Archive for the ‘Marriage’ Category

A Love Song for Your Valentine (The Song of Solomon)

Posted: February 14, 2013 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

I was listening to The Dave Ramsey Show on Radio one evening while driving and he said what I had heard before that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. But here is the good news, that percentage could be raised to 90% with the following seven changes. I am recalling these from memory since I was driving, so they may not be word for word as Dave listed them.

1. Don’t live together before marriage.

2. Wait until you are around 23-24 years old before you marry. Don’t marry at age 17.

3. Make sure your combined household income is about $50,000.

4. Attend church regularly and be on the same page with your religious beliefs.

5. Marry a believer.

6. Attend adequate pre-marital counseling.

7. Agree on the basics of marriage: How to budget money, how to raise your future children, how to solve conflicts, etc.

I don’t know about you but I like the sound of a 90% chance of success verses a 50% chance.

Studying the Song of Solomon together as a married couple can also up the percentages also. Solomon wrote his love song when he was probably around 40 years old. He was in love with the Lord (1 Kings 3:3) and his wife, the Shulamite woman. In Song of Solomon 1:1, Solomon calls his love song, “The Song of songs” or the number one Love Song at the top of the charts out of at least 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32). Song of Solomon is a romantic ballad or a romantic story put to music.

This love song chronicles Solomon dating, proposing, marrying, going on the honeymoon, and working through his first argument with his new bride.

1. The Dating Process (1:1-2:7)

The bases of dating was

A. The joy of friendship (1:2). They both are believers. We assume this because the rest of Scriptures teaches this. This was not missionary dating where the saved date rationalizes dating an unsaved person by believing they will win him to Christ.

B. Character (1:3). “Name” represent the character of a person. Part of the character that impressed Solomon was her work ethic. She was a hard worker (1:5-6). Solomon met her when she was working in his fields leased to her brothers (8:11). She was embarrassed about her dark tan because it was a sign of a field worker. She was not fair skinned like the ladies of the court. But Solomon saw her bronzed look as an indicator that she was a diligent worker. Solomon in his Proverbs will praise the diligent worker in contrast to the sluggard.

C. Communication (1:9). Song of Solomon is a love ballad with two people talking to each other. Solomon praises her to help her overcome her inferiority complex. You are the one mare out of all the stallions for 1400 war chariots. Or, “You are one in a million.”

D. Integrity (2:7). This verse refers to their pre-marital chastity and is a theme in Song of Solomon (4:12; 8:8-12). They both wore their “Chastity bracelets.” Their dating relationship was based on integrity not lust.

2. The Engagement Period (2:8-3:5)

It is not how you propose the matters. You don’t have to take a knee at half-time at mid-court at a NBA game so your proposal will be on the big screens. It is why you propose that is important. The actual proposal is 2:8-12. Solomon was probably over promising here. But he was excited. You marry me your winters and storms are over. You marry me and your life will be filled with the smell of flowers and the music of birds. Love birds.

The major accomplishment in the engagement is solving potential problems or as Solomon described getting rid of the little foxes that spoil the vines (2:15). Foxes were 15-inch instruments of destruction. If an engaged couple cannot solve problems before marriage nothing magical happens at the wedding that transforms them into great problem solvers. Agreeing on the seven steps Dave Ramsey outlined would be a good place to start. Some couples never solve the issue of where they are going to go to church. So for years, the husband goes to his church and the wife goes to hers.

3. The Wedding Ceremony (3:6-11)

There is a public wedding. No eloping. The average groom would rather have a quickie wedding at the justice of the peace or $50 or a $100 South of the Border wedding in South Carolina. The other extreme is to put out $20,000 for a wedding to impress friends and the couple stays together for three years. Again, it is not how you do it or how much it costs, but why are you having a public wedding. But Solomon goes through the elaborate church wedding in order to tell his wife to be, “You are worth it.” “I am publicly committing myself to you before all of these witnesses.

4. The Honeymoon (4:1-5:1)

God has set His approval on the one-flesh relationship that starts on the honeymoon in 4:1 and also Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.”  Solomon praises her three times in this love song. This is the first of the three. Her hair was like a goat’s mane. The dark hair of the Palestinian goat seen from a distance was beautiful. You might not want to say everything just like Solomon said it 1000 B.C. Solomon says her teeth were white, well matched, no huge gaps nor were any missing. In verse 7, Solomon summarizes. She was beautiful.

Dr. Walter Fremont a marriage counselor used to tell husbands: Give your wife 15 minutes a day of undistracted eye-to-eye listening. Not listening from behind a newspaper. And also give your wife three compliments a day. Dr. Fremont told of one husband who was going to follow Fremont’s advice. He got out his stop watch and told his wife, “Now you have 15 minutes, on your mark, get set, go.” Probably not the best way to start improving the communication in a marriage.

5. The First Spat (5:2-6:13)

One husband said he and his wife never had an argument because every time he saw an argument coming, he went outside for a walk. But he added, “You know, I’ve been going for a lot of walks here lately.” Apparently, Solomon also went for a walk and when he came back his new bride had changed the locks and he could not get back in. In 5:2-3, records the interchange between the two. He wants to reconcile but she refuses. Finally, they are reconciled in 6:1-4. But after the first argument, she is home sick according to 6:13. I actually had one wife tell me she intentionally started arguments with her husband just so they could make up and she could get some attention.

6. The Growth of the Marriage 

Solomon takes his homesick bride back home for a second honeymoon as a way building their relationship after their first argument (8:5). For a very good reason Solomon is called the wisest of all men. He also does a renewal of vows with his wife in 8:6-7. This is the crescendo of this love song. In their vow renewal they committed themselves to a relationship that was permanent (8:6). The seal or signet ring was worn around the neck next to the heart. Their relationship was final (8:6). Their love was like the “grave” which never lets go of those in it. Their relationship was unquenchable (8:6-7). Many waters or trials will come like floods that could put out the fire, but they vowed that nothing would extinguish their love. One way we can keep our love strong is to forgive one another. They had forgiven each other. They were not holding grudges from the first spat. An unforgiving, bitter spirit is like a bucket of ice water dumped on a relationship.

In other words, we must always be working at improving our marriage. I thank God for my wife. I told her once, “If you ever leave me, I’m going with you.”

A Valentine Message: The Spirit Filled Marriage (Ephesians)

Posted: February 11, 2013 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , ,
0

I recently read about the construction of a town hall building in a small northern Pennsylvania town. The citizens of this town were quite proud of their little red brick building. It represented a long-awaited dream for them.

However, a few weeks after moving into the building, strange things began to occur. Several doors failed to shut completely and windows were not opening or closing smoothly. After a few more months, the front door would not shut at all and the roof had begun to leak.

An intense investigation was launched to try to determine what was causing the problems with this little town hall building. It revealed that deep, underground blasts at a mine several miles away were sending shock waves that were weakening the earth beneath the building. It was almost imperceptible, but it was slowly happening – one little shudder after another (Stephen Davey).

Problems in the marriage can be like shock waves to the foundations on which a marriage is built. The shock wave of selfishness, for example, can erode a marriage.

One couple went to a marriage counselor who had been arguing over which direction the other put the toilet paper on the roll. One wanted the sheets to come off the front side and the other wanted the sheets to come off the backside. They also were upset over where the other squeezed the tube of toothpaste. One squeeze it the middle and the other at the end.

In Ephesians 5:18-33, Paul describes a Spirit filled marriage. What are the unshakable foundations of a Spirit filled marriage?

1. Salvation by Grace through Faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul commanded,  “marry only in the Lord.” With equal authority, Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 admonished, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.”

Since I was a youth, I have heard the advice: Date individuals whom you would marry. Be the kind of person another believer could date.

Something our youth did not face is on-line dating. 50 million people are e-dating. There are couples who have met at e-Harmony and are happily married. But there are some dangers.  Of course, now there are on-line dating apps for your little smart phone. You don’t have to wait to get back to your office or home to find out if you have a date. For example, there is Crazy Blind Date phone app. This mobile app arranges blind dates with just a few hours’ notice.

What are some of the dangers. Many as ninety percent of online daters are lying about themselves. One researcher wrote, “For men, the major areas of deception in an on-line relationship are their income, height, and marital status; for women, the major areas of deception are weight and age.” At least twelve percent of online male suitors are already married.

The ability of two people living together each day for the rest of their lives is as Bill Cosby admitted is “undoubtedly a miracle the Vatican has overlooked.” That is why you and I need God’s salvation to make it.

2. Service to the Lord (Ephesians 4-5 the Five Walks)

In the practical section of Ephesians, Paul says five times we are to walk with the Lord. In our service to Christ, however, we don’t walk alone. Amos the prophet asked, “Can two walk together except they be agreed.” Some call it the principle of magnetism: Who we are is who we attract. This principle is seen in Proverbs 27:19: “As in water face answers to face, so the heart of man to man.” A still body of water was the mirror to the ancient people of God. You look into the mirror and you see yourself. This is also true with our friends. We look at our close friends and we see who we are.  Are our close friends, believers who love the Lord? How can we get better friends? Become better believers! If we want to attract godly mates with whom we can serve the Lord, we must be godly.

3. Submission to God and One Another (Ephesians 5:21-33)

Submission means “to put oneself under a leader” as in 1:22. Submission takes humility and is the result of being Spirit filled. Lucifer took himself out from under God’s rule because of pride. Spirit filled submission in marriage is described in 5:22-33.

A. The Wife submit to Her Husband’s Loving Leadership (5:22-24)

One counselor said all some husbands need is a Golden Retriever. Just someone to fetch what they need.

A husband read a book entitled, You Can Be THE Man of Your House and got all fired up about what he was reading. He marched into the kitchen and announced to his wife, “From now on, you need to know that I am the man of this house . . . You will prepare me a gourmet meal tonight, and when I’m finished eating my meal, you will serve me a decadent dessert. . . . Afterwards, you are going to draw me a bath so I can relax. . . . Then . . . guess who’s going to dress me and comb my hair?”

His wife replied, “The funeral director would be my first guess” (Stephen Davey).

Headship means leadership. Leadership does not mean superiority as 1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches. Adrian Rogers said marriage is like a football team. The husband is the quarterback. This does not mean he is superior to the running back. The running back may have a higher I. Q. but the quarterback has the responsibility of leading the team. Adrian Rogers, for example, said his wife, Joyce, took care of the check book and the finances. He, of course, led in what the budget should look like.

B. The Husbands Loves His Wife (5:25-33) 

1. His love is sacrificial (5:25)

You might be thinking, my mate does not deserve my love. I deserve better than my spouse. Did we deserve God’s love? Did we merit Christ dying for our sins? Did we earn our forgiveness of sins? NO!

Can a Christian who loves God with all his heart, soul, mind and body ever say, “I do not love that person.” Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Jesus also said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

2. His love is sanctifying (5:26, 27)

One day Christ will present His Bride to Himself at the Judgment Seat without spot because He has cleansed her with His preached Word. God wants us to present our brides to Him at the Judgment Seat the way she looked on our wedding day in her pure, white wedding dress. We husbands can accomplish this by getting our wives under the preached Word. Romans 10:17 tells us how, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the (preached) Word of God.”

3. His love is Protecting (5:28, 29)

1 Peter 3:7 says the wife is the weaker (physically) vessel not the inferior vessel:

“Likewise you husbands dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life.” She is not inferior spiritually, she is an heir as is the husband.

Adrian Rogers again made an insightful comment, “Which is weaker, silk or blue denim, which is better? Which is weaker gold or steel? Which is better? Which is weaker a porcelain cup or a sledgehammer? Which is better?

We husbands protect our wives from every thing and every one that would harm them physically and spiritually.

We love our wives by committing ourselves to them (5:31). According to Genesis 2:24, we become one at marriage. Like these laminated arches overhead. The individual boards are now one. There is strength in that unity.

Robertson McQuilkin, was the former president of Columbia International University. Robertson’s wife Muriel was in the late stages of Alzheimer’s disease when Dr. McQuilkin resigned his presidency to take care of her. For nine years he cared for her and led as president. Sometimes even taking her to class with him. Finally, it became impossible to both be his wife’s full-time care provider and president. Here is his letter of resignation that he read to the faculty, staff and student body at Columbia:

My dear wife Muriel has been in failing mental health for about eight years. So far I have been able to care for both her ever-growing needs and my leadership responsibilities at Columbia. Recently it has become apparent that Muriel is contented most of the time she is with me, and almost none of the time I am away from her. It is not just discontent; she is filled with fear, even terror that she has lost me, and she always goes in search of me when I leave home. It is clear that she needs me now and she needs me full-time. This decision was made, in a way, forty-two years ago when I promised to care for her “in sickness and in health, till death do us part”. So, as a man of my word, I will do it. She has cared for me fully all these years. If I cared for her for the next forty years I would not be out of debt. Duty, however, can be grim and stoic. There is more – I love her. I do not have to care for her – I get to.

Web Dating Verses Live Dating

Posted: February 8, 2013 in Marriage
Tags: ,
1

Stephen Davey, in a sermon entitled Seven Reasons to Say I Do, has some insightful comments on internet dating:

I did a little digging and found out that the fastest growing trend in dating is e-Dating. More and more relationships are developing online. In fact, I read one author who had done some extensive research on this subject and recorded that conservative estimates indicate there are currently fifty million people who are using online dating services.

If you have been around here for a while, you have probably heard me take a crack or two at eHarmony. I want you to know that a dating service that tries to match people is not the “big bad wolf”. In fact, there are some wonderful couples in our church who met through some kind of online service.

This is one of those gray areas. There are no verses on how to communicate with someone in order to biblically fall in love. Fortunately, by the time I started dating, the telephone had been around for a long while – you know, it is that black glossy plastic thing you used to hang up on the wall in the kitchen.

However, there needs to be a warning given for every single individual – not just for online dating services, but for dating period. The word that has risen to the top of the dating scene promised by online dating services and pursued by millions of singles worldwide, is the word, “compatibility”.

One web-dating service promises to match people with numerous dimensions of compatibility, which are, “scientifically based predictors of long-term relationship success.” These are interesting words: “scientifically based predictors of long-term relationship success.”

Part of the emerging problem with all of this is that reports are now in, estimating as high as ninety percent of online daters are lying about themselves. One researcher wrote, “For men, the major areas of deception in an online relationship are their income, height, and marital status; for women, the major areas of deception are weight and age.”iii

So a scientifically based predictor matching a person with someone they have never even met could actually be created by someone who is lying. In fact, online dating services are now estimating – and I am telling this to further terrify you – that at least twelve percent of online male suitors are already married. Even more common, singles are developing online relationships with more than one person at a time.

One of our pastors on staff emailed me this week and said he is aware of singles in this church who have been hurt by this very thing. One woman discovered the man she was falling in love with online was involved with another woman online at the same time. Another couple canceled their wedding plans after dating in real life because they realized what matched online did not gel with primary goals in real life.

Pastor Brad Harbaugh wrote to me saying, “We believe online dating sites can only give a person an introduction. We advise them to spend no less than six months seeing that individual live their life in person – where they can be observed day in and day out making decisions, choosing friends; where they can be watched in the way they treat other people and relate in the body of Christ.” This is well put.

A key word that sums up the advantages of dating over time in real life is the word “accountability”. Accountability with friends who observe your relationship; accountability with pastors and spiritual leaders who get to know you both; accountability with peers you rub shoulders with; even accountability with parents who can offer insight and feedback is invaluable.

The truth is that whether online or on a live date, we all know what it means to put our best foot forward, right? On my first date with Marsha, to a church service, no less – and I have had her in church ever since – I showed up at her dormitory wearing my best suit. This suit was navy blue with thick, mafia-like pinstripes; I had on a dark blue shirt with a solid white necktie made with 100% polyester; oh, I had on baby blue saddle oxford shoes. When she opened the door to meet me, she nearly fainted – she did not know if I was there to pick her up or shoot her! Much later, she told me what she thought about our first date, saying, “I wanted to be with you, I just didn’t want to be seen with you.”

We do not go out on a date and tell the other person all our problems; we do not lay out our idiosyncrasies at first, right? We wait until later. Dating in real life provides time for later. Online dating can speed up the process because a person has been given the reassurance that they have been matched. In other words, you have found someone just like you – as if marrying someone just like you would be a good thing!

So let us be honest. We are all fallen. Romance in real life is between two sinners. Now, do not get me wrong. Similar tastes, desires, and interests are wonderful things. But the differences, distinctives, tastes, and perspectives in our God-created spouses are intended to compliment, broaden, develop, and deepen who we are, how we think, and ultimately, how we live.

The biblical view of marriage is not as much compatibility as it is complimenting, which means that there are differences to iron out, perspectives to sharpen, and thought processes to balance. Two sinners, seeking God’s grace and His will for their lives, covenant to love each other for better or for worse. This happens to be the greatest illustration of the love of Christ for the church on Earth (Ephesians 5:32).

Think about this. We happen to be the bride of Christ. How compatible are we to Him? Not very. This reminds me – do not forget that two people can share a lot of similar tastes and interests, but if they do not share a relationship with Jesus Christ, they are not truly compatible where it matters.

The search for Mr. Right or Miss Right is not a search for someone like you; it is a search for someone who wants to be like Christ. So, conversion to Christ is the starting point, right? It is extremely dangerous to consider dating someone as an opportunity to evangelize them. Some of you may have married an unbeliever and you knew it when you started dating him or her – and they came to faith after you were married, praise God. You are not the rule–you are the exception.

Our churches are filled with spiritual widows – married, but spiritually unrelated to their unbelieving husbands. Begin with salvation. If the internet dating service you have chosen does not include your relationship and commitment to Jesus Christ, how can they find a match for you?

“Should I Date While I am Separated?” By Dr. Gary Chapman

Posted: September 17, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

“Should I date while I am separated?” How many times have I heard that question? And, how many times have I given a hard answer? “If you are not free to marry, you are not free to date!” I first read that statement in Britton Wood’s book, Singles Want to Be the Church, Too. Mr. Wood has worked with singles and separated persons longer than anyone in his denomination.

After several years of counseling the separated, I am more convinced than ever that Britton Wood is right. When you start dating someone else while you are separated, you make reconciliation more difficult. The more you date, the muddier the water becomes.

I know that you have needs; you are lonely. Sometimes the load seems unbearable. I know that dating while separated is accepted, even encouraged, in our society. But most of those who are dating will never be reconciled. They will be divorced.

Dating is a prelude to remarriage, not therapy for reconciliation. Certainly you need friends. You need a listening ear. You need people who care and help bear the load, but the dating context is not the best place to find such help.

You are extremely vulnerable during these days of separation. Unfortunately there are those of the opposite sex who would like to take advantage of your vulnerability. Although pretending to be concerned about you, there are busy satisfying their own desires.

I have seen many men and women devastated by such an experience. Your own emotions are erratic, and it would be easy for you to get infatuated with anyone who treats you with dignity, respect, and warmth.

Have you noticed the number of people who get married the day after they are divorced? Obviously they have been dating during separation. If the separation period is a time to seek reconciliation, why spend energy in an activity that leads to divorce and remarriage? Separation is not tantamount to divorce. We are still married while we are separated, and we ought to so live, whether or not our spouse complies.

I know this is difficult to accept, but I believe the present trend of open dating immediately after separation must be deterred. Such activity encourages and contributes to the increasing divorce rate.

If you believe in the power of human choice, then you must concede that your estranged spouse may well turn from his or her estrangement and seek reconciliation. You want to be prepared for that day if it comes. Dating someone else in not the way to be prepared. Develop friends, but refuse romantic involvement until the fate of your marriage is determined.

The above article comes from the book, Hope For the Separated: Wounded Marriages Can Be Healed, written by Dr Gary Chapman, published by Moody Publishers. 

Homosexuals are Welcome at Church But Not “Kiss Ins”

Posted: August 22, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , ,
0

The Westboro Baptist Church’s website is called God Hates Fags. This group does not represent Christianity nor what God’s Word teaches concerning homosexuality. God condemns the sin of homosexuality along with many other sins. God, however, loves the homosexual and Jesus died on the cross for homosexuals as well as every other sinner. The church should denounce the ungodly attitude of the Westboro Baptist Church and welcome homosexuals to the services to hear the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we reject the bigotry of the Westboro Baptist Church we also repudiate the reactions of homosexual activists to Chick-fil-A’s belief in traditional marriage. Just go on You Tube and view same-sex couples kissing under Chick-fil-A’s signs to celebrate “National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A” at over 1,600 stores. One of the protestors said to a man reading his Bible outside of Chick-fil-A: “I am tired of the hypocrisy coming out of these books…I do hate God, because the God that you want, the God that you worship stones rape victims.” The Westboro Baptist Church hates fags and this Chick-fil-A protestor hates God. Both are extreme.

After the Kiss In at 1,600 Chick-fil-A stores, a pastor friend asked me, “What would you do if there was a ‘kiss in’ at your church or a ‘kiss in’ was threatened?” This is a new issue that churches will have to think through. I contacted Christian Law Association with these questions and they granted me permission to post their answer:

GIBBS LAW FIRM, P.A.

Attorneys and Counselors at Law

Thank you for contacting the Christian Law Association and our law firm with your question about what churches may do if they are faced with a homosexual “kiss in” during a church service—or at any time on church property.  There is a lot of concern in the Christian community about this type of protest by activist homosexuals.  This group is extremely intolerant of views that do not agree with theirs and they are not reluctant to express themselves in inappropriate ways.  So this is something that churches should be concerned about.

There is a standard way to handle this sort of thing—-whether a “kiss in” or any other type of behavior that might take place on church property which is not consistent with the church’s beliefs or morals.  Occasionally even a disgruntled church member might attempt to disrupt a church service and would be handled in the same manner.

Church property is legally considered to be private property, even though it is open to the public.  In that way, churches are like stores and restaurants.  There are no constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of speech on any private property.  Speech may only be exercised with the consent of the property owner.  Therefore, if homosexuals were to come to the service to stage a “kiss in”, you should have church members (preferably law enforcement members or very big guys) who are tasked ahead of time with telling unwelcome intruders that they must leave immediately or the police will be called to arrest them for trespass.  The church members assigned to this duty should never actually touch the protestors (or other disruptive individuals).  Sometimes they might be able to shield protestors from the rest of the congregation by surrounding them and blocking the line of sight for other worshippers.  Sometimes they might be able to walk the protestors outside without incident or any touching. Not touching or threatening physical harm in any way is very important.  If the church members were to touch the protestors or threaten them with anything other than a trespass warning, they might be sued for assault and battery, so it is best to let the police handle any physical need to get the protestors out of the building.  It is those church members who give the warning who would also be tasked with making the call to police should the trespassers refuse to leave.  One warning should be given and if the protestors do not leave, the police should be called immediately.

These rules would apply not only in a church service, but anywhere on church property—including the parking lot or any other church buildings or church-owned property.  Demonstrators would only have a constitutionally protected free speech right to engage in a “kiss in” or other protest activities on public sidewalks.  If there are public sidewalks in front of the church, there would be nothing the church could do about a protest or “kiss in” there since protest activities are constitutionally protected on a public sidewalk.  However, if protestors on the public sidewalk were loud enough to be heard inside the church service, the police could then also be called to issue a warrant for a noise violation or for disorderly conduct.

One other tip.  If the church becomes aware that on a given Sunday a protest or “kiss in” is scheduled for the church, the pastor should contact the police ahead of time to give them a heads up that someone will be calling them if the protestors do not leave when asked to do so.  Of course, the sooner the police can respond to such a call, the better.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Weller
Admitted in Florida

Gibbs Law Firm, P.A.
5666 Seminole Blvd., Suite 2
Seminole, FL 33772
(727) 399-8300
Fax (727) 398-3907

Gay Theologians’ Interpretation of Six Passages Denouncing Homosexuality

Posted: August 16, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

In response to the many negative commits from McLaren’s blog mentioned in Part 1, McLaren posted a second blog defending his view:

Please be assured that as a pastor and as someone who loves and seeks to follow   the Bible, I am aware of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and related texts. Believe me, I have read them and prayerfully pondered them, and have read extensively on all the many sides of the issue. I understand that for many people, these verses end all dialogue and people like me must seem horribly stupid not to see what’s there so clearly to them. I wish they could understand that some of us encounter additional levels of complexity when we try honestly and faithfully to face these texts.[1]

Let’s examine how homosexuals interpret these pertinent Scriptures. There are pro-homosexual Bible teachers who claim that the Word of God does not condemn homosexuality such as Walter Barnett and John J. McNeill. McNeill writes: “Nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons.”[2]

Genesis 19:1-11

There are six passages that deal with homosexuality about which these Gay theologians claim no condemnation. The first passage is Genesis 19:1-11. The first homosexual interpretation states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not simply homosexuality but homosexual gang rape. “Jude 7 gives a commentary on this passage. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange or different flesh. It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using ‘fornication.’ The verb definitely refers to sexual immorality.”[3]

The next homosexual reinterpretation claims that the sin of Sodom was a gross violation of a hospitality code. Lot broke the code of hospitality because he was a resident alien. He received two foreigners who might have hostile intentions. The two visitors should have first been received by the citizens of Sodom. If this was the case why did Lot not just introduce everyone if the problem was a breach of hospitality? Why did Lot offer his daughters for sexual pleasure, if the problem was a lack of hospitality? If the sin of Sodom was a breach of the hospitality code, Lot broke it and not the inhabitants of Sodom. But Lot was not judged and the two cities were.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Another passage the pro-homosexuals reinterpret is Leviticus 18:22. In Leviticus 18:3, God commanded Israel not to live like the unsaved nations of Egypt and Canaan and then proceeded to specifically instruct what this meant. In two passages, God forbad the practice of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 forbids homosexuality and 20:13 assigns the death penalty for homosexuality. Here is how one pro-homosexual advocate dismisses these prohibitions:

It is interesting how lightly evangelicals have taken other proscriptions found in the same Old Testament Code, e.g.: rules against eating of rabbit (Lev. 11:26), oysters, claims, shrimp, and lobster (Lev. 11:10ff), and rare steaks (Lev. 17:10). Evangelicals do not picket or try to close down seafood restaurants nor do we keep kosher kitchens. We do not always order steaks “well-done.” We eat pork and ham. The wearing of clothes made from interwoven linen and wool (Deut. 22:11) does not seem to bother us at all. Evangelicals do not say, in accordance with these same laws of cultic purification (Lev. 20:13), that those who practice homosexual activity should be executed as prescribed. Evangelicals do not demand the death penalty for the Jeane Dixons of this world (Lev.20:27) nor do we “cut off” from among the people, as is demanded by this same Code, those who have intercourse with women during menstruation (Lev. 20:18) and those who marry women who have been divorced (Lev. 21:14). Evangelical do not keep out of the pulpit those who are visually handicapped or lame or those “with a limb too long” (Lev. 21:18ff).[4]

McLaren is very sympathetic with Bair’s view of the irrelevance of the Old Testament Law and Evangelical inconsistent application of the Old Testament Law:

These questions are all the more challenging for some of us when we realize that the Leviticus texts themselves, if taken literally, call for the death penalty. Nobody (I don’t think?) takes that literally, nor do we take many of the other 611 Mosaic proscriptions literally. Why take these selected verses literally, and only partially so? And it gets even more complex for some of us when we realize that people in later Biblical times didn’t enforce some of these proscriptions literally either. For example, David committed adultery but wasn’t killed as Leviticus 20:10 would require; why didn’t Nathan require the death penalty for David and Bathsheba when he brought the word of   the Lord?[5]

The issue with the priestly Holiness Code of Leviticus is not a literal hermeneutic but whither God’s people today are dispensationally still under the Law as a rule of life. The answer is no. Still there are moral principles from the Old Testament reincorporated in the New Testament that are binding today. Some of these restated moral principles were before the Law such as the capital punishment requirement in Genesis 9 which is restated in Romans 13. As in David’s case, there are exceptions which do not eliminate the rule. While the civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the Law were terminated with Christ (Romans 10:4) some of the sins condemned in the Old Testament are likewise condemned in the New Testament.

The Mosaic law has been done away in its entirety as a code. God is no longer guiding the life of man by this particular code. In its place He has introduced the law of Christ. Many of the individual commands within that law are new, but some are not. Some of the ones which are old were also found in the Mosaic law and they are now incorporated completely and are forever done away. As part of the law of Christ they are binding on the believer today.[6]

Romans 1:26-27

In the New Testament, Gay theologians use the “abuse argument” to justify homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. The most common reinterpretation is that Paul is condemning unnatural homosexual acts. For example:

In his catalog of vices in which homosexual behavior is listed, it should be noted that it is included with what the apostle regarded as certain heterosexual sins such as adultery, fornication, Epicurean over-indulgence, and general abuse of the body. For perspective, note should be taken of Paul’s equally weighty inclusion in this passage of drunkards and the repeated censure of the greedy, the grasping, and those who steal. Here are simply other examples of sinful abuse, since, for example, Paul advocated alcoholic temperance but not necessarily abstinence. He recommends to young Timothy that he drink some wine for his (1 Tim. 5:23). Elsewhere, Paul urges whole-hearted enthusiasm in all that one undertakes, but that does not mean the abuse of over-indulgence, greed, or coveting in the process (1 Cor. 10:31). One should not assume uncritically that there is in the Corinthian passage a proof text against all homosexuality or even all homosexual acts   Of course, homosexual behavior can be perverted and sinful and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be – or any kind of activity can be – but this is not the same as rejecting either sexual orientation or specific acts as sinful as such.[7]

It is correct that Paul is condemning abuses in this vice list. However, for a vice to be an abuse there must be a corresponding norm that is godly and healthy. The adultery and fornication is the abuse of the “one flesh” relationship of marriage that God ordained in Genesis 2. What is the responsible norm that homosexuality is the abuse of in Scripture? The norm is not godly or responsible homosexuality but heterosexuality as stated in Genesis 1 and 2.[8]

It is also argued by pro-homosexual advocates that to  go “against nature” in Romans 1:26-27 is for an heterosexual to commit homosexual acts, which is against his nature or unnatural, and not for constitutional homosexuals to be involved in homosexuality which is natural for them.

The homosexual is not desirous that everyone should be like him or her in sexual preference. Homosexuality is a variation from what is normal, i.e., heterosexuality. It is not, however, a sin or disorder. Nature is full of variations from its overall design. Some people are midgets, others are albinos, still others are left handed. These, like homosexuals, are and always will be minority variations from the majority. These differences are not unique to our culture and time. They have always existed and will continue to do so. They evidence neither sin nor the fallen condition of humanity, but merely the lack of uniformity in nature. Rather than condemn them, we should affirm them and rejoice that they exist.[9]

There are two reasons this is a faulty argument for the meaning of “against nature.” The reason this argument is eisegesis is because homosexuality is not genetic or the result of being born a constitutional homosexual. Studies have not proved this. In addition, how could God condemn as sin a condition for which the person is not responsible? The second reason is that “against nature” means against the natural order for sexuality that God established in the Garden in Genesis when He stated “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul includes in these two sin or vice lists homosexuality. The Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai refer respectfully to the passive and active partners in homosexuality. The homosexual interpretation states that this list cannot be taken seriously because we all are covetous.[10] “To say that a sin in a long list does not draw special condemnation does not mean Scripture approves the action. A vice list is still a vice list. Moreover, there is a failure to make a biblical distinction between a repentant sinner who seeks with God’s help to be free of some sin but who may at some time fail and an unrepentant sinner who follows a planned and uninterrupted course of disobedience. The vice lists refer to the latter, not the former. There is grace and forgiveness for the former.”[11]

Conclusion

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture like other sins. Homosexuality is not genetic nor the result of someone’s environment. Homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals are responsible for their actions. Therefore homosexuals should not be given a minority status. As Carson predicts, this will soon be a battle for the church of epic proportions: “I suspect that in our generation, for better and for worse, the homosexuality issue is becoming one of these triggering issues (like indulgences at the time of the Reformation) that is forcing upon us some profound reflections on whether we will submit to Scripture.[12]

Homosexuals can be saved just like other sinners (1 Cor 6). God loves homosexuals, Jesus died for homosexuals, and believers should seek to win them. But making excuses for their behavior or being uncertain if homosexuality is sin or not, as McLaren and other Emerging church leaders do, is not in the best interest of homosexuals and will not help lead them to Christ and out of their sin.

“I believe many emergent leaders are truly torn up inside over homosexuality. They don’t want to hurt anyone. But their refusal to take a stance (and sometimes their decision to take an unbiblical stance) also hurts people—it hurts those struggling to overcome sexual temptation, it hurts those gently calling homosexuals (along with other sinners) to repentance, and it hurts those who dare to speak with certainty on this issue.”[13] An example of some leaders who are already paying a price for taking a stand against homosexuality is Peter Akinola, primate of Nigeria, and Archbishop Livingstone Mpalanyi Nkoyoyo of Uganda who sacrificed financial aid from the West rather than be implicated in the Episcopal church’s homosexual scandals, and the rest of the global South who know exactly what emerging leaders should think about homosexuality.”[14]

[1]  Brian McLaren. “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” in “Out of Ur,” a Leadership Journal blog, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

[2] John J. McNeill, “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow,” Christian Century, March 11, 1987: 246.

[3]P. Michael Uklega, Homosexuality and the Old Testament. Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1983) 262.

[4] Ralph Bair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963) 3.

[5] Brian McLaren. “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” in “Out of Ur,” a Leadership Journal blog, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

[6] Charles Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967): 246.

[7] Ralph Blair, An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), 6.

[8] We find it significant that those favoring homosexuality seldom discuss Genesis 1 and 2. However, those chapters recount God’s creation of man as male and female, not male and male or female and female. God then explicitly tells Adam and Eve that they are to reproduce. Does this not clearly imply that God’s desired order for human sexuality is that men and women will have sexual relations with one another, not with members of the same sex? We think so. Some may object that God created man as male and female only because that was the only way to propagate the race; other than reproduction; homosexual and lesbian relationships are fine….The same God who created Adam from the dust of the ground could have produced the rest of the race by special creation, and the rest of that race could have been male only. God created woman not because there was no way to produce the race, but because woman is the proper helpmate for man (John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993], 432).

[9] Walter Barnett, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Pendle Hill Pamphlets (Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 1979), 21-22.

[10] Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the homosexual My Neighbor? Another View (San Francisco: Harper & Ro, 1978), 70.

[11] Fineberg, 200.

[12] D. A. Carson. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 172.

[13] Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Why We’re Not Emergent, (Chicago: Moody, 2008), 47.

[14] Ibid., p. 48.

Chick-fil-A, Christians, and Homosexual Activtists, Part 2

Posted: August 15, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , ,
0

Before I dig into God’s Word on the subject of homosexuality, I want to consider what homosexuals say are the causes of their behavior. It is important to know how homosexuals justify their lifestyle which God’s Word condemns as sin. The only way to gain victory over any sin is not to make excuses for the sin nor to rationalize it’s legitimacy. These posts are intended to help each reader whether he/she is homosexual or heterosexual.

Some homosexuals say they are born homosexuals. They claim their sexual orientation is genetic or they are constitutionally homosexual. There have been two studies that homosexuals use to substantiate this view. The first study by Swaab and Hofman studied a cell group in the hypothalamus, which is a gland that is important both hormonally and sexually. They studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals. They compared the volume of a particular cell in the glands of both homosexuals and heterosexuals and found different volumes in each. They studied 34 subjects and only 10 were homosexuals.

Simon LeVay studied a different cell group in the hypothalamus of 41 subjects of whom only 19 were homosexuals and also found a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. “LeVay cautioned that his results should be considered speculative. Moreover, the results of his study do not allow one to decide if the changes in the hypothalamus are the cause or consequences of an individual’s sexual orientation”[1] These studies were inconclusive for a number of reasons. The two studies only examined 29 homosexuals. “This is hardly the kind of sample from which to make global announcements.”[2] In both studies an important group of subjects were presumed to be heterosexuals. All the homosexual subjects had AIDS which may have affected the differences between the heterosexuals and homosexuals. “Thus we suggest that it goes far beyond the scientific evidence we presently possess to conclude that homosexuality is constitutional.”[3]

Other homosexuals claim that their homosexuality is a learned behavior. “There is some evidence that family pathology at least contributes to homosexuality. About 67% percent of male homosexuals come from a home where the mother is a domineering man-hater and the father is weak, detached and often uninvolved in the family. However, it seems clear that this family structure is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homosexuality.”[4] The conclusion is that no one necessarily has to become homosexual because of genetic influences or family environment.

Scripture and Homosexuality

In response to the many negative commits from the blog, McLaren’s blog mentioned in the beginning of this paper, McLaren posted a second blog on January 30, 2006 defending his view.

Please be assured that as a pastor and as someone who loves and seeks to follow   the Bible, I am aware of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians         6:9, and related texts. Believe me, I have read them and prayerfully pondered them, and     have read extensively on all the many sides of the issue. I understand that for many        people, these verses end all dialogue and people like me must seem horribly stupid not to             see what’s there so clearly to them. I wish they could understand that some of us encounter additional levels of complexity when we try honestly and faithfully to face   these texts.[5]

In my next post, I examine how homosexuals interpret these pertinent Scriptures. There are pro-homosexual Bible teachers who claim that the Word of God does not condemn homosexuality such as Walter Barnett and John J. McNeill. McNeill writes: “Nowhere in the Scripture is there a clear condemnation of a loving sexual relationship between two gay persons.”[6]

[1] John and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993), 187.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p.188.

[4] Ibid., pp.188-189.

[5]  Brian McLaren. “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” in “Out of Ur,” a Leadership Journal blog, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

[6] John J. McNeill, “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow,” Christian Century, March 11, 1987: 246.

Chick-fil-A, Christians, and Homosexual Activists, Part 1

Posted: August 15, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

The recent Chick-fil-A battle with homosexual advocates (and activists who retaliated to the Appreciation Day with the “Kiss In”) is just one more skirmish in this long war. The clash, however, is not just between the secular and the sacred, but between alleged believers.

Here is what Emerging church leader, Brian McLaren said in a Leadership Journal blog about homosexuality:

Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it  seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know  that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications  are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist   the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course. [1]

Brian McLaren said we needed a five-year moratorium in order to consult scholars in different fields including ethics. Let’s examined what scholars in ethics have discovered about homosexuality. The problem with McLaren’s proposal of a five year moratorium is that the Word of God has not taken a neutral stance of this issue. I my next posts we will dig into the teaching of Scripture on homosexuality.

Barnabas Piper, son of John PIper, in World Magazine has taken another response to the open conflict between homosexuals and Christians:

Mike Huckabee, the conservative former governor of Arkansas and one-time presidential candidate, started a group on Facebook recently to declare Aug. 1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” It is an effort to support the popular but currently beleaguered fast food chain in the face of the vitriolic criticism after public statements by Dan Cathy, the company’s president, regarding same-sex marriage. So far more than 452,000 people have committed to attend. (Some have called this a movement in support of free speech,but that isn’t what Huckabee writes on his own page.) I agree whole-heartedly with Dan Cathy’s comments (see here and here). I believe in the biblical definition of marriage. I think Christians in prominent positions speaking in a reasonable and level-headed way about their convictions is a good thing. On top of that I am a borderline addict of Chick-fil-A’s sandwiches, waffle fries, and sweet tea. But I will not be attending “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” on Wednesday. Here’s why.

Homosexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles. The 452,000 people supporting Chick-fil-A are delivering more than one message, and the message the homosexual community and its supporters see is “us versus you.” The event also sends a message of separatism and territorialism in the “reclaiming” of those restaurants that are being boycotted, a collective action easily seen as a shaking of the for a wagging of the finger. Convictions, especially biblical ones, will divide people. That is inevitable, but not desirable. The separation of believers and unbelievers, when it happens, must  be a last resort or an unavoidable result. Actions to the contrary, those that clearly promote an “us versus them” mentality, are most often unhelpful. There is a time for Christians to engage in boycotting, such as when a business deals in obviously immoral areas or is clearly unethical in its methods. But for a mass of Christians to descend upon Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country tomorrow to support the leadership’s view on this issue is, I believe, a bold mistake. So I stand with Dan Cathy in his biblical affirmation of family but I cannot stand with those making a movement out of his beliefs. I do not question the motives of Mike Huckabee or those thousands joining him, but what about the wider effects? How is the Kingdom of God served by this? Is Jesus represented well to the gay community and the politicians pandering to them? Marching on Chick-fil-A tomorrow like an army will produce nothing more than defined battle lines, and the result will be greater contention and fewer softened hearts. On both sides.

In my next posts, I want to examine the Biblical teaching on homosexuality and what the Christian response should be.

[1] Brian McLaren. “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” in “Out of Ur,” a Leadership Journal blog, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

Love Dare, Part 2

Posted: June 29, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Love Dare Day 3 is Love is not selfish or as Paul would say, “love does not seek her own” (1 Corinthians 13:5). We asked to answer these questions:

1. Do I truly want what’s best for my husband or wife?

2. Do I want them to feel loved by me?

3. Do they believe I have their best interests in mind?

4. Do they see me as looking out for myself first?

This chapter closes with Philippians 2:3, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves.” The Dare for Day 3 is “Whatever you put your time, energy, and money into will become more important to you. It’s hard to care for something you are not investing in. Along with restraining from negative comments, buy your spouse something that says, ‘I was thinking of you today.’”  Since my wife has been sick for a couple of days, I bought her some flowers to cheer her up.

The Love Dare, Part 1

Posted: June 27, 2012 in Marriage
Tags: , , , ,
1

I just started The Love Dare, again. It has been several years since my wife and I went through the 40-day challenge. I am on Day 2. Day 1 is Love is Patient. The Dare for Day 1 is “to say nothing negative to your spouse at all.” So yesterday, I succeeded. Day 2 is Love is Kind. The author says that “kindness is love in action. If patience is how love reacts in order to minimize a negative circumstance, kindness is how love acts to maximize a positive circumstance…. Love makes you kind. And kindness makes you likeable.” Kindness is broken down into four measureable actions:

1. Gentleness. The Bible calls this virtue “meekness” in Ephesians 4:2. If we are gentle we are not harsh.

2. Helpfulness. “Being kind means you meet the needs of the moment. If it’s housework,you get busy.” My wife is sick today, so this one is easy. I went to the grocery store to get her favorite sick soup. Fix it. Served it.

3. Willingness. “Kindness inspires you to be agreeable. Instead of being obstinate, reluctant or stubborn, you cooperate, you stay flexible.”  No rolling of the eyes permitted.

4. Initiative. “Kindness thinks ahead, then makes the first step. The kind husband or wife will be the one who greets first, smiles first, serves first, and forgives first.”

The Dare for Day 2: “In addition to saying nothing negative to your spouse again today, do at least one unexpected gesture as an act of kindess.” Later this evening I am going to get Becky a McDonald’s parfait.

Older Entries