I've been reading some interesting stuff on the net lately about spouse roles. Only recently have I been struck by a disturbing theme that seems to be quite common. The theme has been there all along, I suppose. But only recently have I seen it as off-based. I'm not going to give a list of links and specific quotes because I don't want to seem like I'm picking on anyone, and it's quite a common assertion. I don't think it needs to be personal. Instead, I'll give a few general phrases that I see repeated in some form in many essays and articles, and interact with them. Again, these are not actual quotes of anyone, but only my rephrasing of what I've read and heard through the years. I'm sure they're familiar enough for most Christians to grasp my point.
1. "Motherhood is the woman's high calling."
2. "As a woman, my time, talent and ability couldn't be any better spent than keeping a home and taking care of children."
3. "It's God's design that, as women, we are all to be keepers of the home."
4. "We should be raising our daughters to be wives and mothers."
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. On the surface, these phrases seem to be counter-cultural and consistent with a biblical worldview. They're also pretty widely accepted in most conservative Christian circles. So what could I possibly pick apart in such assertions?
The primary problem I have is that, though they seem so conservative and hearken back to a golden age of Americana, they just don't jive so well with a gospel-centered worldview. Now that's strange to say, because I've actually seen these assertions defended as the most gospel-centered view of womanhood. But the folks making that claim don't usually go to the most gospel-centered texts to prove it. Instead, they go to texts dealing with the creation of Adam and Eve or Proverbs 31 or Titus 2 or 1 Timothy 2:15.
So what texts would I bring up to refute the above phrases? I'm only going to go in depth with one text. The most obvious one for me is 1 Corinthians 7.
1. Paul says that as a concession, he wishes that all people would be like Paul - single (7:7) But if people are going to burn with passion, then they should marry. Are women included in this text? Of course. Then how could a woman's high calling be motherhood if it's not even a woman's responsibility to get married?
2. Paul speaks so strongly about remaining single that he has to remind his readers that if they do actually marry they aren't sinning (7:28). Paul is so cautious about marriage because: "in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is" (7:26). Some think the distress is some local problem like persecution. That's possible, but it's just as likely that he's referring to the imminent return of Christ. Paul's gospel-centered, heavenly-minded focus is so intense that his readers are going to take him as anti-marriage. That's why he has to further explain his position. "The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.... For the present form of this world is passing away" (7:29, 31). "Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that" (7:28). In other words, the gospel is turning the world upside down, and there's not time to lose in our missional mandate. So it might not be the best thing for Christians to get bogged down with relationship burdens. No matter how noble we think marriage is, it's still just a form of this world that is passing away. That has to mean that no matter how high a calling we think motherhood is, it also is just a form of this world that is passing away. How can a woman be faulted for not being a mother when she's rarely encouraged in the New Testament to even get married?
3. Paul doesn't stop there. So people who get married are going to have "worldly troubles." Like what? What kind of "worldly troubles"? "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband" (7:32-34). Paul clearly sees an advantage for the gospel in being unmarried. I wonder exactly what Paul had in mind when writing of divided interests in pleasing a spouse. Might he have been thinking about being tied down to a household chore list? A married person is simply not as free to follow the cause of the gospel wherever it leads as a single person. Now, I've seen it said that women should get married and have all sorts of kids so that they can then preach the gospel to them and the church will grow. There's simply no biblical command that comes close to justifying such a suggestion.
4. I can hear some of the complaints now. "Darby, are you saying you agree with the feminazis out there messing up the culture?" No, I'm not. "Are you saying that Paul thought women and men had the same roles?" No, I'm not. "Do you realize how chaotic and disorderly your version of this text would make things?" No, I don't. And neither does Paul. In fact, Paul is writing all this anti-marriage stuff, "not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35). This is so contrary to our conservative Christian - Focus on the Family - take back the culture sensibilities. We think we can practice good order by focusing on the family. And Paul says we can only have good order with undivided devotion to the Lord, whether we have a family or not.
5. One practical outcome of our modern "pro-family" rather than "pro-gospel" perspective is the difficulty in inspiring couples to be missionaries. Good Christians will say things like: "Well I'm not sure if God is calling me to go to Yemen, but I know he's calling me to be a good mother to my children. If I'd take them to Yemen, I'd put them in all sorts of dangers, so we're just going to stay right here in the suburbs and keep a clean house and a manicured lawn and healthy babies. That's my high calling after all."
I realize any post about such a big and important subject as this is going to be incomplete and open to disagreement. I've left a lot unsaid. But my goal is to stir up further thought on this rather than give an exhaustive explanation beyond refutation. So what do you think?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Is Divorce a Bigger Sin Than Adultery?
Statement 1: Adultery is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
Statement 2: Divorce is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
I think it's safe to assume most Christians would whole-heartedly agree with Statement 1 as written. Statement 2, on the other hand, would be less supported as written. I think the part that would draw fire is calling divorce a sin and saying there is never an excuse for it. There are Christians who think there are all kinds of excuses for divorce. There are other Christians who think divorce is a sin except for the when a spouse commits adultery. Adultery is the only excuse for divorce. There are also Christians who think divorce is always a sin, and adultery isn't a get out of marriage free card.
While discussing the posts found here, here and here; the question was asked, "Is the one choosing the divorce committing a bigger sin than the one committing the adultery? Shouldn't they receive the same grace?"
I've thought long and hard about that question and hope this response is helpful because I know there are many who wonder the same thing as the person who asked it. So here goes. There is a subtle danger at the bottom of that question. The question assumes divorce is not the best choice, but the necessary choice in order to punish the adulterer and get revenge. "You slept around and hurt me very deeply. So I'm going to divorce you and hurt you back." "You slept around and broke my trust. So I'm going to divorce you and make you lay in the bed you've made." "You slept around and really I'm glad because I've been dying for an excuse to get out of this marriage and still look like the good guy." Of course no one says the last one, but I guarantee you based on things I've personally heard, people think this way. That's the point I took away from the original posts we're discussing.
When one spouse commits adultery, it often ends up showing just how little both spouses care for the covenant they've made for "better or worse till death do us part." Think of it this way. Tom commits adultery. He obviously has little respect for the covenant he made with his wife and little fear of God. When Tom's wife, Jerry, finds out about the affair, she wants a divorce. She also has little respect for the covenant she made with her husband and little fear of God. Otherwise she would do everything she possibly could to keep that covenant intact. Instead, she's just as quick to search for a way out as Tom. Tom grew weary with keeping his covenant and decided to commit adultery. He'll probably give some lame excuse about not getting any or not feeling loved or feeling too much pressure or maybe he'll just fess up to being evil. Jerry has also grown weary of keeping her covenant and has decided to get a divorce. She's giving some lame excuse about not having a faithful husband. When both are so quick to give up the union that GOD joined together, it seems that Tom just beat Jerry to the punch, but neither are all that concerned about God's union. They're both concerned about their own personal glory.
So is the one who gets a divorce committing a bigger sin than the one who commits adultery? Why don't we let God decide on judgment day? Should they receive the same grace? Absolutely. But here's the practical problem this question poses. If Tom or Jerry has an affair, he or she can repent of that and work toward restoration, all the while remaining married. If Tom or Jerry gets a divorce, repentance would mean going back to the marriage covenant they broke. Repentance would not mean, "Oh I guess I shouldn't have gotten divorced, but no use crying over spilled milk. I might as well find a new wife and live happily ever after... or at least until the next affair."
In my experience, spouses who get divorced because of an affair don't think they need to repent of ending the marriage. They think of themselves as victims of their evil adulterous spouse who already ended the marriage with the adultery. But why is adultery the marriage-ending sin? Would someone actually argue that adultery is more damaging to the marriage than perpetual nagging or perpetual harshness or perpetual denial of intimacy? Really? I have a feeling the reason adultery is the one get out of marriage free card is because of a couple of statements that Jesus made. The question is this: If it is determined that Jesus didn't mean for his statements to be a get out of marriage free card when a spouse commits adultery, would the entire face of Christian marriage and divorce drastically change? I fear it would not. I don't think Christians get divorced because they're trying to faithfully live out a text of Scripture (divorce is never commanded). Christians get divorced for the same reason everyone gets divorced. They have hard hearts. Is the same grace necessary? Oh yeah.
Statement 2: Divorce is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
I think it's safe to assume most Christians would whole-heartedly agree with Statement 1 as written. Statement 2, on the other hand, would be less supported as written. I think the part that would draw fire is calling divorce a sin and saying there is never an excuse for it. There are Christians who think there are all kinds of excuses for divorce. There are other Christians who think divorce is a sin except for the when a spouse commits adultery. Adultery is the only excuse for divorce. There are also Christians who think divorce is always a sin, and adultery isn't a get out of marriage free card.
While discussing the posts found here, here and here; the question was asked, "Is the one choosing the divorce committing a bigger sin than the one committing the adultery? Shouldn't they receive the same grace?"
I've thought long and hard about that question and hope this response is helpful because I know there are many who wonder the same thing as the person who asked it. So here goes. There is a subtle danger at the bottom of that question. The question assumes divorce is not the best choice, but the necessary choice in order to punish the adulterer and get revenge. "You slept around and hurt me very deeply. So I'm going to divorce you and hurt you back." "You slept around and broke my trust. So I'm going to divorce you and make you lay in the bed you've made." "You slept around and really I'm glad because I've been dying for an excuse to get out of this marriage and still look like the good guy." Of course no one says the last one, but I guarantee you based on things I've personally heard, people think this way. That's the point I took away from the original posts we're discussing.
When one spouse commits adultery, it often ends up showing just how little both spouses care for the covenant they've made for "better or worse till death do us part." Think of it this way. Tom commits adultery. He obviously has little respect for the covenant he made with his wife and little fear of God. When Tom's wife, Jerry, finds out about the affair, she wants a divorce. She also has little respect for the covenant she made with her husband and little fear of God. Otherwise she would do everything she possibly could to keep that covenant intact. Instead, she's just as quick to search for a way out as Tom. Tom grew weary with keeping his covenant and decided to commit adultery. He'll probably give some lame excuse about not getting any or not feeling loved or feeling too much pressure or maybe he'll just fess up to being evil. Jerry has also grown weary of keeping her covenant and has decided to get a divorce. She's giving some lame excuse about not having a faithful husband. When both are so quick to give up the union that GOD joined together, it seems that Tom just beat Jerry to the punch, but neither are all that concerned about God's union. They're both concerned about their own personal glory.
So is the one who gets a divorce committing a bigger sin than the one who commits adultery? Why don't we let God decide on judgment day? Should they receive the same grace? Absolutely. But here's the practical problem this question poses. If Tom or Jerry has an affair, he or she can repent of that and work toward restoration, all the while remaining married. If Tom or Jerry gets a divorce, repentance would mean going back to the marriage covenant they broke. Repentance would not mean, "Oh I guess I shouldn't have gotten divorced, but no use crying over spilled milk. I might as well find a new wife and live happily ever after... or at least until the next affair."
In my experience, spouses who get divorced because of an affair don't think they need to repent of ending the marriage. They think of themselves as victims of their evil adulterous spouse who already ended the marriage with the adultery. But why is adultery the marriage-ending sin? Would someone actually argue that adultery is more damaging to the marriage than perpetual nagging or perpetual harshness or perpetual denial of intimacy? Really? I have a feeling the reason adultery is the one get out of marriage free card is because of a couple of statements that Jesus made. The question is this: If it is determined that Jesus didn't mean for his statements to be a get out of marriage free card when a spouse commits adultery, would the entire face of Christian marriage and divorce drastically change? I fear it would not. I don't think Christians get divorced because they're trying to faithfully live out a text of Scripture (divorce is never commanded). Christians get divorced for the same reason everyone gets divorced. They have hard hearts. Is the same grace necessary? Oh yeah.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Is the "Exception Clause" a Pastoral Pass on Adultery?
Here are some provocative thoughts about marriage, remarriage and divorce. Do you think these are good points?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
A Scalpel or a Sword: Surgery or Slaughter?
What's the purpose of the Bible? What can a son or daughter of Adam expect from soaking in the Scriptures? This is an important question because we go to the Bible, not only with preconceived ideas about what it says, but also with predetermined expectations about what it will deliver. This is definitely seen in preaching and counseling. Preachers often hear things like, "I wasn't being fed over at First Holy Bible Church." "I don't want a sermon where I feel beat down or heavy." "The Bible should give us joy, not grief." "The preaching isn't lifting me up lately." "His preaching is too hard to take." "I need steel-toed shoes for his sermons." Each of these statements is pointing to an underlying expectation that the listener is placing on the sermon. And if the sermon is a faithful exposition of the Scripture, then the expectation is also an indictment of the Bible as well. In other words, a heavy text of Scripture should produce a heavy feeling in the heart, or it isn't being taken properly. But a listener of the Word who only wants to be "lifted up" will not be satisfied with that.
In his excellent book, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal, Eric L. Johnson reminds us of "the biblical text as subversive interpreter." What does Johnson mean by subversive interpreter? To subvert is to overthrow or to undermine. So to say that the Bible is a subversive interpreter is to say it overthrows or undermines something. But what? Let's let the Bible speak for itself.
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb. 4:12-13).
I've heard it said that the Bible is a scalpel in the hands of God - doing surgery on our souls. I don't know if that's the best metaphor. It seems to me that the writer of Hebrews didn't see the Bible as a surgical instrument as much as a slaughtering instrument. It's a two-edged sword. The Word of God is also called the sword of the Spirit. When Jesus returns, he's coming with a sword from his mouth. What are swords used for? Surgery? Healing? Of course not. Swords are used to kill, not heal.
I fear that we think of the Bible as a scalpel because 1) we think we need a precise instrument to meticulously cut out the evil amidst all the good inside of us, and 2) we'd rather our evil souls be healed than killed. I've been guilty of saying the Bible "does heart surgery on us." I've repented of such thinking. The Bible is a killer, and this life is a battlefield rather than an operating room.
I know this sounds radical, but think through this with me. The Bible is meant to subvert or overthrow and undermine that part of us that we've inherited in Adam. Bonhoeffer said that when Christ calls a man, he bids him to come and die. Jesus said in order to live for him, we must first die to ourselves. Anyone who gives up his life for Jesus' sake or the gospel's will gain eternal life. The Christian must go through daily crucifixion to be a disciple. Jesus calls out his disciples to death, and the Bible is the instrument of slaughter.
Here's where it gets tricky. We like to assume that Christians identify more with the Spirit than with the flesh. So we don't realize just how much of us still needs to be laid bare by the Bible. Most of us hear about the old self and new self, the flesh and the Spirit, this life and the life to come, earth and Heaven, old creation and new creation, and we convince ourselves that we're on the side of the new self, the Spirit, the life to come, Heaven and the new creation. We just assume that our default position is righteousness and humility. This is hogwash, and cannot be sustained by the Bible. Let's not forget that most of the Bible, including the New Testament, was written as a response to man's selfishness and pride!
So the Bible is designed by God to kill the old self that we love to coddle. We can't just assume that we want to hear what the Bible has to say, or a preacher or counselor or husband or wife who speaks the Bible to us. There is a very stubborn and evil core in us that doesn't want to be subverted. It helps us to know this up front. Reading and meditating on the Bible, though pleasant to part of us, is also almost always painful to another part of us. If all you get from the Bible is uplifting and positive feelings, you're likely not reading it rightly.
I'm a very positive thinking person, and very little gets me down for more than a couple minutes. However, I rarely read the Bible without the weight of it crushing my soul. Yes, the gospel brings me hope, but only after it has first thrashed my sin. Where's the hope in all this? The hope lies in the fact that Jesus doesn't let us live as rebels. His word kills the rebel within us, little by little now, and fully at the resurrection, so that we will be fit for eternal bliss in Heaven. My next post will flesh out how seeing the Bible as a sword works practically in the life of a Christian.
In his excellent book, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal, Eric L. Johnson reminds us of "the biblical text as subversive interpreter." What does Johnson mean by subversive interpreter? To subvert is to overthrow or to undermine. So to say that the Bible is a subversive interpreter is to say it overthrows or undermines something. But what? Let's let the Bible speak for itself.
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb. 4:12-13).
I've heard it said that the Bible is a scalpel in the hands of God - doing surgery on our souls. I don't know if that's the best metaphor. It seems to me that the writer of Hebrews didn't see the Bible as a surgical instrument as much as a slaughtering instrument. It's a two-edged sword. The Word of God is also called the sword of the Spirit. When Jesus returns, he's coming with a sword from his mouth. What are swords used for? Surgery? Healing? Of course not. Swords are used to kill, not heal.
I fear that we think of the Bible as a scalpel because 1) we think we need a precise instrument to meticulously cut out the evil amidst all the good inside of us, and 2) we'd rather our evil souls be healed than killed. I've been guilty of saying the Bible "does heart surgery on us." I've repented of such thinking. The Bible is a killer, and this life is a battlefield rather than an operating room.
I know this sounds radical, but think through this with me. The Bible is meant to subvert or overthrow and undermine that part of us that we've inherited in Adam. Bonhoeffer said that when Christ calls a man, he bids him to come and die. Jesus said in order to live for him, we must first die to ourselves. Anyone who gives up his life for Jesus' sake or the gospel's will gain eternal life. The Christian must go through daily crucifixion to be a disciple. Jesus calls out his disciples to death, and the Bible is the instrument of slaughter.
Here's where it gets tricky. We like to assume that Christians identify more with the Spirit than with the flesh. So we don't realize just how much of us still needs to be laid bare by the Bible. Most of us hear about the old self and new self, the flesh and the Spirit, this life and the life to come, earth and Heaven, old creation and new creation, and we convince ourselves that we're on the side of the new self, the Spirit, the life to come, Heaven and the new creation. We just assume that our default position is righteousness and humility. This is hogwash, and cannot be sustained by the Bible. Let's not forget that most of the Bible, including the New Testament, was written as a response to man's selfishness and pride!
So the Bible is designed by God to kill the old self that we love to coddle. We can't just assume that we want to hear what the Bible has to say, or a preacher or counselor or husband or wife who speaks the Bible to us. There is a very stubborn and evil core in us that doesn't want to be subverted. It helps us to know this up front. Reading and meditating on the Bible, though pleasant to part of us, is also almost always painful to another part of us. If all you get from the Bible is uplifting and positive feelings, you're likely not reading it rightly.
I'm a very positive thinking person, and very little gets me down for more than a couple minutes. However, I rarely read the Bible without the weight of it crushing my soul. Yes, the gospel brings me hope, but only after it has first thrashed my sin. Where's the hope in all this? The hope lies in the fact that Jesus doesn't let us live as rebels. His word kills the rebel within us, little by little now, and fully at the resurrection, so that we will be fit for eternal bliss in Heaven. My next post will flesh out how seeing the Bible as a sword works practically in the life of a Christian.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Why is Sex Such a Sore Subject?
"When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love."
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine;"
Are these the three points to the latest Mark Driscoll sermon? Ahh, no. These are texts of Scripture - the perfectly holy, perfectly perfect, perfectly sufficient Word of God. Why have I placarded them on my blog? Because I want to warn against trying to be more holy than God - so holy, in fact, that God could be accused of crudeness and crassness.
In my treks across the internet, I see two disturbing trends. The first trend is to use sex as a church-growth technique. I see a lot of cookie-cutter church plant websites advertising the gratuitous sex sermon series. One or two "famous" pastors preach a series on sex and a flock of wannabes across the country follow suit. Are we to believe that is what all these churches need to hear right now, or are some impressionable young preachers just jumping on the too cool for school hip trendy bandwagon? I fear it's the latter.
The second trend is to act like sex is inappropriate to discuss except with one's spouse in bed. This is simply not true. Is it any wonder that the two greatest sources of sin in the church in America are sex and money - the two areas where Christians call foul if they're addressed in any kind of direct way? Make no mistake, matters too private to preach about are also private enough to pierce with many soul-killing pangs.
I am disturbed by the attempts to be more holy than God. I fear that the reason sex is such a sore subject to many Christians is because it's an area that hasn't been fully redeemed by the Gospel. This is why I'm so concerned with this issue. Sex is not dirty and neither is sexual talk. Sex and sexual talk is either righteous and God-glorifying or wicked and Satanic depending on the way it's used. But there are many who act as though any talk about sex in everyday normal language is automatically pornography. That's just wrong. And that kind of thinking is not helping our marriages and children.
It's time for pastors to stop pretending that the church in America doesn't have a problem with rampant sexual sin. It's not preaching that is causing all the porn problems and teenage pregnancies in the church. Pastors have been not preaching about sex for an awful long time. How's the "mum's the word" method of dealing with issues of sexuality working? And when pastors do preach about sex, it's with winks and corny double-talk and euphemisms to keep from saying what everyone is saying everywhere except for the one place where sex should be talked about - church.
I don't accept the common notion that talking about sex will stunt sanctification. That's absurd. Sanctification is being stunted because pastors refuse to talk about sex in a responsible and God-glorifying way. How can talking about a biblical subject in common language lead to sin? Do we believe that about any other biblical subject? Isn't preaching about putting biblical truths into common language? Why do we stifle and box in the Word of God when it comes to sex? Is it because we're more holy than God? God knows our sexuality. When he wants to chastise his people for their idolatry, he does it by bringing up images of "donkey members" and "horse issues" to stun us. If pastors speak this way today, it's considered sinfully crude. What is that saying about God?
I remember about five years ago I was chastised for saying in a sermon that Heaven will be eternally orgasmic. An older lady told me she didn't appreciate me saying orgasmic when her teenage grandson was in the room. How did I respond? Did I repent in dust and ashes? Not exactly. I explained that her teenage grandson definitely knew what an orgasm was. I knew her grandson. Then I explained that someone had better start explaining why Heaven is worth staying pure for in a language that we can actually understand. I still hold that view today. And I'm not sure the lady is even in church anymore.
I've never preached a series on sex. But sex is a pretty common theme in my sermons because that's where people struggle. Sex was created by God to be a foretaste of Heaven and a picture of communion with God. It has been usurped by the adversary, and the church has given up the ground. I think it is possible and proper to discuss sex openly in a way that doesn't devolve into Porky's and American Pie. And I think it's equally possible and proper to discuss sex in a way that is pastorally responsible, rather than a method to entice people to come to church. People coming to Christ have questions about sex. It has been a primary area of struggle for most of their lives. They need to know how to do it godly. Let's not forget why the "missionary position" is called that. Can we blame a couple for wondering if another way is sinful? Are we too holy to even discuss it?
"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love."
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine;"
Are these the three points to the latest Mark Driscoll sermon? Ahh, no. These are texts of Scripture - the perfectly holy, perfectly perfect, perfectly sufficient Word of God. Why have I placarded them on my blog? Because I want to warn against trying to be more holy than God - so holy, in fact, that God could be accused of crudeness and crassness.
In my treks across the internet, I see two disturbing trends. The first trend is to use sex as a church-growth technique. I see a lot of cookie-cutter church plant websites advertising the gratuitous sex sermon series. One or two "famous" pastors preach a series on sex and a flock of wannabes across the country follow suit. Are we to believe that is what all these churches need to hear right now, or are some impressionable young preachers just jumping on the too cool for school hip trendy bandwagon? I fear it's the latter.
The second trend is to act like sex is inappropriate to discuss except with one's spouse in bed. This is simply not true. Is it any wonder that the two greatest sources of sin in the church in America are sex and money - the two areas where Christians call foul if they're addressed in any kind of direct way? Make no mistake, matters too private to preach about are also private enough to pierce with many soul-killing pangs.
I am disturbed by the attempts to be more holy than God. I fear that the reason sex is such a sore subject to many Christians is because it's an area that hasn't been fully redeemed by the Gospel. This is why I'm so concerned with this issue. Sex is not dirty and neither is sexual talk. Sex and sexual talk is either righteous and God-glorifying or wicked and Satanic depending on the way it's used. But there are many who act as though any talk about sex in everyday normal language is automatically pornography. That's just wrong. And that kind of thinking is not helping our marriages and children.
It's time for pastors to stop pretending that the church in America doesn't have a problem with rampant sexual sin. It's not preaching that is causing all the porn problems and teenage pregnancies in the church. Pastors have been not preaching about sex for an awful long time. How's the "mum's the word" method of dealing with issues of sexuality working? And when pastors do preach about sex, it's with winks and corny double-talk and euphemisms to keep from saying what everyone is saying everywhere except for the one place where sex should be talked about - church.
I don't accept the common notion that talking about sex will stunt sanctification. That's absurd. Sanctification is being stunted because pastors refuse to talk about sex in a responsible and God-glorifying way. How can talking about a biblical subject in common language lead to sin? Do we believe that about any other biblical subject? Isn't preaching about putting biblical truths into common language? Why do we stifle and box in the Word of God when it comes to sex? Is it because we're more holy than God? God knows our sexuality. When he wants to chastise his people for their idolatry, he does it by bringing up images of "donkey members" and "horse issues" to stun us. If pastors speak this way today, it's considered sinfully crude. What is that saying about God?
I remember about five years ago I was chastised for saying in a sermon that Heaven will be eternally orgasmic. An older lady told me she didn't appreciate me saying orgasmic when her teenage grandson was in the room. How did I respond? Did I repent in dust and ashes? Not exactly. I explained that her teenage grandson definitely knew what an orgasm was. I knew her grandson. Then I explained that someone had better start explaining why Heaven is worth staying pure for in a language that we can actually understand. I still hold that view today. And I'm not sure the lady is even in church anymore.
I've never preached a series on sex. But sex is a pretty common theme in my sermons because that's where people struggle. Sex was created by God to be a foretaste of Heaven and a picture of communion with God. It has been usurped by the adversary, and the church has given up the ground. I think it is possible and proper to discuss sex openly in a way that doesn't devolve into Porky's and American Pie. And I think it's equally possible and proper to discuss sex in a way that is pastorally responsible, rather than a method to entice people to come to church. People coming to Christ have questions about sex. It has been a primary area of struggle for most of their lives. They need to know how to do it godly. Let's not forget why the "missionary position" is called that. Can we blame a couple for wondering if another way is sinful? Are we too holy to even discuss it?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why Most Marriage Helps Don't Help
I'm reading Christless Christianity by Michael Horton. This is a very good book. Horton is professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary in California. The premise of his book is that much of American Christianity has given up the gospel of the imputed righteousness and substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for a false gospel of "moralistic, therapeutic deism." The reason for this is because we are more concerned with having our best life now and making for ourselves the glory of Heaven without the cross it takes to get there. Mankind is legalistic by nature, and moralistic, therapeutic deism is how Horton describes the legalism that has crept into the Christian gospel message. Moralistic, therapeutic deism is described through the following points:
1. God created the world.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
Horton believes the above points describe much of Christianity in America today. Much of what passes for Christian teaching and sermons are really nothing more than ten steps to a better you. Horton writes: "Of course no one has to explicitly deny any article of the Christian creed in order to shift the focus from the public truth content of Christianity to the subject, pragmatic, and therapeutic categories of 'how-to' religion. Christ may still be called Savior, but we really save ourselves by knowing and following the steps of the new birth and 'victorious living.'"
According to this view, it's not so much that God saves anyone as that God provides the tools for his people to work their own salvation by following the steps - moralistic.
Horton continues: "When we adopt a human-centered approach that assimilates God to our own experience and happiness, the world is no longer God's creation; is too, like God, exists for our own personal well-being. Everything that exists is there for us to consume for our happiness. So, for example, drugs and sexual promiscuity are not wrong because they offend God, according to most of these sermons, but because they cannot compare with the joy and happiness of living God's way. They're not wrong as much as unfulfilling; they wear off. . . . In these sermons, another recurring emphasis is that human beings are victims and being lost no longer means damned but lacking direction in life."
According to this view, man's problem isn't that God's wrath is on him because of sin, but that man doesn't know how to make life work out rightly. And the good news isn't that Jesus has come to remove the wrath and pave the way to Heaven, but that God has given us all the help we need to make life work out rightly - therapeutic. And oh, by the way, Heaven is thrown in after all.
More Horton: "God is basically the ideal Secretary of Homeland Security - Homeland defined as my own personal happiness, or national health, whether defined by the political left or right. Of course, when the affairs of the universe center on me and my happiness, this generic deism becomes therapeutic, especially focusing on 'God as daddy' and 'God as sufferer.'"
According to this view, God is deconstructed and rebuilt in man's image. Instead of a God who lays down a demanding law that will kill all transgressors, God is seen as sky santa who is always available to lend a helping hand when called on, but doesn't show up unless beckoned - deism.
The rest of the book fleshes out moralistic, therapeutic deism using real life examples from real life preachers and churches. I agree with Horton's assessment of things, and I'll tie it in with gospel-centered marriage now.
Christless Christianity puts words to my concerns with much marriage counseling. Horton has written far better than I ever could the reason why certain "marriage helps" are so subtly dangerous. Why is it that so many marriage helps don't help? The most recent one I wrote about was Love Dare. That study is still selling like hotcakes. But to what end? Is Love Dare popular because it shows its readers how to use marriage to make much of God? Or is it popular because it shows its readers how to use God to make much of marriage? After reading the book and watching the movie twice (which I thought was okay), I fear it's the second option. In fact, in my review, I listed as one of my concerns how believing the gospel was relegated in the book to one more step among 39 others. Then I see in Horton's book that this is exactly the kind of step-by-step therapeutic counsel that he is warning against.
Most marriage helps don't help because they fall into the moralistic, therapeutic deism category. God wants you to have "your best marriage now" and he has given you all the steps you need to make it happen. Why go through life stuck in an unfulfilled marriage? God is here to help you with that. Just turn to him and he'll give you the kind of marriage you've always dreamed of. Or not.
1. God created the world.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
Horton believes the above points describe much of Christianity in America today. Much of what passes for Christian teaching and sermons are really nothing more than ten steps to a better you. Horton writes: "Of course no one has to explicitly deny any article of the Christian creed in order to shift the focus from the public truth content of Christianity to the subject, pragmatic, and therapeutic categories of 'how-to' religion. Christ may still be called Savior, but we really save ourselves by knowing and following the steps of the new birth and 'victorious living.'"
According to this view, it's not so much that God saves anyone as that God provides the tools for his people to work their own salvation by following the steps - moralistic.
Horton continues: "When we adopt a human-centered approach that assimilates God to our own experience and happiness, the world is no longer God's creation; is too, like God, exists for our own personal well-being. Everything that exists is there for us to consume for our happiness. So, for example, drugs and sexual promiscuity are not wrong because they offend God, according to most of these sermons, but because they cannot compare with the joy and happiness of living God's way. They're not wrong as much as unfulfilling; they wear off. . . . In these sermons, another recurring emphasis is that human beings are victims and being lost no longer means damned but lacking direction in life."
According to this view, man's problem isn't that God's wrath is on him because of sin, but that man doesn't know how to make life work out rightly. And the good news isn't that Jesus has come to remove the wrath and pave the way to Heaven, but that God has given us all the help we need to make life work out rightly - therapeutic. And oh, by the way, Heaven is thrown in after all.
More Horton: "God is basically the ideal Secretary of Homeland Security - Homeland defined as my own personal happiness, or national health, whether defined by the political left or right. Of course, when the affairs of the universe center on me and my happiness, this generic deism becomes therapeutic, especially focusing on 'God as daddy' and 'God as sufferer.'"
According to this view, God is deconstructed and rebuilt in man's image. Instead of a God who lays down a demanding law that will kill all transgressors, God is seen as sky santa who is always available to lend a helping hand when called on, but doesn't show up unless beckoned - deism.
The rest of the book fleshes out moralistic, therapeutic deism using real life examples from real life preachers and churches. I agree with Horton's assessment of things, and I'll tie it in with gospel-centered marriage now.
Christless Christianity puts words to my concerns with much marriage counseling. Horton has written far better than I ever could the reason why certain "marriage helps" are so subtly dangerous. Why is it that so many marriage helps don't help? The most recent one I wrote about was Love Dare. That study is still selling like hotcakes. But to what end? Is Love Dare popular because it shows its readers how to use marriage to make much of God? Or is it popular because it shows its readers how to use God to make much of marriage? After reading the book and watching the movie twice (which I thought was okay), I fear it's the second option. In fact, in my review, I listed as one of my concerns how believing the gospel was relegated in the book to one more step among 39 others. Then I see in Horton's book that this is exactly the kind of step-by-step therapeutic counsel that he is warning against.
Most marriage helps don't help because they fall into the moralistic, therapeutic deism category. God wants you to have "your best marriage now" and he has given you all the steps you need to make it happen. Why go through life stuck in an unfulfilled marriage? God is here to help you with that. Just turn to him and he'll give you the kind of marriage you've always dreamed of. Or not.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Real Help for Those Hurting Financially
I promise I have some substantive posts coming in the near future. In the meantime, if your family is feeling the financial crunch, perhaps a quick trip to Japan's god of poverty might do the trick. It's apparently working for many already.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A Limit on Idiots
Shouldn't we limit the number of idiots allowed on the planet, what with all the environmental concerns running rampant in the world today? Why is it that all the wackos in the world who want to limit other people's right to existence are never concerned enough to start by killing themselves? What am I talking about? This.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
