92 Sermon Illustrations on Sexual Sin

Three different aspects concerning fornication:

1. The Possibility of fornication. Prov 6:20-24a

2. The Protection against fornication. 6:24b-25

a. Avoid flattering tongue

b. " fleshly beauty

c. " fooling eyes

d. " fondling touch

3. The Problems with fornication. 6:26-35

a. Defilement

b. Despised

c. Destruction

d. Dishonor

4. The Lost Treasure of fornication. (Variety of verses)

a. Good name

b. Peaceful mind

c. Healthy body - sexual diseases

d. Happy home

e. Full ministry

Only crumbs are left.

Sermon, "Salty Saints in a Sick Society."

1. Leaven of the Pharisees (legalism).

2. Leaven of the Sadducees (liberalism).

3. Leaven of the Herodians (licentiousness).

Examples of recent pastors who have fallen into sin. (see #587).

1. It is proper to respect and follow a good pastor.

2. Sin is to be confronted even in leaders.

3. How to confront a sinning brother.

4. The restoration process described.

5. Further accountability.

Four cautions.

Example of a fallen pastor who was restored.

[Date is incorrect - see Biblical Evangelist, May 1, 1989, p. 22 bottom right.]

Neff says three realities set sexual immorality apart from other sin:

1. It destroys trust.

2. It brands a leader.

3. It destroys a leader's image.

#836

*

Since we don't like to feel divided, we separate ourselves from the source of tension, God.

Phyllis Schlafly wrote a fascinating editorial on how the most destructive theories and philosophies of our time originated in flawed individuals. Margaret Mead, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Pablo Picasso all created new ways of thinking. But the theories put forth by these enormously influential intellectuals are simply rationalizations of their own sexual desires.

[article gives expanded details on their error]

Christians are also good at rationalizing their sins. God is reduced to a vague concept of love. And their spiritual lives disintegrate.

Pastor was enslaved by lust and contemplated suicide, but eventually gained a victory over it.

1. Such a small beginning.

2. Willpower didn't work.

3. Finally came adultery.

4. No one guessed.

5. Compartmentalized mind.

6. Paranoia increased.

7. The Elijah syndrome: "I'm only one left, no one else understands, Lord."

8. Collapse led to confession.

9. Breaking strongholds (any destructive system of thinking).

Steps to recovery:

1. Repent: this attacks the "victim" mentality.

2. Change the environment: this attacks the availability of sin.

3. Discover God's love: this attacks fear.

4. Develop godly relationships: this attacks deception.

5. Begin to think long-term: this attacks lust.

6. Discover servanthood: this attacks pride.

7. Expect total deliverance: this attacks failure.

Sermon in 1 Thessalonians series. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8

CAN YOU CONTROL YOURSELF?

=========================

I. Dilemma of sexuality.

II. What is the world coming to?

A. We live in a "sexual revolution."

B. There is nothing new under the sun.

III. Christians have always been different.

A. Your sexual morality is an expression of your spirituality.

B. Yet even many Christians are changing.

IV. God's standards for sex.

A. Sexuality is good.

B. Sexuality has boundaries.

C. Sexuality must be as broad as Christian freedom.

V. Getting control again.

A. Put God first. 1 Th 4:2

B. Avoid immorality and tempting situations. 1 Th 4:3

C. Control your body, don't let it control you. 1 Th 4:4

D. Don't hurt others. 1 Th 4:6

VI. Sex carries consequences.

A Resolution on Homosexuality by Rev. Ronald Troup - October 1992

BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS

We believe that God made human beings as male and female; that it is His plan that our sexual natures should be fully expressed between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. (Genesis 1:27; 2:18-25; Exodus 20:14,17; Proverbs 5:15-19; Matthew 19:4-6; Hebrews 13:4)

We believe that human beings have fallen into sin; that the taint and pollution of sin is found in all of us, in all parts of our lives, and from the beginning of our existence; and that sin expresses itself in our resisting God's plans for us. (Genesis 3; 8:21; Psalms 51:1-6; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1:18-3:20; 7:14-24)

We believe that God has not left us to perish in our condition of sin; that in Jesus Christ the problem of sin is decisively dealt with; and that those who are living in Christ can be free from the compulsions of sin and can be free to live as God intended. (John 3:13-18; Romans 5:6-11; 6:8-14; 8:1-4; Galatians 5:13-25; 1 Peter 1:18-21)

WE RESOLVE THAT --

All of us have known and continue to know the disordering effects of sin in our lives; that we all continue to stand in need of God's help to resist temptations and in need of the Holy Spirit's work to remake us. (Matthew 6:13; Romans 8:1-17; 12:1-2; Colossians 3:9-10; Philippians 2:4-6; 1 John 1:5-10)

Homosexual behavior is a form of sin; whenever mentioned in Scripture this behavior is always warned against, and this behavior breaks the pattern of sexual expression established as God's plan for humanity. (Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Jude 7)

Those of us who are tempted to homosexual behavior need the same help from God and help from God's people as those of us who are tempted to other sins. (Galatians 6:1-10; Ephesians 5:1-20; Philippians 2:4; Colossians 3:12-17)

*

Once upon a time, in a land that seems far away, bad behavior was cause for shame, remorse and repentance. In our postmodern world, where increasingly more and more people are doing what is right in their own eyes, aberrant antics are viewed as a stepping stone to fame and possible fortune. Just ask Heather Ingram and a young man known pseudonymously as “Troy Robertson.”

Three years ago, Ingram was 29 years old, involved in a committed relationship and teaching high school at Sechelt, British Columbia. Robertson was a student in Ingram's accounting class. The two became intimately involved.

The pair conducted their illicit relationship for a lengthy period. Eventually the affair was discovered and Ingram was convicted of child exploitation. She was sentenced to 10 months of house arrest. In an effort to protect Robertson's reputation, the judge ordered a publication ban on his identity.

Once upon a time, in a land that seems far away, the public aspect of Ingram and Robertson's story would be over. As the headlines waned, the pair would have slipped into obscurity. It is likely they would have been relieved to be out of the scrutinizing spotlight. Shame and regret would have motivated the pair to seek solace in pursuing unassuming lives.

However, we now live in a time and place that increasingly embraces a postmodern ethic that declares right and wrong to be relative concepts. The individual determines the morality of any and all behavior. In such a world, not only are Ingram and Robertson not shamed by their behavior, they seek to capitalize on it.

Heather Ingram has written a book about her relationship. She skirts the publication ban of her teenaged lover by referring to him as Troy Robertson. The young man, whose identity is still protected by court order, is hoping to become a rap star.

“Risking it All: My Student, My Lover, My Story” is the title of Ingram's book. A review on Amazon.com describes the book positively. It includes the following description: “Written with surprising insight and grace, this honest and moving account offers an intimate look at why a teacher would risk everything to have an affair with a student and what it means to live as a convicted criminal for engaging in a consensual relationship.”

In an interview with the National Post, Ingram was asked why she wrote the book. “Because it's a great story,” she said. Concerning the aftermath of her relationship, she responded, “You never get over it. You integrate it.”

Once upon a time, in a land that seems far away, Heather Ingram would not only want to get over her sordid past, she would desire to get past it. However, in the postmodern here and now, she not only justifies her illicit actions, she seeks to gain from them. The still-anonymous young man, now known as Troy Robertson, was in court recently seeking to have a judge lift the publication ban that protects his identity. The reason, according to the Vancouver Sun, “so he can cash in on the scandal.”

The young man told the court he needed to be identifiable because he is poised to build a career on publicity arising form the liaison with Ingram. He indicated he is tired of being portrayed as a victim. He maintains the he was the seducer in the relationship. One of the cuts from his first CD is titled, “Teachers Scandal,” which includes the words the “[expletive reference to the teacher] couldn't resist my charm.”

While the actions of Ingram and Robertson are sad, they are merely symptoms of a culture beaten almost senseless by moral relativism. Once upon a time, in a land that seems far away, the only value to be found in Ingram and Robertson's sordid tale would be in how not to live your life. However, in the postmodern here and now there is a lucrative market for bad behavior. Sex and scandal sell, and sell well. Actions that once resulted in shame and reproach are now stepping stones to fame and possible fortune.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #10846; the second illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #16741]

My Source: THE REMINDER

UNION GROVE CHURCH OF CHRIST

February 6, 2000

Author: Roger Campbell

=========================================

FLEE FORNICATION

by Roger D. Campbell

God's charge to all Christians is, "Flee fornication" (1 Corinthians 6:18). On the other hand, Satan says that it's alright to fornicate. You see, regardless of the topic, the devil's advice and God's are never the same.

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, fornication or fornicators are mentioned in 14 of them. That means that this topic is mentioned in more New Testament books than baptism is! Sounds important, does it not?

Let us understand from the outset that in the Bible and in God's sight there is no such thing as "good fornication." There are some Bible terms that might mean something desirable in one context, but carry with them an undesirable meaning in others. But "fornication" is not such a term for in the Bible there is never any thing good associated with it.

Just what does fornication mean? It is translated from the Greek word "porneia," which is defined as "illicit sexual intercourse in general" (Thayer, pages 532,533). In the New King James version this word

is often translated as "sexual immorality." Notice that the basic definition speaks of "illicit" sexual activity. "Illicit" means unlawful, so fornication is sexual activity that is not permitted by the will or

law of God.

Are there physical or sexual relations between human beings that God does approve? Hebrews 13:4 reads, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers [sexually immoral, NKJV] and

adulterers God will judge." It is obvious from this statement that only in a marriage that is approved by the Lord do a man and woman have the right to have sexual relations with one another (see also 1 Corinthians

7:2-4). Any sexual relations between a person and someone who is not his true mate constitute fornication. That includes such physical relations that take place before marriage, after one is already married,

homosexuality, Adultery, and lesbianism.

Is a message about fornication popular today? Not with many people. Yet, it is a topic about which we must constantly teach. Why is that? Once again, look at the number of Bible warnings to the first-century Christians about fornication! In today's society we see or hear about fornication all the time. Where? On television, in movies, music, magazines, and inappropriate jokes. You are right, people generally do not call it "fornication," but that is exactly what is taking place. Is it right or wrong? Let the Bible answer. We need to constantly teach our people, including children and members of all ages, reminding them of what the Bible says about this topic.

What Does The New Testament Teach About It?

1. "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,

that ye should abstain from fornication"

(1 Thessalonians 4:3).

2. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed

evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders …

All these evil things come from within, and defile

the man" (Mark 7:21-23). Note that Jesus describes

"fornications" as "evil."

3. Thus, we are to "flee fornication" (1 Corinthians 6:18).

4. It is a "work of the flesh." If a person practices such

without repentance, he cannot inherit the kingdom

of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

5. Those who practice fornication are "children of

disobedience" who can expect the wrath of God to be

upon them (Colossians 3:5,Colossians 3:6).

6. It is a sin that cannot be tolerated in any form. "But

fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness,

let it not be once named among you as becometh

saints" (Ephesians 5:3).

Some Examples Of Fornication

1. We recognize that fornication is not something

new to the 20th century.

2. We read about people committing fornication in

the days of the Old Testament: The inhabitants of

Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to

fornication (Jude 1:7); Judah, the son of Jacob,

committed fornication with Tamar, the wife of his

son (Genesis 38); David and Bathsheba also engaged

in illicit relations (2 Samuel 11).

3. Examples of fornication are not lacking in the New

Testament: Some members of the church in Corinth

had been fornicators in the past, but upon their

conversion they had been washed, sanctified, and

justified (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); Paul also wrote, "It

is reported commonly that there is fornication among

you, and such fornication as is not so much as named

among the Gentiles …" (1 Corinthians 5:1); Later,

by inspiration the apostle Paul wrote this stern

warning, "And lest, when I come again, my God will

humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many

which have sinned already, and have not repented of

the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness

which they have committed" (2 Corinthians 12:21).

4. There is an ongoing universal epidemic of fornication

in our day. We see it among common people, national

leaders, and those living in unscriptural marriages.

Sadly, the church is not exempt from such ungodliness.

How it hurts the influence of a congregation when a

preacher, bishop or deacon is involved in this sin.

Do not think that such does not happen. The list is

lengthy already, and growing rapidly, of those

"leaders" in the kingdom who have given up a life of

faithful service to Christ to "live in" fornication

(Colossians 3:7). We find no happiness in admitting

that such goes on, but the fact of its occurrence

cannot be denied. Brothers and sisters, fornication

is serious business, because it will keep those who

practice it out of heaven!

Some Possible Consequences Of Fornication

1. Physical ones - Those who practice sexual immorality

take the risks of contacting dangerous diseases or of

the woman becoming pregnant. In the eyes of the

worldly-minded, this is the number one concern: do

whatever is necessary to avoid these inconveniences,

but still go ahead and act without restraint. A child of

God recognizes the potential physical consequences

of illicit physical relations, but he must look to areas

of far greater significance.

2. Mental ones - One who has committed fornication

before marriage, then later obeys the gospel and

marries a faithful member of the church will

go to his marriage with the mental scar that he has

not kept himself unspotted for his mate. Mental

scars that stem from fornication also can come to

those people who commit fornication when they are

already married, and as a result their mate divorces

them. True, a fornicator can repent and be forgiven,

but that may not restore the broken home that the

fornicator had a big hand in destroying, nor will it

cause one to forget that he or she "blew it."

3. Marital ones - Our Lord said, "And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be

for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth

adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away

doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9). These words

indicate that one who is guilty of fornication and is

subsequently divorced by his mate because of such,

does not have the right to remarry. Why? Because

"Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit

adultery." Thus, in some cases committing fornication

may cause a person to forfeit his/her right before God

to be married.

4. Spiritual ones on the earth - Those who fornicate fail

to abstain from that which God forbids

(1 Thessalonians 4:3). Consequently, a non-christian

who commits fornication cannot be forgiven until he

repents of this and obeys the gospel. A fornicating

child of God forfeits his fellowship with God as long

as he refuses to repent of such lawlessness.

Further, a fornicator in the church also forfeits his

fellowship with the church. The Holy Spirit's message

in 1 Corinthians 5 is too plain to miss! The charge to

the saints in Corinth was, "… not to company with

fornicators … with such an one no not to eat … put

away from among yourselves that wicked person"

(5:9,11,13). Brethren, rather than make emotional

appeals and try to come up with some way "around"

the apostle's inspired instruction, we need to find

the faith and courage to put into practice what is

written: no fellowship with fornicators!

5. Eternal ones - As we noted above, fornicators

cannot inherit the kingdom of God

(1 Corinthians 6:9,1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:19-21). Good

people, it does not get more serious than that!

Revelation 21:8 further declares that fornicators

"shall have their part in the lake which burneth

with fire and brimstone: which is the second

death." Hell will be the eternal destiny of those

fornicators who have not been washed by the

blood of the Lamb. We do not know how we can

say it any stronger!

Let us be not deceived. Having sexual relations with any person who is not our true mate will have serious consequences.

[To be continued]

I'm glad they didn't tell me until it was over. It was my first time landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York City - an airport whose runways jut right out into Jamaica Bay. When I arrived, my friends told me that I had just landed on the garbage of New York City. Now, that is a very exciting thought. It turns out that much of the airport was actually built on landfill - yes, it was made from Big Apple garbage. That's not bad for piles of trash.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "The Power of Recycled Garbage."

It's amazing what human engineers can do with the garbage of a city. It's much more amazing what God can do with garbage of our lives. He recycles the worst things that ever happened to us into something wonderfully useful - and even beautiful.

Some of that trash-to-treasure miracle is described in 2 Corinthians 1:3-4, our word for today from the Word of God. God's talking here about some of the heartbreaking moments of our life. He is described here as "the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from Christ." In other words God says, "I'm going to give you My resources to help you get through your times of trouble - and, in so doing, I'm going to qualify you to spend the rest of your life helping other hurting people."

Recently, I received an email from a woman I'll call Mary Ann. She told me about her deep regret over her premarital sexual relationships and how it hurt her now not to be able to give her husband love that no one else had ever had. We asked her if she would be willing to share her story on our youth broadcast, RealTime. She agreed - and she had some very powerful things to say, both about sexual purity and the forgiving, restoring power of Jesus Christ. And, when we finished the interview, she said, "You know, I think doing this has finally helped me be free inside ... to really forgive myself and move on."

I told Mary Ann that she was completing the cycle of God's healing of our past. First, you experience God's forgiving love or His comfort and healing ... and then, ultimately, you use the past you hate to help others, to comfort others, to challenge others, and to give hope to others. If you've been wounded, abused, abandoned ... if you've experienced deep loss, grief, struggle, handicaps - you have those strange credentials that qualify you because of your pain, to be one of God's wounded healers; to be listened to because of what you've been through.

But for this recycling miracle to take place a person must be willing to take their eyes off themselves ... to look beyond their own hurt to the hurts of others. And you have to open up all those closets of anger and self-pity and doubt and let God's mercy and grace come flooding in. When you reach beyond yourself and open up to God's healing resources, you become uniquely prepared to become a healer in a hurting world.

And when you do, it's amazing the healing that releases in you. You're actually using the past you hate to help others. And you are allowing God to take the garbage of your life and recycle it into something beautiful -that's meaning for your pain and hope for someone else's despair.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. 'Practical Answers to Real Life Issues'

*

It was on Saturday morning, Jan. 3, 2004, when I confessed to my dear wife Betty that I had committed adultery -- a seven-month affair with one of her best friends. She fell to her knees in disbelief. It was as if I had reached inside her heart and ripped it out. The pain was almost unbearable. Life had reached its darkest day for me -- it was truly the worst day of my life. Immediately, life had changed, and everything began to take a different direction for us as we tried to somehow deal with this dreadful situation I had caused.

For almost 26 years, I had been the senior pastor of a Tidewater, Virginia, church. We loved our people, and most all of our friends and a lot of our family members were in some way connected to that ministry. On that same evening I called a special deacons meeting and confessed to them my affair. Most of them wept in disbelief. I told them that the next day I would go before my congregation and come clean with them also. I did and also resigned. The news spread like lightning throughout the city and surrounding areas. The guilt and shame was overwhelming for me. The thought crossed my mind that death would have been a welcomed event. I had disappointed and broken trust with so many people.

Within seven days of my confession, at the invitation of Pastor Johnny Hunt, Betty and I pulled into the parking lot of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia, to enter the City of Refuge, a ministry for pastors and full-time Christian workers who have been burnt out, forced out, or have struggled with some addiction or immorality. For 17 months, Betty and I received intense counseling and encouragement, which started a new journey of trust, transparency and vulnerability in our lives. In addition to that, the sweet people at First Baptist loved on us and offered us grace, safety and love like we had never experienced in our entire lives. We were loved unconditionally. It was during that time that my dear wife offered me unconditional grace, forgiveness, love and renewed trust. Our marriage and our home environment slowly became truly a place of genuine love, openness and transparency.

The above is only a thumbnail of my 12-year journey, and I share it openly because pastors and church leaders (as well as laymen) are struggling with addictions and sexual sins. The fallout is at epidemic levels. We hear about it almost weekly, and there is very little help offered for pastors and churches who are experiencing such adversities.

I am a blessed and grateful man who realizes that God has strategically placed people and circumstances in my journey to help me understand what biblical grace is all about. My mess has become my message. I never want to forget the pain and disillusionment that I caused my wife, my family, my church and my friends; however, my past no longer defines me. My vision and desire are to see the entire body of Christ understand grace, spiritual freedom, and healthy living out of our identity in Jesus Christ as mature Christ followers.

______

EDITOR’S NOTE: For more information about City of Refuge go to http://www.fbcw.org/community/city-of-refuge/.

T.A. Powell is assistant professor at Liberty University Online, School of Divinity. This article first appeared in the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia’s missions magazine, Proclaimer (www.sbcv.org/proclaimer).

If journalist Judith Levine intended to stir up controversy with her new book HARMFUL TO MINORS, she succeeded in spades. As word about the book spread, it was attacked for presenting pedophilia as an "alternative lifestyle." Levine rejects that characterization, calling it an example of the "hysteria" that prompted her to write the book.

While Levine does not condone pedophilia in its technical sense -- that is, sexual relations with pre-pubescent children -- there's little else she rules out of bounds. Levine denies that sex between minors and adults is always wrong. She writes that teens seek out sex with older people for what she considers "understandable reasons."

In an interview with Newhouse Newspapers, Levine demonstrated just how far "understandable" could be stretched. She said, "Yes, absolutely," when asked if a sexual relationship between a priest and a boy could be a positive experience for the boy. She added that "some research" suggests that such "experiences" can be "positive" for "even young children."

In Levine's telling, the real danger in sexual relationships between minors and adults comes not from the relationship but, rather, our reaction to the relationship -- or, as the title of one of the book's sections puts it, "the enemy is us."

To fight this "enemy," Levine suggests revising laws governing sexual consent. She holds up Dutch law, which allows kids as young as twelve to consent to sex, as an example for us to follow. This would only be part of a shift in societal attitudes towards sexual lives of our kids that she recommends.

In many respects, it doesn't matter if Levine's book does or does not endorse pedophilia specifically. Either way, the result is the same: Children will be sexually active and, as a result, exploited and damaged at younger and younger ages.

But is Levine really so radical, or is she just carrying our culture's attitudes about sex to their logical conclusions? She is to sexual liberation, in my opinion, what Peter Singer, the Princeton professor who advocates infanticide, is to the culture of death: She shows us the deadly consequences of the secular worldview.

That worldview denies that sex has anything to do with morality or truth. It considers traditional sexual morality, most notably the biblical morality, as a way of controlling people, especially women. And attempts to curb sexual liberties are repressive and, thus, emotionally harmful.

For Levine and our culture, there are no prohibitions when it comes to sex. What matters is consent and avoiding exploiting or being exploited. Of course, these are thin reeds with which to protect our children -- or even ourselves -- from harm.

The only way to effectively oppose pernicious nonsense like Levine's book is to attack the worldview that makes this kind of wrong-headedness possible. Ironically, HARMFUL TO MINORS, Levine's book may help Christians by giving us an apologetic argument. After all, if we force people like Levine to take their arguments to their logical conclusion, we expose the fallacy of their belief system. We show that it simply doesn't work. What people must see is not only is a book like this dangerous, but even more dangerous are the presuppositions about life that underlie it.

For further reading:

Frank York and Jan LaRue, PROTECTING YOUR CHILD IN AN X-RATED WORLD (Tyndale, 2002).

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE CHRISTIAN IN TODAY'S CULTURE (Tyndale, 1999).

David Crary, "U Press book on kids' sexuality called 'evil,'" Pioneer Press, 3 April 2002.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Scripture's teachings on homosexuality are unclear and must be viewed solely through the words of Jesus, thus allowing the ordination of homosexuals, pastor Mark Caldwell and associate pastor April Baker, a lesbian, of Nashville's Glendale Baptist Church told a group of college students April 3, 2003.

Caldwell and Baker spoke to some 90 students at Middle Tennessee State University, giving their views on the Bible's teachings on homosexuality. It was part of weeklong “SpringOut!” events for the university's “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community.”

The controversial church faces expulsion from the Nashville Baptist Association for its employment of Baker, a lesbian. The association's messengers are scheduled to vote on the matter this September.

Glendale claims affiliation with three national bodies -- the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists. The later two are comprised of churches and people that separated from the Southern Baptist Convention during or after the conservative resurgence. The Alliance of Baptists supports the ordination of homosexuals.

During the two-hour lecture -- capped by questions and answers -- Caldwell and Baker gave their views on the Bible. It is authoritative, they said, but it must be viewed as a whole.

“It is wrong to lift ... allusions to same-sex practices ... from their respective context and then lump them all together and proclaim them to be the biblical teachings about homosexuality,” Caldwell said.

All of Scripture, he said, must be viewed through the “justice” and “love” ethical teachings of Jesus.

“The Bible contradicts itself often,” Caldwell asserted. “...The best thing you can do is to try and shine the example of Jesus' life on those passages.”

A Southern Baptist seminary professor contacted by Baptist Press said such interpretations simply underscore the need for recent years' changes within the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Dr. Caldwell's dismissal of biblical authority is one more example of the need for the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” said Russell D. Moore, assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

“Dr. Caldwell's claim that the Bible contradicts itself often is widespread among Baptist moderates, as is his contention that one must 'shine' the life of Jesus on erring passages. This is precisely the kind of twisting of the criterion language of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message that has caused concern among Southern Baptists.”

All of the Bible is “breathed out by the Spirit of Christ” and all of it “comes with the authority of Christ Himself,” Moore said. “Pro- homosexual Baptists are interpreting Scripture through the criterion of another 'Christ' -- the messiah of contemporary liberal politics.”

During his lecture Caldwell gave his interpretation of the verses most often used to oppose homosexuality:

-- Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah). The passage, Caldwell claimed, must be viewed through another verse, Ezekiel 16:49. The sin of the cities was not homosexual behavior, but rather “social injustice and inhospitality,” he said. Furthermore, he said the passages deal with rape and not “consensual relationships between adults.”

-- Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.”). These verses are talking solely about “temple prostitution” and not about “sexual orientation,” Caldwell said.

-- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (“... neither fornicators, nor idolaters ... nor homosexuals ... will inherit the kingdom of God.”). First Timothy 1:8-11 (“... the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious ... for ... immoral men and homosexuals...”).

Pairing these two passages together, Caldwell said they have nothing to do with “sexual orientation,” but instead deal with a man's role within the act of sex. Paul is saying “it is improper for a man to take a passive sexual role,” Caldwell said.

-- Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ... If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman ... they shall surely be put to death.”).

The verses are simply requiring purity before entering the temple, Caldwell said, adding that inerrantists -- if consistent -- should demand the death penalty for homosexuals.

He also commented on the world “abomination,” saying the Bible uses the word to describe many items and actions. “No biblical inerrantist that I know of is out there picketing Red Lobster for serving shrimp,” he said to laughter.

-- Romans 1:21-27 (“women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural ... the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper...”).

This passage “has to be the centerpiece” of any discussion about homosexuality and the Bible, Caldwell acknowledged.

The writer, the apostle Paul, had a view of sexuality that was “archaic at best. ... Our understanding of sexual orientation is vastly different from that of the biblical writers,” Caldwell claimed. Paul “was addressing homosexual behavior. He knew nothing of sexual orientation” and he was assuming that everyone was heterosexual, Caldwell said. Caldwell's view of Scripture is wrong, Southern Seminary's Moore said, adding that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“There is no 'canon within the canon' with the 'really inspired' words in red letters,” Moore said in a subsequent e-mail to Baptist Press. “All Scripture is breathed out through Christ who is Himself the Word of God. The Old Testament prophets were inspired by the Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11). Jesus promised His apostles that His Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-15). This same Spirit, the apostles claim, carried along men of God in the writing of Holy Scripture (2 Peter 1:16). Thus, every word of Scripture is the word of Jesus. It comes with the very authority of God.”

In his remarks, Caldwell said the Bible “does not endorse homosexuality as a lifestyle” and “has nothing good to say about such behavior” but also does not address “sexual orientation,” he said. “The church must take care not to force the ancient writings to answer questions they never address.”

Caldwell asserted that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality or sexual ethics.

“Jesus taught only a justice love ethic,” he said. “... Christ is the central norm through which and by which everything else -- including Scripture -- must be judged,” he said.

But this “does not mean that anything goes,” Caldwell said.

“I have serious doubt that the Bible provides a sufficient sexual ethic ... to deny gays and lesbians full participation in the church,” he said. Inerrantists and those he called “fundamentalists” are “good- hearted” people trying to “protect” God's sovereignty and holiness, as well as the Bible. While their motive is “commendable,” he said there are ways to “protect” God's sovereignty “short of” taking an inerrantist position.

Moore dismissed Caldwell's interpretations, particularly his views on Old Testament law and Romans 1. Moore added that 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 -- “ ... the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment” -- establishes that Paul was speaking the very words of God.

“There is a reason why evangelicals do not picket Red Lobster for selling shrimp,” Moore said. “Acts 10 reveals that the food laws were not part of God's abiding moral law, but were designed to set the people of Israel apart from the other nations during the Old Covenant. These ceremonial distinctives were fulfilled, Scripture tells us, in Jesus Christ.

“The New Testament takes a much different view, however, of God's eternal moral law, a law that recognizes, as Jesus says, that 'from the beginning' God created sexual union to be expressed in a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman,” Moore added, pointing to Matthew 19:4-6 (“... they are no longer two, but one flesh.”).

“Anything other than this is a cruel and damning parody of God's good creation design,” Moore said. “This is precisely why, as Dr. Caldwell notes, the Bible 'assumes we're all heterosexual.’ We were created male and female by God -- a creation God declared 'good.'“

Caldwell's belief that Jesus said nothing about sexual ethics and taught only a love ethic also is wrong, Moore said. Moore pointed to Mark 7:20-23, where Jesus addresses “fornications, thefts, murders, adulterers....”

“It is not true that Jesus never addressed sexuality, nor is it true that He only advocated Caldwell's version of a justice-love ethic,” Moore said. “In full continuity with the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament witness, Jesus rejects sexual immorality as evil.”

Romans 1 is a condemning passage that clearly addresses homosexuality, Moore said.

“It is disingenuous to claim that Paul is oblivious to the concept of 'sexual orientation,'“ he said. “Indeed, Paul does not only condemn the shameless acts of gay sex, but the passions that fuel such things. Paul argues that homosexuality is part of a downward spiral of idolatry, folly and denial of the truth. It is a tragic revolt against the Creator.

“Even so, Paul does not see homosexuality as the end of the road to hell. He proclaims the glorious Gospel that all sinners -- even homosexuals -- can be justified and transformed by the redemption of Christ Jesus,” Moore added, pointing to the “such were some of you” passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Baker began the event by giving her testimony of her life as a “Christian, lesbian and Baptist.” She chose only two of those labels, she said.

Growing up she always felt “different” but did not have “the vocabulary to talk about it.” After college she met a man and they got engaged, only to break it off when it became obvious she did not love him enough to commit to a covenantal relationship, she said.

Eventually, after reading the Bible with an “open mind,” Baker came to the conclusion that she was a “lesbian,” she said.

She said she gets “angry with people who accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously” and then explained her view of Scripture: “I look for deeper meanings and go beyond the words on the page” as led by the Holy Spirit. “To say that I don't believe the Bible is just plain wrong. It's the book that's had the most influence, and continues to have the most influence, on my life.”

She added that the “church has been one of the strongest perpetrators of prejudice against people in the sexual minority.”

At the beginning of the lecture she read several sentences, asking the audience to consider their beliefs. Among them: “There are occasions when a couple could benefit from living together prior to marriage” and “The Bible is clear in setting forth a Christian sexual ethic.”

She then said that, “[T]here really aren't any right or wrong responses to these statements” and that there was room “for a variety of opinion. ... No one has the truth. We're all seeking truth.”

The arguments made by Caldwell and Baker are logical conclusions made by those who have already discounted other teachings of Paul, Southern Seminary's Moore said.

“We should not be surprised to see such arguments used to defend homosexuality,” Moore said. “Key leaders among moderate Baptists have been using identical arguments against the apostle Paul's writings on, for example, male-female roles in the church and the home. This is why there is an increasingly noisy pro-homosexuality faction within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. If Paul is 'archaic' about marriage and the church, then why is he not 'archaic' about gay sex?”

Glendale Baptist, and other like-minded churches, offer a message that amounts to “anti-evangelism,” Moore added.

“Baptist liberalism doesn't just kill churches,” he said. “Sometimes it kills people too. After all, homosexuality is a way that leads only to death. I tremble to think of a young struggling homosexual who may have listened to such preaching. He is given a message of peace when there is no peace.

“He is not offered the transforming word of the Gospel of Christ -- a Gospel that can free him from the slavery to his disordered passions. There are millions in such slavery to sin. Do we love homosexuals? If so, we owe them the truth -- the truth that sets sinners free.”

=====================

Student's testimony provides contrast at 'Bible and homosexuality' forum

By Michael Foust

The testimony of a Christian student who said he is a former homosexual highlighted a two-hour dialogue on the “Bible and homosexuality” at Middle Tennessee State University April 3.

Pastor Mark Caldwell and associate pastor April Baker, a lesbian, of Nashville's Glendale Baptist Church spoke to a group of some 90 students, explaining their belief that the Bible's teachings on homosexuality are unclear. The church may be expelled from the Nashville Baptist Association for its hiring of Baker.

Caldwell spent 30 minutes giving his interpretations of passages that mention homosexuality, concluding that the Bible knows nothing of “sexual orientation” and that all of Scripture should be viewed through the teachings of Jesus. He claimed that Christ had nothing to say about sexual ethics.

During the question-and-answer period, a university student spoke up, asserting that homosexuality is not an orientation but instead a lifestyle. The student, Brandon Farrar, said Christ delivered him from homosexuality.

“I agree with you when you say that Christianity and Christians should not exile people of the homosexual orientation,” he calmly said, addressing Baker and Caldwell. “As a former homosexual, I am glad that my church was so supportive of me when I needed it.”

He said it was not his decision to come out of homosexuality but instead “a conviction from God.” Farrar also disagreed with Caldwell's overall interpretation of the Bible. Referring to ancient Israelite law, Caldwell had said that if inerrantists were consistent they would support the death penalty for homosexuals.

“You are comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant,” Farrar told him. “The New Covenant ... says that we don't kill people. ... We are under a New Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant. ... Jesus came to fulfill the law.” Farrar later told Baptist Press that he is a member of Grace Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, Tenn., and that he was a homosexual until about two and a half years ago.

Responding to Farrar, Caldwell said, “I am pleased that you have a community that is welcoming.” But Caldwell said he hoped churches also would welcome, embrace and not criticize those who believe they are born homosexuals.

One female student, saying she is a “bisexual” Christian, told of having struggled with the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1.

“Paul does degrade it,” she said, crying. “... [But] I believe you're born that way.”

But after hearing Caldwell's presentation, she said, “I feel a lot better about it know.”

A Southern Baptist professor contacted by Baptist Press said churches such as Glendale offer false hope to homosexuals.

“I tremble to think of a young struggling homosexual who may have listened to such preaching,” said Russell D. Moore, assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. “He is given a message of peace when there is no peace.

“He is not offered the transforming word of the Gospel of Christ -- a Gospel that can free him from the slavery to his disordered passions. There are millions in such slavery to sin. Do we love homosexuals? If so, we owe them the truth -- the truth that sets sinners free.”

Glendale Baptist claims affiliation with three national bodies -- the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists. The later two are comprised of churches and people that separated from the Southern Baptist Convention during or after the conservative resurgence. The Alliance of Baptists supports the ordination of homosexuals.

*

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #11375]

Key Bible Verse: Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge ... those who commit adultery (Hebrews 13:4). Bonus Reading: Proverbs 7:6–27

A Christian salesman friend was attending a dealers' convention in New York City. On a free evening he was waiting for a car with others to see some of the city's sights. But he got into the wrong car. These salesmen were not headed for the tourist attractions but for a famous swinging bar. Before my friend knew his mistake, they were on the way with no turning back.

Upon entering the bar, each man was immediately joined by a girl who took him by the arm and led him to a table. His girl was saucy, pert, and dressed seductively.

“As the evening continued, the temptation was like a steamroller,” he told me later. “This girl was luscious. I had all I could do to keep from grabbing her and taking her to one of the back rooms. But the thing that held me and protected me — the only thing — was that before I had left home, I had told my wife that I was hers alone, and that regardless of any enticements, we belonged to each other and we would be praying for each other.”

At the time of temptation there is too much emotion. His decision made ahead of time, and confirmed at the time of temptation, was what saved him.

-- J. Allan Petersen in The Myth of the Greener Grass

Thought to Apply: A safe male has already made up his mind about his sexual ethics. -- Stan Thornburg

_________

Adapted from The Myth of the Greener Grass (Tyndale, 1983, 1991); Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today International/Men of Integrity magazine.

*

G. K. Chesterton once described the Victorian loss of faith as “a great silent collapse, an enormous unspoken disappointment.” In our own times, the collapse is often anything but silent or unspoken. Indeed, one of the most noteworthy developments of our age is the rise of the theologian or church leader who, once orthodox, now declares before the world that he has outgrown biblical Christianity.

One of the latest entries in the race to abandon the faith is John Killinger's TEN THINGS I LEARNED WRONG FROM A CONSERVATIVE CHURCH. In this book, Killinger sets out to prove once and for all that he has outgrown the conservative Christian faith of his childhood and moved on to an enlightened postmodern form of religion.

Killinger is no stranger to those who observe liberal Christianity. As a young theologian, Killinger traced theological themes in modern literature. He held teaching positions at various colleges and universities, most notably a position in homiletics at Vanderbilt. Later, Killinger served as senior minister at the First Presbyterian Church of Lynchburg, Virginia and the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, California. In TEN THINGS I LEARNED WRONG FROM A CONSERVATIVE CHURCH, Killinger caps his literary career with a testimony of how he moved from orthodox Christian conviction to something very different and very unorthodox.

Needless to say, Killinger's approach is not subtle. The title of his book declares controversy and this author is looking for a scandal. Of course, those who would scandalize the church find themselves facing a new challenge in this generation. So many heretics have paved the way, it is now difficult to come up with anything genuinely new in terms of denial. But give Killinger credit -- he is trying to catch up.

Basic to Killinger's theological transition is his rejection of the Bible as the literal, inerrant Word of God. Having been taught as a young Southern Baptist that the Bible is, word for word, the very Word of God, Killinger moved on to see the Bible as a mere record of theological reflections, limited and corrupted as they are, of ancient people. Those who believe that the Bible is actually God's Word are, by implication, just simplistic fools yet unenlightened by modern scholarship.

He is untroubled by questions related to biblical translation and accuracy because, “I believed then, and still do, that God rises above the Bible so majestically and transcendently that whatever happens to the Bible in its various translations and paraphrases is not likely to have much affect on him.” What does that mean? Killinger evidently believes that the actual words of Scripture are relatively unimportant. God “rises above the Bible” whatever the translation.

In 1970, Killinger had written FOR GOD'S SAKE, BE HUMAN, arguing that Christians should outgrow their juvenile ideas of biblical authority. As Killinger now reflects, “I argued that the Bible should not be discarded in our time as an arcane book about a Middle Eastern divinity, but should be seen as a dynamic record of countless people over a span of thousands of years trying to break through the veil of mystery and comprehend enough of the being of God to reorient their lives and reposition their culture. The Bible's authority, I suggested, rests in the very ingenuity and irresistibility of the experiences it describes, not in its having God as its author.” So, inerrancy and infallibility are to be replaced with INGENUITY and IRRESISTIBILITY. Evangelicals must resist the ingenuity of that proposal.

Killinger lampoons conservative Christians, labeling those committed to biblical authority as fundamentalists. His heroes are on the theological left -- like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, to whom he acknowledges “a strong kinship.” Spong, we might note, has abandoned virtually every Christian doctrine, suggests that the Apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual, and now calls upon the church to abandon monotheism.

As is common to much of the “I left conservative Christianity behind” literature, Killinger makes statements that can hardly be taken seriously. At one point, Killinger vows: “I love the Bible so much that it drives me to insist on its true character as a compilation of exploratory words about God, not the final, irrevocable Word of God as painted by the fundamentalists. To make of it anything more is to do it an ultimate disservice.” By that perverse logic, the most appropriate way to honor an important Christian doctrine is to deny it.

Along the way through his TEN THINGS I LEARNED WRONG FROM A CONSERVATIVE CHURCH, Killinger denies that human beings are fundamentally sinners in need of rescue from the wrath of God. Observing evangelicals, Killinger advises that “the theology of atonement appeals to people who carry around a strong sense of personal guilt.” So, theology is basically reduced to psychology and atonement is now a spiritualized form of personal liberation.

Conservatives completely miss the boat by believing that the wrath of God is ultimately something we should fear. Thus, God's righteousness is reconstrued as something very different than the Holy One of Israel's hatred of sin. Likewise, Killinger reinterprets God's omnipotence in order to free the Creator from all responsibility for floods, plagues, tornados and other disasters. “The God I love is a LIMITED God -- limited as all artists are limited, as all builders are limited, as all parents are limited.”

Killinger's limited God is not a moral judge we should fear, but rather “the highly Benevolent Mind and the Intelligent Heart behind every good and noble spiritual impulse we ever have.” Furthermore, God is the “Parenting Force,” and the “Restless Spirit,” who guides and urges us “ever onward toward love and fulfillment.” Just imagine a prayer addressed to “Our Parenting Force who art in Heaven.”

What about Jesus Christ? Killinger identifies belief that Jesus Christ is the only Savior and thus the only way to God as one of the lessons he had to UNLEARN in his theological pilgrimage. Of course, specific biblical texts such as John 14:6 are likely to get in the way. This is no problem for Dr. Killinger. He describes the Gospel of John as “a completely histrionic and somewhat unreliable Gospel,” that is “unreliable from a factual standpoint.” Well, with the Gospel of John out of the way, and the authority of the Bible denied, anything becomes theologically possible -- and probable.

The Book of Acts is dismissed as “our at-times-somewhat-dubious 'history' of the early church.” Whether or not the Apostles taught the exclusivity of the gospel, it now must be abandoned in the name of Jesus Christ, “who taught universal love and acceptance.”

In a fascinating narrative, Killinger laments an attempt he made as a young believer to convert his father to Christianity. Given what he described as his “indoctrination,” Killinger had been convinced that his father was destined for hell because he had never confessed Christ. Concerned for his father's salvation, he enclosed some evangelistic tracts in a birthday present. Killinger looks back on this evangelistic attempt with great embarrassment. “I have always been heartily ashamed of that. How presumptuous it was, and how invasive of his privacy!” This passage ranks among the saddest personal accounts in modern literature.

As should be clear by now, Killinger rejects conversionist theology. He acknowledges that human beings need transformation, but this transformation is nothing like the salvation of a sinner by grace. Killinger now declares that “after all these years of study and scholarship,” he cannot believe that “the Jesus of history or the Christ of faith would endorse a view limiting salvation to those who have publicly confessed him as their personal savior” and follow Christ in baptism. Of course, the Jesus of the Bible made precisely this claim. The only way around that is to claim some knowledge of Jesus apart from the Bible.

Conservative Christians, we are now told, are also hung up on sex. This leads to our repressive understanding of human sexuality and explains, of course, why we believe homosexuality to be sinful. Jesus, Killinger claims, “almost never said anything condemning sexuality.” Freed from a commitment to the comprehensive truthfulness of the biblical text, he can just ignore whatever passages declare all sexual expression outside of marriage to be sin.

In the confrontation between the Bible and science, science wins. We should not be concerned about this, Killinger assures, because, “God doesn't need an inerrant Bible to be God. True believers shouldn't need it either.” At this point, Killinger commends the example of Benjamin Franklin, who said that he read the Bible as he ate fish, throwing aside the parts that would stick in his throat. Accordingly, Killinger relates that “I learned to live by the deep wisdom of the Scriptures without worrying about their literal facticity. If I preached on the creation story in Genesis, it was only to speak of the creativity of God or the beauty of the created order, not to apply a calculator and modern timetable to the schedule by which creation occurred.”

If the Bible is taken too seriously, Killinger warns, we limit our ability to grow beyond its ancient worldview. Killinger points us to “the loftier passages” of the Bible and insists that “God never intended it to become the restrictive document it has become in the hands of the fundamentalists.”

In the end, the Bible is to be acknowledged as containing many wonderful passages, “but it is only a passing record of humanity's experience of the Holy over a period of a few thousand years, and a somewhat limited record at that, considering the vast literatures of ancient Egypt, Greece, India, and China.” In the end: “Any God whose parameters are defined by the Bible alone is too small for the yearnings and understandings of the twenty-first century heart.”

In his first chapter, Killinger recounts a lunch conversation with Jerry Falwell, Pastor of Lynchburg's Thomas Road Baptist Church. One can only imagine the fireworks which must have resulted from the encounter between Falwell and Killinger during the years they served prominent pulpits in the same city. During their lunch conversation, Falwell warned of the slippery slope toward doctrinal compromise that follows the denial of biblical authority. At the end of TEN THINGS I LEARNED WRONG FROM A CONSERVATIVE CHURCH, Killinger acknowledges that Jerry Falwell was right. “Once we were able to say out loud that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God -- that its inspiration is not really different from that of the Bhagavad-Gita or Thoreau's WALDEN or Maya Angelou's poems -- then a great number of conservative and fundamentalist idols begin to topple.” Furthermore, Killinger recounts that without an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture, it is “a simple step to denying that Jesus is the only way to God, or that he really had to die for our sins.”

Conservative evangelicals will learn any number of important lessons by reading TEN THINGS I LEARNED WRONG FROM A CONSERVATIVE CHURCH. The ruptured relationship between John Killinger and orthodox Christianity is not a matter of misunderstanding. To the contrary, Killinger knows what he is denying and believes that conservative evangelicals are trapped in an unchanging system of doctrine based in the authority of an ancient book, and thus are completely out of step with the modern world.

As evangelical Christians, we must admit that Killinger is right in at least this one important respect. We ARE fundamentally out of step with the worldview of modernity and its rebellion against God. The only way to get in step with the spirit of this age is to abandon the truth claims of Christianity.

In this book, Killinger offers evangelicals an invaluable opportunity to look at ourselves in the mirror. Theologically speaking, John Killinger has traveled light years from the theological lessons he now so proudly leaves behind. The urgent danger is that evangelicals will eventually follow the same course. The lessons Killinger UNLEARNED are -- placed in their proper biblical frame -- the very lessons the church must RELEARN in this generation.

________

This article by Dr. Mohler originally appeared on CROSSWALK.COM and was titled: "Killinger’s Ten Things I Learned Wrong From A Conservative Church"

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and host of "The Albert Mohler Program," a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network. Hundreds of articles by Dr. Mohler -- along with other helpful materials -- may be found at www.albertmohler.com, where you can also access the radio program. To respond to this article, write Dr. Mohler at mail@albertmohler.com.

Michael Josephson of Character Counts says, "Ask people [including] young people why they get high on drugs or alcohol or seek sex without intimacy or commitment, and they're likely to tell you it's fun and they just want to be happy. It's tempting to envy the life of fun-loving 'party animals,' 'playboys' and 'good-time girls' until one thinks about how they feel about themselves and their lives when they are alone without the hyped-up stimulation they seem to thrive on.

"It doesn't take a psychologist to realize that if happiness is the destination, these folks are on the wrong road. The problem is that the intense sensation of fun or feelings of pleasure experienced by a substance-induced buzz or an exciting sexual encounter are quickly replaced with a consuming sense of emptiness that drives a need to start all over to fill the vessel again. So each time drinkers, drug users or sex addicts discover that getting what they wanted isn't making them happy, they fall into the despondency conveyed in the famous Peggy Lee song: 'Is That All There Is?'

"People who make pleasure seeking the focus of their lives are like drug addicts who need continually stronger and more dangerous doses to get high.

"Happiness is different from fun and pleasure. It's a less intense but more durable feeling of well-being. It's not a continuous state. A good life is usually seasoned with moments of joy and despair, play and work, success and failure. Happiness is a kind of emotional resting place of quiet satisfaction with one's life. The art of living a happy life lies not in having more of what you want, but in getting better at enjoying what you have."

To this wise advice from Michael I would add that perhaps a better word than happiness is contentment which comes from having peace within one's self. This comes from resolving past conflicts, forgiving all who have hurt you, maintaining peaceful relationships; from living in harmony with God's will and his moral laws, and above all, in finding peace with God, knowing that all your sins are forgiven and that you have God's gift of eternal life, which gives one a reason and purpose for living that is bigger than one's self.

Suggested prayer: "Dear God, please help me to live in harmony with your will, with your moral laws, with eternal values in mind, and a God-given purpose. Help me to forgive all who have ever hurt me and never harbor bitterness or grudges towards anyone. And help me to keep growing in faith, love, and every grace ... so my life will have meaning, purpose, and value for time and eternity. Thank you for hearing and answering my prayer. Gratefully, in Jesus' name, amen."

In June 1995, a panel of the Church of England recommended that the phrase “living in sin” be abandoned and that unmarried couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike, be “given encouragement and support” in their lifestyles and more readily welcomed into Anglican congregations. Suggesting that “loving homosexual relations and acts” are intrinsically no less valuable than heterosexual ones, the panel proposed that love should be allowed to be expressed “in a variety of relationships.” Although such a statement is hardly surprising in today’s world, it is shocking to hear it from an established church, and to know that other church denominations have asserted similar ideas.

WE MUST LOVE THE SINNER, BUT WE MUST ALSO SPEAK OUT AGAINST SIN.

Recently I served on a parent-teachers’ committee at a local high school and was able to observe just how powerful the movement to accept homosexuality has become – how it has crept into almost every aspect of public life. The school district’s Health and Safety Advisory Committee was so afraid of alienating gays and lesbians that it was hesitant even to define “family,” let alone take a position on so-called family values. Finally, it settled on defining “family” as “two people with a commitment.”

Many politicians and an increasing number of clergy are afraid to say anything against such a definition for fear of losing voter support or their jobs. Very few dare to stand in opposition and say, “Enough!” But by refusing to define marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, they not only call into question the entire institution of the family but flatly deny God’s order for creation. They are sending our children the message that anything is okay, and that life-long commitment to one partner of the opposite sex is merely one of many options.

To some readers it may seem that I am advocating hatred toward homosexuals – “gay bashing.” Let me assure you that I am not. Every one of us is a sinner and falls short every day, and there is no biblical basis for making homosexuality a worse sin than any other. To make fun of homosexuality or to judge a practicing homosexual any more harshly than another person who has sinned, or to look on him or her with an attitude of condemnation, is a sin: we know from the gospels that no sexual sin is so terrible that it cannot be forgiven or healed (Eph. 2:3–5). Yet we also know that Jesus hates sin, even though he loves the sinner and wants to redeem him.

TO AFFIRM HOMOSEXUALITY IS TO DENY GOD’S CREATIVE INTENT.

Homosexual conduct is a sin. It is “against nature,” against God’s creative design, and it is a form of self-worship and idolatry (Rom. 1:26). As a sexual act between two people of the same gender it is the “very grievous” sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1–29).

In Leviticus 18:22–23, God calls homosexual intercourse an abomination: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” And in Leviticus 20:13 we read, “The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.” Let those who discount such prohibitions and warnings by explaining that we are now “no longer under the law, but under grace” then explain why incest, adultery, bestiality, and human sacrifice are not to be ignored. All of these are condemned in the very next sentences: “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”

The New Testament also condemns homosexuality. In Romans 1:26–28 Paul writes: Their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and their men in turn, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males and are paid in their persons the fitting wage of such perversion.

And in 1 Cor. 6:9–10 Paul writes: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Many people reinterpret these Scriptures as condemning only homosexual rape, promiscuity, and lustful or “unnatural” homosexual behavior by heterosexuals. They claim that what the Bible condemns is offensive homosexual (and heterosexual) behavior. But isn’t it clear that when Paul speaks of “homosexual offenders” he is speaking of the offense of homosexuality itself? If only “offensive” kinds of homosexual acts were evil, then what about the rest of what Paul mentions in the same passage: adultery, idolatry, and so forth?

What could be clearer than Paul’s words in Romans, where he calls homosexuality “sinful desire, sexual impurity” and says that it is “degrading and shameful”? Or his unmistakably sharp words against giving oneself over “to depravity”? (Rom. 1:24–28) Homosexual acts are always perverse, for they always distort God’s will for creation. They simply cannot be defended in any way by Scripture. And this is just as true when they take place in a “loving” lifelong relationship. Adulterous heterosexual affairs may also be felt to be loving and may be long-lasting, but that doesn’t make them right.

It is typical today to hear people complain about the injustice of holding homosexuals responsible for an orientation or even a way of life that they themselves did not necessarily choose. But this is only an excuse for sin. Whether or not homosexuals are responsible for their sexual orientation has no relevance as to the rightness or wrongness of their behavior. To explain behavior is one thing. To justify it is altogether different.

WHATEVER ITS ORIGIN OR KIND, SEXUAL TEMPTATION CAN BE OVERCOME.

The sexual urges of a homosexual can be acute, but so can those of anyone else. All of us are “naturally” predisposed to do what we should not do. But if we believe in God, we must also believe that he can give us the grace to overcome whatever struggles we may have to bear: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9–10).

In speaking out against homosexuality, we must always remember that even though Scripture condemns homosexual behavior, it never gives us license to condemn the people who engage in it. As Christians we certainly cannot condone the denial of any person’s basic human rights, for whatever reason. It is all too easy to forget that the Bible has much more to say about pride, greed, resentment, and self-righteousness than about homosexuality. Nevertheless, we will always resist the agenda of those who try to redefine homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle” – especially as it affects the legalization of same-sex marriages – as well as efforts to compel religious groups to accept practicing homosexuals as members and even ministers (1 Cor. 5:11).

It is also important to consider the difference between homosexual tendency or “orientation” and an active homosexual lifestyle. Whereas homosexual orientation can arise by means of psychological influences, social environment, and perhaps (according to some scientists) even genetic makeup, an active homosexual lifestyle is a matter of choice. To argue that our culture, family, or genes make us powerless to choose for or against sin is to deny the concept of free will.

Even as an orientation, homosexuality is an especially deep-rooted condition, and those who struggle with it deserve compassion and help. Therefore we always need to be ready to receive the homosexual man or woman into our fellowship and stand with him or her – in patience and love, though also with the clarity that refuses to tolerate continued sexual sinning. Above all, we need to remind those burdened with same-sex attraction of God’s original plan for creation, and help them see that neither man nor woman is truly complete without the other.

I have counseled many people who have struggled with homosexual temptations. Sometimes a person’s situation seems hopeless, but in my experience, even someone who has been ingrained in the “gay lifestyle” for a long time can be helped. Whether a struggling homosexual acts on his temptations or not, one thing remains the same: if he turns single-mindedly to Jesus, he can be helped and freed; if he is divided in the depth of his heart, even the most valiant efforts to resist temptation will cramp him in an inner way. Even a perverse glance shows that a person is not decided – and Jesus calls this “adultery” in the heart. Lasting freedom can be found only in decisiveness.

It is all the more important, therefore, that people who are not burdened by homosexuality try to understand the tremendous inner need of those who are. Their misplaced sexual desire often stems from an intense yearning for a genuinely loving connection with others. Many homosexuals have never known unconditional, accepting love from those of their own gender. In fatherless homes across our country, a void exists that is capable of inducing homosexual feelings in children. And in our culture, driven as it is by competition and the will to dominate, it is easy for some people to feel left out; they may turn to homosexuality as a result.

I have known Howard and his wife, Ann, ever since they joined our church two decades ago, yet it was not until recently that I fully understood the depth of Howard’s struggle. Abused as a child by his uncle, neglected by his workaholic father, and ridiculed by his peers for his lack of athletic ability, Howard grew up feeling misunderstood and out of place. He craved attention: from his father, other men, and boys his own age. By the time he was in his mid teens, he was homosexually active. While Howard does not blame his upbringing for choices he made later in life, his story should warn every parent of what can happen when children grow up without the support of a caring family.

But Howard’s story is more than a warning. It bears witness to Christ’s power to overcome darkness; to the importance of repentance; to the healing force of forgiveness; and to the joy that every one of us can know. He writes:

=================

When I was sixteen, I began to mess around with other boys. It wasn’t long before I allowed older men to “experiment” with me. These sexual experiences excited me, but they left me feeling very guilty. I was not able to open up to anyone about what I was going through. I even lied to my father when he confronted me directly and asked if I had such feelings.

By the time I turned twenty-one, I had done virtually every homosexual act possible. Nothing satisfied me. My encounters with other men were empty; I preferred to look at pictures and create my own fantasies. I never tried to come to terms with my attraction to men, excusing it as something I “couldn’t help.” Even when my insurance paid for psychotherapy because of work-related stress and anxiety, I did not tell the psychiatrist anything personal. I was convinced: there was no point talking to anyone; no one would understand me, and it wasn’t possible for me to change, anyway.

I married the first woman I had a sexual relationship with. Ann loved me and accepted what she knew of me. We talked about our personal feelings, but not until we’d been married over two years did I work up the courage to share my secret with her. Naturally, Ann responded with stunned surprise. She could not understand how it was possible. I told her about my childhood and about the thoughts and desires that burdened me. I made it clear to her that I wanted nothing to do with these things, and she accepted this and seemed to have hope that I could change. Even though I fell into casual encounters with other men on several more occasions, she continually forgave me.

Many homosexuals were “coming out of the closet” at that time, revealing their lifestyle to family and friends and trying to find acceptance. I dreaded this, because I was sure I would not be accepted. Actually, at heart I did not want acceptance; I wanted help to overcome my problem. Finally I told my story to a lay pastor whom I trusted. He helped me find the strength to declare my stand against homosexuality before a small group of people I knew and felt close to. They were at first shocked, but then also very supportive, knowing that they too had struggles. This was a beginning of my path to recovery. But only the beginning.

Later my wife and I joined the Bruderhof, a Christian community movement, sensing that we had arrived at a place where true healing could be found. To a degree this was true, but sometimes when I felt low and depressed, I would still give in to lustful thoughts and looks, which on several occasions nearly led me back into my old ways. Clearly I could never overcome my problems in my own strength. All the same, I kidded myself into believing I could, and convinced my wife I was doing okay. In the meantime, I was blocking out Jesus’ words about the lustful look. My conscience became duller and duller. My heart grew harder and harder.

Ann continued to trust me, and God gave us two sons. Yet in spite of these blessings, I sunk deeper and deeper. Then one day a friend discovered me looking at pornography. Though at first I tried to lie my way out, I finally found the courage to admit my sin, both before my wife and the brothers and sisters within my community. “Everyone” now knew, and I waited to be “run out of town.” But while no one condoned my behavior, I did not feel condemned. Men who I thought would be totally disgusted with me suddenly looked me squarely in the eyes with true, brotherly love. My hard heart began to melt...

My wife and I separated for several weeks so that I could find my true bearings again. During this time Ann stood faithfully by her commitment to the church and to me. She told me later, “When we married, I had no idea what we might face in the future. We promised to remain faithful – come hell or high water – to God, to the church, and to each other. We had no idea what we were promising, but I know this is what protected us. This is what led us together again.”

Ann was right, of course. It was only through God’s grace that I was able to recognize how badly I needed to come completely clean, to open up my heart wider than I ever had before, and to set straight every single wrong act or ingrained attitude from the past. I saw how my own selfishness lay at the root of my problem. Bit by bit, I felt my bondage to darkness breaking.

As my repentance deepened, my heart grew lighter, my mind freer. Finally, I moved back in with my wife and children. Now we are closer as a family than we ever have been. And the curse I have lived with all my life has been transformed into a deep joy. Christ has given me the gift of a clear conscience – there is no greater gift. It gives me courage to face anything that might come in the future. I know I will be tempted for the rest of my life, but I also know that there is always a way through. I can receive help beyond my own strength.

=================

True freedom is possible for every man and woman, and it is up to us to believe this (Gal. 5:1). Howard and Ann’s story should remind us not to pretend that victory is easy. It may not be. For every person who is granted healing, there are dozens more who have to struggle with temptations for years, some for the rest of their lives. Yet is it any different for the rest of us? There cannot be many Christians who have not longed and prayed, seemingly without result, for deliverance from some besetting sin. But we should never doubt that since each of us is created in God’s image, there is hope for healing and restoration for each of us (Heb. 9:14). Ultimately, Christ will free us if we give ourselves to him.

________

Excerpted from Sex, God, and Marriage, available FREE in e-book format at: http://www.bruderhof.com/e-books/SexGodMarriage.htm

Two days before Christmas 2020, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries confirmed that its founder had engaged in sexual misconduct over the course of many years and promised further information when the investigation into the matter was complete. Late Thursday afternoon, RZIM released the full report as they had received it, along with an extended, contrite statement of apology.

Ravi was a significant personal influence and a great friend of the Colson Center. When Ravi died in May of last year, we honored him. At the time, both Ravi and RZIM leadership claimed that allegations of an inappropriate relationship had been dismissed and disproven after a thorough investigation. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I both believed and shared excuses that explained Ravi’s behavior. By doing that, I was wrong and misled others. To be clear, no one at the Colson Center had any sense just how much would be revealed in this final report. But I wish I had not been so quick to trust what I wanted to be true.

There is no sugar-coating, excusing, or explaining away Ravi’s behavior. It was sinful. It was wicked. And, as this report made crystal clear, it was duplicitous. Reading through it, I couldn’t shake the words I heard time and time again from Chuck Colson: “There is no limit to the human capacity for self-rationalization.”

That’s why Proverbs uses the word “folly” to describe sin. As a mentor of mine used to say, sin makes us dumb. Buried in sin, we become fools, actually convincing ourselves that, for the first time in human history, we will be the ones to get away with it.

As sin takes us deeper than we ever imagined possible, others are dragged along into our self-deception. Sin always leaves other victims, human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died. The number of women Ravi abused, and the degree to which he deceived them, is breath-taking. RZIM has committed to make restitution and care for these women. I hope and pray they will. And there are other victims to remember: family members, friends, and the many disillusioned others around the world.

Recently, a BreakPoint listener emailed us asking how we should respond to cases like this, when a Christian leader or teacher is caught in sexual misconduct. Is it possible to separate the good that they’ve done and the truth they’ve taught, the person and their sin? What about in cases such as this, when the perpetrator is gone and has no further opportunity to acknowledge his sins, repent, and seek forgiveness?

We need not deny that Ravi’s teaching helped many Christians make sense of the Faith, deal with their doubts, and engage other people with the Gospel, in order to acknowledge the depth of his depraved behavior. As my colleague Shane Morris pointed out a few weeks ago, no one is “made of finer clay” than anyone else. As St. Paul wrote, “There is none righteous, no not one.”

It’s also important to remember, to borrow a phrase popularized by Christian educator Arthur Holmes, “all truth is God’s truth.” In other words, if Ravi Zacharias ever said anything true in his life, and of course he did, he was not its source but only its medium. Any truth – all truth – comes ultimately from God, outside of time or place or context. Even if delivered by the most sinful voices, truth is as eternal and unchanging as God Himself.

A postmodern worldview, in contrast, relativizes truth to cultural settings or individuals. In other words, truth is not absolute. But, if truth is dependent on the shifting sands of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions of a culture or an individual, anything we build on it must collapse when any of those things do.

Of course, knowing that doesn’t make what’s happened any less painful, disorienting, or consequential, especially for all those women involved. Having talent, even amazing talent, to communicate does not give one a divine right or inherent privilege (and it is an incredible privilege) to have or to keep a public platform. Scripture is clear: teachers are stewards of the truth, and therefore held to a higher standard.

This is not the same thing as cancel culture, which is so popular in our time. Cancel culture cancels people because of their different beliefs. This is about behavior; this is about reprehensible behavior that deeply harmed other people.

Finally, let this be a reminder to not trust ourselves, but only God and His Spirit. Pray for your pastor, church leaders, spouse, and whomever else God has put in your life. We need His protection from the real and ever-present temptations, as well as from our own capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize our behavior.

Resources

“Update from RZIM Board: Allegations Against Ravi Zacharias,” RZIM, December 23, 2020.

“Report of Independent Investigation into Sexual Misconduct of Ravi Zacharias,” by Miller & Martin PLLC, February 9, 2021.

________

Copyright (c) 2021 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The greatest danger of sexual sin is not the physical or emotional consequences, but the spiritual ones, a Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary ethicist writes in the seminary’s academic journal, Faith & Mission.

“Sexual sin is a manifestation of rebellion against God and will have a negative impact on the relationship between believer and God,” writes David Jones, assistant professor of Christian Ethics in his article “The Asperity of Sexual Sin.”

“Therefore,” he continues, “believers must be vigilant in personally avoiding sexual sins and in both confronting and ministering to those among whom they minister who have fallen into sexual transgressions.”

Jones argues that numerous passages of Scripture, as well as a theological understanding of the nature of man as a physical and spiritual creature, point the way toward a “sexual-spiritual nexus,” or close connection between sexuality and spirituality.

Also, Romans 1:21-28, among many other passages of Scripture, teach clearly that God’s passive judgment falls on those engaged in sexual sins.

“The connection between sexuality and spirituality presented in this passage is self-evident; when men and women deny God and fail to worship Him, He passes judgment by allowing them to gratify their own corrupt sexual desires,” Jones said. “The equation, then, is clear: spiritual sin results in sexual perversion.”

Jones ultimately argues that there are two clear biblical paradigms that point the way toward understanding this sexual-spiritual bond. The first is that since sexual sin is committed using one’s body, it inevitably affects one’s relationship with God because the believer’s body is a temple of the Spirit. The second paradigm is the analogy made in Scripture between sex in marriage -– in other words, the “one-flesh union” -– and the relationship of Christ and His bride, the church.

“Sexual intercourse, when engaged in according to God’s plan, is spiritual in that it pictures, by way of analogy, the Christ/church relationship,” Jones said.

Jones concludes his article by noting that since there is such a close connection between sexuality and spirituality, the spiritual consequences of sin, like alienation from God, outweigh even the physical consequences like disease and the emotional consequences of damaged human relationships.

*

The question remains, how did all this happen? As already noted, the sexual revolution did not emerge in a vacuum. Modern societies created a context for moral revolution that had never been available in intellectual terms before. In other words, certain cultural conditions had to prevail in order for the revolution to get the traction it needed to succeed. One of the things we need to note is that we are looking at an explicitly cosmopolitan revolution.

Urbanization, Technology, and the Weakening of the Family

Modernity and modernization brought urbanization such that increased numbers of people were now living in cities, and the cities shaped the culture. As odd as it may seem, even as the city is a concentration of human beings, it actually offers an unprecedented opportunity for anonymity. Many observers of the sexual revolution point to the fact that, from the very beginning, this was a cosmopolitan revolution — emerging first in cities and then spreading out to the rest of the culture.

This same period also saw the weakening of the family unit, as new moral voices emerged as both attractive and authoritative in the lives of modern people. For some younger Americans, this meant that arrival on the college campus would present the professor in the classroom as a clear alternative to the morality that had been taught by parents in the home. This was true as early as the 1930s and the 1940s and is now understood to be the expectation on American college and university campuses. At the same time, the secularization of these societies and institutions meant that Christianity and its authorities, including the Bible and its teachers, would be relegated to voices with less and less authority and cultural traction as secularization worked its way through the larger culture.

Technological advances also fueled the sexual revolution. Pornographers, for example, have taken advantage of every new technology from the printing press to the latest digital advances. Of course, the most technological achievement for the new sexual morality was the arrival of contraceptives and antibiotics. Put bluntly, so long as sex between a man and a woman implied the likelihood of pregnancy, there was a certain check on extramarital sexual activity. Once the Pill arrived, with all of its promises of reproductive control, a biological check on sexual immorality that had shaped human existence from Adam and Eve forward was almost instantaneously removed. The sexual revolution could not have taken place without the arrival of effective, cheap, and available contraceptives.

Whereas many scholars recognize the importance of new contraceptive technology in the sexual revolution, fewer scholars have noted that the sexual revolution would not have progressed at the same speed without the emergence of antibiotics. This is due to the fact that one major check on sexual immorality throughout human history has been disease. As Emory University economist Andrew Francis has observed: “It’s a common assumption that the sexual revolution began with the permissive attitudes of the 1960s and the development of contraceptives like the birth control pill. The evidence, however, strongly indicates that the widespread use of penicillin, leading to a rapid decline of syphilis during the 1950s, is what launched the modern sexual era.”[1] That is a very important observation. As a review of medical literature will reveal, the vast reduction in the cases of syphilis that were recorded in the 1950s indicate, not that Americans were engaged in less sexual immorality, but that they now were aided and abetted by penicillin, removing the horrifying effects of syphilis from the moral equation. Clearly we do not want to go back to an age without antibiotics. We are thankful for lifesaving drugs and medical technologies. We certainly do not reject all that modernity has brought. At the same time, Christians must recognize that every new technology brings new ethical and moral challenges — and often unintended consequences as well.

Science and The Sexual Revolution

The sexual revolution could also not have taken place without the fundamental intellectual change that would lead Americans to believe that a revolution in sexual morality was inevitable and right. One of the major assists in making this argument was the arrival of “experts” on sexuality who argued that science would prove the need for a revolution in morality. The most important figure in this aspect of the revolution was Alfred C. Kinsey. In two books, Sexual Behavior In The Human Male and Sexual Behavior in The Human Female, published in 1948 and 1953 respectively, Kinsey became one of the major agents of moral revolution.[2]

As we now know, Kinsey’s research was fraudulent from the start. For one thing, he drew his research sample from those who eagerly volunteered for his studies, including a sizable percentage of men in prisons. No credible researcher would give any credence whatsoever to the statistical claims Kinsey made concerning sexual behavior, but the media does. Nevertheless, the actual text of Kinsey’s book was far less important to the sexual revolutionaries than its cultural effect. Those who read the book carefully would have come to the horrifying recognition that Kinsey was tilting his research towards the population most likely to be living outside of what both Christianity and the larger society understood to be proper sexuality. Even worse, his book actually included data that could only have been drawn from the sexual abuse of children.[3]

Among the Theologians

Yet, even as many Christian churches continued to maintain the clear teachings of Scripture, and even as many pastors and theologians defended the Christian moral tradition and biblical authority, there were those within institutional Christianity who did everything possible to join the sexual revolution. The sexual revolutionaries found great assistance in the form of Joseph Fletcher and his book, Situation Ethics, published in 1966. Fletcher, who at one time was professor of Christian Social Ethics at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the dean of St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in Cincinnati, argued for a new understanding of Christian ethics that he called “situation ethics.” According to Fletcher, “The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so.”[4]

Thus, Fletcher argued that the Bible and Christian sexual morality could serve as a guide to decision-making, but that all of the Bible’s teachings should be set aside if, in his words, “love seems better served by doing so.” In 1970, Fletcher told a group of Christian ethicists, “I am prepared to argue in the utmost seriousness that Christian obligation calls for lies and adultery and fornication and theft and promise breaking and killing — sometimes, depending on the situation." Fletcher’s clearly left his own indelible mark in liberal protestant theology. But so did others such as Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr.

John A.T. Robinson, an unbelieving bishop of the Church of England, in his book Honest to God similarly continued this revolution. Harvey Cox of the Harvard Divinity School, famous for his book, The Secular City, said simply, “We must avoid giving a simple yes or no answer to the question of premarital chastity.”[5] Well, as any parent or pastor well understands, if you can’t give a simple yes or no answer, the answer is yes.

The Withering of Vice

Philosopher Philip Kitcher makes the very important observation that the sexual revolution could not have happened without what he calls “the withering of vice.”[6] What Kitcher also understands is that the withering of vice could not have happened without the withering of theism that came before.

The modern or postmodern quest for sexual emancipation cannot be neutral when it comes to the teachings of the Bible and the moral witness of historic Christianity. It must not only be revised, as was the claim at the midpoint of the twentieth century and even into the 1960’s, it must be supplanted.

In terms of understanding the challenge we now face I began my most recent book, We Must Not Be Silent with a quotation from Flannery O’ Conner who says, “push back against the age as hard as it pushes against you.” To understand what we are up against is at least part of the problem, part of the challenge. To understand the roots of the moral revolution requires some very careful thinking and the acknowledgment that the sexual revolution could not have happened without secularization and that secularization could not have progressed without producing the sexual revolution.

________

This post is the final in a four part series on Secularization and the Sexual Revolution.

Article Citations

[1] Emory University, “Penicillin, not the pill, may have launched the sexual revolution,” ScienceDaily, January 28, 2013, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130128082906.htm/.

[2] Alfred C. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior In The Human Male (New York: Ishi Press, 2010), and Sexual Behavior In The Human Female (New York: Ishi Press, 2010). Also see chapter concerning Kinsey in R. Albert Mohler Jr., Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2008), 103–112.

[3] Sue Ellin Browder, “Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution.” Crisis Magazine, May 28, 2012, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/kinseys-secret-the-phony-science-of-the-sexual-revolution/.

[4] Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 26.

[5] “The New Protestant Debate Over Sex,” Redbook, October 1964, 56–57, 104–106.

[6] Philip Kitcher, The Ethical Project (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 162.

In a recent WASHINGTON POST story about Abdul Rahman, the Afghan whose Christian conversion almost earned him a death penalty, reporter Pamela Constable wrote that Afghans are grateful to the United States for its economic support. But, she added, many Afghans “remain leery of Western values and associate Christianity with fornication and drunkenness.”

Clearly, Afghans link Christianity with America, and link America with decadence. But why would they do that?

Well, let's see. In the news this week, we have stories of Duke University lacrosse players accused of getting drunk and raping an exotic dancer. Pictures of two unmarried and very pregnant American actresses, Angelina Jolie and Katie Holmes, have been splashed across the tabloids. A DVD about homosexual lovers, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, is selling briskly. Meanwhile, our lawmakers continue to discuss legalizing gay “marriage” and even polygamy. And gambling interests continue to buy political favors.

Decadent? Us? Now, why would Muslims think that?

The story about the Afghans is a sobering reminder that the Muslim world watches everything America does — and often resents our influence. Especially do they resent the pornography, lewd music, and trashy films that make their way into Muslim homes.

Well, I resent them too. We know what damage pornography does to those who consume it, and it leads to crimes against women and children. We know that kids are better off in married families, and we know, from the evidence coming out of Scandinavia, that same-sex “marriage” destroys traditional marriage.

This is why we ought to continue fighting the culture war — restricting pornography and protecting marriage — because to do so is good for our society. But fighting these battles will help us in another way, as well.

As Charles Krauthammer noted in TOWNHALL.COM, one of the reasons Islam is fighting “the great jihad” against America has to do with sexual depravity. The jihadists claim that wherever freedom travels — “especially in America and Europe — it brings sexual license and corruption, decadence and depravity.”

This is what so affected Sayyid Qutb, whose radical writings I've talked about earlier on this program and whose teachings influenced Osama bin Laden. Jihadists, like bin Laden, view themselves as holy warriors fighting a holy war against Western decadence.

Now, we have got to be careful not to blame innocent Americans for murderous attacks against them. At the same time, we need to understand how America's increasing decadence is helping Islamic fanatics recruit more foot soldiers. No, of course I'm not suggesting that we try to accommodate or adopt Islamic beliefs about sexuality and women. I am saying, however, that we ought to realize and help our neighbors realize that living up to the tenets of our own faith, and the tenets of Western civilization, will take away one of radical Islam's best weapons.

And at the same time we would be helping Christian missionaries to win the hearts of Muslims around the world. Muslims, who, not surprisingly, associate the Christian West with drunkenness and fornication, want nothing to do with our Gospel, as we've discovered in our work in the prisons. So I say it's time for us to get smart and to do good at the same time.

________

This is Part Three in a four-part series on Islam.

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Sermon in a series on Proverbs. Proverbs 25:28

IN CONTROL FROM THE TOP DOWN

============================

I. Are you in the driver's seat?

II. Control Your Brain - Alcohol.

A. Affects of drinking.

1) Associated with antisocial behavior. 20:1

2) Dulls the senses. 23:21

3) Poisons over the long term. 23:32

B. Baptists and booze.

1) Traditionally, we have preaching abstinence.

2) Does the Bible condemn alcohol?

3) The Bible's alternative. Ephesians 5:18

III. Control Your Mouth - Words.

A. Keep them few. 10:19, 11:12

B. Keep them positive. 12:18, 16:24

C. Keep them true. 26:28

IV. Control Your Heart - Temper.

A. Rage is a big problem these days. 30:33

B. Use self-control to make your point. 16:32

V. Control Your Loins - Sex.

A. Proverbs gives more advice here than any other area.

B. What sex outside of marriage forgets to consider.

C. Sex has power.

VI. Control Your Feet - Peers.

A. Who do you walk with?

B. Quality matters more than quantity. 18:24

VII. Self-control molds us into the people God wants us to be.

A study conducted by Duke University that examined the lives of its women students portrayed college life as a soul-deadening, booze-fueled marathon of sexual predation:

Students rarely go on formal dates but instead attend

parties in large groups, followed by “hook-ups” –

unplanned sexual encounters typically fueled by alcohol.

Men and women agreed the double standard persists: men

gain status through sexual activity while women lose

status.

Anthropologist Elizabeth Chin wrote: “The whole hookup thing is, you get really drunk so that, at some level, you can’t be responsible. And then you hook up and then there’s no obligation. It’s bad manners, in fact, to sort of get emotionally connected to the person. But I don’t think any of them like it that much. . . . It’s dehumanizing. And it’s very alienating. It’s sort of like they have to deaden themselves before they can go do it.”

It has become one of the predictable spectacles in American public life: a disgraced politician, apologizing for some adulterous shenanigans before a phalanx of microphones, with his grim-faced wife stationed at his side. Europeans are famously baffled by the custom, and ask why we insist on making a career-busting issue out of the love lives of our leaders. Even those Americans who write the whole thing off to our Puritan heritage can’t quite figure out why some icons of the political right are forgiven their trespasses -- like Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana -- while others -- say, former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida -- go down in flames. Even when it comes to their own church leaders, religious conservatives seem so unpredictable. Both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were caught fooling around with women who were not their wives, but Swaggart was embraced while Bakker was jettisoned.

Susan Wise Bauer’s “The Art of the Public Grovel: Sexual Sin and Public Confession in America” offers an answer to these conundrums and a canny analysis of American political symbolism. She examines several scandals involving politicians and church leaders, dating back to Grover Cleveland’s 1884 presidential campaign (plagued by rumors that he’d fathered an illegitimate child) and the month-long disappearance of evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson (suspected of having run off with a married man) in 1926. Some politicians, like Ted Kennedy, never quite managed to shake the taint of their scandals. Others, like Bill Clinton, emerged from the media circus more popular than ever. Bakker’s multimillion-dollar PTL ministries enterprise was destroyed. Swaggart was back in the pulpit three months later. Jimmy Carter almost scuttled his first presidential campaign simply by admitting to a magazine journalist that he’d “committed adultery in my heart” (without actually doing anything about it!), and Bernard Cardinal Law was forced to resign because of his inadequate response to child sexual abuse perpetrated by the priests in his charge. As Bauer sees it, the leaders who survive are the ones who have mastered the art of public confession.

“At the end of the 20th century,” Bauer writes, “Americans increasingly expected their erring leaders to publicly admit to their sin and ask forgiveness.” The roots of this expectation lie in the rituals of evangelical Protestantism and the practice (familiar to everyone from movies and television ministries) of hauling your sorry self to the front of the congregation, proclaiming your sinful ways to the gathered faithful, humbly begging for God’s pardon and promising to follow a righteous path in the future. A version of this performance has become de rigueur for straying leaders because of what Bauer regards as “the essential likeness between American democracy and American evangelicalism.” The two institutions “share the resemblance not merely of first cousins, but of full siblings.”

Horrifying as this notion may be to secular Americans, as Bauer delineates the resemblance, it’s not all bad. Its intentions are essentially egalitarian. Confession is a central tenet of Christianity, of course, but public confession has become important in certain Protestant churches because it’s meant to keep the prideful, and especially the powerful, in line. It is a way of making rulers accountable to their followers, of reminding them that they lead only with the consent of the led. “We both idolize and hate our leaders,” Bauer writes in a particularly psychosocial passage from “The Art of the Public Grovel.” “We need and resent them; we want to submit, but only once we are reassured that the person to whom we submit is no better than we are. Behind the demand that leaders publicly confess their sins is our fear that we will be overwhelmed by their power.” The leader who effectively admits his weakness, whether before the electorate or his congregation, is assuaging that fear by demonstrating that he does not regard himself as superior or innately entitled to boss his followers around.

It’s almost always a sexual transgression that prompts this type of confession, and the culprit is invariably male. That’s partly because most American leaders are men, but Bauer feels that a potent, if unconscious metaphor is also at work. The accusation of “predatory sexual behavior” (typically associated with men) arouses acute anxiety in followers, causing them to “fear that they would be deceived and exploited” in other ways “by those to whom they had willingly granted power.” If the president can’t be trusted with the daughters we send to Washington to work as interns, if the preacher tries to seduce the church secretary in a hotel room, who’s to say that these men won’t also take advantage of the whole electorate or congregation, using the authority we have invested in them for their own personal gain?

When an evangelical leader gets into this kind of trouble -- Swaggart’s motel room tryst with a prostitute or, more recently, Ted Haggard’s drug-fueled cavortings with a callboy -- skeptics often marvel that the faithful aren’t more shaken by the news. How can they not see that self-righteous fulminating over fornication or homosexuality betrays an unusually keen interest in the same? Isn’t it obvious that Swaggart is a horn dog and Haggard a closet case? To ask such questions is to fail to grasp the Manichean drama of the evangelical mind-set, in which every Christian must submit and secure his soul for salvation over and over again (hence the popularity of revival meetings among those who already believe). Evangelicals -- or, as Bauer calls the more recently politicized variety, neoevangelicals -- view each soul as a battleground in which the forces of good wrestle with the forces of evil. “There is a part of my life so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life,” Haggard told his congregation when he resigned his pulpit. “The public person I was wasn’t a lie; it was just incomplete.”

Most evangelicals can identify with such struggles, although their own demons may be gambling or booze instead of hookers. And they know that on occasion, even within the most devout soul, the good side will lose, if only temporarily. Instead of undermining a preacher’s appeal, such backsliding, if properly confessed and repented, humanizes a leader. To a working-class flock that harbors a constitutional mistrust of “elites” who think they’re “better than us,” an incident like this assures them that the man in charge understands their own fight to remain on the path of virtue. Furthermore, in recent decades evangelicals have come to see society at large as the site of an ongoing contest between good and evil; it is a mirror of the conflict within the individual Christian’s soul, and every soul won for Jesus brings the world that much closer to the Second Coming. The leader who has spectacularly gotten himself back on track with God is also demonstrating to his followers and everybody which side he’s on.

To pull this off, the sinner in question must expertly handle the argot and iconography of his scandal. It helps to have a working familiarity with evangelical Christianity and its precepts. Ted Kennedy, for example, clung to the notion that his confession, and any penance he did to atone for his sins, were private matters, as confession is in the Roman Catholic faith. Many observers in the press and public complained that Kennedy never gave a satisfactory account of the Chappaquiddick incident, an accident in which a young girl riding in Kennedy’s car was drowned. By this they don’t mean that Kennedy withheld some fact about the case; rather, according to Bauer, what they missed was a true admission of moral responsibility and guilt. Perhaps Kennedy’s confessor assured him that because he had no intention of sinning, he was not guilty of sin (true according to Catholic doctrine), but the public still worried about exactly how culpable he was. What the people really wanted, Bauer believes, is for Kennedy to accept blame openly, in which case they might well have been willing to forgive him. Kennedy, however, kept the world out of his personal reckoning of the incident.

Kennedy also made several symbolic gaffes. His public statement about the accident was filmed against a background of leather-bound lawbooks, and he referred several times to his family, including, regrettably, their annual participation in the Edgartown Sailing Regatta. He appeared to be surrounded by lawyers (rather than clergymen) when dealing with the aftermath of the accident. All this contributed to the image of a man who relied on wealth and family connections to shield him from the consequences of his actions.

Bauer regards Clinton’s handling of the Monica Lewinsky scandal as a textbook case in defusing such crises. Initially, he did react badly, with exactly the sort of denials, evasions and stonewalling that, in Bauer’s eyes, characterize the worst possible response. Then, seven months after the story broke, he abruptly changed strategy. He “pulled out every repentant stop,” taping televised statements to the public and expressing great contrition and humility at a multidenominational White House prayer breakfast stocked with theologically conservative but politically sympathetic ministers. Before the assembled clergy he acknowledged, “I have sinned.” One attendee later compared Clinton to King David repenting of his adulterous lust for Bathsheba, and spoke of “this man who opened his heart and acknowledged his realization of his sin.” Hearing that from the mouth of an obviously pious church figure (instead of a lawyer) convinced many that Clinton’s contrition was genuine. The president also announced that he would conduct his reformation under the guidance of an “accountability group,” a common practice among neoevangelical men, thereby disarming many critics from the religious right.

To avoid seeming sexually predatory, Clinton carefully refrained from personally disparaging Lewinsky. Nevertheless, as Bauer points out, Clinton’s allies managed to dig up past lovers and colleagues who could testify that Lewinsky talked constantly about sex and had set her cap for the president even before she got to the White House. Still, instead of attempting to paint himself as the victim of a scheming woman -- often the first impulse of a man in his position -- Clinton was able to point to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and the forces behind him as the real persecutors of both Lewinsky and himself. Even the president’s notorious verbal equivocations about the affair were excused by many members of the public, who saw him trying to escape self-incrimination in the context of a legal witch hunt.

Bauer insists that although the public mostly didn’t want to see Clinton prosecuted or impeached for the wrongs he committed, it still demanded that he be called to account in other ways. Here, she makes an important distinction between legal confession and what she calls “Augustinian” confession. Augustinian confession, the kind practiced with “almost picture-perfect” skill by Haggard as well as Clinton, involves one part of the man indicted by the other, the weak and sinning aspect of his personality reprimanded and shamed by the portion of him that belongs to God. It’s a vision of Christian moral struggle that originates with St. Augustine and his “Confessions,” and Bauer writes that it is “so widely valued because it demonstrates a certain idealized view of the human self: the self as freely deciding, free in will, and essentially independent from the surrounding legal system.” In a legal confession, on the other hand, the individual is compelled to incriminate himself in the face of an overwhelming outside power, the state. In such cases, the public’s sympathies often lean toward the individual, especially when those people are already mistrustful of centralized power, like many Southern white evangelicals.

No wonder Clinton made many among the religious right so apoplectic! He co-opted their Southern-fried piety with the prayer breakfast and accountability group. He skillfully deployed the rhetoric of evangelical confession, having grown up with it as a Baptist. He pulled their anti-big-government carpet out from under them by casting their legal attack dog and the architects of the impeachment trial as vengeful, self-serving wielders of federal authority. His supporters were even (and Bauer doesn’t make enough of this point) able to cast Lewinsky -- and by extension Clinton himself -- as the victim of a decadent Beverly Hills lifestyle that left her a child of divorce and a desperate seeker of sexual attention from powerful men. The religious right was left to fulminate at the public’s “insufficient” outrage over the whole mess. “His success in this was so extraordinary,” Bauer writes in awe, “that he led his opponents into placing themselves as a moral elite sitting in judgment over the American people.”

It would be a mistake, Bauer cautions, to assume as some have that the failure of Clinton’s impeachment represented “an example of the public upholding the division of private from public morality.” To the contrary, Clinton’s triumph was the result of “a leader successfully demonstrating his own humility and equality with the electorate by admitting to and apologizing for his moral errors.” And the theater of such admissions must be expertly staged. When Carter confessed to the occasional extramarital desire during his 1976 presidential campaign, he made the mistake of doing so in an interview with Playboy magazine and of using a mild vulgarity, the word “screw.” Carter was trying to assure Playboy’s readers that he was not going to conduct a self-righteous crusade against THEIR cherished freedoms, but when the statements went national, he was perceived by social conservatives as catering to the wrong side in the culture wars, which are seen as a manifestation of the holy war for America’s soul.

Although evangelicals are only a minority of the electorate, Bauer traces the dissemination of the rites of evangelical confession to other denominations and the culture at large through radio and TV therapists and the talk show boom of the 1980s. Phil Donahue, coaxing personal revelations out of his guests and roaming the aisles with a microphone to draw reactions from audience members, resembled nothing so much as a preacher in a revival tent calling on his flock to testify. Oprah Winfrey has mastered the form by making confessions of her own weight, addiction and relationship troubles a part of the secular redemption promised by her show. Yet, mystifyingly, Bauer never mentions the ubiquity of 12-step programs as another quasi-secular manifestation of the same social trend. The American faith in the curative power of standing in front of a crowd, freely admitting your own misdeeds and weakness, surely reaches its fullest and purest flower in that context.

You can see the insistence on public confession as an intolerable invasion of privacy or as a laudable call for accountability; Bauer avoids taking any such position herself. (Despite its colorful title, “The Art of the Public Grovel” is not a polemical book.) Cardinal Law, for example, was unable to hold on to his office when he failed to satisfy demands from American Catholics that he (and by extension the church itself) publicly repent of his involvement in covering up sexual abuse perpetrated by priests. Bauer sees the rebellion of the lay community over this controversy as an example of the “Protestantization” of American Catholics. The expectation that church leaders humble themselves by admitting their trespasses before their congregations runs radically counter to the history and practice of the Catholic hierarchy. “Power within the Catholic Church,” Bauer observes dryly of the Vatican’s astonishment over such demands, “had never been located in the pews.”

If even a cardinal can’t get away with swathing himself in the force field of his rank, certainly no elected official can hope to, either. “Scandal-marked politicians,” Bauer writes, “cannot preserve a dignified silence; they must prove, through humble confession, that they are willing to acknowledge the power of the voters at whose pleasure they serve.” (And if planning to make just such a confession, they could do a lot worse than study this book.) What are missing, of course, are voters capable of marshaling that power to better effect, a public who insists on not just symbolic accountability for the sins of sexual transgression, but meaningful accountability for the graver sin of abusing the people’s trust. The possibility that Americans will ever call THEMSELVES to account for their sins of omission in this department seems remote. I’d bet on the Second Coming arriving before that happens.

________

Reuters/Win McNamee