Theology
Two Reasons Why We Need to Correct Our Views on Love and Sexuality
Yesterday’s candid post on the Song of Songs prompted some interesting comments.
My wife said: “Ummm, babe, I think someone just hijacked your blog.”
Yes, I take that as a compliment.
My buddy Scott said, “This is by far the toughest sentence I have ever read.” He was referring to this statement:
Contrast this with the ephemeral, capricious and shallow character of contemporary loveand you see God’s vision for marriage involves a volitional, muscular emotion that has a singular and solitary intent to honor the object of it’s affections.
That’s actually my most favorite-ist sentence. And yes, I take his comment as a compliment.
Richard DeVeau’s comment is a different story.
He said, “Perhaps it’s my age, but when I read about apples, raisins, figs, walnuts and spices, I only think about pie.”
That nearly brought my yogurt through my nose.
Then another good buddy said, “Very well done. I feel that this is one of the most beautiful books of The Bible.”
I have to agree.
Finally, there’s Rob’s comment…a comment which pointed out that our silence on the topic of love and sexuality has led the culture to dominate and define it.
This is not good. Rob went on to say:
[Songs] clearly shows that sex, and even boyish giggle inducing when you talk about it sex, is a glorious & God-honoring blessing to man and woman and the only stipulation is within the hedge of protection provided by marriage.
In other words, sex within in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not only part of God’s original plan for creation [and indeed, a pivotal ingredient if we are going to succeed in this thing called "our cultural mandate"]–but it can also be erotic, deeply emotional and ultimately satisfying.
Rob closes his comment with two penetrating questions. Questions I want you to respond to:
How many Christian couples do you know that struggle with this? How many unbelievers do you know that have gotten a flawed view of sexuality from the church and that’s lead to them dismissing Jesus altogether?
I have to confess that my own view of sex within a Christian marriage has been distorted in the past. It wasn’t until pastors like Piper and Driscoll and a book by Kostenberger
This brings to mind something Grudem expresses the “Introduction” to his Systematic Theology
That’s not easy to do. But it’s part and parcel of developing a mature Christian mind.
And while the second question might sound shallow and baseless and somewhat offensive to an agnostic or atheist, it’s really not.
The reasons for dismissing Jesus and Christianity are often emotional and moral–not intellectual. Thus a flat, flawed view of sex within Christianity amounts to a dull, boring life…
“No thanks,” the non-believer might say.
That’s why I think it’s important to get this topic right–both for the believer AND the non-believer.
On the one hand a healthy, Christian view of love and sexuality avoids frustration and division within a marriage. Instead, it invites joy and unity.
On the other hand it allows us to control the cultural conversation and express a genuine benefit to unbelievers [not that we're trying to attempt to bribe them...merely taking an excuse away] about the passion and bliss found in Christian love and sexuality.
So what about you: Do you struggle with what love and sexuality look like within a Christian marriage? Besides reading and studying a book like Songs, how have you attempted to remedy that? And do you know anybody who’s dismissed Jesus and Christianity because of a flawed view of love and Christian sexuality?
I look forward to your thoughts. Brutal and all.
Did Christ Descend into Hell?
In a simple but substantial summary of our faith called the Apostle’s Creed we encounter a very peculiar phrase:
“He descended into hell.”
One popular interpretation says that Christ went to the place of dead to announce redemption for the righteous who died before Christ.
But that interpretation is wrong. A little history is in order.
Why the Church Crafts Creeds
Historically, creeds have been crafted by the church to refute a specific heresy that’s threatening the church at that time.
The Nicene Creed refutes the heresy of Arius in the fourth century. The Council of Trent spelled out for the Roman Catholic church the major points of contention between them and Protestants in the 1500s.
The Apostle’s creed–circa the first or second century–has Gnosticism in it’s cross hairs.
In this case, Gnosticism denied the humanity of Christ. They denied the Incarnation and even differentiated between Christ [divine] and Jesus [human].
They argued Jesus didn’t become Christ’ spokesperson until his baptism [when the spirit descended on him] and the spirit left him before he died on the cross.
Thus, when Gnostics denied the humanity of Christ, they are basically arguing that he was never actually a flesh-and-bone person–that means he never suffered or died.
Which brings us to the point of this post.
The Meaning Behind “He Descended into Hell”
In the face of this heresy, up crops the Apostle’s Creed, hammering home the point that Jesus was not only God–but fully human as Scripture declares:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
In other words, Christ the God-man was born like a man, suffered like a man and died like a man.
And because Jesus’ humanity is at stake here the composers want to make sure this is clear: Jesus died.
James Kiefer said, ” The reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) is here to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.”
And this includes spiritual death. Calvin says:
If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No — it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death.
Therefore, “he descended into hell” suggests Jesus absorbed the full force of God’s punishment of mankind’s sins–past, present and future.
How a Creed Grows Over Time
It should be noted that the article “he descended into hell” doesn’t show up in the earliest form of the creed–the Old Roman Form. This article creeps in around 390 A. D.
That’s right: the form of the Apostle’s Creed we recite in church today wasn’t crystallized in one day–or even one year.
More than likely the Apostle’s Creed began as a very simple formula “I believe in God the Father” and accumulated articles ["maker of heaven and earth" and "he descended into hell"] over time as the church sought to maintain purity of the historical doctrines of the church as outside threats grew, like Gnosticism.
This process took about 400 years. Give or take a century.
One Final Thought
The precision of the creed is not an accident. There is deep meaning and reason behind each word, each article, as I demonstrated above with the phrase “he descended into hell.”
Let’s look at another example that’s relevant to our discussion
The phrase “suffered under Pontius Pilate” hammers home this point about the humanity of Christ: We can date Jesus’ death.
Why is this important? In the Hellenistic culture in which Christianity sprung and grew, competing claims of dying and rising gods typical in vegetation myths were abundant.
If you asked first century polytheist “When did Adonis die?” He’d say, “Long ago.” No definitive date, because no historical person.
Ask a first or second century Christian convert when Jesus suffered and died he’d answer ” Under Pontius Pilate,” which is nothing less than a concrete marker for the historicity of the Christian faith.
Definitive date equals historical person, which is all the more important when that person is God.
Miracles in the Bible Are NOT Normative
Ever since I posted my complaint over Jason Westerfield’s little book God Come to Me his fans have let me have it.
One of the dominant accusations looks like this:
“Damien [sic] does not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit or miracles for today; that is a damnable heresy…”
There are three things wrong with that statement.
1. I do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It’s that our definitions probably differ wildly. [See my post The Trick to Finding Your Spiritual Gifts.]
2. I do believe in miracles today. I just don’t believe they are normative. At all. Otherwise they wouldn’t be miracles, would they? More on this in a minute.
3. Even if I didn’t believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit or miracles, it would NOT be a damnable heresy. Since when was salvation dependent on anything outside of Christ?
What most intrigues me about Westerfield and Co. is this presumption that miracles were normative throughout the Bible. Jason said it best: “After reading about Abraham and others in the Bible, I came to the conclusion that if all of this was happening to them, then it should be happening to me.”
Okay. But why? Why should they be a normal part of Jason’s and every Christian’s life?
Pagan Miracles v. Biblical Miracles
Yes, miracles occurred pretty frequently during Jesus’ ministry, but only for 3 years, mind you…not the entire 33.
And true, the early church was a hotbed for miracles. But there was a reason for that.
However, from front to back, the biblical narratives do not portray a world saturated with miracles…the kind of world Jason Westerfield, John Crowder and the New Mystics would have you believe we should live in.
Unlike the pagan mythologies of ancient history where gods constantly disrupt ordinary human affairs, the Bible inserts miracles on a very limited basis.
That’s why the supernaturalism found in the Bible stands out–because its miracles are NOT commonplace.
In fact, the relative infrequency of biblical miracles may be seen in the fact that they constitute a small, albeit important, part of the narratives spanning over two thousand years from Abraham to the apostolic era.
Miracles in the Book of Joshua
Furthermore, certain biblical periods are marked by an increase in spiritual warfare and miracles. Moses and the Exodus are an obvious Old Testament example. The life and work of Jesus is the New Testament equivalent.
Israel’s conquest of Canaan is another.
The book of Joshua records three such miracles: the drying up of the Jordan river, the collapse of Jericho and the stalling of the sun.
Nothing normative about these extraordinary events that occurred over a six year period.
Instead they hammer home this point: Israel’s conquest of Canaan was God’s sovereign work…and God’s sovereign work alone. What we don’t see is any suggestion that these miracles should be happening to us. Today.
Do I Believe Miracles Occur Today?
Here’s what I’m not saying: Miracles don’t occur. I think they can. I believe in a supernatural God who created the universe. That’s a miracle. But you’re going to have to do better than straightening a spine to convince me miracles occur today.
You’re going to have to stop a storm in it’s tracks. Raise a man dead for four days back to life. Cure a life-time cripple. Cast out 2,000 demons.
If you can substantiate such a claim, then you’ll have my attention.
But remember, biblical miracles had a singular purpose: unmistakably declare the sovereignty and character of God…rather than provide humans with a thrill that can lead one to a dangerous distraction.
Happy Good Friday?
Is this the appropriate way to greet someone today: “Happy Good Friday”?
Is Good Friday happy?
Well, yes…
But not the same way that Christmas is merry.
Yet, it is a day in which repantant sinners can rejoice:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
Lot of punch packed into that tiny verse. But it gives us the reason we can say that the day Christ was crucified is not only good…but a cause for joy.
A cause for genuine happiness. So, Good Friday to you.
But that’s not the only reason I wrote you today. I’ve got something I want to share with you in the next day or two.
Just depends on when I get it done.
No, it’s not my Mexican wrestling costume. It’s something better. You’ll just have to wait and see.
Until then, have a happy Good Friday.
[And by the way, if you're desperate to read some Fallen and Flawed, take a look at last year's Easter series. It's a good one.]
Fear and Loathing in a Liberal Bible Class
The January/February Nine Marks journal on New Liberalism brought back old memories of a particular class I took While in college:
“Bible as Literature.”
That course title was very misleading. Perhaps I was a bit naive.
The course was an elective and since I was a English major and a Christian it would serve two purposes: college credit and religious devotion.
While I got the credit, I didn’t get the devotion. [This was a secular school after all.]
Instead I got a low-grade bender on liberal theology.
A Shock to My System
Understand: I didn’t expect this. I wasn’t prepared for the challenge. Thus, it struck fear in my heart–and probably a handful of other Christians who thought to take the class for the same reasons I did.
[My own experience reminds me a lot of Daniel Wilson's battle with skepticism.]
Soon after the class began I loathed it. All parts of it. The readings before class. The discussions during class. The reeling sense of disappointment following the class.
It was the first time I ever seriously fought for my faith. Not in a public forum. But quietly within my soul.
That fight eventually went in the wrong direction.
Running Rabid and Roughshod over Scripture
Granted, we all have commitments and can never declare strict objectivity in our arguments, but it became quite clear in the first class that the professor wanted nothing more than to dismantle any Christian faith.
She had an agenda.
The classes usually ran like this: Show up to class. Read the text in question. Professor declares what Christians believe. Professor declares why Christians were wrong.
I don’t ever remember reading it as literature.
In fact, I don’t ever remember any serious textual criticism going on or effort root around the historical context.
It was a raw reading and the professors reaction to it. Nothing more.
While it’s not fair to call the professor a liberal [she was an atheist through and through], her approach WAS liberal.
Repulsive and Primitive Doctrines
She liked to pick on those texts that were repugnant to her senses. The wrath of God. Blood atonement. Eternal punishment. Resurrection.
Any feature that sounded primitive and offensive she dismissed. And like the Jesus Seminar she eliminated many of the words of Jesus to mere legends.
But in doing so, she, the Jesus Seminar and any liberal Christian reduced Him to a non-controversial figure instead of the unique Son of God.
If that was the case, why was He crucified if He didn’t offend anyone?
Liberals Love Affair with Man
Back in the early 20th Century, J. Gresham Machen denied that liberalism was Christianity. Whereas Christianity was rooted in supernaturalism, liberalism was rooted in naturalism.
One of the common characteristics of liberalism is an obsession with gaining the world’s approval and admiration–at any cost.
It’s the approval of the culture that counts–not Christ.
“I risk becoming a liberal, because I don’t just love God. I also love the sheep. And I love myself,” Michael Lawrence said. ”And it’s those two loves, wrongly focused, that tempt me down a gospel-denying path.”
Liberalism too often chooses the gospel-denying path.
Liberalism trims God’s Word in favor of the love and esteem of others. This explains why a historically Christian school like Harvard would slip from orthodox to liberalism.
Man has become our measure. Not God.
Liberalisms Motive
Remember liberals operate out of an apologetic motivation. They want to craft something the culture will happily swallow.
What they end up doing is trying to save Christianity from itself. And themselves from academic ridicule.
As Albert Mohler says, “The lesson of theological liberalism is clear—embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial.”
But Christians are forbidden to court the spirit of the age. We are to cling to the orthodox gospel and all it’s ugly permutations.
One of the main reasons the gospel is such a stumbling block is that it cannot be adapted to suit cultural preferences or alternative worldviews.
Instead, it’s built to confront them all, including the liberal worldview.
Search
Recent Posts
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Categories
Archives
