We Deny. We Do Not Affirm.

same-sex-marriageReading this previous post will expand on and clarify some of what I say below. 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1Co 6:9-11)

More and more professing Christians affirm homosexual relationships. Jen Hatmaker was the most recent high profile Christian to say that she thought same-sex relationships can be “holy.”  Following this train there have been some, while not affirming same-sex relationships themselves, say that sodomy and lesbianism are not issues worth dividing over. Sodomy may be wrong, but it does not put someone outside the kingdom of Christ. In other words you can affirm same-sex relationships and still be a Christian. Is this true? Is sodomy an issue where Christians can agree to disagree like baptism? The answer is no. Someone who is an active homosexual or lesbian has no inheritance in the kingdom of God.  Continue reading

Sexual Purity & the Seventh Commandment: Heidelberg Catechism~Lord’s Day 41

lipstick

This Sunday is the 41st Lord’s Day in 2016. The Heidelberg Catechism reading for this Sunday is:

Q. What does the seventh commandment teach us?

A. That God condemns all unchastity, and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it and live decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the holy state of marriage.

Q. Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such scandalous sins as adultery?

A. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why God forbids all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires, and whatever may incite someone to them.

Kevin DeYoung sets the stage by saying:

Is there any command more ridiculed in our culture than the Seventh Commandment? Adultery is a joke; homosexuality is a right; sex before marriage is the norm; no fault divorce and remarriage is assumed; bestiality is increasingly considered avant gard. This is the world we live in. Sex has always been a leading vote-getter in the most popular sin contest, but never before in this country has sexual deviance been made to look so normal and God’s standard make to look so obscene…The Seventh Commandment is not just broken in this country; it’s being smashed to pieces.

Our bodies are rarely pure, much less our thoughts and desires. We are so at home with sexual immorality in our TV shows and music, but perhaps more deadly in our churches. The Heidelberg says we should “thoroughly detest unchastity. We are not encouraged to a mild disdain for sexual immorality. But to a deep, abiding hatred of lust. We are not encouraged to a casual approach to sexual purity, but to a whole-hearted pursuit of it. Is that our attitude towards sexual immorality? How many of us detest the idea of getting caught looking porn, but do not detest the porn itself? How many of us hate that a friend or spouse might see us lusting after that girl in yoga pants or that guy in a tight jeans, but do not hate the fact that we want to lust after her/him? For most of us, the consequences of sexual sin are what we hate, not the sin itself. Until we learn to hate the sin and the desires that give birth to those sins we will never gain the victory.  Continue reading

Did the Early Church Approve of Homosexuality?

Revising history has been one of the common ploys in the gay Christian movement. In particular John Boswell and former Jesuit priest John McNeill have written books that revise the history of the church to be more friendly to gays. These books have been used by gay Christians as proof that Christianity from it’s earliest times was welcoming of homosexuals. Boswell even argues that same-sex unions were approved by Anselm. Their scholarship, if it can be called that, has been called into serious question time and time. Yet they are cited by gay Christians as proof that sodomy really has not been that big a deal in church history.

To combat this error Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams have written Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition.  These authors carefully cite numerous primary sources from the early church into the modern era that show without a doubt that sodomy in all its forms has been condemned by the church. Michael Kruger has a review of the book here. He states:

After reading Fortson’s and Rollin’s book, they may not agree with what Christians have always believed.  But, they would have to admit that Christians have always believed it.

I have only gotten through the chapters on the early church and the Middle ages, but both are valuable and clear. Several points stand out.

First, the church has always taught that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Hospitality is sometimes mentioned alongside of homosexuality, but homosexuality is always mentioned. I read nothing that indicated that the primary problem was homosexual rape either. 

Second, sodomy was often grouped with murder and bestiality as the gravest of sins.

Third, the celibate priesthood was a breeding ground for sodomy. Sodomites priest were common enough that specific punishments were put into law for priests who were sodomites. Despite these laws sodomy continued to be a problem in monasteries.

Fourth, marriage between a man and a woman was always considered the only proper outlet for sexual expression. Sodomy, masturbation, prostitution, bestiality, lesbianism, mistresses, concubines, etc. were all sins of varying degrees with sodomy being at the top of the list.

Finally, there were distinctions made between different types of homosexual behavior, including sex with boys, the dominant male, and the submissive male. But all of these were considered a gross violation of nature. One does not get the impression reading the primary sources that the main concern was sex with boys. The problem was sodomy not the sexual abuse of boys.

Here is the conclusion to their chapter on the church fathers:

This brief survey of the early Christian centuries underscores several assertions that can be made with confidence about Christian attitudes towards homosexual practice. Given the ethnic diversity of Christians and their geographic dispersion throughout the Mediterranean world in the earliest centuries after Christ, the evident consensus on this issue is remarkable…The church fathers were aware of homosexual practices in their culture and consistently condemned such behavior…The Fathers believed homosexual practice was perverse and would lead one down the path to destruction. Same-sex activity was considered a grievous sin against the Creator who designed men and women for each other. In addition to violating divine design, homosexual activity-according to early Christian writers-was an instance of humans abusing and polluting one another. 

Here are some conclusions from their chapter on the Middle Ages:

The cumulative evidence from centuries of medieval sources points to the church’s unequivocal condemnation of all forms of homosexual practice. As in the patristic era, despite the geographical separation and diverse cultures of early medieval Christians, they shared a commitment to biblically defined sexual ethics…no extant source includes an example of medieval Christians expressing toleration of homosexual behavior. There was no medieval deviation from patristic teaching concerning the accepted code of Christian sexual morality…all varieties of homosexual practice were condemned by the medieval church…in the late medieval era, when massive collections of earlier Christian writings  emerged, the compilers of canon law provided a comprehensive picture of the church’s views of homosexual practice. What one observes is a consistent pattern of both denunciation and pastoral care for persons guilty of homosexuality.  

Here is the final paragraph in the chapter on the Middle Ages:

The medieval material indicates a distinction among persons who engaged in same-sex acts. Younger boys experimenting with homosexual sex were treated far more leniently than adults, adults who habitually engaged in homosexual acts were treated more severely than occasional offenders. The texts reveal a medieval awareness that some people felt sexual desire for persons of the same gender, but this did not legitimate acts against nature. Rather extreme measures were taken to help persons with same-sex attraction avoid eternal damnation, from penance to strict requirements concerning their living arrangements. Homosexuality was not viewed as a psychological disorder: it was sin. While homosexuality may have been characteristic of some persons-an orientation-ethics was not reduced to a psychology of inclinations or orientations; it dealt with actions that proceeded from the wickedness of fallen humanity, a humanity that could be transformed through the work of Christ. 

The authors have done the church a great service by doing the research and writing this book. It will be a great resource for the body of Christ as she ministers to those coming out of the gay culture to Jesus and as she stems the tide of the gay Christian movement which attempts to turn the Bible’s teaching on its head and to throw out 2,000 of the church’s teaching on sexuality in general and sodomy specifically.

There Are Things Worse Than Sexual Immorality

Here is the final paragraph from C.S. Lewis’s chapter on Sexual Morality in Mere Christianity. Brackets are mine. All else is his.

“Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity [sexual immorality] as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside of me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self [sins of the flesh], and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

Getting It

In Dr. Schaumburg’s book Undefiled there is an appendix that sums up one of the most glaring errors in modern evangelical culture. I have seen the error he addresses in my own life and my church. I have read it in books, heard it in sermons, and to my shame probably preached it. Dr. Schaumburg is explaining what the difference is between people who “get it” and people who don’t. What is the difference between a couple who comes to him for counseling and they see real, life changing fruit and a couple who doesn’t? Read carefully what he says here. I have bolded certain sentences and phrases. The ellipsis is mine, as are the brackets. All other punctuation is his.

I usually see one major reason why people come [to counseling] for help with sexual sin, and two types of responses. Generally speaking, everyone who comes has in mind the pressing need to change a behavior, end an affair, and/or save a marriage. Therein lies the basic problem in getting it. We often focus on the external-the behavior and the pain-rather than the internal. What seems like a logical center of attention is filled with flawed thinking and the pervasive false teaching within the evangelical church. This leads many to spend their energy and their entire lives on “living life well.” Therefore when an affair, pornography, or some other type of sexual sin is uncovered, it threatens the goal of living an abundant, fulfilling Christian life. It prevents us from having a meaningful marriage and guarantees endless pain. The response is to do whatever must be done to recover the abundant life and get the marriage back on track. It’s just common sense-but is it biblical thinking? 

If we are biblically grounded we will start from an entirely different perspective: “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20; see Ephesians 2:19). The opposite and powerful perspective described above[previous paragraph] comes from “minds set on earthly things” (Philippians 3:19). The biblical understanding of life centers on the essential internal change that leads to life (Philippians 3:21) versus the temporal change that will fail and lead to death. Repentance is not an emotional response to sin. It is much more than behavior management or a matter of being in recovery. It is a genuine heart change that always produces a life of righteousness. God’s redemptive grace requires a person’s responsive obedience. Repentance is a radical inward change that results in everything else beginning to change. Repentance always bears fruit as the work of God continues and we live out our lives in a manner “worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Philippians 1:27)…repentance is not merely new behavior. Repentance is inward change leading to the fruit of new behavior. It is imperative that we understand that Jesus demands this inward change [Luke 13:3]. 

So why do some people “get it”  while others don’t? Most come desperate to change a behavior, possibly save a marriage, and certainly stop the pain, but many never truly repent with an internal change of mind and heart. They leave with a false hope based on mere sorrow for their sin, a commitment to change their behavior, and a new desire to find real intimacy in their marriage. Those singles and couples die, while those who shift their perspective to their desperate need of inward change live. The former leave dependent on their good efforts; the latter leave dependent on the continued work of God. They cling to God in fear and trembling, with a desire to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.” (Ephesians 4:1; see Colossians 1:10, 2:6-7). 

These paragraphs sum up well what a true gospel message does. It begins with the inner man, not outward change. It causes us to see that our greatest need is not to fix our lives, but to fix ourselves. We cannot do this. Therefore we must repent and flee to Christ. As we cling to Christ he gives us grace and power to fight the sin in our hearts, which leads to outward righteous behavior. But if we begin with trying to fix our lives, our marriages, our children, our jobs, our… then we will fail. Unfortunately most evangelicals approach God like his goal is make our lives good and the Bible is there to tell us how to have a successful Christian life. There are blessings that come with obedience. But the goal should be obedience that comes from a change in heart, mind, and will. The goal should not be using God and the Bible to make our lives better.