent boys and their computers in mom and dad's basement. It has
spread, like a rapacious plague, across our culture and even into the
church. Porn controls much sexual expression and sexual discussion in
our culture.
For example: porn has deeply affected the way men relate to women.
The average single man watches porn for 40 minutes, three times a week.
That's two hours a week, and 104 hours per year. The average male views
porn for the first time at age 11, which means by the time he is 30 he
will have watched almost 2,000 hours of pornography. For the average man
in a relationship it is only slightly different. A married man, or man
in a steady dating relationship, will watch porn 1.7 days a week for 20
minutes. Perhaps more alarming, 90 percent of men watch pornography.
William Struthers talks about how this prolonged exposure to porn
affects relationships. In his book Wired for Intimacy, he writes: Continue at Dave Dunham
Earlier this week, Gerald Hiestand expressed the need
for pastors and ministry leaders to develop a more thought-out
premarital sexual ethic. Research shows that only 20% of Christians
remain abstinent prior to marriage. As evangelicals, we are often ready
to take a necessary stand on homosexual ethics, yet the issue of
heterosexual purity is compromised for nearly 80% of us. And so we want
to begin a conversation that may feel offensive, overly conservative,
or at a minimum, uncomfortable. Nonetheless, we think it’s an
important one to have. We encourage you to begin by reading Gerald’s post and How Far is Too Far Part 1 and part 2 for an introduction to this series of posts.
How far is too far? Perhaps this is the wrong question, but it’s one
that is asked nonetheless. Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas give a thought
provoking answer in Sex, Dating, and Relationships. What does it mean to adhere to the New Testament’s vision of sexual purity? Here’s a short excerpt:
Don’t eat the cake.
Imagine that a man comes home from work one evening to find that his
wife has baked a cake. As he walks into the kitchen, she sees him eying
the cake and explicitly states, “Don’t eat that cake; it’s for our party
this evening.” He nods in understanding, and she leaves the kitchen. As
soon as she leaves, he cuts himself a large slice and places it on his
plate. And then, bite by bite, he chews the cake and spits it back onto
his plate. Having thus chewed the entire piece (but not swallowed, mind
you), he scrapes the chewed piece back into the empty space on the cake
tray. At this moment his wife walks back into the kitchen and looks at
him in horror. “What are you doing?!” she exclaims. “I told you not to
eat the cake!” He looks at her calmly and says with an assuring voice,
“And indeed I have not. You see, dear, I define eating as ‘swallowing.’
And since I didn’t swallow the cake, I didn’t eat the cake. In sum, I
did not have eating relations with that cake.” Continue at Crossway
Earlier this week, Gerald Hiestand expressed the need
for pastors and ministry leaders to develop a more thought-out
premarital sexual ethic. Research shows that only 20% of Christians
remain abstinent prior to marriage. As evangelicals, we are often ready
to take a necessary stand on homosexual ethics, yet the issue of
heterosexual purity is compromised for nearly 80% of us. And so we want
to begin a conversation that may feel offensive, overly conservative,
or at a minimum, uncomfortable. Nonetheless, we think it’s an important
one to have. We encourage you to begin by reading Gerald’s post and How Far is Too Far Part 1 for an introduction to this series of posts.
WHAT CONSTITUTES SEXUAL RELATIONS?
How far is too far? Perhaps this is the wrong question, but it’s one
that is asked nonetheless. Gerald Hiestand and Jay Thomas give a
thought provoking answer in Sex, Dating, and Relationships. What does it mean to adhere to the New Testament’s vision of sexual purity?
Nearly all Christians who take the Bible seriously will acknowledge
that sexual activity should be reserved for marriage. And it’s doubtful
that anyone—Christian or not—would really try to make a case that oral
sex and fondling are not sexual activities. So the line is pretty clear
as far as those activities are concerned. But what about kissing? Many
(perhaps most) Christian dating couples regularly engage in passionate
kissing.
Answering the kissing question is not as difficult as one might
think. Clearly some forms of kissing are nonsexual; we kiss our children
and our mothers. But there are some forms of kissing that we reserve
exclusively for our wives. And the reason we do so is precisely that
those forms of kissing are sexual. Continue at Crossway
The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the
most important defining marks of our age–and one of the most ominous.
This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it
threatens to set loose a firestorm.
Most evangelical Protestants greeted the advent of modern birth
control technologies with applause and relief. Lacking any substantial
theology of marriage, sex, or the family, evangelicals welcomed the
development of “The Pill” much as the world celebrated the discovery of
penicillin — as one more milestone in the inevitable march of human
progress, and the conquest of nature.
At the same time, evangelicals overcame their traditional reticence
in matters of sexuality, and produced a growth industry in books,
seminars, and even sermon series celebrating sexual ecstasy as one of
God’s blessings to married Christians. Once reluctant to admit the very
existence of sexuality, evangelicals emerged from the 1960s ready to
dish out the latest sexual advice without blushing. As one of the
best-selling evangelical sex manuals proclaims, marital sex is Intended for Pleasure. Many evangelicals seem to have forgotten that it was intended for something else as well.
For many evangelical Christians, birth control has been an issue of
concern only for Catholics. When Pope Paul VI released his famous
encyclical outlawing artificial birth control, Humanae Vitae,
most evangelicals responded with disregard — perhaps thankful that
evangelicals had no pope who could hand down a similar edict.
Evangelical couples became devoted users of birth control technologies
ranging from the Pill to barrier methods and Intrauterine Devices
[IUDs]. That is all changing, and a new generation of evangelical
couples is asking new questions.
A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth
control–and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive
technologies. Several developments contributed to this reconsideration,
but the most important of these is the abortion revolution. The early
evangelical response to legalized abortion was woefully inadequate. Some
of the largest evangelical denominations at first accepted at least
some version of abortion on demand. Continue at Al Mohler
The Christian worldview must direct all consideration of sexuality to
the institution of marriage. Marriage is not merely the arena for
sexual activity, it is presented in Scripture as the divinely-designed
arena for the display of God’s glory on earth as a man and a wife come
together in a one-flesh relationship within the marriage covenant.
Rightly understood and rightly ordered, marriage is a picture of God’s
own covenantal faithfulness. Marriage is to display God’s glory, reveal
God’s good gifts to His creatures, and protect human beings from the
inevitable disaster that follows when sexual passions are divorced from
their rightful place.
The marginalization of marriage, and the open antipathy with which
many in the culture elite approach the question of marriage, produces a
context in which Christians committed to a marriage ethic appear
hopelessly out of step with the larger culture. Whereas marriage is seen
as a privatized contract to be made and unmade at will in the larger
society, Christians must see marriage as an inviolable covenant made
before God and man, that establishes both temporal and eternal
realities.
Christians have no right to be embarrassed when it comes to talking
about sex and sexuality. An unhealthy reticence or embarrassment in
dealing with these issues is a form of disrespect to God’s creation.
Whatever God made is good, and every good thing God made has an intended
purpose that ultimately reveals His own glory. When conservative
Christians respond to sex with ambivalence or embarrassment, we slander
the goodness of God and hide God’s glory which is intended to be
revealed in the right use of creation’s gifts. Continue at Al Mohler
“Fifty Shades of Grey,” an erotic novel by an obscure British author based on Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight
series, has electrified women across the country. Readers have spread
the word like wildfire on Facebook pages, in college hallways, at office
functions and in spin classes. Within six weeks of publication, the
three books of the series, Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed, claimed the top three spots in USA Today’s Best-Selling Books list. Sales have topped 10 million. The series is so popular that last month, author E. L. James was listed as one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World“.
Red Room of Pain
The books in question are erotica that explicitly describe sexual
bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism (BDSM). The story follows an
unfolding affair between a recent college graduate, the virgin Anastasia
Steele, and handsome young billionaire entrepreneur, Christian Grey,
whose childhood abuse left him a deeply damaged individual, and who
enlists her to share his secret sexual proclivities. Steele is required
by Grey to sign a contract allowing him complete control over her.
Because of her fascination and budding love for him, she consents to a
kinky sexual relationship that includes being slapped, spanked,
handcuffed, and whipped with a leather riding crop in his “Red Room of
Pain.”
A few weeks ago, the book popped up as Amazon’s suggested buy on my Kindle. I declined. Like my friend, Dannah Gresh, I absolutely refuse to read these books.
Smut is Smut
Undoubtedly, the series portrays BDSM in the context of an engaging,
passionate, tender, romantic relationship that culminates in the
characters falling in love, and the conflicted girl assuaging the
billionaire’s troubled soul. But it doesn’t matter to me how the author
sweetens it up. The tasty red Kool-Aid doesn’t offset the bitter poison.
Smut is still smut.
I don’t have to read the book to know that it’s bad for women. Nor do
I need to read it to tell you that I think it would be unwise for you
to read it.
7 Reasons Not to Read 50 Shades
1. It violates God’s design for sex: Continue at Mary Kassian
"It's not about sex." That's what the john said in his interview with Diane Sawyer. He had hired a prostitute for sex, but it wasn't about sex. For my part, I believe him.
When Sawyer was with ABC's 20/20, she did an exposé on
"Prostitution in America: Working Girls Speak." It was one of the
saddest television programs I've ever watched. I couldn't watch
everything. (Remote controls are not sacramental, but I'm convinced they
are a means of grace.) What I could watch told the heart-breaking
stories of several young women trapped in "the world's oldest
profession." Why would beautiful and intelligent young women throw away
their lives this way? "Glamour" and "money brings happiness" were
prominent answers. Promises of glamour and happiness---the Devil's
counterfeits for holiness and joy---lured these young women into a
lifestyle of emptiness and untimely death. Most prostitutes die by the
age of 34.
Reflecting on the program, I first thought of Harvie Conn, who gave
the early years of his ministry to serve as an Orthodox Presbyterian
missionary to Korea. There he preached the gospel to prostitutes. It was
a difficult and dangerous ministry. He angered pimps, but he rescued
girls. Conn rescued them from abuse and early death; Jesus rescued them
from sin and guilt. Souls were saved. Lives were rebuilt. Christ was
glorified. "Lord, give us more, many more Harvie Conns."
I then thought about Augustine. It wasn't his immoral lifestyle (he
lived with a woman prior to his conversion) that made me think of him;
it was his theft of pears. As a teenager, Augustine had crept into an
orchard under the cover of darkness and stolen some pears. Why? He
confessed:
It was not the pears that my unhappy soul desired. I had
plenty of my own, better than those, and I only picked them so that I
might steal. For no sooner had I picked them than I threw them away, and
tasted nothing in them but my own sin, which I relished and enjoyed. If
any part of one of those pears passed my lips, it was the sin that gave
it flavor (Confessions, 2.6).
Had Diane Sawyer interviewed Augustine, his face blurred on the
television screen but clear to the eyes of God, he would have said,
"It's not about pears." Continue at Rhett Dodson
Evangelicals appear to be preoccupied with sex. One megachurch pastor
and his wife have written a book challenging married couples to a
“sexperiment” of making love for seven days straight. Mark Driscoll’s
controversial new book on marriage contains a chapter titled “Can We?”
in which he and his wife answer questions they are typically asked in
counseling situations, questions related to different sex acts.
This post is not meant to be a critique of Driscoll’s book (I haven’t
read it and don’t plan to). Nor do I want the comments section to
degenerate into a fiery back-and-forth about what activities are
appropriate for married couples.
Instead, I want to offer a pastoral look at the underlying issues
that prompt these questions and encourage pastors to go for the heart,
not merely the surface, when approached with questions of this kind.
1. Recognize the legitimacy of the questions.
First, we should not be surprised that new converts are asking
pointed questions about what activities are appropriate for a married
couple. We live in a pornified culture. Continue at Trevin Wax
There appears to be a marriage book renaissance going on within the
Reformed-ish circles of evangelicalism and this is a very good thing
indeed. One only has to look at the divorce rates both inside and
outside the church to see that marriage is in crisis. But why? Why are
we so unhappy in our marriages? In Friends and Lovers: Cultivating Companionship and Intimacy in Marriage, Joel Beeke argues it’s a gospel issue—and the true hope for a God-glorifying marriage is found in Jesus:
By nature we are ignorant of what true love and marriage
should be, but Christ our prophet offers us guidance in the Bible. We
are guilty of dishonoring marriage through our disobedience towards the
God who designed it, but Christ our priest shed his blood for the
forgiveness of our sins and now intercedes for us. We are rebels without
the strength to overcome the evil that distorts and disrupts our human
relationships, but Christ our king conquers sin and rules us by his
mighty Spirit, making all things new—including our marriages.
In looking at Christ as the foundation of our marriages, Beeke
divides his argument into two parts—the need for spouses to be friends
and friendship’s impact on marital intimacy. This pattern is familiar,
but worth repeating. On cultivating friendship within marriage, he
writes:
Many people in our culture think that love is something
you fall into and therefore can easily fall out of. That might be true
of passing emotions, but true friendship relies on cultivation:
uprooting bad attitudes, planting daily seeds of love towards one
another, pulling out weeds and eliminating pests that threaten to choke
the relationship, watering the tender plants with daily prayer, and then
taking time to reap a harvest of love and enjoyment in each other’s
company. . . . Friendship does not persist, deepen, and grow
automatically. . . . [It] cannot be warmed up by thirty seconds in the
microwave. So much today is instant, but friendship is not. It costs
something. It costs you yourself, your commitment, and your
vulnerability. There are no rush orders in friendship. It must be baked
slowly, gently, and continually if we want the flavor we are looking
for. Continue at Aaron Armstrong
This is the last topic I thought I would ever address in a public forum, not least in a published book.
But alas, God opens doors and calls us through them. So here I am,
encouraging my fellow pastors to make sure---even if you're no longer
serving in youth, university, or young adult ministry---to keep your sex
talk fresh, handy, and well thought out.
A little more than a year ago I was a college pastor. The topic of
dating, purity, and romance seemed to be an ever-present area of
commentary, question, and struggle. (Many of my former students are
smirking right now, thinking that I am the one who kept bringing it up.)
As I prepared to teach a series on romance, dating, and marriage, I was
taken aback by the lack of theological depth among evangelicals on this
topic. Many books and essays (on the left) properly noted that dating
cannot be found in the Bible, but then wrongly concluded that therefore
the Bible has nothing conclusive to say on this topic.
Alternately, many (on the right) offered strong convictions defended
by sordid statistics, pragmatic concerns, and plain old legalism. Where
was the gospel? While I did note several good treatments on the
practical "how to's" of dating and maintaining sexual purity, I noted a
dearth of articles and books that dealt with the topic from a
theological, gospel-rooted perspective. I also found that many pastors
hesitated to get any more specific about sexual boundaries than telling
Christians not to have sexual intercourse before marriage. Such lack of
clarity left unanswered the age-old question: How far is too far? Continue at Jay Thomas
As it is Valentine’s Day tomorrow, we thought it would be beneficial to highlight marriage, and specifically sex in marriage.
The Intimate Marriage
Dr. R.C. Sproul has taught a series and
written book on marriage. In these resources, Dr. Sproul walks through
some of the toughest things couples struggle with today: lack of
communication, sex, roles, divorce, anger, and more. He shares what the
Bible says about each, as well as lessons He has learned from his own
marriage of forty years.
There are many caricatures and missinformation when it comes to how
Christians through the ages have viewed sex in marriage. In Dr. Joel R.
Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, he dedicates a chapter to marriage, in which he discusses the Puritan’s view.
Marital love must be sexual, so that both
marital partners can give themselves fully to each other with joy and
exuberance in a healthy relationship marked by fidelity. Reformers such
as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin established this
aspect of marriage by abandoning the medieval Roman Catholic attitudes
that marriage was inferior to celibacy, that all sexual contact between
marital partners was a necessary evil to propagate the human race, and
that a procreative act that involved passion was inherently sinful. Continue at Ligonier
Today we’re going to wrap up this mini-series which responds to
arguments that advocate for pastors to engage in sexually explicit
dialogue with Christian married couples. We’ve already taken a look at
the mistaken notion that the current age is uniquely porn-saturated compared to past years. Then we examined the claim that explicit sexual dialogue is necessary for Christians with an immoral past need to deal helpfully with those past issues.
Finally, we come to address two further arguments.
(3) Most pastors—especially those over 45 and “bound up”
in the conservative sexual practices of past, less informed
generations—are clueless about the sexual “hang-ups” young couples face
today, or they are simply afraid to offer the frank dialogue essential
for building a healthy sexual life in marriage.
This is probably the most blatant straw
man being peddled today as justification for explicit sex-counsel.
Honestly, I’m stunned at how quickly some pastors have embraced this
assumption. The challenges of a sin-cursed intimate life are, at their
core, the same in every generation. Why? Because we’re all
sin-cursed! Victorian inhibitions of the past—though they restrained
sexuality in the public square—were no power against private fleshly
lusts of the heart. The sinner’s battle with lust is universal no
matter what cultural norms are deemed appropriate for public
consumption. The lack of moral restraint in public doesn’t create lust in the heart, but gives opportunity to what’s already there (Mark 7:18-23). Continue at Jerry Wragg
