In 2020, the United States aborted about 930,000 children.[2]  Thus, if COVID was a problem (and it was), abortion is more than double the problem.  In its down years, abortion takes the lives of far more people than COVID ever did in its worst year.  If you considered COVID to be bad, you should consider abortion to be worse. 

And yet, as big a problem as abortion is, it is really just a symptom of a deeper problem.  The West is inundated with thinking that drives the push for abortion on demand, and that thinking rises out of the sexual revolution.  The sexual revolution did not invent sexual immorality, but it normalized it and made it more palatable.  The sexual revolution encouraged sexual exploration and significantly lowered the standard for sexual activity from committed marriage between a husband and wife to mere consent.  It says we should be able to have sex when and where we want as long as there is consent.  In the West this thinking has increased sexual activity outside marriage and has cheapened the meaning of sex.  Consequently, the sexual revolution has also created a greater number of crisis pregnancies and, thus, in its own thinking, a greater need for abortions. 

One of the biggest consequences of free sex is unwanted pregnancy, and this is problematic to free sex because it means that sex isn’t free.  Sex has consequences.  Abortion, however, is a perceived remedy to the problem of pregnancy.  Have sex when and where you want, and if you get pregnant, no problem – get an abortion.  This is the way much of American culture thinks.  It’s a vicious circle.  Free sex creates more crisis pregnancies, which we resolve through more abortions so that we can be free to engage in sex as we wish, which then creates more crisis pregnancies, which we resolve . . .  We have to break this circle.  The sexual revolution has exacerbated the problem it wants abortion to remedy.  It increases crisis pregnancies and then complains that we have too many of them.  The sexual revolution is itself the problem. 

The sexual revolution wants dearly to reduce crisis pregnancies because crisis pregnancies interfere with free sex.  Of course, there is a way to significantly reduce crisis pregnancies, but that solution is not something the sexual revolution will consider because it involves the rejection of its main premise.  If we return sex to its proper place within the confines of a committed marriage between a husband and wife, we will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies. 

If my proabortion friends really cared about sparing women from many difficult and unwanted pregnancies, there is an easier way to do that than abortion.  If the women are single, they could just say no to sex.  And the culture could teach single men to do the same.  I understand that that solution won’t cover every situation, but it will cover a boatload of them.  The proabortion position talks much about choice, but other than situations involving rape or incest, the mother has already made a choice.  She has chosen to participate in an action whose main purpose is procreation.  In the majority of those situations, the mother could have chosen not to get pregnant simply by abstaining from sex.  The prochoice position needs to consider the consequences of a woman’s choice before sex and not just after. 

Today, what I have suggested is considered ridiculous.  People read what I just said and laugh.  And that is precisely the problem.  Their ridicule illustrates my point.  A hundred years ago, the culture considered sex to be reserved for marriage.  That thinking was mainstream.  Today it is ludicrous. 

Our problem is deeper than abortion.  Abortion on demand is merely a symptom of the sexual revolution.  Western society thinks a certain way about sex, and that thinking produces a perceived need for abortions and with it a strong motive for dehumanizing unborn children.  Much of the West does not recognize the unborn as human because it does not want to.  The lives of the unborn interfere with free sex, and we want free sex.  These are some of the consequences of the sexual revolution, and we need to reject it.  It has been an abysmal failure. 

The sexual revolution is a deeper problem than abortion, but there is a problem even deeper than the sexual revolution.  It’s called self.  Self is what drives the sexual revolution.  In the West today, sex is about me, my pleasure, my desires, my happiness.  I decide.  I make my own rules.  And who are you to challenge me?  Only Christ and the Cross can deal with self.  We will not change the abortion problem until we change how we think about sex, and right now, sex in the West is so self-centered that we will never change how we think about it until we realize that our self is not the center of the universe.  Scripture has an answer to that problem.  It is called the Cross.  It is there that we die to self and that Christ by His grace gives us a new self. 

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e1.htm?s_cid=mm7117e1_w

[2] https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/long-term-decline-us-abortions-reverses-showing-rising-need-abortion-supreme-court

The man said, “Ma’am, I am a very good driver.  I can drive within half a meter of the edge without going over.”

She went to the next cab.  “Ma’am,” that driver said.  “I can get ten centimeters from the edge.”

She went to the next cab and the man put his hands up and said, “Ma’am, if you come with me, we are staying as far from that edge as possible.” 

“Open the door,” she said.  “I’ll go with you.”

When it comes to dating and sex, most people think like the first two cab drivers.  “How close can I get without crossing the line?” 

Paul, however, commands us to “flee sexual immorality.”  The idea is not to inch our way close to immorality without going over the edge but to stay as far from it as possible. 

When you date, sexual sin is a real danger, much more than with other forms of courtship, and contemporary culture makes this topic difficult to talk about.  On the one hand, if you look at the big picture of the Christian dating scene, it is obvious that we have a problem.  I could list name after name after name after name of people who identified with Christ but who committed sexual sin before marriage.  On the other hand, we have many people who, once they hear you talk about sexual boundaries, protest vehemently.  They say you are being legalistic and setting up merely a list of do’s and don’ts.  They often say as well that you are being judgmental and creating an unhealthy atmosphere that condemns sex. 

So here I am stuck in the middle.  We have a glaring problem that I need to address, but once I do, many will say I am legalistic.  Oh well.  I guess I can’t please everybody. 

I will concede first that legalism about sex can and does exist within certain quarters, and I do wish to avoid it.  But I also need to say that many people who decry legalism are really decrying holiness by calling it legalism.  To them almost all righteousness is legalism.  They could not tell the difference between legalism and righteousness if they had to.

The Christian pursues Christ.  Part of that pursuit of Christ involves fleeing sexual immorality.  But when we flee it, we do so because we are pursuing something greater.  This is holiness.  Legalism, however, argues about the technicalities of whether an activity is OK or not. 

Now in this discussion, I will at times talk about activities that cross the line.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to avoid the idea of a line somewhere, but I don’t want our focus to be on where the lines are.  In holiness, the focus is on Christ and on honoring Him.  If He is your focus, you will not cross the lines even if you don’t know exactly where they are.  But if you focus on where the lines are, you are not focusing on Christ and will be more likely to violate the boundaries, even if you know exactly where they are.  Christ is more powerful than mere knowledge. Pursue Him.

The next thing I need to discuss is why.  Why should dating couples care about sexual boundaries?  The answer may not be what you think.  Most people think that Christians avoid premarital sex because they view sex as some dirty thing.  The reality is just the opposite.  To Christians, sex is a beautiful and holy thing; and because it is so beautiful and holy, Christians do not consider it profane.  Sex is special and is, thus, reserved for a special relationship.  Christians have a much higher view of sex than the world that ironically says the Christian view is so low.  When you are single, you need sexual boundaries because you are protecting something special.

I could say more about the Christian view of sex, but I already have.  Go here and here.  It might be helpful to read those blogs before you move on, for they lay some foundation for any healthy thinking about sex. 

Sexual passion is powerful, and the farther you walk down its path, the harder it is to turn back.  It is easier to avoid sexual sin by drawing boundaries early than by waiting until you are kissing.  Sexual sin never begins with intercourse or even kissing.  It begins with a look.  That look becomes a stare.  That stare implants itself as a recurring thought.  Maybe a week later, that thought impels you to grab her hand and another week after that to touch her hair.  Soon you are touching her waist and then her legs and then you are kissing.  The exact sequence and time frame are not always the same, but you get the idea.  You see the direction this is going in.  Each step in the progression makes the passion roar.  It is far easier to stop that progression earlier than later.  The farther down that road you travel, the more drunk you become with passion, the less clear is your thinking and the weaker your self control. 

So I want to talk about that progression and how to handle it in a dating relationship.  You need some boundaries that you will not cross.  How do you decide where they are?  Some activities are clearly out of bounds:  intercourse, petting, passionate kissing, taking off clothes, touching private parts, crude joking, and others. 

Other activities, however – hugging, holding hands – may be appropriate.  You have to decide what is appropriate, and the answer will not be the same for every couple.  I don’t mean anything goes.  No one will be able to go too far down that progression, but different couples may draw lines in different places in the early stages of that progression. 

Here are some factors to consider.  Culture will have some say about what is and is not appropriate.  You might not hold hands in a conservative Arab culture but feel comfortable doing so in a secular Western one.  Personal histories will affect what is appropriate.  If someone has a history of sexual abuse, or if the woman has experienced rape, you will likely need to honor some tight boundaries and move slowly.  If either party has a history of promiscuity, you will need to do the same but for different reasons.  Personal weaknesses factor into this.  Some people are more easily tempted than others.  If you get sexually stimulated by hugging, maybe you need to back off.  When I talk this way, I am not being legalistic but loving.  If you ignore cultural and personal factors in your relationship, you are being unloving and inconsiderate.

Remember, the goal is to honor Christ, not just avoid some behavior.  So walk closely with Christ.  If you are doing that, here are some principles that can help with sexual boundaries.

• If an action makes you feel a twinge in your conscience, don’t do it.
• Don’t push the other person.  If the other person is uncomfortable with something physical, back off.  That is love.
• If the other person pushes you to take some step physically that you are uncomfortable with, end the relationship now.  That person cares more for his or her desire than for you.
• Don’t live together until you are married.
• Talk to one another openly about what you are comfortable and uncomfortable with. 
• When you draw boundaries, draw them early in the relationship and don’t go far in that physical progression.  You are to flee sexual immorality, not get close to it. 
• If possible, think through these issues before a relationship begins.  You may adjust after a relationship begins, but thinking things through beforehand will help you even in the adjustment. 
• To the guys:  You have a built-in mechanism for determining if an action is sexually stimulating.  It’s called an erection.  Think of an erection as a warning light that the engine is getting too hot.  It’s a sign to back off. 

These principles will help you and the other person as a couple decide what is appropriate and not.  Above all, let your primary pursuit be Christ and His righteousness. Your primary pursuit must not be the other person. If you win that battle, you’ll win the war.

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. 

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. 

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.

“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. 

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. 

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.

Marriage is a universal idea.  It is Chinese, Korean, Nigerian, Mexican, European, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular all at once.  It is as current as this minute and as ancient as Adam.  It has existed in every culture throughout history.  Although different cultures have emphasized different aspects of marriage, the essence has remained much the same.  The difference between ancient Vietnamese marriage and modern Christian marriage is more like the difference between a Model T and a Honda than between a car and a boat. 

In Scripture, marriage goes back to the original creation.  God created marriage from the beginning; we did not invent it later.   Marriage is part of the fabric of society . . . by design.  It is foundational to the flourishing of the human race . . . by design.  It is the central construct for male/female relations . . . by design.

We must get into our heads the idea that God designed marriage . . . and that we did not.  We must, thus, look to God for what marriage is and for how marriage is to function.  This requires humility, for sometimes God says things we do not like or understand.  When God tells us the purpose of marriage, He says that He created it to be a beautiful union — a living, breathing, portrait of Christ and the Church.  But we have lost that portrait, and in doing so, we don’t know what marriage is.  The previous blog discussed this purpose of marriage; today we will begin to discuss its definition.  But before we define what marriage is, we probably should say what marriage is not.

Marriage Is Not . . .

Marriage is not built on romantic feelings.  By all means, marriage should contain romantic feelings, but it is so much more.  Much of Western culture misconstrues marriage by making emotional feelings the foundation for marriage.  Think of Romeo and Juliet, Enchanted, The Princess Bride, or the latest romantic comedy.  Boy likes girl, girl likes boy.  They “fall in love.”  They experience setbacks or their love develops, and marriage is the final step.  Western culture builds marriage on love, and who wants to argue against love?  I certainly don’t. 

But love has a thousand meanings, and when Western culture builds marriage on love, that love, more often than not, is a glorification of romantic feelings.  It may be true that romantic feelings were the initial spark that got the girl interested in the guy, but in the long run, “Romeo, O Romeo” cannot sustain a marriage.  A strong marriage can and should sustain romantic feelings, but romantic feelings cannot be the fuel for the marriage.  Sooner or later such marriages run out of gas.  If marriage is a house, romance is the furnace, but it is not the foundation. 

The irony of romance is that the marriages with the best romance are not the ones built upon romance.  Romance cannot bear that weight.  It needs a strong foundation somewhere else in order to flourish.  When marriages focus on commitment, sacrifice, and honoring the other person, romance flourishes.  That’s a great environment for romance.  But when romance is made to be the end all, it withers because ultimately romance was never meant to be the end all. 

In the West, putting this weight on romance poses a great problem for marriage.  One of the most common reasons people give for divorce is “We just don’t love each other any more.”  What the couple means is that they “lost that lovin’ feeling.”  In other words, they ran out of gas.  They portray their situation with the word “love,” but I would question whether they ever loved one another in the first place.  One of the characteristics of Biblical love is that it lasts (I Cor 13:13).

Marriage is not built on sex.  This misunderstanding is a cousin to the first.  Especially in the hypersexualized world of the West (though much of the rest of the world is moving in this direction, too), sex is often the ultimate pleasure in life.  And this is precisely the problem.   We make sex ultimate and the marriage secondary.  We act as if marriage exists to serve sex and not the other way round.  This view of marriage has the master and the servant reversed. 

God intended sex to be a physical expression of two becoming one.  It expresses the deeper reality of marriage, which is why it is reserved for marriage.  Marriage can and should foster a vibrant sex life, but sex cannot foster a vibrant marriage.  Like romance, that is too great a load for it to bear. 

Marriage is not primarily a social institution.  It is not just a place to raise children, though good marriages do provide the healthiest place in society for raising children.  It is not primarily a stabilizing force for society, though good marriages bring society more depth of stability than perhaps any other institution on earth.  Marriage clearly has societal benefits, but when people enter marriage solely for social reasons, they miss the point. 

You say, “How do people enter marriage just for social reasons?” Lots of ways. Some may arrange marriages for the purpose of family connections.  Kings did this for millennia; Hindus often do it for caste reasons.  Sometimes people marry to move up in society or to get a better situation.  Sometimes people marry because they feel societal pressure to do so. “You’re not married yet?” Sometimes a social marriage involves a husband and wife who lost their romantic feelings and now need something else to hold the marriage together.  The kids are the best excuse they have, so they turn their marriage into a mere social institution.  Then the kids grow up and leave.  At that point, the marriage either crumbles or finds another social reason to exist — financial stability or looking respectable in society. 

Most people recognize the emptiness of building a marriage on social benefits.  And virtually everyone has seen marriages in which the husband and wife were merely two people living under the same roof instead of a husband and wife.   When marriage becomes a mere social convention, the two never live as one.  They may look on the outside as if they are living as one, but on the inside the marriage is hollow.  It has no intimacy.  It has no commitment to the other person.  It may have a commitment to raising the kids or to maintaining an appearance of respectability, but the husband and wife are not committed to each other. 

God designed marriage to be a great blessing for men, women and society, but the essence of marriage is not social. 

It is also not the place to find fulfillment.  This is crucial, for many people think that if they can’t marry they will never be fulfilled.  They tie happiness to marriage.  They then marry and find that marriage can’t fill the shoes they have created for it.  I understand the desire to marry.  It is natural and good.  I had the desire when I was single; but to think, “if only I marry, then I will be happy” is to put immense pressure on the marriage, pressure that marriage ultimately cannot handle. 

This fact means that many people need to rethink their view of marriage.  If you are single, you have criteria about who you will date.  You know, nice looking, nonsmoker, interested in outdoors — these are the kinds of things people put on those dating websites.  Well, when I was single, I had criteria as well, and at the top of my list was “content in Christ.”  That’s not exactly the kind of thing you can put on a dating website, but that was nonnegotiable for me.  I was looking for contentment in a girl.  I knew that I could never make a woman content.  I’m a sinner.  And so I wanted a girl who didn’t need me to be content.  If I married someone who needed me to be content, then I would just be playing with a beehive. 

Let’s face it.  If you are not happy single, no spouse will make you happy later.  And if the guy or girl you like is not happy single, you will not make him or her happy later.  I wish I could shout that across the globe because too many people try to make marriage their fulfillment, and I’ve never seen it work.

God made us ultimately for Himself, not for a spouse.  The best marriages are the ones in which the husband and wife find their fulfillment in Christ and not in each other. 

Marriage is not about you.  This is related to the previous misunderstanding.  Too many people marry with a focus on themselves.  It is not wrong to consider what benefits a guy or girl may bring you, but it is toxic to make you the focus.  God may bring you great blessing through marriage, but the blessing is never the main point.  When the whole point of marriage becomes “what can I get out of it,” you become a beast.  You demand that your spouse meet your needs instead of trying to meet his or her needs.  In marriage, God calls a man and woman to die to self.  He tells the man to sacrifice for his wife as Christ died for the church, and He tells the wife to submit to her husband.  This is absolutely not a self-focused endeavor. 

Many marriages decay or explode because one spouse or both enter it with a focus on meeting their own needs.  They then find that their spouse does not meet their needs and that, uh oh, I have to give in to him?  Or I have to sacrifice my time for her?  Yes you do.  And if you do, you will find that you will improve your marriage if only because you begin to take the focus off yourself. 

So marriage should not be built on romance or sex.  It is not merely a social institution, nor is it the place to find ultimate fulfillment nor is it about meeting your needs.

What then is it?  That’s for the next blog.