**Additional resources for this class are found HERE.
1.
Hear these words from Jesus…
a.
Luke 9.23-26
23And he was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come
after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24For whoever wishes to save
his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he is the one
who will save it. 25For
what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits
himself? 26For whoever
is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he
comes in his glory, and the glory
of the Father and of the holy angels.”
b.
John 6.66-69
66As a result of this many of his disciples withdrew and were
not walking with him anymore. 67So
Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered him,
“Lord, to whom shall we go? You
have the words of eternal life. 69We
have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
c.
Jesus’ call to discipleship is comprehensive and
costly à
He is Lord!
d.
Jesus says difficult things; challenging things
2.
Pastor Sean: last week’s sermon which mentioned
slavery
a.
We want to be faithful to Scripture
b.
We need to wrestle with difficult topics
c.
We want to process this topic today together
3.
Review of first two weeks
a.
Week one: Importance of the physical body
i. 1
Corinthians 6.12-20
ii. God
& the Gospel interface with the physical body
b.
Week two: 3 roller coasters
i. Creation,
Fall, Redemption, Restoration à
and the body
ii. Nancy
Pearcey’s ideas regarding body/mind split
1.
Christian: Body has a teleology
2.
Naturalism: No teleology
“If the
human body has no intrinsic purpose, built in by God, then all that matters are
human purposes. The body is
reduced to a clump of matter—a collection of atoms and molecules, not
essentially different from any other chance configuration of matter. It is raw material to be manipulated
and controlled to serve the human agenda, like any other natural resource.”[1]
3.
Hookup culture as a manifestation of this
denigration of the body
4.
Jesus and sexual ethics
a.
Matthew 19.4-6 à
Jesus points to Gen 1.27 and 2.24 for marriage
i. Bodily:
we are created as material beings
ii. Gendered:
created male and female
iii. Language
of “leave” and “cleave” (“be joined”—NASB; “hold fast--ESV)
1.
“The Hebrew word translated ‘cleave,’ ‘dabaq,’ is a very interesting way of
describing the sexual embrace, for it brings together two meanings of the same
word. On the one hand, this word
means to cling physically to something.
This word is used when a person’s tongues clings to the roof of his or
her mouth (Psalm 137:6) or when a man’s hand clings to his sword in battle (2
Samuel 23:10). On the other hand,
this word is used to describe the tight bonds of loyalty and affection. During a time of intense uncertainty
and fear, King David’s army was described as clinging to him (2 Samuel
20:2). Clearly, this word is
describing deep, heartfelt commitments of loyalty and affection that endured
through good and bad times.”[2]
2.
“When Adam and Eve were clinging to each other,
this was not a sign and seal of their
relationship with God. However, on
a human, interpersonal level, it was a sacramental action signing and sealing a
covenantal bond. Their ‘clinging’
to each other was both the sexual embrace and the bonded relationship
symbolized and confirmed by the sexual embrace… Stated differently, more
psychologically, sexual intercourse communicates much of the marriage covenant
and vow in a nonverbal and symbolic manner. Because of the way we were created, sex is one of our
strongest forms of nonverbal communication; sex is a promise of affection and
loyalty, not only to each other but also to the children who may result from
the relationship. The physical
union is a sign of a more comprehensive union, including spiritual, emotional,
and social aspects of life.”[3]
iv. Ordered
toward reproduction
v. Covenantal:
Proverbs 2.17; Malachi 2.14; Ezekiel 16.8
1.
“Thus a covenant is not like a human contract
that can be dissolved with little or no sanction. The covenant of marriage is a union which God himself
witnesses and ratifies.”[4]
2.
“The sanctions following breach of covenant are
not merely human but divine. In
marriage a man and a woman make a public agreement (or covenant) to live
together in a sexual and social union until death parts them. To this agreement God stands
witness. He is present when the
covenant is made (and this has nothing to do with whether or not there is any
ecclesiastical context for the vows, for this is irrelevant). His presence at all marriages means
that he will hold each party accountable to him for the keeping of these
vows. He places the whole weight
of divine presence in support of the vows and in judgment on any who threaten
or break them.”[5]
b.
Mark 7.20-23
20And he was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that
is what defiles the man. 21For
from within out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications,
thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as
well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23All these evil things
proceed from within and defile the man.”[6]
i. “No
first-century Jew could have spoken of porneai
(sexual immoralities) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual
offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20, particularly incest, adultery, same-sex
intercourse, and bestiality.”[7]
ii. “On sexual
matters, Jesus and the Essenes tend in the same direction: stringent standards
and prohibitions… In a sense, one could call both Jesus and the Essenes extreme
conservatives … apart from the two special cases of divorce and celibacy, where
he diverged from mainstream Judaism, his views were those of
mainstream Judaism. Hence there was no pressing need for him to
issue or for the earliest Christian Jews to enshrine moral pronouncements about
matters on which all Law-abiding Jews agreed. If almost all
Jews agreed that acts of fornication and adultery were wrong, there was no
reason for Jesus, who shared these views (see, e.g., Mark 7:21-22; Luke 16:18)
to exegete the obvious.”[8]
c.
Jesus and the 10 Commandments: Mark 10.17-22
i. Seventh
commandment: “You shall not commit adultery.”
ii. “It
was common in early Judaism to regard the Ten Commandments as containing the
broad headings for the laws in the Pentateuch. Philo, for example, treated the sex laws in the Bible, including the proscriptions of
male-male intercourse, under the commandment about adultery (Special Laws 3.1-82). Since the seventh commandment aims at
the preservation of the man-woman marital bond and none other, any instance of
sexual intercourse outside that bond would be precluded as a matter of course. Jesus too would have viewed this
commandment as presupposing the sole legitimacy of heterosexual marriage.”[9]
d.
“Given these implicit rejections, the reason
that Jesus did not speak explicitly against same-sex intercourse is obviously
the same reason why he did not speak explicitly against incest and bestiality:
(1) the position of the Hebrew Bible on such matters was so unequivocal and
visceral, and (2) the stance of early Judaism was so undivided, with (3) the
incidence of concrete violations so rare, that nothing more needed to be
said. There was no reason for him
to spend time addressing issues that were not points of contention and on which
he had no dissenting view. Jesus
could turn his attention to sexual issues that were problems in his society:
the threat posed by divorce and by sexually errant thoughts to the one valid
form of sexual union—that between a man and a woman. Jesus did not loosen the restrictions on sexual freedom; he
tightened them, albeit in the context of an aggressive outreach to the lost.”[10]
5.
Passages on homosexuality in the Bible
a.
Genesis 19—Sodom (cf. Genesis 13.13; 18.20-21; 2
Peter 2.6-10; Jude 7)
b.
Leviticus 18.22; 20.13
c.
Romans 1.18-27
d.
1 Corinthians 6.9-11
e.
1 Timothy 1.8-10
6.
Revisionist tendencies regarding the biblical
teaching on homosexuality
a.
Revise the traditional interpretation of
biblical texts to show that the passages do not forbid loving, faithful
homosexual unions.
b.
Accept the traditional interpretations but
self-consciously supersede the biblical perspective based on broader
theological themes and personal experience
i. “The
task demands intellectual honesty.
I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something
other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is
straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do
with what the text says? We must
state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture,
and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself.”
“I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the
straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority
when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that
authority? We appeal explicitly to
the weight of our experience and the experience thousands of others have
witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in
fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of
the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice
freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created
order.”[11]
ii. “There
are two basic views of biblical authority. (1) The a priori
view says that the Bible is authoritative in all of its parts and is so prior to interpretation… (2) The
experiential or existential view says that the Bible is authoritative only in
those parts that are existentially engaging and compelling—that give grounding
and meaning to existence.”[12]
iii. “Paul’s
interpretation of God’s creative design is subject to critical
reinterpretation.”[13]
iv. “Paul
is so tightly bound to the Jewish (and some Greco-Roman) judgment of his time
that homosexuality is sinful and he so inseparably connects sin and injury that
he assumed homosexuality to be harmful (Rom 1:24-17). But that is an assumption that needs to be tested by the
experience and knowledge of our time.”[14]
·
Notice how Paul is to be tested according to
Via—“the experience and knowledge of our time.” Yet, Acts 17.11 tells us how the noble-minded Bereans tested
Paul’s message—“for they received the word with great eagerness, examining
the Scriptures daily to see whether these were so.”
7.
Nancy Pearcey and the teleology of the body à “How the homosexual
narrative demeans the body”
a.
Remember (and review) last week’s discussion on
Nancy Pearcey and the mind/body split.
i. “The
main reason people today find it difficult to understand biblical sex ethics is
that their thinking has been trained by the two-level mindset to sever the
natural order from the moral order.
In the academic world, a teleological view of nature as purpose-driven
has been ousted by a materialist view that sees nature as devoid of spiritual
and moral meaning… As a result, most people no longer ‘hear’ the body’s own
message—for example, how the very structure of male-female differentiation
speaks of relationship, mutual love, and self-giving.”[15]
ii. “And
if morality is disconnected from nature, then it becomes merely a social
construction. It is whatever we decide.
A modernist view of nature
leads inevitably to a postmodern view
of morality. Postmodern gender
theory grounds your identity not in your biology but in your mind. You are what you feel.”[16]
iii. The
postmodern body/person divide[17]
|
AUTONOMOUS SELF
Free to impose its own interpretation on the body
|
|
PHYSICAL BODY
Raw material with no intrinsic identity or purpose
|
b.
Our bodies are reflective of God’s design
(teleology)
i. Male
and female
ii. Sexual
union within marriage
iii. Oriented
toward procreation
iv. “No
one really denies that on the level of biology, physiology, anatomy, and
bio-chemistry, males and females correspond to one another. That’s the way the human sexual and
reproductive system is designed.
Therefore, to embrace a non-heterosexual identity does cause an inner
disruption. It contradicts one’s
biological design.”[18]
v. “Implicitly
the person is saying: Why should I care about the structure of my body? Why should I let that inform my identity?
Why should my sexed body have anything to say about my moral
choices? The body is disassociated
from who we are as persons, as though it has no intrinsic dignity or purpose
that we are morally obligated to respect.
“This is a very low view of the
body.
“Think of it this way: It is
widely accepted today that if a person senses a disjunction between biological
sex and sexual desire, the only proper course of action is to accept their
psychological state as their true, authentic self. But why? Why
assume that feelings are more important than the body?”[19]
c.
The “Gay” Script
i. “Secular
culture presents a “gay script” that many find very compelling. It is a script that says anyone who
experiences same-sex desires has discovered their authentic self, and that they
will be most fulfilled by openly affirming it as their true identity.”[20]
ii. Desires
are seen as identity and then to question this desire-based identity is seen as
an attack on a person’s selfhood and worth.
iii. “But
why place sexual feelings at the center of our identity? The Bible offers a more compelling
script that defines our identity in terms of the image of God, created to
reflect his character. We are
loved and redeemed children of God.
When we center our lives on these truths, then our identity is secure no
matter what our sexual feelings are—and whether they change or don’t change.”[21]
iv. Psychologists
distinction: feelings, behavior, and identity
v. “We
do not chose our feelings, but we do choose our behavior and identity. Many people who experience same-sex
feelings do not engage in same-sex
behavior, and even fewer go on to adopt a homosexual identity.”[22]
vi. “A
2009 report by the American Psychological Association recognized that some
people with homoerotic desires are actually happier when they restrain those
desires. ‘Acting on same-sex
attractions may not be fulfilling solutions,’ the report said—especially for
those whose religious identity is more important to them.’ Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA
task force on the issue, said, ‘We have to acknowledge that, for some people,
religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend
everything else.’
“In short, surprisingly, the APA
has debunked the ‘gay script’ that says anyone with same-sex feelings will be
happiest affirming them openly. Instead
we are happiest when we choose an identity that is congruent with our deepest convictions, living them out even
when it is difficult and demanding.”[23]
1.
Think of how we began: Luke 9.23-26
2.
There are Christians who experience same-sex
attraction living this way: www.livingout.org
8.
Testimony and articulation by those following
Christ as they have navigated same-sex attraction: they have understood these
theological insights
a.
Biblical view of sexuality and the body, the
body as teleological, the nature of their identity as based in creation and
redemption rather than in particular desires
b.
Jean C. Lloyd—“Seven Things I Wish My Pastor
Knew About My Homosexuality”[24]
i. “As
a Christian, the conflict between my sexuality and my faith would become the
deepest and most intense of my life.
Now, in my forties, I’ve gone from being closeted to openly lesbian to
celibate to heterosexually married.”
ii. [Point
#2] “I wish you knew a better way to help me honor my body by living in accord
with the Creator’s design. I was born this way: female. God did create me a woman. Please don’t fall into the gnostic
dualism that divides my spiritual life from the life I now live in my body. Christ became incarnate; my very body
is now part of His body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. To act against its design in same-sex
sexual action harms the dignity of my body. For my homosexually attracted brothers, same-sex harms their
bodies even more because of their physiological design and the physical effects
of going against that design.
These bodies will be raised again.
They matter.”
c.
Sean Doherty—“’Love Does Not Delight in Evil,
but Rejoices With the Truth.’ A Theological and Pastoral Reflection On My
Journey Away From A Homosexual Identity”[25]
i. The
third and most important factor which led to a shift in the way I saw myself,
and consequently which enabled me to be open to the possibility of marriage,
was the simple recognition that the sexual identity which God has given me is
expressed in the plain, tangible fact that I am a man… God created two sexes—and
he created them to relate to one another sexually. Thus, as a man, God’s original intention for me in creation
was to be able to relate sexually to a woman. This remained true,
quite irrespective of whatever feelings I might have. Indeed, I came to think that in fact my feelings were what
were relatively superficial, in comparison to my physical identity.
“This claim, that I came to see my feelings as
‘relatively superficial’, needs elaboration, especially in a culture which
places such a strong emphasis on being true to ourselves (by which is meant,
doing what we feel like). What I mean is that, without denying or ignoring my
sexual feelings, I stopped regarding them as being who I was, sexually, and
started regarding my physical body as who I was. And this did lead me to
experience some significant changes in my sexual desires, so much so that I
fell in love and got married (to a woman who had been a good friend for several
years already). Rather than trying to change my feelings so that I could change
my label, I changed my label and my feelings started to follow suit. This is
not to say that the overall pattern of my sexual desires has changed. I would
say that I am still predominantly same-sex attracted in general, but as a
result of ceasing to define myself as gay, in a sense
this ceased to matter. It doesn’t matter in the least whether someone is
attracted to women or men in general. What matters with respect to marriage is
whether someone is attracted and called to marry one person in
particular.” (pp. 9-10)
ii. “Whilst
sexual feelings are obviously important, physically embodied identity as male
and female is the primary marker of sexual identity and a reliable guide to
God’s purposes. Being created as
sexual beings, i.e., as male and female, is a good gift of God.” (p. 16)
d.
Mentioning these people is not to say everything
is easy or all the questions are answered.
e.
It is, however, to give expression to a
biblically based, theologically-driven account of how same-sex attracted
individuals can follow Christ’s sexual ethic grounded as it is in creation and
redemption.
9.
Homosexuality and the differing roles of the
church
a.
Prophetic role
i. To
our culture
ii. Focus:
Ideas/philosophy that are ingrained in culture (entertainment, media, law,
background assumptions)
b.
Protective role
i. For
the purity of the church; listen to God’s word in faithfulness
ii. Focus:
False teachers
c.
Pastoral role
i. For
the sanctification of those in the church
ii. Focus:
Spiritual compassion, guidance, and growth
10. Haven’t
covered everything—by an means!
a.
What we did cover today could be gone over in
more detail—see extra resources
b.
Big picture over the past three weeks
i. Sexual
decisions need to be informed by the entirety of the Christian worldview and
the entirety of the biblical witness
ii. Sometimes
said: homosexuality is about 6 verses in the Bible
iii. No,
it’s about large sections of biblical teaching
1.
The Triune God
2.
The Gospel (Eph. 5)
3.
Creation and God’s intention
4.
View of humanity and the human body
5.
Marriage and children
6.
Eschatology (resurrection)
11. Some
“Sli.do” questions from last week
a.
“Why do we
focus so much on an issue that effects 2-10% of the population (homosexuality)
and so little on divorce which effects ~50% of Christian marriages?
i. Regarding
the numbers…
1.
“How many people in America identify as
homosexual? The public tends to
vastly over-estimate the number.
‘A recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a
think tank at UCLA Law School, suggests that among adults in the United States,
Canada, and Europe, 1.8 percent are bisexual men and women, 1.1 percent are gay
men, and .06 percent are lesbians.’
See Stanton L. Jones, “Same-Sex Science,” First Things, February 2012.”[26]
2.
The divorce rate figures are inflated.
“A false conclusion in the 1970s that
half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but
completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in
the United States. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the
conclusion that 60 percent of all second marriages ended in divorce.”
“It is now clear that the divorce rate
in first marriages probably peaked at about 40 percent for first marriages
around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30 percent in the early
2000s.”
“Thus, we reach an even more
dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of
25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is
only 20 percent!
“Of course, this has its flip
side, that the women who marry younger and divorce more frequently are
predominately black and Hispanic women from poorer environments. The highest
divorce rate, exceeding 50 percent, is for black women in high-poverty areas.”[27]
ii. Issue
of homosexuality affects everybody!
1.
Romans 1 correlates homosexuality in a culture
with the judgment of God.
2.
People, churches, and denominations relinquish
God’s word over this issue.
3.
Since June 26, 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision,
same-sex marriage has been codified into law. This unbiblical decision…
·
Overthrew a number of state laws reflecting
Jesus’ view of marriage. (Proverbs
14.34; 17.15, 26)
·
Laws have a teaching function. This law will teach subsequent
generations a false view of marriage
·
Religious freedom (freedom to follow Jesus) will
be (and is!) being curtailed and diminished.
iii. Regarding
church and divorce
1.
I believe it is false to say the church deals so
little with divorce. Every church
I’ve been involved with and many that I’ve heard about have specific classes on
marriage, pre-marital counseling, and on-going counseling for married couples
to keep them from divorce.
2.
Many churches teach on divorce and remarriage.
3.
I have been in churches which disciplined members
for divorce.
4.
Some divorce is legitimate according to Jesus
and the apostles (i.e., immorality and desertion)
iv. Consider
also the difference of homosexuality and divorce. There are no national organizations promoting divorce in the
church. There are no “Divorce
Pride Parades.” There is no call
for a “reformation” in the church to completely overturn its teaching on
divorce. There is all these things
for the issue of homosexuality.
b.
“How
should we respond when homosexual say that this is how God made me, it is part
of my DNA?”
c.
“A
progressive Christian says: ‘God made me gay.’ What Scriptures can we talk
about to say this is simply not so?”
[2]
Thomas K. Johnson, What Makes Sex So
Special? MBS-Texte 132 (Berlin: Martin Bucer Seminar, 2009), 6—online: https://theoblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Ethics-of-sex.pdf.
[6]
For the term translated “sensuality” in verse 22 see my article “Jesus Did
Mention Homosexuality!” White Rose Review (October 23, 2014)—online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/10/jesus-did-mention-homosexuality.html.
[11]
Luke Timothy Johnson, “Scripture and Experience” Commonweal (June 11, 2007)—online: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-0.
[24]
Jean C. Lloyd, “Seven Things I Wish My Pastor Knew About My Homosexuality” Public Discourse (December 10,
2014)—online: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/12/14149/.
[25]
Sean Doherty, “’Love Does Not Delight in Evil, but Rejoices With the Truth.’ A
Theological and Pastoral Reflection On My Journey Away From A Homosexual
Identity” Anvil 30.1 (March
2014)—online: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/anv.2014.30.issue-1/anv-2013-0011/anv-2013-0011.pdf.
[27]
Kalman Keller, “The Myth of the High Divorce Rate,” PsychCentral (September 21, 2018)—online: https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/.
