mdemchsak

Nov

2020

Jesus is Everything

Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” (Matthew 8:21-2)

Jesus is everything or Jesus is nothing.

He is more important to you than your mother, father, son and daughter, or you have missed Him (Mt 10:34-9). He calls you to unwavering allegiance to Himself.

Modern Christianity has glossed over the radical nature of Jesus’ Christianity. Modern Christianity is merely respectable. It wants the comforts of home, the entertainment of Hollywood, the approval of society, and, oh yes, let’s throw in some Jesus too.

This is not the Christianity that turned the world upside-down. Rather, this is the world turning Christianity upside-down.

Jesus is everything or Jesus is nothing. Here in America we had an election this week, and the results are still unknown., Much of America is wringing its hands over who its next president will be. Social media has lit up with claims of doomsday if such-and-such gets elected, and the mainstream media treats this election as if life itself hangs in the balance over who wins. This fear shows where their hope is. To these people, political power is everything.

But Jesus must be everything. If your hope lies in an election, then it does not lie in Jesus. If politics is everything, then Jesus is not. And if Jesus is not everything, He is nothing. I struggle with this. Who wouldn’t? If you take seriously the ultimacy of Jesus, you should struggle with His call. If you are like me, you find times when good things pull you from ultimate things – when sleep or work eats up your time with God, when sports or money becomes a priority, when family keeps your mind and time occupied. I struggle precisely because I have good and normal desires for various earthly things, and I don’t want to place those desires under the lordship of Christ. I want Jesus to be one good thing among many good things and not to be everything.

But Jesus is everything or Jesus is nothing. This is why He calls us to die, to take up our Cross, to lose our life, and those who follow Him walk that path. They may stumble while on that path, but they are on that path. It’s hard. But it’s good.

For when you get Jesus, you get everything.

Oct

2020

Racism: A Christian Perspective

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev 12:9-10)

Father, you are God of all peoples, for you made them. And people from all races and nations and languages will stand before your throne together and proclaim your excellencies. Hallelujah! May we your people see our oneness in Christ, even when we look different on the outside. Let us see race as you do.

God is the God of all peoples. Black belongs to God. White belongs to God. Hispanic, Indian, Chinese, Inuit – they all belong to God. All races belong to God because God made them and redeemed them. The blood of Christ makes worshippers of all skin colors, and one day, the redeemed of all races will stand together in one joyous throng and sing and shout and proclaim together that salvation belongs to their God and that there is no other.

This picture shows the end goal God has for all races. But right now, when you look at race, you do not always see such oneness. The picture in Revelation is of glory; the reality here on earth is broken and fallen. Racism is quite alive here on earth, and the reality is sad.

Talking about racism is extraordinarily difficult right now. Here in America when you look at the data – from income to incarceration rates to out of wedlock births to a host of other issues – racial inequities abound, and these inequities make racism a heated topic in America right now. In fact, the current conversation on race is not really a conversation. Conversations require two people to listen to each other in an intelligent way, but right now, people just want to shout. In the midst of the shouting, sometimes people excuse racist behavior and sometimes they wrongly accuse honest folks of being racist. This “conversation” is not progress, and it will not take us anywhere productive.

As a Christian, I believe we need to love the truth, and to discover the truth we need to listen. Whites need to listen to blacks, and blacks need to listen to whites. Listening doesn’t mean we accept everything everyone says, for there is a lot of nonsense out there, but we do need to understand what others are saying before we shout. America is not doing that. The irony of this situation is that if we want others to listen to what we say, we must give them the courtesy of listening to what they say – with an ear to truly understand and not just to offer rebuttal. Racial issues in America are complex, but we deal with them in sound bites. I will say this as plainly as I can: As long as America continues to deal with racial issues through sound bites, racism will get worse. If we want to heal racism, we must honor other people and not just shout them down.

I fear that what I have just said will turn some people off; they may be done listening. If that’s the case, that’s my point. Those people hurt the cause of racial justice in America.

First Grade Lessons

Let me begin with a personal story. I grew up in an America that was in racial upheaval. When I was in first grade, my teacher arranged our desks in groups of four, and in my group was a black girl. I don’t remember her name. I do remember, however, going home at night and seeing on the news images of blacks marching in protest and police beating them. I then would go to school, and here was this girl sitting next to me.

During math time, she and I would frequently talk math. I don’t remember if it was because we were both good at math and were comparing notes, or if I was helping her with math, but I know that during math time we often worked together. In addition, when the teacher gave assignments that required students to pair up, this girl was often the one I worked with.

I liked her personally and didn’t see how she was any different from the other six-year-old girls. Yet I sensed that the culture didn’t view her the same as the other six-year-old girls. Sometimes children sense things they don’t understand. I felt that within the culture broadly some kind of tension existed between blacks and whites, but when I interacted with this girl, I felt no tension at all. The undercurrent that I felt in the culture did not fit my experience.

This is my first memory of wrestling with racial issues in America, and I can remember as a six-year-old boy feeling “something is wrong here.” I did not yet know the word “racism,” and I couldn’t explain my feelings in words, but I sensed both the presence and wrongness of racism.

Today, I have a better understanding of the history than that six-year-old boy; I have had many more interactions with people of different races than that six-year-old boy; I can explain my feelings better than that six-year-old boy, but that childlike sense that began with that black girl hasn’t changed.

I don’t know what happened to that girl, but I am going to assume that she grew up and is my age, and lives somewhere in America today, and I am certain that she and her family has experienced racism in a different way than I have. I do not pretend to understand her situation. But if I could, I would like to thank her for being a normal six-year-old girl and talking with me about math and doing our projects together, for I believe she taught me something about race that I could not have learned from books or speeches, and she taught it to me without trying to teach me anything and when I was at an early and impressionable age. Believe it or not, that black girl was quite formative in my thinking on race.

A Global Perspective

Because I pastor an international church, I see the world – not just America. And one fact that is inescapable to me is that racism is not unique to America. It is an ancient and global problem. It is a pandemic of monumental proportions. Racism is more fundamentally a human problem than an American problem. Consider the following.

I have a friend here in Austin from the Karen peoples of Burma. He came to America as a refugee because of ethnic persecution of his people. That is racism. I have another friend in Austin who is Chinese-Indonesian and who also became a refugee because of the ethnic riots against Chinese that took place in his country. That is racism. I have a Japanese unbelieving friend who frequently blames the Jews for the problems of the world and who can’t accept the Bible in part because it was written mostly by Jews. That is racism. I have an Indian friend who has told me that racism is rampant in India, and a Malaysian friend who has said that he has personally experienced racism in his country.

The Bible relates racism. Between 1800 and 1400 BC, Egypt enslaved a single race – the Israelites. That was race-based slavery. Pharaoh gave orders to kill the male babies of only one race. Jonah preached to Ninevah, but he didn’t want to. He didn’t see Assyrian people as worthy. Haman exhibited what can only be called racial hatred. In the gospels you see racial tension between Jews and Gentiles, and Jews and Samaritans. One of the most divisive questions of the early church involved how to handle Gentiles who were converting to Jesus. Racial tensions are ancient.

In the Roman Empire of the first century, close to half the population was in slavery, and race was a large factor in determining whether a man was free or slave. Jews hated and looked down on Romans, and the Romans returned the hatred. They treated the Jews like dogs and eventually slaughtered about a million of them during the Jewish Revolt of 66 to 73.[1]

In more recent times, South Africa has struggled with apartheid. Persians and Arabs share a hatred for one another that may be surpassed only by their hatred for Jews. In Latin America, governmental and cultural systems have long practiced discrimination against indigenous, ethnic and tribal minorities. Chinese and Japanese have a long-standing animosity for one another. The Yihetuan Movement (Boxer Rebellion) in China saw Chinese people murdering nonChinese people simply for being foreigners. Many fled for their lives. Many did not make it. Today the Chinese prison camps for the Uigher people in Xinjiang province are racial oppression, and the fact that foreigners and ethnic Chinese must worship in separate churches is enforced racial segregation. In Nazi Germany, Hitler set out to form a state built on a superior race. In the process he massacred 6 million Jews. The pogroms of Czarist Russia displaced uncounted numbers of Jewish people, forcing many to flee the country. Australians have discriminated against the aboriginal peoples, and New Zealanders against the native Maoris.

Then we come to America. And we find race-based slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, racial inequities in the criminal justice system, suppression of voting, and so on. And that’s just with African-Americans.

We need to see a more global picture of racism than we do. Racism is universal. It is a toxic weed that grows in different soils and climates. It is not limited to specific economic, cultural, or political situations. Knowing this fact helps us approach racism with some hard realism. It helps us see how powerful a force for evil racism can be and how deeply it flows from and within the human heart. It reveals something of the depths of sin. It shows us that racism is stubborn and worldwide.

But isn’t this what Scripture says? “There is no one who does good, not even one.”

We must see that racism runs deep within the human race. Otherwise, we will think we can apply a uniquely American (or Indian or Chinese or wherever) band-aid to a cancer that flows from the human soul.

What is Racism?

Racism is a form of arrogance. All forms of arrogance share the belief or sense that one is superior for some reason – good grades, athletic ability, morals, lack of morals, popularity, politics, religion, lack of religion, education, social class, position at work, beauty, strength. Racism simply bases its arrogance on race. It is the belief or sense that a particular race is better than another. At the heart level, racism is like other forms of arrogance; it is ugly because arrogance is ugly.

In addition, racism is often a cultural sin. A cultural sin is a sin endemic to a particular culture such that the people in that culture consider the sin quite normal and often harmless. In the Old Testament polygamy was such a sin. In fact, sometimes godly men practiced it without thinking it a problem. Today in America divorce, premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, or gluttony might be examples of cultural sins. In many places today, racism is such a sin.

Racist people are rarely aware of their racism. Sometimes this is a result of the fact that, for their culture, racism is a cultural sin. Sometimes it is simply because of the nature of sin itself. Sins are often invisible to sinners. The greedy man doesn’t see his greed. He sees only that he is being responsible and taking care of his family. The bitter woman doesn’t see the wrongness of her bitterness; she sees only the sin of the other person who needs to repent. Racism is much like this. Pharaoh sees only that he is protecting his country from a people who are dangerous.

Because racism is a form of arrogance, at its core, it is a heart issue, but when that heart expresses itself in behavior, racism can take many forms. It is a disease with many symptoms. When we see racism, we normally see the symptoms and not the actual heart itself. Jesus said a tree is known by its fruit. We see apples. We do not see the DNA that produces those apples. Racism is like this.

When secular culture talks about racism, it tends to focus on symptoms. It talks about social structures, political legislation, economic inequalities, or criminal injustices. These are all real issues, and we must address them, but we also need to see that these are symptoms of racism. These issues reveal how racism behaves when it has power, but at its root, racism is a spiritual issue and a heart issue. You can change social structures all day, but if you never change the heart, racism will rear its head in a new form. This is why America can abolish slavery and end up with Jim Crow. Why it can remove Jim Crow and still have Ahmaud Arbery.

If we never deal with people’s hearts, then we never deal with racism. A good doctor must treat the virus and not just the symptoms.

And yet a good doctor also treats symptoms. A virus causes a fever. The fever prevents the patient from getting rest. The doctor treats the fever so the patient can rest and be better able to fight the virus. Symptoms often exacerbate the problem. Racism is like this. Slavery, Jim Crow, inequities in the justice system, unequal opportunities, racial slurs, and more all exacerbate racism. Fighting these symptoms helps fight racism, but fighting only these symptoms is incomplete.

This is where much of the culture gets racism wrong. It is right and necessary to fight injustices. It is right even to think that fighting injustices helps fight racism. It is wrong, however, to conclude that changing only the outside solves the problem. In this, much of secular culture is naïve. If you want to change racism, you have to change people’s hearts. And that is much harder than changing social structures. The need to change hearts is also why the current shouting and name calling that is going on will actually hurt the fight against racism. You never change hearts by shouting people down. In fact, you only harden them more.

The fight against racism must include working on social structures, but it also must be a fight in the trenches that takes place a man and a woman at a time. It is in those trenches that you win hearts.

A Foundation to Fight Racism

If we wish to fight for equal justice, we need a foundation upon which to stand. The concept of equal justice implies two factors: humans have great value, and all humans have the same value. We don’t talk about equal justice for mosquitoes because, while we do see them as having the same value, we don’t see them as having significant value.

The Bible from the beginning addresses the question of human value.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26-7)

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. (Acts 17:26)

All races have come from Adam. Therefore, all races have the image of God and, thus, have great and equal value. This is the foundation for racial justice and equality in the world.

Martin Luther King saw this connection. Here is how he put it:

Our Hebraic-Christian tradition refers to this inherent dignity of man in the Biblical term the image of God. This innate worth referred to in the phrase the image of God is universally shared in equal portions by all men. There is no graded scale of essential worth; there is no divine right of one race which differs from the divine right of another. Every human being has etched in his personality the indelible stamp of the Creator.[2]

To King, the image of God provides the basis for racial justice. To King, God is the foundation for the entire house of civil rights. Remove the foundation, and the house crumbles. Too many people crying against racial injustice want King’s house, but not his foundation.

If there is no God . . . if we are not created in His image . . . if we are merely nonmoral, evolutionary byproducts, then I do not see where human value and equality come from. I see people assume it, but I don’t see them explain it. If you remove God from the fight for equal justice, you remove the rationale for equal justice, and a fight without a rationale will not get far.[3]

Throughout Scripture you find God loving different races.

God told Abraham that he would be a blessing to all nations.
God commanded Jonah to go preach to Ninevah because God had compassion on the Ninevites.
God spoke through Isaiah saying that the Assyrian and Egyptian would join Israel in worshipping God.
God commands the Israelites to treat well the foreigner in their land.
Jesus ministered to the Samaritan woman and spent several days in her Samaritan town preaching the kingdom of God to the people there.
Jesus healed the servant of the Roman centurion and the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman.
Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations.
God corrected Peter’s racial exclusivity by sending him a dream and then sending him to Cornelius’ house.
God told Paul He would send him to the Gentiles.
God gave John a revelation that included worshippers from every tribe and tongue and nation.

From beginning to end, God is for all races. His ultimate goal is one body made up of many peoples who worship Him. God wants to see black and white, Chinese and Japanese, Arab and Persian come together because of Him.

God intended the work of Christ to accomplish this unity. Here is how he describes it:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh . . . were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:11-22)

Paul speaks of Jews and Gentiles – different races – and says that in Christ, both have been made one, both have been reconciled to God, both have access in one Spirit to the Father, both are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, both are part of the holy temple of the Lord, and that God dwells in both. He gives a picture of a building and says that these different races are like different stones that make up the same building. He says that in Christ God has made peace between these races, for Christ Himself is their peace. He says that the blood of Jesus has brought these races together and that the dividing wall of hostility is gone.

The Cross is God’s ultimate answer to racism. The Cross changes hearts. The Cross unites people of different languages, cultures and ethnicities around something far deeper than their differences. The Cross kills the virus and not just the symptoms. This fact is real, and I have seen it with my eyes.

Any attempts to fight racism that leave the Cross out of the picture are hopelessly naïve.

This does not mean that we just preach the gospel, but it does mean that we preach the gospel.

Fighting racism requires a multi-pronged approach, and preaching the gospel is an essential prong. The fight for equal justice flows out of the gospel. We must never pit it against the gospel. We must never say social justice OR the gospel. We must instead say both. If we care about the gospel, then we should also care about racial injustices.

Putting Feet to Justice

So what then do we do? Here are some thoughts:

1. We must first ensure that any words or action we take to fight social injustices genuinely flows from the love of Christ in us. The foundation for any fight needs to be Christ, not our anger. We are to build our actions upon the kingdom of God, not some desired political end. Two people can protest social injustice side by side but have very different reasons for doing so and a very different heart in the process. Remove Christ from this fight, and all you have is an angry, loud, hate-filled, power struggle. You just have a political game, and that’s not going to change the world.

Martin Luther King taught that the fight against racism must flow out of a heart of love because only love can drive out hate. The source of love is Christ. We can’t fight racism without Christ. We need Him.

2. We must listen. I said that earlier. Listening helps change hearts. When you genuinely listen, you show respect and honor, but you also increase the possibility of having others listen to you. If you will not listen, why should you expect anyone to listen to you?

3. As much as is possible given where you live, befriend people of different races. This fights racism at the heart level and fights it in the trenches – a man or woman at a time. You may not affect public policy, but if you change two hearts, that’s significant. What if 30 million people changed two hearts each? That would change public policy, and it would do so at the heart level.

In a small way, I think something like this is what happened to me in first grade. I interacted with an African-American girl up close and saw that she was much like me.

A more radical example today would be that of Daryl Davis, an African-American man who spends significant time hanging out with KKK members. He sits down with them, talks with them, has dinner with them, and invites them into his home. He gets to know them and lets them get to know him. In the process, over the past 30 years, he has helped more than 200 KKK members renounce their membership, including some who were high up in the system. Davis fights racism with friendship, and he has results to prove that that fight works.[4] Don’t underestimate the power of friendship.

4. But you ask, “What about the big news issues? What about criminal injustice or police brutality? Making friends with someone from another race doesn’t change these issues. We have to change systems.”

Before we talk systemic change, I suppose it is necessary to remind us of the obvious fact that systems do not pop into existence willy nilly. People create them, and when we change people, we change what they create; thus, we should never separate systemic change from attitudinal change. The road to attitudinal change will be harder and longer, but it will also be deeper, more long-lasting and more stable.

Nonetheless, we must change unjust systems even if people are not ready. Condemning innocent black men to death is wrong whether people see the problem or not. We act on the basis of what is right, and if we encounter an evil system, let’s do what we can to change it. Even if the people are not ready.

It is precisely at this juncture that we find the greatest shouting and disagreement. Are American police departments systemically racist? Or do they have a few bad apples that give the rest a bad name? Are economic inequities the result of racism or the result of other factors like, say, single parenthood? Should cities defund the police? Or would such defunding end up hurting minorities the most?

Typically, when people read questions like these, they feel they know the answer and have fairly strong opinions on one side or the other. Often they have difficulty imagining how someone can intelligently disagree with them. But when they stop and listen to what the other side says and begin to understand why, the conversation changes. They then begin to see something of the complexity of racial issues in America. They see that there are no easy answers.

If we are going to take steps appropriate to the reality on the ground, we need to take seriously the complexity of that reality.

I do not believe that my African-American brothers and sisters are calling for changes in the criminal justice system for no reason. I do not believe they are inventing grievances out of thin air. Nor do I believe that every police shooting of a black man is racist or that police officers are unjustified when they fear that mob anger may invoke changes in which innocent policemen go to jail simply for having the misfortune of being in a difficult situation. Both sides have real concerns that need to be dealt with. The solution isn’t simple. Instead it’s the real world. But what makes matters worse is that everyone with a thumb thinks he knows best and wants to sway public opinion, as if having a thumb somehow qualified you to make expert policy decisions in criminal justice.

Peaceful protests have perhaps brought attention to the need to do something, but violent protests have de-legitimized the position of the protesters in the eyes of much of the community and have merely fueled more racism, for if the people who disagree with you break windows, loot stores and burn buildings, why should you listen to them? They fit the stereotype you already had. They prove, so you think, that you were right all along.

I do not have policy answers for the difficult questions. In that respect, I am not as smart as the people on Twitter or Instagram. I do not know enough about law enforcement to talk intelligently about how to resolve a thorny issue that the experts struggle with. But I do believe that leaders in the law enforcement community need to sit down and talk with leaders in the African-American community about possible ways to move forward. Both communities need to listen to and understand the concerns of the other before they propose practical changes. And both communities would need to be willing to accept an imperfect solution. We live in a fallen world. A step in the right direction may be an improvement even if it is not perfect.

5. Concerning political action, it’s OK to pursue legislation if you know that it will improve the situation. This is America, and people have the right to speak and vote their conscience. I don’t want to take that from anybody. But I am not naïve enough to believe that honest Americans will agree on which legislation is best. So pursue what your conscience says but be willing to live with people who disagree. They may not be beasts.

6. God may call different people to different emphases. In Christ, we are a body. Not everyone is a hand or an eye. All believers should hate racism and be committed to fighting it wherever they find it, but this doesn’t mean that all believers fight it the same way. Some may march in protest regularly. Others may join occasionally, and still others may not be able to join at all. Some may write to congressmen. Some may speak. Some may preach the gospel. Some may confront racism in friends or relatives and graciously try to persuade them. Some may volunteer to help victims of racism. Others may be in positions at work or school where they can implement practices that respect all people. All should love.

What I have just said about racism is not unique to racism. All believers should hate abortion and be committed to fighting it wherever they find it, but that doesn’t mean that all believers fight it the same way. All believers should hate human trafficking and be committed to fighting it wherever they find it, but that doesn’t mean that all believers fight it the same way. And yet in all of these issues and more . . . all should love.

The things I have said here are incomplete. To do justice to racial issues would require a several-thousand-page tome, and even then, I’m not sure that would suffice. I don’t have that kind of time. I acknowledge that I may not have addressed the issue you wish I had addressed or that I gave it short shrift. For such sins I ask your forgiveness. I felt that I needed to say something, even if inadequately.

Yours in Him,

Mike

[1] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-great-revolt-66-70-ce

[2] King, Martin Luther. “The Ethical Demands for Integration,” A Testament of Hope. The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King. ed. James Melvin Washington. https://fliphtml5.com/scdb/duvn/basic/, pp. 118-119.

[3] I am indebted to James Spiegel for this discussion on Martin Luther King. Here is his article. Spiegel, James. “Celebration and Betrayal: Martin Luther King’s Case for Racial Justice and Our Current Dilemma,” Themelios, Vol. 45, Issue 2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/celebration-and-betrayal-martin-luther-kings-case-for-racial-justice-and-our-current-dilemma/

[4] https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

May

2020

Christianity and Homosexuality: Addressing Criticisms

In previous blogs I gave an overview of the Biblical position regarding homosexuality. Now I want to merely address various criticisms people make of the Christian position. If you haven’t heard any of these, you will — at least, if you live in the West for any length of time.

Christians are on the wrong side of history on this issue.

To this I would say three things:

1. Who cares? I would rather be on the right side of God than on the right side of history.

2. How do you know? The Christian view of homosexuality is still the majority view in the world today. Maybe that will change. Maybe it won’t. And if it does change, maybe that change will last. Maybe it won’t. To say that Christians are on the wrong side of history is a bit arrogant at this juncture. It is like an infant crowning himself victor.

3. What a short-sighted view of history! God’s kingdom is eternal. Men who practice homosexuality will not inherit that kingdom (I Cor 6:9-11). Even if the majority of the world accepts homosexuality for billions of years, what are those years compared to eternity? In the end, the Biblical view of homosexuality is on the right side of history.

Jesus Never Condemns Homosexuality

Jesus never condemns the worship of images either. He never condemns bestiality, infanticide, kidnapping, rape, money laundering, or child abuse. Does he, therefore, approve of those practices? See previous blog here about what Jesus does say about homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the animal kingdom.

So is cannibalism. And murder. And theft. Natural does not mean right.

The Bible condemns only exploitative forms of homosexuality.

This is perhaps the most common way that Western culture tries to dance around what the Bible says about homosexuality. Because the Bible never says anything positive about homosexuality, and because some people are convinced that a consensual homosexual relationship is a good thing, they, thus, conclude that the Bible must be referring to only bad types of homosexuality. But as we’ve seen when we looked at the Biblical texts, the Scriptures consistently condemn both partners in a homosexual relationship. In addition, the Bible condemns “lying with a man as you would with a woman.” Lying with a woman is to occur only within marriage and only by mutual consent. If a man does this with a man, the Bible condemns both men.

Leviticus forbids eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

This statement appeals to the idea that the Old Testament is out, and the New Testament is in. It argues that since Christians are under a new covenant and no longer follow all the Mosaic laws, they need not follow the laws against homosexuality either.

Here is a brief reply.

1. The New Testament does not do away with the Old Testament. Some parts of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New, but the moral law in the Old Testament is still binding on New Testament believers. Homosexuality is part of that moral law. For a longer treatment of how Christians view the Old Testament see here.

2. As we have already seen, the Leviticus prohibitions against homosexuality appear in the New Testament as well (Rm 1:26-7; I Cor 6:9-11; I Tim 1:8-10; Jude 7). And in I Corinthians and I Timothy, the prohibitions actually use the same language as Leviticus, not just the same idea. What’s more, the I Timothy passage actually ties homosexuality to the purpose of the law. God intended the law for the disobedient and ungodly. And who are these ungodly? Paul gives a list, which includes “men who practice homosexuality.”

3. If you look at the Leviticus prohibitions in context, you see that Leviticus 18 focuses on prohibited sexual relations. Therefore, if you want to say that homosexuality is OK because the prohibition is in the Old Testament, then you must also say that a man can legitimately have sex with his mom, his step mom, his sister, his sister-in-law, his aunt, and his dog because all of these other prohibitions provide the context for the prohibition against homosexuality. To say that the Bible allows a man to have sex with another man but not with his sister or his sheep requires some criteria for separating the prohibition against homosexuality out of its context. No one who gives the shellfish argument has yet provided intelligent criteria for making this distinction. In addition, common sense tells us that a prohibition against homosexuality is much more like having unlawful sex than like eating shrimp.

Homosexuality is Genetic

Or to put it in popular language: “I was born that way.”

The idea, of course, is that homosexuality is not a choice people make but an inherited trait, like skin color, and that it cannot, therefore, be sinful.

1. My first reaction is to state what to me is rather obvious: that I was born naturally selfish. I didn’t choose my selfish nature, and I can’t help it. I can fight against it, but in my own strength, I can’t overcome it. I don’t, however, defend my selfishness because I was born that way.

I used to provide counseling for alcoholics, and occasionally an alcoholic would say something like, “You know, it has been proven that alcoholism is genetic.” And genetics does seem to often play a role in alcoholism. And not just alcoholism. Violence seems to have a genetic component to it as well. Scientists have known for years that high testosterone levels can contribute to violence. Some people are more prone to violence than others, and they were born that way. You have seen people who have trouble controlling their anger, and their difficulty is related to how they are wired; in other words, their birth contributes to their sin. It would not surprise me if virtually every sin has some genetic component to it. Scripture does not say merely that we are sinful. It says that we were born that way. We don’t come out of the womb neutral. The presence of genetic factors that influence us toward sin would actually support the Biblical doctrine of depravity.

What this means is that no one can say that a behavior or attitude is right or wrong on the basis of genetics. Genetics is physical. Morality is nonphysical. They are completely different categories. If someone wants to plead genetics to justify homosexuality, then he needs to be consistent and justify violence, alcoholism, anger, selfishness, and a host of other sins. If he doesn’t want to use genetics to justify those other sins, then he can’t use it to justify homosexuality either.

2. Homosexuality involves sexual desires and behaviors. These are precisely the sorts of issues that morality deals with. Skin color involves nothing like this. It is not a behavior. It is not a desire. It is not a way of thinking. It doesn’t touch the moral realm at all.

3. Even if science finds that genetics contributes to homosexuality, it would need to demonstrate that genetics is the one and only cause of homosexuality in order to make a plausible case that homosexuality is not sinful. If genetics is merely a contributing factor, then there is room for other contributing factors. The American Psychological Association (APA), quite a liberal organization on most issues, says this about the origins of homosexuality:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation

In other words, the science does not back up the claim “I was born that way.” Research may support the idea that in some people genetics may be a contributing factor, but the idea of a gay gene that explains everything does not seem to exist.

With race, however, things are quite the opposite. Genetics determines whether a woman is African, Anglo, Korean, Indian or Hispanic. Her skin color, and her natural facial features and hair, all have one cause — genetics. She was born that way. Homosexuality simply doesn’t fit this category.

The Christian view of homosexuality is hateful and bigoted.

I almost don’t know what to say to this because it isn’t an argument. It’s an ad hominem. It’s like saying, “Oh yeah? And your mother is . . .”

But let’s talk.

1. Certainly there have been people who identify as Christian who have treated homosexuals in a hateful way, but their treatment does not render the Biblical position hateful or bigoted, nor does it represent the majority of genuine Christians. In fact, hateful behavior violates the Bible.

2. The accusation that Christians are hateful and bigoted assumes that homosexuality is like race — morally neutral and 100% genetic — but common sense and science say otherwise.

3. The Christian position is that homosexuality is sinful. That has been the Christian position for 2000 years, and it never crossed the minds of anyone until recently that such a position is hateful or bigoted. And for good reason. There is nothing hateful or bigoted about calling a sexual behavior sinful. You may, if you wish, say that the position is wrong, and we can have an intelligent conversation about it, but labeling the position “bigoted” goes beyond all evidence and ends any hope of an intelligent conversation. If someone said to me that sex between a husband and wife is sinful, I would not accuse her of hatred or bigotry though I would strongly disagree with her idea. I would say simply that she is wrong.

4. If it is hateful simply to say that a behavior or idea is wrong then, I’m afraid our accusers are quite hateful, for they insist that we are wrong. Why are we bigots but they aren’t?

5. We say lust is sinful, but no one says that is bigotry. And most men are hard-wired to lust. They are born that way. And what’s more, if you keep your lust to yourself, you haven’t harmed anyone. Technically. Yet we insist it is sinful, and no one calls us bigots for saying so. How is homosexuality different?

6. When people accuse Christianity of hatred or bigotry, they assume motives they know nothing about. This mislabeling Christianity as hateful or bigoted is merely a contemporary version of the name-calling Christians have endured as long as they have been around. The Pharisees said that Jesus cast out demons by the Prince of demons. The Romans called Christians atheists and accused them of cannibalism. Nero labeled them “haters of humanity,” though Christianity revolutionized the world with its ethic of love. Muslims call Christians blasphemers. Many secular people say that Christians oppose education even though it was Christians who set up the first schools and universities in America and in many places around the world. Some say that Christians are ignorant, though Christian belief was instrumental in the foundation of science itself. Communist governments say that Christians are rebellious and a menace to society. History is full of people, cultures, religions, or governments calling Christians virtually every name in the book. This new charge of hatred and bigotry is not really new. It is merely another smear in a long history, and it won’t be the last.

We need to see this accusation for what it is. It is an emotional appeal that hopes to end any intelligent discussion from the other side, for if the other person is a bigot, you can dismiss him with a wave of your hand. You then don’t have to listen to his dangerous ideas. The culture fears the Biblical position. That is why it engages in ad hominems and doesn’t allow for honest dialogue on this issue.

Apr

2020

The Bible and Homosexuality II

This blog continues the discussion on what the Bible says about homosexuality. We’ve already discussed Leviticus and Jesus. Today we will discuss what Paul has to say.

Jesus ministered in a Palestinian Jewish context. Within that context, homosexuality was almost nonexistent compared to what went on in the 1^st century Gentile world. Paul, however, ministered in that Gentile world, a context in which homosexuality was perhaps more common than it is today in the West. Paul had to deal with practicing homosexuals who became Christians, and Christians who lived in a culture that considered homosexuality normal. It, thus, makes perfect sense that Paul would address this issue. He had to.

When you read Paul, it is clear that homosexuality is not his main concern, but it is equally clear that when he does address the issue, he has nothing positive to say, and Paul would have been well aware of long-term, loving and committed homosexual relationships. They were common in the Gentile world Paul ministered to. So let’s look at the Scriptures.

Romans 1: 26-7

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Before I discuss the Romans text in detail, I should note that within the broader context of Romans 1, homosexuality is not the main focus. Paul does not see homosexuality as the granddaddy of all sins. In Romans 1, the Gentiles have suppressed the truth of God by their unrighteousness (v. 18), exchanged the glory of God for idols (v. 23), and exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator (v. 25). In other words, these Gentiles have rejected God and chosen to worship idols instead. For this reason (v 26), God gave them up to their passions. Homosexuality is, thus, the consequence of their idolatry. The idolatry is the more foundational sin. The sins Paul lists in Romans 1 flow from rejecting God. They are symptoms of rejecting God, but it is the rejection of God and the worship of something not God that is the basic problem.

Enough context. Let’s talk about the text.

When you look at Romans 1:26-7, you should see two things right away: 1) God has set up a natural order for sex and 2) the text contrasts this natural order with an unnatural one. Notice: women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, and men likewise. In other words, Paul is setting up a natural/unnatural contrast.

When Paul talks about what is natural, he is not talking about what feels natural to us. Sin often feels natural. Selfishness comes naturally. Anger is a natural feeling. Coveting, bitterness, arrogance, jealousy, greed, lust — these are all quite natural states of the heart. The alcoholic feels naturally inclined to beer, and the tyrant to power. The reference to natural relations is not a reference to feelings but to a created order God has set up. God made sex for male and female. This is the natural way God intended sex to happen. We see this in life simply by looking at anatomy. When you look at a wheel and an axle, a screw and a nut, a bulb and a socket, you know they were made for one another. Same with male and female. The mere plumbing of gender has a sexual design to it, and when you look at the plumbing, you see the natural order. In addition, the text plainly states that for men natural relations are “with women” and that when men give up such natural relations, they are consumed with passion “for one another” and they are committing shameless acts “with men.” Paul’s natural/unnatural contrast is a contrast between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Paul’s problem with homosexuality is that it throws away God’s natural design in order to express unholy passions. Unholy passions may feel natural, but they are unholy. They are unholy because even when they feel natural, they defy what God intended to be natural. The created order is objective. We don’t get to change it.

It’s rather obvious that in Romans Paul addresses homosexual forms of sex and that he condemns what he addresses, but some argue that what Paul addresses is merely exploitative forms of homosexuality. They claim that Paul is not condemning loving, committed relationships but male prostitution or pederasty or some such practice.

The evidence, however, doesn’t point this way. First, Paul doesn’t use the normal Greek words for male prostitution or pederasty. If he had wanted to condemn only certain forms of homosexuality, then his broad language is an awfully poor way of doing so. Second, look at verse 27 again. Here it is: “men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.” Pay special attention to the phrase “for one another.” Paul equally condemns both parties in the relationship. As we saw in Leviticus, this means Paul is addressing something mutual. Both parties are guilty. Third, in verse 26, Paul condemns lesbianism, a fact that shows the universality of the condemnation. If Paul were condemning merely exploitative forms of homosexuality, he would have no need to refer to lesbianism.

Thus, to Paul, a committed, consensual homosexual relationship involves unnatural sexual relations and shameless acts.

In Romans, homosexuality is part of God’s judgment. The text says that these Gentiles refused to worship God, so God gave them over to their passions. In other words, homosexuality is not merely a sin God will judge but is itself part of the judgment. It is a plain sign that people are under God’s judgment.

Paul’s point in this text is that God created a natural pattern for sex. That pattern is male with female. The Gentiles in Romans 1 have exchanged that natural pattern to pursue their passions. Their passions may feel natural to them, but those passions violate what God set up. When you read the whole flow of Romans 1, homosexuality is merely a plain example of people exchanging God for their own desires. Thus, unrepentant homosexual behavior is the result of, among other things, the rejection of God.

I Cor 6:9-11

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 men who practice homosexuality, 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.

This text begins with a general statement: “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It then proceeds to illustrate that statement by listing specific sins that disqualify someone from the kingdom of God. Twice this text states that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God (vv. 9, 10). Finally it reminds the Corinthian believers that they used to be among those people, but in Christ they are now clean, holy, and righteous (v. 11). In other words, they will inherit the kingdom of God because they are now in Christ and live a different life.

1. Verses 9 and 10 are obviously a vice list. No one will argue that Paul views any of these behaviors in a positive or neutral light. They all disqualify someone from the kingdom of God. For our purposes, we need to focus on the words translated “men who practice homosexuality.”

Paul uses two words here. The first is malakoi. Literally it means “soft ones,” and in 1^st century Greek its range of meanings included male prostitutes, feminine men, and the passive partner in male/male sex.

The second word Paul uses is arsenokoitai. It comes from the Greek words arsen, which means “male,” and koitos, which means intercourse or bed. If you translated arsenokoitai literally it would refer to men who lie in bed with men. Of course, you should see a connection with Leviticus 18 and 20. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament Paul frequently quotes from), Leviticus 18 and 20 use the words arsen and koitos side by side when saying, “You shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman.” In other words, Paul is mimicking the language of Leviticus. Whatever Leviticus means is what Paul means. The New Testament merely repeats the Old.

When the words malakoi and arsenokoitai are used together, they represent the passive and active partners in a homosexual relationship.

2. Again, Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality. The reference to Leviticus suggests that Paul condemns “lying in bed with a man as you would with a woman,” and the fact that Paul condemns both parties in the relationship indicates that he includes mutual, consensual relationships in his condemnation.

3. The fact that Paul twice says that such people will not inherit the kingdom of God indicates how serious this issue is. The stakes are eternal. This is not an issue that Christians can agree to disagree on. In I Cor 6, homosexuality is like idolatry, adultery, stealing, greed, and all the other items in the same vice list, and unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. If I Cor 6 is true, then the teaching that God accepts homosexuality is not just a minor issue we can overlook but a teaching that leads people to hell. That teaching is no more Christian than the teaching that God accepts adultery, idolatry, or swindling.

4. Homosexuality is not stronger than Christ. Verse 11 says, “And such were some of you.” It is past tense “were,” not present tense “are.” The Corinthian believers who had practiced homosexuality no longer do so. They are now washed, sanctified, and justified in Christ. Jesus changed them. Their identity is different. The power of God has come upon them. To argue that homosexuals cannot change is to deny the power of God. Not only can they change, but Paul says they have already changed. He likely could name names.

And I could name names today. I won’t because I want to protect them. But I could. I personally know several Christians who used to practice homosexuality. Homosexuals can change. I don’t mean that change is easy or without struggles or failings. I mean simply that change does happen. In Christ the old is gone, the new has come. That is reality, and the world that denies it needs to open its eyes.

Mar

2020

Coronavirus and God

I will say to the Lord, “My refuge, my fortress, my God in whom I trust.” (Psalm 91:2)

Thank you, Lord, that we can trust you in the good times and the bad.

Who would have thought a few months ago that a virus would run rampant through the entire world, killing where it went, instilling fear in entire populations, and shutting down the economies of virtually every nation on the globe? I never would have dreamed this. You read a lot of news about this virus, but the people who tell the news, by and large, have no heavenly perspective on what they are talking about. Thus, it is easy for the Christian to overdose on the news and start believing things contrary to God’s Word. What I want to do is give a theological perspective on the events surrounding us. So here are some thoughts:

Coronavirus is the result of the Fall

When God created the world, He said it was very good, but when Adam and Eve fell, they brought calamity to God’s very good world. When they sinned, they corrupted the entire human race and the world system we live in. Here on Earth everything is now broken. The calamity that sin brought includes problems like sickness and death, pain and suffering, emptiness and sorrow. The current coronavirus is merely one small result of that Fall.

Coronavirus is God’s reminder that this world is not and never will be the utopia we want it to be. Coronavirus is God’s reminder that this Earth is broken and if you live for Earth, you get only brokenness in the end. Coronavirus is God’s reminder that this world is not our home.

God gave consequences for the Fall, and those consequences exist for a reason. Coronavirus is merely a small example of one of those consequences.

Coronavirus shows us that we are not in control.

This is the 21^st century. This is America. We have scientific knowledge. We have advanced technology. We have money and comfort and pleasure.

But we are not in control.

Coronavirus is a reminder that the human race is weaker than we would like to think. Past eras saw this fact more clearly than we do, for they were not sheltered from pain to the extent we are. They had no electricity, no central heat or air conditioning, no Tylenol for pain, no Netflix for entertainment. They did not need a major plague to know that they were not in control. Daily life told them that.

But we are different. We shield ourselves from everyday pains and get drunk on the elixir of entertainment or our own comfort. We have a thousand choices at our fingertips. Until something severe comes along, we pass the time thinking we are fine . . . we are in control. Our information, technology, and entertainment have built for us a house of cards that we put our trust in. Coronavirus tears down this house of cards.

Coronavirus is not bigger than God

Coronavirus shows us that we cannot put our trust in our own strength or this world system, but coronavirus cannot and will not harm God. To God coronavirus is a speck of dust in the universe.

What this means is that the proper spiritual response to coronavirus is to acknowledge our own sin and weakness and run to God. God is bigger than coronavirus.

On Sunday night our church met online, and several people shared that God had spoken to them through Psalm 91. Here is what it says:

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.
²I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”

³For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler
    and from the deadly pestilence.
⁴He will cover you with his pinions,
    and under his wings you will find refuge;
    his faithfulness is a shield and buckler.
⁵You will not fear the terror of the night,
    nor the arrow that flies by day,
⁶nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness,
    nor the destruction that wastes at noonday.

⁷A thousand may fall at your side,
    ten thousand at your right hand,
    but it will not come near you.
⁸You will only look with your eyes
    and see the recompense of the wicked.

⁹Because you have made the Lord your dwelling place—
the Most High, who is my refuge—
¹⁰no evil shall be allowed to befall you,
no plague come near your tent.

¹¹For he will command his angels concerning you
    to guard you in all your ways.
¹²On their hands they will bear you up,
    lest you strike your foot against a stone.
¹³You will tread on the lion and the adder;
    the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

¹⁴“Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him;
    I will protect him, because he knows my name.
¹⁵When he calls to me, I will answer him;
    I will be with him in trouble;
    I will rescue him and honor him.
¹⁶With long life I will satisfy him
    and show him my salvation.”

God is our protector. God is our refuge. God is our fortress. God is our shield. God is our deliverer. God is our shelter. And God is bigger than coronavirus.

Psalm 91 does not mean that God’s people never suffer. Jesus suffered. Paul suffered. Peter suffered. Jacob, Moses, David, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago, on we could go. Psalm 91 does not guarantee health, wealth, and prosperity in every instance. It is a statement of trust in God who takes care of His people. His faithfulness is our shield.

Psalm 91 also does not mean we abandon common sense. Satan quoted this psalm to Jesus to get Jesus to jump off the temple. We are not to tempt God by being stupid and then say, “God will protect me.” We are to use common sense and to trust God as we do. Concerning coronavirus, we will limit physical contact, wash hands, and all the rest, but we do not pretend that these practices are our refuge and fortress. God is. And only God is. Coronavirus should drive us to God. If it doesn’t, we have no understanding of what is going on or of God Himself. We see with physical eyes only.

God will work out good things in the midst of coronavirus

People are suffering and dying. Families have lost loved ones. Workers have lost jobs. Businesses are struggling financially. All of these situations are real, and I don’t want to minimize the pain people feel. Coronavirus has brought real suffering.

But in the midst of all the pain, God will do good. He is that kind of God. He turned Haman’s plan against him. He took Satan’s plan to crucify the Son of God and used it to save the world. Can there be a darker day on Earth than Good Friday? And yet Good Friday is called Good for a reason. God turned evil on its head and destroyed it with its own weapon. He will do the same with coronavirus.

God will use coronavirus for His good purposes. Coronavirus has already caused many people to be more open to God. It has caused some to see how shallow and empty Earth is. It has brought families together. It has given billions of people more time to seek God, and some have used that time to learn of God and seek Him in Scripture and prayer.

God does not see things the same way we do. Most people see only the physical and the right now, and if that is all you see, then coronavirus is a sad picture. But God looks at the spiritual and the eternal. His perspective is fuller and richer than ours. He sees things we don’t. If suffering causes people to seek God, then God will gladly bring suffering. He will trade the temporary in order to get the eternal, and suffering has this way of causing people to think on the eternal.

If you look at the news, all you will see is the suffering, but the heavenly news reports different things, and it is not all bad.

Is coronavirus God’s judgment?

That’s a complicated question. In one sense it is. In another sense it may or may not be. Let me explain.

We need to understand that the wages of sin is death and that the consequences of the Fall are God’s judgment on sin. In this sense all pain, suffering, sickness, and death is a judgment of sorts. God has judged sin to be worthy of such consequences. In this sense, God has woven judgment into the fabric of this world. Normal pains are judgments. Even when a baby dies, his death is a result of being born with a sinful nature into a sinful world, and death is God’s normal judgment on sin. In this sense, coronavirus is a judgment in the same way that the flu or cancer or an avalanche can all be judgments. This sort of judgment is generic and is part and parcel of living in a fallen world. I mention it because most people do not think of ordinary pains and deaths as judgments, but they are — even if they have no relation to some specific sin.

However, when people ask if coronavirus is a judgment, they do not have in mind this generic type of judgment. What they have in mind is whether coronavirus is a special and specific judgment of God on some specific sin or set of sins in the human race.

To this I have to say, “I don’t know.” In order to say that coronavirus is or is not some special judgment of God, I would need to receive some special revelation from God, and I have received no such thing.

Some people, however, may confidently declare that God would never punish anyone with such a plague, but those people have never read their Bibles. In Scripture, God brings special judgments for sin all the time. Consider Noah and the flood, David after he took the census, Jeremiah and the Babylonian captivity, or the book of the Revelation just to name a few. We cannot rule out the judgment of God as a possible explanation for coronavirus. Such judgment would be well within God’s character.

At the same time, neither can we confidently state that coronavirus is a special judgment that God has released upon the world. People who say this also need to consider their Bibles. In Scripture, God allows calamities to come upon the righteous and the unrighteous. Consider Job, the man born blind whom Jesus healed, the persecuted church in Acts, and the psalmists’ frequent cries of “How long, O Lord.”

It would not surprise me if coronavirus is a special judgment of God. It would also not surprise me if it is not. Therefore, given the fact that, apart from some special revelation, we simply don’t know, I think it best for the average believer to not overly concern himself or herself with the question. Be OK not knowing and focus on more fruitful questions like “How can I draw closer to God . . . How can I live a more holy life . . . How can I love and serve my neighbor?” Pursuing those kinds of questions will actually bear more fruit in your life.

Feb

2020

The Bible and Homosexuality

Last week, I gave a brief introduction to a Christian perspective on homosexuality with a focus on the fact that we are to show the love of Christ to homosexual people. This week and next I will briefly discuss some Scriptures that address homosexuality in some way.

Some time ago I was looking on the website of a gay-friendly church. This church hosted a seminar on how to deal with the Bible’s claims about homosexuality and introduced it with a quote in which a man from the church asked in essence: “How do we deal with what the Bible says about homosexuality?” The quote struck me because of what the man assumed the Bible seems to say. He recognized what everyone recognizes when he or she reads Biblical texts that address homosexuality. Namely this: the plain sense of the Scripture condemns homosexual behavior. If it doesn’t, the man’s question makes no sense. The website also recognized the same plain sense by using the man and his question as an example of why the seminar was necessary. Now obviously, the seminar likely gave alternate interpretations of the texts in question, but the fact that many gay people struggle with what the Bible says indicates that even they naturally interpret Scripture as condemning homosexuality.

They have to. The plain sense of Scripture on this issue is obvious. Therefore, if someone wants to give an alternate interpretation of the Scriptures that deal with homosexuality, then the burden of proof rests on the alternate interpretation, not on the plain sense. If I say, “You shall not bow to idols as you would to God; it is an abomination,” or “Do not be deceived, no idolater will inherit the kingdom of God,” and you want to claim that I am affirming idolatry, then the burden of proof rests with you, and you’d better have some clear and strong evidence that cannot be interpreted more than one way.

So what does the Bible say? Let’s look at it.

Leviticus

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (18:22)

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (20:13)

Leviticus 18 focuses predominantly on sexual sin. The chapter begins by saying in effect, “Do not do what the people of Egypt and Canaan do. Do not be like them. Instead, keep the statutes of the Lord.” (vv 3-5) The chapter then describes what Egypt and Canaan did sexually that God’s people are not to do. It reads something like this:

“Do not have sex with your mom. Do not have sex with your sister or your granddaughter or your aunt or your neighbor’s wife. Do not have sex with a man as with a woman. Do not have sex with an animal.” (1-23)

Both the context and the phrasing are sexual (e.g. look at verses 19-23). In Leviticus, God is condemning homosexual behavior, and the command refers to all forms of homosexual behavior, for it says, “you shall not do with a man what you would do with a woman.” Ordinarily, a man would lie with a woman within a committed and consensual marriage relationship. Leviticus says you shall not do that. The wording is comprehensive.

In addition, Leviticus 20:13 gives the punishment. It says that when a man lies with a man, both partners are guilty and both shall be put to death. The fact that God condemns both partners indicates that He is not referring to homosexual rape or pederasty. Leviticus condemns consensual and committed homosexual behavior for both partners.

Jesus

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person . . . (Mt 15:19)

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Mt 19:4-6)

People often claim that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, and the claim is true in a strict sense. The words “homosexual” never cross His lips in the gospels. But Jesus does address sexual behavior and marriage. In Matthew 15:19 and other places He condemns sexual immorality. The word Jesus uses in the gospels is porneia, and it was a catch-all word for all types of sexual behavior outside marriage. Within His Jewish culture, it included adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, and a host of other sexual sins.

Suppose then that I say to you that dishonesty is evil. Have I condemned perjury? Technically, I never addressed perjury, but perjury is a type of dishonesty just as homosexuality is a type of sexual immorality. Both Jesus and His audience would have seen homosexuality that way.

In addition, Jesus does talk about marriage and states that marriage is built on male and female (Mt 19:4-6). For further discussion, see the blog “Marriage Is . . .” here.

Jesus is much more relevant to the contemporary discussion on homosexuality than many people think.

Feb

2020

Christianity and Homosexuality

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:39)

“Love does not delight itself in evil but rejoices in the truth.” (I Cor 13:6)

Praise you, Father that you give your people your love for all. And praise You, Father, that you give your people a delight for righteousness and truth. And praise you, Father, that love and righteousness go together.

We’ve been discussing issues related to gender, marriage, and sexuality, and within contemporary culture that means that we have to say something about homosexuality. You would have to be awfully ignorant of Western culture to fail to see that those who peddle the culture vehemently push you to accept homosexuality as normal, legitimate behavior, and they will do whatever they can to drive the culture in that direction.

In light of this, the church must speak. If it doesn’t speak, then many in the pews will blindly follow their culture, and that would be a disaster. Scripture must judge culture, not the other way around. An unbiblical culture should not be telling Christians what the Bible says and means. That’s a bit silly . . . and sinister.

So we must speak. But I suppose the first thing we need to do when discussing homosexuality is to distinguish between how we treat homosexuals as people and how we view homosexuality as a behavior.

Christians must love homosexual people because Jesus tells us to love our neighbor, and homosexuals are our neighbors. This is a command, not an option. But what does this love look like? Love is not a vague feeling we can shape in any way we wish. The Bible describes love when it tells us how to live. For example, Scripture says, “Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth.” (Eph 4:29) Gay slurs are unwholesome talk. They are sin. Scripture says, “Consider others as more important than yourself.” (Ph 2:3) Looking down on homosexuals from a self-righteous position is sin. Scripture says, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mt 7:12) Beating up gay men is sin. Showing them disrespect is sin. Failing to honor them as people is sin. Those who mistreat homosexuals are not acting as Christians but as sinners. This needs to be clear. Christianity never endorses or encourages the mistreatment of homosexuals. Instead it calls people to love them.

This means if you have homosexuals in your work place, respect them as professionals. Invite them for lunch, and you initiate it. Show genuine interest in their lives. If you have homosexual neighbors, have them into your home. Take them some cookies. Help them move a piece of furniture. Take them to a picnic you are going to. Visit them in the hospital. Sacrifice your desires for their good. Do these things gladly, and be open about your faith.

Christians should be the first people to show Christ’s love to homosexuals. This is not negotiable.

But love does not endorse every lifestyle. Love is not agreement. Everyone knows this, for everyone has seen a father love a son who had done something wrong. My wife loves me even when I am rude and selfish toward her, and I will be the first to tell you that my selfishness comes naturally. My wife does not affirm my selfish nature, but she loves me nonetheless. In fact, if she did affirm my selfish nature, she would not be loving me.

To say that love must accept every idea or behavior is cheap. It is not love. In fact, if the truth be told, love shines more brightly in the midst of disagreement. When my wife loves me even after I wrongly put her down, her love stands out even more. Such love shows God’s pattern, for “God demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rm 5:8) God loves all people who by nature think and do what He hates. In other words, God love sinners, which means that He loves the world. When God calls certain behavior sin, He is not being hateful. He is being faithful to His character and showing His love even more.

Now when we come to homosexuality, we find that Scripture clearly calls such behavior sin. In fact, Scripture could not be clearer. But it is also clear that God’s people must show love to everyone. So how do you show love to people who sin? Such love, by itself, is hard. I rather think you need God for that. But here in the West, when it comes to homosexuality, the position the Christian is in is even harder, for Western culture has defined love in such a way that one must affirm sin in order to love a person? It’s like saying that I must accept racism to love a KKK member, that I must accept adultery to love an adulterer, or stealing to love a thief. For a Christian, this is impossible.

The Christian must love. Make no mistake about that. But the Christian’s love must and will look different from the “love” Western culture wants to see. What Western culture wants is not love. It wants sexual freedom, and it will shame genuinely loving people and call them hateful if they refuse to accept this sexual freedom.

What this means is that many people immersed in Western culture will never see the genuine love that Christians have for them. For Christians, this situation is sad, but we must live with it. God does. Most people never recognize the love God has for them, but it is real nonetheless. As Christians it is our responsibility to love people. It is not our responsibility to make those people affirm our love. If they are blind to it, there is nothing we can do. Except pray. And continue to show kindness.

Oct

2019

Sex Within Marriage

God designed sex and marriage to go together. Marriage is the union of two souls, and God made sex to be the union of two souls. Sex communicates marriage and, thus, belongs in marriage. Everything about sex points to marriage, so we now need to talk about sex within marriage. I intend to briefly give some principles that apply to the sexual relationship within marriage. No particular order, and these are not exhaustive.

1. Sex within marriage is clean and encouraged. Sometimes Christians bring into their marriage the notion that sexual activity is sinful or dirty. This is because while they were single, sexual activity was sinful, and they can’t change their thinking. They viewed sex as something to avoid instead of something to be enjoyed at the right time. The difference in those ways of thinking is crucial. One sees sex as inherently bad; the other as inherently good. If you view sex as inherently bad, then when you marry, your idea of sex will cause problems and will need to change. Within marriage, husbands and wives have great sexual freedom, and they need to understand that fact.

2. The sexual relationship is part of the overall relationship. You can’t divorce sex from the day-to-day life of the marriage. Western culture is often guilty of this problem. It treats sex merely as a physical act, and husbands and wives sometimes buy into that lie. Sex is not merely physical, and because it is not merely physical, it is an integrated part of the overall relationship in the marriage. Sex affects the marriage, and the marriage affects sex.

This means that sexual problems often result from marital problems. Arguments affect sexual desire. A mechanical, business-like relationship between spouses gets carried over to the marriage bed. A lack of trust or respect dooms a healthy sex life. Don’t ever think you can treat sex as an add-on to your marriage. Sex is an expression of what your marriage already is, not a separate practice you get to do. If spouses want to improve their sexual relationship, they usually need to improve their marital relationship.

Indeed, the hardest part of sex is usually the relationship. A healthy sexual relationship requires commitment and trust in the rest of the relationship. It requires a husband to cherish his wife in public, in the car, in the kitchen, on the phone, everywhere. She is not a sex object for him to consume. She is a precious lady for him to love. He is to be passionately in love with her when they are not in the bedroom. And the wife is to honor her husband in public, in the car, in the kitchen, on the phone, everywhere. He is not a blind fool for her to criticize or disrespect. He is a leader she must honor.

Sex does not begin in the bedroom. It begins in public, in the car, in the kitchen, on the phone, everywhere. When a husband and wife live out a committed, passionate, loving, one-flesh relationship, they set the stage for a thriving sexual relationship. But when they fail to show commitment, trust, passion, or respect in their everyday relationship, they undermine their sexual relationship.

3. Because the sexual relationship reflects the overall relationship, sex can be a good barometer of a marriage. Can be. Sexual problems in marriage are symptoms of something else. Sometimes the cause of a sexual problem is a health issue. Sometimes the cause is past sexual promiscuity or abuse. But often the cause is a relational issue between husband and wife.

Therefore, husbands and wives should pay attention to their sexual relationship because it often communicates more than they think.

4. Sex is to be given. In sex, the husband freely gives his body to his wife in order to please her, and the wife freely gives her body to her husband in order to please him (I Cor 7:3-4). Therefore, when a husband demands sex from his wife, he violates what sex is. Husbands should never coerce sex. It must be freely given. And wives need to see sex as a gift to their husbands. The wife may not always be in the mood but may give herself to her husband anyway simply because she loves him and wants to please him. A marriage in which husband and wife strive in the sexual relationship not for their own pleasure but for the pleasure of their spouse is a marriage built for both a rich sexual relationship and a deep overall relationship.

5. Husbands and wives need to talk about their sexual relationship. This may be a bit awkward at first, but it is important for two reasons. First, the sexual relationship is significant in its own right. It affects and is affected by the overall relationship. Second, a man is not a woman. Men and women typically enter marriage with different sexual desires, drives, and expectations. Men tend to be more aroused by visual stimulation and women by the relationship. Men tend to be more quickly aroused. Sexually, a man is a microwave, while a woman is a slow cooker. Men tend to want to have sex more often than women. These are general statements with exceptions, but when you see these differences, you see the need to talk. In sex, the microwave and the slow cooker need to go at the same pace. Husbands and wives, thus, need to communicate well, be understanding and patient with their spouse, and be willing to give up what may please them in order to please their spouse. If couples never talk about these differences, they are asking for unresolved conflict. Sex is deeply intimate and discussing it presents an opportunity for couples to build trust and to learn how to please their spouse, thereby deepening the relationship.

Remember, sex is a gift. When you give a gift, don’t you want to give something that pleases the recipient? The way to learn what pleases your spouse is to ask and to talk openly about sexual issues.

6. The sexual relationship develops over time. If you stop and think about it, isn’t this common sense? Doesn’t every other aspect of your relationship develop over time? Why would we think sex is different? Sex is something that healthy couples grow in. Their sexual relationship can be much richer after forty years than it was when they were newlyweds. Or it can be worse. A lack of time, a loss of trust, a critical spirit, pornography, an affair, or bad health can all negatively affect the sexual relationship at any time. Sometimes you hear couples talk about growing in their love for one another over the years. Such growth is a real phenomenon, and because the overall relationship often spills into the marriage bed, this growth in love can deepen the sexual relationship. This fact often surprises people who consume large doses of Hollywood. In Hollywood, by and large, sex is at its peak when people are young. In the real world, however, this is not necessarily the case. Listen to Proverbs: “May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth” (5:18). The phrase, “wife of your youth” suggests that Solomon is addressing an older man, and the surrounding text encourages a healthy sexual life. Here is how it continues: “A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love” (5:19-20). God intended sex to be like good wine that improves with age and not like milk that spoils in two weeks. The marriage night should be the first step and not the pinnacle of the sexual relationship.

Oct

2019

Marriage and Sex

SHE: “Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly delightful . . . His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me! I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem . . . that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases.” (Song of Solomon 1:17; 2:6-7)

HE: “Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away.” (Song of Solomon 2:13)

Lord, You have blessed marriage with sex, and you have blessed sex with marriage. Thank you for putting those blessings together and making our lives richer because of it.

If I am going to talk about gender issues and marriage, I’m afraid at some point I have to talk about sex, and I want to begin by talking about real people.

A young, single friend of mine came to me one day to confess with tears that he had lost his virginity the previous weekend.

A single woman I knew, with great regret, told me she had had sex with a man I knew.

A young dating couple in tears confessed that they had had sex on a trip they had just taken together.

These are all true stories that show that sex is not like other human drives. People don’t break down in tears because they ate too much sushi last night. Food is food. It is necessary for our bodies, but it doesn’t touch our souls as sex does. In sex you give to another person your body, soul, heart, emotions, and spirit. In sex you give it all. Sex is not just another human appetite. The regret and pain common when people engage in illicit sex result from the realization that they just gave everything to someone they had no business giving everything to. Sex is the physical expression of a one-flesh union, but sex is not merely physical because a one-flesh union is not primarily physical.

Sex is God’s invention. Within marriage, He encourages it, commands it, and even applauds it. The one thing you must never do is think that Christians are prudes who believe sex to be some dirty, evil act we must avoid at all costs. On the contrary, Christians have a much higher view of sex than the rest of the world. If the Western world is correct, and people can engage in consensual sex with anyone they please at anytime they please, and if sex requires no commitments, no uniting of lives, then sex is not much different from what the dogs do.

Christians do not believe this. God designed sex to be a holy act. Because marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, sex is a re-enactment of the union between Christ and the church. It displays the oneness we have in Christ and the ecstasies that shall be ours in glory. Indeed, when we unite ourselves with Christ, we shall one day experience a revelry and joy that will make sexual pleasure seem like cleaning the tub.

Thus, Christians view sex as a wonderful gift from God, but they do not believe that sex is the ultimate pinnacle of life. Within marriage, sex may be a holy act, but it cannot fulfill you. The quest for fulfillment through sexual pleasure is tragic and sinful. It produces empty, broken lives. People need to see sex under God in its proper place. Otherwise, it becomes a god that people enslave themselves to. It rises to a central place in their lives, sometimes to the point that people even identify themselves on the basis of their sexual expression.

Sex does not define you. You are no more special or successful because you have sex, nor less so if you are a virgin. Your identity is not tied to sexual expression, as if who you are is nothing more than your sexual desire. To make your identity a sexual preference is to deny who God says you are and to inflate the importance of sex. Sexual identity is a modern concept and is more the product of a sex-saturated and sex-infatuated culture than the reflection of who you are. As good as sex is, it is not that central to life.

So what are the purposes of sex?

1. Sex reflects a one-flesh union. In marriage a man and woman become one flesh (Gen 2:24-5; Matt 19:3-6). In sex, a man and woman become one flesh. Paul says that the reason a man should not have sex with a prostitute is this: “. . . do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh.’” (I Cor 6:16) Paul’s point is not that a one-flesh relationship is nothing more than sex but that sex enacts the one-flesh relationship. He is shocked that people would consider becoming one body with someone they are not one with.

2. Sex expresses your love for, your oneness to, and your pleasure in your spouse . When you read Song of Solomon, you find that the husband and wife are constantly expressing their love for the other and their delight in the other in the context of what can only be described as the sexual act. They speak with their words, but they speak with their bodies as well. In sex, your body says, “ “I am yours . . . completely.” Sex says, “I love you.” Sex says, “You are the only one for me.” Sex says, “We are completely one.” Sex says, “You are my delight.” Sex communicates all of these ideas, and it does so with body and soul.

3. Sex gives. This truth is contrary to Western culture, which is extraordinarily self-focused when it comes to sex. Scripture says this: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.” (I Cor 7:3) This text refers to sex, and when it addresses the husband, it tells him to give; and when it addresses the wife, it tells her to give. If you read on, you find out why: “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (I Cor 7:4) In other words, the wife’s body is meant for her husband, and the husband’s body is meant for his wife. God’s purpose in sex is not to see what pleasure you can get out of it but to give yourself fully to increasing the pleasure of your spouse. Sex was never meant to be a self-focused endeavor. That attitude is always dysfunctional.

4. Sex strengthens marriage. This purpose flows naturally out of the purposes mentioned above. Because sex reenacts the one-flesh union, it serves as a reminder that husband and wife are one. Because sex says, “I am completely yours . . . you are the only one for me . . . I love you with all I have,” it reinforces the bond between husband and wife. Because sex gives to the other person everything, it unites souls. Sex reinforces the marriage bond.

I do not mean that all couples will experience such reinforcement merely by having sex. Sex is not a panacea for marital dysfunction, but within the proper context, it does strengthen a marriage. Exercise strengthens a person’s overall health, but it is not the solution to every illness. Exercise is merely one piece of a regimen for a healthy body; sex is merely one piece of a regimen for a healthy marriage. When sex reflects the one-flesh union that a husband and wife live daily, it reinforces that union; but when sex enacts a one-flesh union that the couple never lives, it is incomplete.

5. Sex is for reproduction. Sometimes people want to focus on the recreational aspects of sex and ignore this, but when God created male and female, He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). In other words, God commanded them to have sex for the purpose of having children. Marriage and children go together. I don’t mean that all couples are able to have children, but I do mean that if you marry at an age appropriate for children and if you have no health issues precluding children, you need to be open to having children. God may or may not grant children, but that is His prerogative, not yours. Sex is for reproduction.

Why do Christians restrict sex to marriage?

This is a common question people ask, but if you have read thus far, the answer should be obvious. God designed sex intentionally for marriage.

Sex acts out in a multidimensional way the marriage commitment. Sex portrays a one-flesh relationship. Literally. Sex portrays marriage. Sex communicates commitment, even if that commitment is unspoken. When a man has sex with a woman, he is making a promise to her, even if he denies that promise with his words. When a man has sex with a woman, they are telling each other that they are one and that they completely belong to each other. When a man has sex with a woman, he gives to her a piece of himself that she will have the rest of her life. The sexual act does all of the above quite apart from intent. This is why Christians reserve sex for marriage.

Sex apart from marriage is an absolute lie, for it communicates a oneness that does not exist. It says, “I am completely yours” to someone you have not committed your life to. It gives away body and soul to someone you don’t intend to share body and soul with. To become one with someone sexually without becoming one in marriage is deceitful and cruel. You say one thing with your body, but you don’t mean what you say.

Sex is a powerful force. When people handle fire, they put restrictions on how they handle it. When people work with electricity, they put restrictions on how they do so. Sex is fire. Sex is electricity. Handled the right way, it can light a city, but handled the wrong way, it can burn that city to the ground. You cannot handle sex any way you please without severe consequences.

The Western world for roughly the past sixty years has been ignoring God’s restrictions when it comes to sex. It frequently calls the Christian sexual ethic prudish, backwards, obtuse, and cruel. You might as well tell the electrician that he is backwards and cruel for commanding people to stop picking up live wires with their bare hands. The Western world is largely blind to the damage of unrestricted sex. It says that sex is a beautiful expression that two people who love each other should be able to engage in when they want.

The Christian heartily agrees with that last statement, but the Christian says that if those two people truly love each other, let them commit their lives to one another. If they will not commit their lives in marriage, then let’s have none of this nonsense talk of loving one another. They don’t love one another. Let them marry. Then they will find that sex is a beautiful expression that two people who love one another should be able to engage in when they want.

Make no mistake. God made sex for marriage. Within marriage, it is a beautiful and powerful force for uniting a husband and wife and creating new life. But outside marriage sex is sin. It kills marital intimacy and divides marital oneness. Those who practice extramarital sex hurt themselves, their sexual partners, and marriage itself.

If you have sinned sexually, please know that God offers cleansing and forgiveness through Jesus. God can restore you and can heal your marriage (or your future marriage), but for God to do so, you will have to repent and trust in the Cross of Christ to cover your sin and make you new. But please do know that you have great hope in Christ.

This blog has dealt primarily with introductory matters: What is sex? What are its purposes? Why does God put restrictions on it? Next week, we will talk about some principles for maintaining a healthy sexual relationship within marriage.

Walk with Him.

Sep

2019

The Marriage Dance

“Husbands, love your wives . . . (Eph 5:25)

“Wives, submit to your husbands . . . (Eph 5:23)

Father, let me lead Leanne in love, as Christ would lead His church. I need you for this.

One of the biggest problems people have with the Biblical description of marital leadership is that they never consider what Scripture says about that leadership. They have in mind their own notions of leadership, often from seeing sinful, abusive leaders, and they replace Biblical leadership with their own notions and then proceed to smack down Biblical leadership. When they do their smack down, however, they are never really smacking down what the Bible says but an inflatable punching doll they have set up.

Therefore, in this section I want to present what the Bible means when it calls a husband to lead his wife. Immediately after Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife (Eph 5:23), he describes how husbands are to treat their wives:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself . . . (Eph 5:25-33)

Biblically, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and as they love their own bodies; they are to sacrifice for their wives as Christ gave himself for the church; they are to nourish and cherish their wives as Christ does the church; they are to hold fast to their wives. In short, they are to treat their wives as Christ treats the church. This is Biblical leadership within marriage. If husbands practiced this type of leadership, women would be loved, cherished, nourished, and their men would be willing to die for them. If you want to argue against what the Bible says about leadership within marriage, then argue against that. But let’s not have any of this nonsense that claims the Bible encourages male domination.

God calls men to lead their wives as Christ leads His church. This idea was revolutionary in the first century, and it is still revolutionary today. Thus, men, the best way to lead your wives well is to walk with Christ well. He is the model for leadership. He gives the power to lead in a Christ-like manner.

Therefore, lead with gentleness. Lead with compassion. Lead with a desire to understand your wife. Lead by listening to her. Lead by caring for her. Lead by trusting her. Lead by sacrificing your desires. But lead.

Leading doesn’t mean you do everything. If your wife is better at handling the finances, let her handle the finances. If she is better at choosing a medical plan, let her take the lead on choosing a medical plan. Good leaders give great responsibility to those they lead. Doesn’t Christ grant great responsibility to the church?

And yet Christ is the head. To delegate responsibility is not to abdicate it. The husband is still ultimately responsible for the family.

I’ve been brief, but this is the first partner in the marriage dance.

The second partner is the wife, and Scripture addresses her role as well:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands . . . and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Eph 5: 22-4, 33)

God calls a wife to submit to her husband just as the church submits to Christ. In the dance, she follows his lead. Because “submission” is a lightning rod word, I need to describe what it does and does not mean.

1) Submission does not mean the wife sins because the husband tells her to. A wife submits to God first. If a husband says, “Let’s fudge these numbers on our taxes,” or “let’s lie to your sister,” the wife cannot go there. She answers to God first, and she is responsible for her own actions.

2) Submission does not mean the wife never speaks up when she disagrees with her husband. You might as well say that the chief operations officer should never speak up when she disagrees with the CEO or that the secretary of state should never speak up when she disagrees with the president. Do you see how crazy that is?

3) Submission does not mean the wife should let her husband abuse her. Submission has a purpose, and physical or sexual abuse violates that purpose. If a husband physically or sexually abuses the wife or the children, the wife may need to contact the police and/or separate herself and the children for a time. This is obvious when we look at leadership outside of marriage. No one would question the idea that an assistant manager should submit to her manager, but if that manager physically abused her, the principle of submission does not require the assistant to sit around and get bludgeoned.

So what does submission mean?

It is simply this: Biblical submission is a voluntary yielding to a leader.

That’s it.

The purpose of Biblical submission within marriage is to reflect Christ and the church and to combat division when husband and wife cannot resolve a disagreement. In addition, submission is always a heart issue. When the church submits to Christ, she is to do so willingly from the heart. Grudging submission is not submission. It looks like submission on the outside, but the heart is what counts.

In life, the principle of submission says that people should submit to their leaders unless those leaders encourage or engage in activity contrary to God’s will. The principle also says that people should practice this submission with respect and honor toward the leader, even if the people disagree. The principle applies in every realm of life: government, work, school, committees, sports teams, and more.

The Bible calls a wife to this principle in the home. Submission is merely a recognition of leadership. Thus, the Bible calls wives to recognize the leadership of their husbands.

When a husband leads as Christ and a wife willingly submits as the church, you see the dance. If both wanted to lead or neither would lead, the dance would get ugly. When people today call for women to abandon ordinary submission within marriage, they deny Scripture and encourage immaturity and rebellion in women. In doing so, they help destroy the picture of Christ and the church.

They perhaps mean well. They want to combat abuses, but their solution for a broken arm is to cut the arm off altogether.

A Picture

Submission does not primarily come into play when husbands and wives agree. It frequents the intersection of disagreement and decision, for it is at that intersection that someone must yield. So let’s bring up a disagreement and briefly discuss how Biblical leadership and submission play out.

Let’s say a husband receives a job opportunity. It would be a high-paying, good-for-the-career job at a firm in Dallas. He currently works at a less favorable job, but its location is close to family in Beijing.

The husband believes the couple should take the job in Dallas. The wife believes they should stay in Beijing. Each has different reasons for his or her opinion, and they are legitimate reasons. I want to give three scenarios to show how different couples handle this disagreement, but I will end with the scenario that reflects Biblical leadership.

The first scenario is easy to describe and unfortunately quite common. Both husband and wife approach the disagreement with a plan on how to get their own way. They are self-centered. They fight or manipulate, and the husband may get physically abusive. In the end, someone “wins” and someone “loses” unless they both stand their ground, and she stays in Beijing while he goes to Dallas. In that case they both lose. This marriage has little to no constructive communication. Both parties want what they want and will do whatever they can to get it. The basic problem is not communication but this: he won’t love, and she won’t submit. Those are heart issues. The dysfunctional communication is merely a symptom of the main problem. Unless God interferes, these marriages are on a road toward divorce.

The second scenario is more complex.

The husband is much the same as the first scenario. He wants what he wants, and he is going to do whatever he can to get it. He offers no opportunity for open communication and won’t listen when the wife speaks. He gets argumentative and perhaps abusive.

The wife, however, wants to honor God, but she strongly feels that a move to Dallas would be a mistake. What does she do?

If she is going to honor God, she begins by bringing this matter to God in prayer. She needs to pray for her husband, not that he will see things her way, but that God will give him a receptive heart. She needs to pray for herself, that God will grant her His heart and mind, that God will give her wisdom and grace in dealing with this issue. She also needs to pray for God’s will in this matter. She personally wants to stay in Beijing, but is that what God wants? She needs to be willing to give up her desire if God wants the family in Dallas. This principle is part of dying to self, and it is crucial.

She needs to communicate with her husband. What she says depends largely on what she hears in her prayer time, but her husband needs to hear from her. She needs to respectfully bring up the issue and why she disagrees with his decision. He may respond favorably or not. He may flare up. He may not listen at all. But he needs to hear his wife. If he becomes abusive, she may need to contact authorities or separate herself for a time. Through this process if she behaves respectfully, she has a greater chance of influencing his heart than if she calls him names and stoops to his level. Those practices take her to the first scenario.

Again, in this marriage, the real issue is not Dallas or Beijing. This couple has deeper problems than “which town they will live in.” The woman married a man who will not listen to her, and now she is bound to him . . . whether she likes it or not. This wife needs to think long term about what is best for the marriage and not just about where the family will live. She needs to pray for her husband. She needs to honor him. She may encourage counseling, but he may not go. Ultimately, she needs to walk with God. She needs the church, the Word of God, and the Spirit. Her marriage is a picture of a greater marriage, and she needs the support of her heavenly husband — Christ. He will give her greater strength, grace and wisdom to deal with her earthly husband. The closer she gets to Christ, the less rebellious she will be toward her husband. Walking with God and rebellion do not go hand in hand.

So then, let’s suppose the husband does not listen to her and decides to move the family to Dallas. In this case, moving to Dallas is not sinful, even if she believes it is not wise. And though the husband is clearly being selfish, he is not asking his wife to violate God’s commands. For the sake of the marriage and in order to honor Christ, she needs to respectfully go to Dallas. She may disagree with the decision, but she needs to support it just as the Secretary of State needs to support a presidential decision that the Secretary of State disagrees with. Such submission brings the most honor to Christ, and in the long run is best for the marriage. In the long run, she will need to be praying for her husband, respecting him, loving him, and communicating with him her thoughts on their marriage, but she loses the opportunity to do those things if she stays in Beijing.

The final scenario is one in which the husband leads in a way that reflects Biblical leadership in marriage.

How should the husband lead through this situation?

1. He must begin by bringing the decision to God. He needs to give his desire to God and be open to the possibility that his wife is right.

2. As he prays through this decision, he needs to talk to his wife and listen. He must allow her to express her opinion and her reasons for it.

3. As they discuss, he needs to let his wife know his position and why he holds it, but he must present this in a loving manner. Both husband and wife need to be free to ask honest questions of each other.

4. He must continue to pray and be willing to let go of his desire.

5. Through this process, perhaps God changes his stance and he now agrees with his wife. Or perhaps God changes the wife’s stance, and she now agrees with her husband. In these cases, we now have agreement, and submission is no longer necessary. But what if no one changes? He still feels they should go to Dallas, and she still feels they should stay in Beijing.

6. It is now clear there will be no mutual decision, but at some point, the couple must make a decision. When that time comes, the husband needs to decide. He should not go against his wife’s counsel lightly, but in the end he may need to. The couple cannot live in Beijing and Dallas. That will divide the marriage.

God may lead the husband to honor his wife’s request and stay in Beijing. Sometimes good leaders submit to the judgment of those they lead. Or God may tell the husband to take the family to Dallas. If the husband still believes God is calling his family to Dallas, he needs to move them to Dallas.

That’s the first partner in the dance.

The second is the wife. How does she submit in this process?

The wife must walk through steps one through five above as well. Once we get to step six — it is clear there will be no mutual decision — she must now respectfully honor her husband’s decision. This means the following:

She is grateful for her husband.

She does not complain in her heart.

She does not talk negatively about the decision behind her husband’s back.

She supports the decision in front of the kids or to family or friends.

She does not manipulate to get her way.

She willingly moves to Dallas.

In the end, she honors the decision of her husband just as any other person would honor the decision of his or her leader. In doing this, she strengthens her marriage and acts out the role of the church with Christ.

This final scenario is a healthy marriage. Husbands and wives don’t have to agree on everything, but they do have to remain one, and that is why submission is necessary.

mdemchsak

Jesus is Everything

Racism: A Christian Perspective

Christianity and Homosexuality: Addressing Criticisms

The Bible and Homosexuality II

Coronavirus and God

The Bible and Homosexuality

Christianity and Homosexuality

Sex Within Marriage

Marriage and Sex

The Marriage Dance

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories