Who Are You?

Who are you? This is a question that is often asked as one is just starting to get to know people. How do you identify yourself primarily? Are you a Christian? A college student? A Starbucks barista? How do you identify yourself?

I read an article today titled ‘Facing the Truth‘ that encourages one to view themselves as they truly are: fallen and in need of a Savior. It says:

But you see, the story we tell ourselves is skewed. There comes a time when we need to sit and take account of how we’re spending our lives, like at the doctor’s office or with the budget, and be reminded that we are not who we think we are. We need Jesus more than we allow ourselves to admit.

“We are not who we think we are.” So many people refuse to admit that they are fallen and daily in need of a Savior. In the hours I’ve been awake today, I have sinned more times than I can count and am worthy of eternal damnation. But thanks be to God that I have a Savior who took the penalty for me and continues to extend grace to me.

Do you realize your need for a Savior on a daily basis? Are there things in your life that you need to let go in order to better realize that need? And if you’re not a believer, what is keeping you from putting your complete trust in Jesus? You will not realize how great your Savior is until you realize how great of a sinner you are.

On Avoiding Christian Scholarship

On an incredibly exciting note for myself, I am planning to begin my seminary education this fall! Cue the obscene amounts of caffeine and late nights. One of the things I struggle with in my pursuit of higher education is how to apply a text to my life and not just allow it to be an academic pursuit. Throughout most of my undergraduate education (pretty much until my final year of school) I was simply trying to get a passing grade in my classes until it suddenly struck me that I need to be applying what I learned to my life! (See Luke 12:48)

I found a very interesting post titled ‘On Avoiding Kierkegaard’s Indictment of Christian Scholarship‘ that is worth reading. Kierkegaard begins by saying,

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

What a scathing review of the academic pursuit of a believer! Yes, it is incredibly convicting to be alone with the New Testament, but because of my academic training and some very godly teachers, I have a proper lens through which to view the Scripture I’m reading. I know so many people who have a wrong interpretation of Scripture that ends up dictating their life (God helps those who help themselves, don’t judge lest you be judged). Without a proper background and training it’s so easy to pick and choose the pieces of the Bible you want to apply.

So I’m going to enter into seminary with a different perspective than I entered my undergrad work: with my eyes wide open to see how God wants to further rule in my life as I attempt to apply Scripture to my life. May He alone get all the glory!

How To Preach A Confusing Text

The Gospel Coalition has a great blog today on ‘How To Preach A Text When You Don’t Know What It Means.’ In it, Michael Patton (great first name!) shows the difference between preaching and teaching and lists the following examples:

  • Preaching is exhortation; teaching is education.
  • Preaching is the discharge of the gospel of hope; teaching is discipleship of the gospel of hope.
  • Preaching puts wind in the sails; teaching put an anchor in the ground.
  • Preaching raises our eyes to the things we know with great conviction; teaching helps us to understand what things we can have legitimate conviction about.
  • Preaching tells you which option is correct; teaching gives you all the options.

To me, it gets down to the basic question of why do we preach? We should preach to proclaim the Good News of what Christ has done in our lives, how Christ continues to work in our lives and what Christ will eventually do when he returns. He ends the article saying,

Sometimes we need to settle for good sermons with wrong texts. Sometimes we are going to be unsure of the exact interpretation of a passage of Scripture, but we don’t have to sacrifice giving our congregations something to believe due to the obscurity of our text. We can still preach the Word with full integrity by focusing on the principles that are universally true even if we end up being wrong about our interpretation. It is important that you let people know there is some legitimate debate and what you are about to preach could be wrong. But assure them that the principles that you preach are not wrong as they are found in other places in Scripture. That is how you preach a sermon when you are not sure what the passage means.

Give them something to believe.

Do you have something to believe? Do you have the conviction it takes to preach a sermon on a confusing text or do you simply give up?

Preparing Your Hearts and Minds

What do you do to prepare yourself for the gathering of God’s people on Sunday? Do you even take any time to prepare for this special meeting, or are you too concerned with getting there on time with everyone’s clothes on and hair combed?

One of the things I’ve been pondering lately is how I can help people to prepare for Sunday worship. Should we encouraged people to read and ponder the passage that will be preached the next week? Should we give thoughts for people to think about throughout the coming week? And if we do this, how many people would actually put in the effort to read and prepare?

It seems to me that many people assume that the only person who needs to prepare for Sunday’s worship service is the pastor. Yet Luke 8:18 says, “Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Those in the congregation need to attentively and actively listen.

A blog titled ‘Let the Word of Christ Dwell in You Richly‘ has the following example of this in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

Bonhoeffer ran an underground seminary for theological students during the oppressive years of Nazi Germany. He was a very intelligent man who possessed immense critical capabilities. But in his homiletics classes as he listened to his students preaching, he always set aside his pencil and listened intently with his Bible open before him – no matter how poor the sermon was.

He believed that the preaching of God’s Word ought to be attended as if he were listening to the very voice of God. That is how I try to listen too – always looking to the text, always engaged, always thinking, always praying.

Jesus has called us to be sure we really hear the Word of God.

How attentively do you listen to the sermons in your church? How do you prepare for the Word to be preached? And if you do not do either of these things, why don’t you?

–For more on how to listen to a sermon, check out this blog.

Gay Marriage – My Continuing Thoughts

I found two very good articles on this issue today, and combined with an interesting discussion on a friends Facebook wall I thought it was time to get some of my thoughts written down on what the Supreme Court is deciding now. The first article is by Barnabas Piper. You may recognize his last name, and yes, he is the son of John Piper. The title of the blog is ‘Tired of the Gay Marriage Debate?‘ The main point I most appreciated from this post is his thoughts on the government:

Why are we putting so much hope in the government?
Governments are, and have always been, broken systems run by broken sinners. We benefit greatly from good ones but ought not make the mistake of putting our hope in them. The hope we put in the government is evidenced by the energy we pour into influencing it, as if this is the means through which victory will be gained. But what I see is Christians doing what Jesus’ disciples did – hoping in the overthrow of the Romans rather than the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom. We cannot see government as the ultimate decision makers or ultimate law makers. We live in a monarchy, and our king is perfect. Put more faith in Him than in the Supreme Court or any other governmental body.

Too many people think that we live in a “Christian” country governed by “Christian” values. While this country may have been founded on principle that are found in Scripture, until Christ comes back to rule and reign we will never have a truly Christian nation.

Tied into that is that so many people seem to be surprised at the culture’s push against biblical values and beliefs. This has been happening since the fall! Jesus said in Matthew 24, “they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.” Not just disliked, we will be hated! It shouldn’t surprise anyone in the church that culture pushes back so forcefully to Scriptures commands.

The second article I really appreciated is from Kevin DeYoung on ‘Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage are Persuasive.‘ He goes through a list of why the arguments are persuasive and does a great job of interacting with them. One of the ones that stuck out to me is that it’s about love. In our culture today, people equate love with making love to someone else. Kevin says, “But hidden in this simple reasoning is the cultural assumption that sexual intercourse is necessarily the highest, and perhaps the only truly fulfilling, expression of love. It’s assumed that love is always self-affirming and never self-denying. It’s assumed that our loves never require redirection.” 1 John 4 says, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Added to that is 1 Corinthians 13, the love chapter. No where in either of this lists is love making equated with love, in fact it’s the opposite, throughout Scripture love is meant to be self-sacrificing.

So what should we do? As one of my friends put on facebook, “With the Supreme Court hearing the arguments for and against the constitutionality of CA Prop8, I would make the argument that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage. Allow the church to handle it and honor the unions that churches create. I understand that it’s a matter of national importance, but let’s be honest, the government hasn’t been doing so well with it (Divorce rates are at over 50% according to the CDC). So why not leave it alone?” (Thanks, AMill) I too think that the government should back off of this issue and leave it to the churches to determine. There are plenty of churches today that will marry same-sex couples and plenty that will not. Finally, I think Kevin DeYoung has some very helpful applications to this issue:

1) We need to go back several steps in each argument. We’ll never get a hearing on this issue, or a dozen others issues, unless we trace out the assumptions behind the assumptions behind the arguments behind the conclusions.

2) We need more courage. The days of social acceptability for evangelicals, let alone privilege, are fading fast in many parts of the country. If we aren’t prepared to be counter-cultural we aren’t ready to be Christians. And we need courage not to just say what the Bible says, but to dare say what almost no one will say–that gay sex is unnatural and harmful to the body, that abandoning gender distinctions will be catastrophic for our society and for children, and that monogamy and exclusivity is often understood differently in the gay community.

3) We need more creativity. Statements and petitions and manifestos have their place, but what we really need is more than words and documents. We need artists and journalists and movie makers and story tellers and spoken word artists and comedians and actors and rappers and musicians who are galvanized by the truth to sing and speak and share in such a way that makes sin look strange and righteousness look normal.

4) We need a both-and approach. In the months ahead I imagine we’ll see Christians wrestle with whether the best way forward is to form new arguments that appeal to people where they’re at, or whether we simply need to keep preaching the truth and trust God to give some people the ears to hear. I’m convinced we need to do both. Let’s keep preaching, teaching, and laboring for faithful churches. Let’s be fruitful and multiply. Let’s train our kids in the way they should go. Let’s keep sharing the good news and praying for revival. And let’s also find ways to make the truth plausible in a lost world. Not only the truth about marriage, but the truth about life and sex and creation and beauty and family and freedom and a hundred other things humans tend to forget on this side of Adam. The cultural assumptions in our day are not on our side, but if the last 50 years has shown us anything, it’s that those assumptions can change more quickly than we think.

I pray that we will not do one of two things:

  1. Distance ourself from the culture. We are to be culture changers, the church has too often withdrawn into our own safe bubble instead of interacting with what is going on in the culture at large.
  2. Become like the culture. Too many Christians want to be just like the world, neglecting Christ’s command to fight against sin and the culture of the world.

Maranatha: Lord come quickly.

EFCA Theology Conference – Session 8

What Can Medical Science Tell Us About Sexual Orientation? – Daniel Beals, MD

Medical Definition of Gender:

Male and Female He created them – Genesis 1:27

Fundamental to self-identity: first question when a child is born, it permeates all of our thinking: blue/pink, different goals in life

Who decides?

How do they decide?
Is a medical definition different from other definitions?

How well has Medicine defined sexual identity in the past?

What can we infer from Sexual Identity to Sexual Orientation?

Medical Definition

Good at defining what is wrong, but not what is normal

Specialist have a narrow perspective on definition

Medical knowledge changes

Gender identity as a definition: first used by Dr. John Money, psychological perspective

Ambiguous Genitalia: Dr. Ladd, Boston Children’s Hospital, Surgical Perspective

Disorders of Sexual Differentiation (> 2000): All inclusive definition of anatomically definable genital disorders

Gender Identity Disorder (Gender Dysphoria): All inclusive definition of distress and discomfort one feels between one’s physical sex and one’s gender

Sexual Orientation: Opposite Sex, Same Sex, Not simple with DSD

What Makes Up Gender Identity?

Genetic: X and Y Chromosomes, the SRY gene

Endocrine: testosterone, estrogen

Phenotype: What do things look like? How do things work?

Environment: Parental role models, assumed gender roles, peer pressure

Spiritual?

What do we Know?

No known genetic link to GD or SO

No known endocrine link to GD but known correlation with SO

No known phenotypic link to SO but known secondary correlation with GD

Known correlation between environmental factors and GD and SO

What do we really NOT know?

Do not have a full understanding of genetics

Do not have a full understanding of endocrine influences

Do not have a good long term follow up of attempted therapies

What does Medicine tell us about Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation?

In cases of DSD, it may be very difficult to have a clear answer

Sexual orientation issues can sometimes be explained by endocrine abnormalities

There is no medical explanation to problems with GD

Environment plays an important role in gender, both normal and abnormal

We must be cautious as medical knowledge is far from complete

EFCA Theology Conference Session 7

The Theology of Sexuality Applied: Teaching/Training of Youth in the Home and the Church – Stan Jones

What are our Objectives in Sex Education and in Parenting?

To prevent immorality?

To equip and empower our children to enter adulthood capable of living godly, wholesome lives

Don’t focus too narrowly and negatively, such as focusing on only preventing sexual immorality and the ravages that illicit and irresponsible sex; this goal is too small, too limited, too narrow. Our most important goal in sex education should be to equip and empower our children to enter adulthood capable of living godly, wholesome, and fulfilled lives as Christen men and women, Christian singles, wives and husbands.

Deuteronomy 6:1-9

A Summary of Key Points in the Theology of Sexuality

We are embodied, we are gendered sexual beings, we are relational, we are made in God’s image, we are broken and twisted, we encounter objective reality when we have sex, we are souls under construction

We are souls under construction

Given/Discovered Constructed?

Given: Evolutionary Psychology Reproduction as an evolutionary impulse in the context of a meaningless universe; sex, like life, is meaningless

Atheist Delusions (David Hart)

The Five-Factor Model of Sexual Character:

Needs – Relatedness and Significance

Values

Beliefs

Skills

Supports

Twelve Principles of Christian Sex Education in the Family and Church

Principle 1: Sex education is the shaping of character

Principle 2: Parents are the principle sex educators

Principle 3: First messages are the most important

Principle 4: Seize those “teachable moments;” become an “askable” parent

Principle 5: Stories are powerful teaching tools

Principle 6: Accurate and explicit messages are best

Principle 7: Positive messages are powerful

Principle 8: “Inoculate” your children against negative beliefs

Principle 9: Repetition is critical; repetition is really, really important

Principle 10: Close, positive parent-child relationships are crucial

Principle 11: Sexuality is not everything; keep your perspective

Principle 12: Our God can forgive, heal, and redeem anything

EFCA Theology Conference Session 5

The Witness of Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles – Robert Gagnon

Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10

Romans 1:24-27: Opposed to some, or all, forms of same-sex intercourse?

Three main arguments made to discount Romans 1:24-27

  1. The exploitation argument: Paul only knew of exploitative forms of homosexual practice in his culture
  2. The orientation argument: Paul had no concept of a homosexual orientation
  3. The misogyny argument: Paul feared homosexual practice would upset male dominance over women

The plot structure of Romans 1:18-32

Stage 1. God’s power and divinity is manifested in creation

Stage 2. Humans suppress the truth and foolishly exchange

Stage 3. God’s wrath is manifested in giving over humans to self-degrading desires

Stage 4. These sinful deeds merit death

Intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:26-27

References to creation and Creator

Rom 1:23 echoes Genesis 1:26

Romans 1:26-27 echoes Genesis 1:27

The point of these echoes – idolatry and same-sex intercourse together constitute a frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature, those who suppressed the truth about God visible in creation they went on to suppress the truth about themselves visible in nature

The argument from nature

The truth about God is visible and apparent in material creation (1:19-20)

The truth about God’s will for sex is visible in our gendered bodies (26-27)

Pagans do not have to have Genesis or Leviticus to be held accountable for this knowledge, they are “without excuse”

Innate desires are unreliable guides

The mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26

The mention of mutual gratification in Romans 1:27

The conception and practice of caring homosexual relationships in antiquity

Absolute nature arguments in the Greco-Roman world

Why Paul is not saying, “Don’t judge homosexual practice”

The one whom you obey, that it your Lord. Don’t say with your mouth that you follow God but then continue to serve sin, that is your Lord

What even scholars supportive of homosexual unions admit

1 Corinthians 6:9 (& 1 Tim 1:10) Opposed to some, or all, forms of male-male intercourse?

Meaning of malakoi “soft men”

Meaning of arsenokoitai “Men who lie with a male”

The Bible’s alleged ignorance of sexual orientation

Grego-Roman theories of a congenital basis for some homoerotic attraction

Differences with contemporary theories and beside this point

Did Paul get “nature” confused?

What even scholars supportive of homosexual unions affirm

The Bible’s Alleged Misogynistic Bias against Homoerotic Unions

Ignoring concerns for structural complementarity in ancient texts

Absoluteness of Bible’s prohibition suggest priority of gender over status

Women’s liberation as a stimulus for opposing all male homosexual unions

An absurd corollary

View of women in the Bible fares well relative to its cultural environment

EFCA Theology Conference – Session 4

A Theology of Human Sexuality – Ben Mitchell

A Few Caveats

Our anthropology requires charity

Our language anticipates double entendres

Our calling demands compassion

Our experience requires humility

Our task calls for courage

Our responsibility requires us to contextualize the question

Why so Important?

The order that God has given us (Gen 2:24-25)

Paul says sexual immorality is not even to be mentioned among those in the Christian church (Ephesians 5:3)

Why Such a Difficult Subject?

A confused culture in which our paradigms have shifted radically

A marginalized church

A challenged Bible – both from the outside and the inside

47% of people who say marriage is becoming obsolete still want to be married

Sexual Morality: Creation

Human sex and sexuality are important, powerful and good aspects of God’s creation (Gen 2:15-25 – bonding, procreation, Proverbs 5:15-20 – pleasure, fidelity)

They don’t cease to be man or woman but their flesh is joined in such a way that we call them one flesh

Stanley Grenz Sexual Ethics

There are only two ways to be human, as male or female, at its core is a fundamental incompleteness

Goods of sex and marriage

Procreational good – Gen 1:28; 9:1

Relational good – “humanity which is not fellow-humanity is inhumanity” Barth, CD

Public good – ordered and regulated relationships in human society

Marriage

The relational purpose of marriage (Gen 2:24 – one flesh, sexual and non-sexual companionship, giving of one’s person to another)

Pornography

There is a casual connection between words or pictures and human behavior

“Shame” is part of the natural human condition. It is counterpart of natural human modesty

The political purpose or result of pornography is to make us shameless

There is a connection between shame and self-restrained and therefore a connection between shame and self-government or democracy

Self-restraint is necessary to the moral and political well-being of the community

Pornography threatens self-restraint and then threatens democracy

Conclusion: therefore, government has at least a modest interest in censoring pornography (as a protection of democracy)

By Walter Evans “Beyond the Garbage Pale”

Sexual Morality: After the Fall

Sexuality and sex are disordered

Sex is to be expressed according to God’s instruction: not outside the covenant of marriage (Heb 13:4), sexual lust is forbidden (Matt 5:27-30)

Sex

Not the most important thing in the world!

1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Marriage

The healing purpose of marriage (1 Cor 7:9)

“Marriage functions to provide needed restraint and discipline as the God-given place of healing for our sexual nature” – Gilbert Meilaender

Celibacy or singleness

Vocation?

Pathology?

Gift parallel with marriage? (1 Cor 7:7, 32-35, Adam and Eve were married, Jesus was single)

Pastoral issues: identity and self-worth, solitude and loneliness, sexuality and celibacy – see C.S. Lewis Four Loves specifically his chapter on friendship

Cohabitation

According to sociologist Patricia Morgan, cohabitation relationships are fragile

Cohabiting couple accumulate less wealth than married couples

Cohabiting women are more likely to be abused

Cohabitants have more health problems than married couples

Children of cohabiting couples often suffer

Cohabitation: the biblical witness

Creation-only appropriate expression of sexual intimacy is the bond of marriage

Singleness is an inappropriate context for the sex act “One flesh” is reserved for married couples

No permission for cohabitation in scripture

Marriage and the marriage bed are held up as honorable

Homosexuality

Helmut Thielicke Theological Ethics vol 3, Sex, p. 271

Sexuality: Redemmed and Celebrated

1 Timothy 4:1-5

“Salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ is not redemption from sexuality, sex or our sexual impulses. It is rather redemption within our created sexuality, necessitated by distortions of the Fall”

God’s Will for Today – 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8

EFCA Theology Conference Session 3 – Robert Gagnon

Jesus and Marriage – Robert Gagnon

Key Jesus Sex Text: Mark 10:2-12 (parallel is Matthew 19:3-9)

Learning from Jesus: A Back-to-Creation Model

  • Jesus declared Gen 1:27 and 2:24 to be the model for marriage
  • For Jesus, marriage isn’t something for humans to tinker with
  • Jesus emphasizes the “twoness” of a sexual bond
  • Prohibits both a revolving door of divorce/remarriage, implicitly polygamy
  • Where does Jesus get this number “two”
  • Gen 1:27, Gen 2:24, what do these 2 verses share in common: the union consists of a man and a women. Two sexes designed by God for a sexual union.
  • Twoness of the sexes is the foundation for the twoness of the sexual bond
  • Confirmation: Qumran’s basis for rejecting polygamy
  • S the twoness of the sexes is the basis for the twoness of the sexual bond

Three Corollaries to Jesus’ Back to Creation Model

  1. OT Law does not always reflect God’s perfect will
  • Many people think Jesus is increasing the permissions of marriage, Jesus is doing the opposite and actually making it more rigid
  • Jesus unilaterally amended the constitution of Israel
  • Moses made a concession to male “hardness of heart”
  • Jesus worked toward a more rigorous sexual ethic, closing off remaining loopholes
  1. Jesus repudiated inequities toward women, but in which direction?
  • In early Judaism, a man could commit adultery only against another woman’s husband
  • What Jesus did not do is give women the same sexual license that men had
  • Instead, he bound men to the same high standard as women
  1. A homosexual relationship is worse than a polygamous one
  • Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite as foundational for sexual ethics
  • That obviously precludes a homosexual relationship

Further evidence of Jesus’ rejection of Homosexual Practice

  1. Nine other arguments
  • Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses (Scripture) generally
  • Jesus’ intensification of the Law’s sex ethic (adultery of the heart, divorce)
  • John the Baptist’s strong stance on sex laws
  • Early Judaism united opposition
  • The early church’s united opposition
  • Jesus saying about the defiling effect of desires for porneia (Mark 7:21-23)
  • Jesus on the Decalogue adultery prohibition (Mark 10:17-22)
  • Jesus’ saying about Sodom (Matt 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12)
  • The “born eunuchs” statement (Matt 19:10-12)
  1. Why then did Jesus not speak directly against homosexual practice?
  • No need to, the Hebrew Scriptures already clearly established man-male intercourse as a grave offense
  • No Jew is known to have engaged in homosexual practice in the period, it wasn’t happening. It would have been a waste of Jesus’ time
  • What then is the meaning of Jesus’ silence on homosexual practice? Same thing as his silence on bestiality

Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage

  1. Prohibiting remarriage after divorce
  • Matt 5:32, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
  • If a man divorces his wife on invalid grounds would mean that the marriage is still intact in God’s eyes, so if the man remarries he is committing adultery by having sex with a woman other than his wife
  1. The hardest case: A woman invalidly divorced
  • She’s the victim of a divorce, yet if she remarries she is committing adultery, again the main part is if the marriage is still intact

Learning from Jesus: Other Principles

  1. Sex ethic distinct from love command
  • If these are the same, if we truly loved everyone we should be having sex with everyone. Jesus said to love everyone, but have sex with only 1 person
  1. A strong interior component to sexual ethics
  • He wants not only external but internal obedience
  1. Sexual ethics as a life-and-death matter (Matt 5:29-30, John 8:3-11)
  2. A heightened ethical demand coupled with a loving outreach to violators
  • Jesus is asking us to do both
  • The parallel of tax collectors and sexual sinners – Jesus reached out to both of these groups – outreach to those in greatest danger
  1. Jesus on the love commandment, rebuke and forgiveness, the Good Samaritan
  • Love your neighbor as yourself, a true understanding of love is not about you, it’s about correcting a friend who is straying
  • Rebuking and forgiveness Luke 17:3-4
  1. The ends of marriage
  • Procreation (Gen 1:27-28)
  • Companionship and sexual enjoyment (Gen 2:18_
  • The highest objective of marriage is not even companionship, but Jesus’ insistence on marital indissolubility, based on the 2 becoming 1, is the key
  • Marriage is God’s instrument for reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole
  • God designed marriage for shaping two into one
  • Sexual activity sets in motion a reality beyond the individual’s control