Stop reducing your statement of faith to fit on your front marquee

There are many legitimate reasons to leave an organization.  Where I've been planted for over a decade, it would take quite a change of culture, ministry philosophy, or vision -- or a specific calling from the Lord -- for me to uproot.  However, I have made it clear to the team with whom I serve that there is one hypothetical situation that would unquestionably send me packing...

One of my biggest pet peeves is church marquees.  To borrow a friend's analogy, they are like the worst of Twitter (X).  The example included here (courtesy of ChatGPT) is far less offensive than some actual ones I've seen in my area recently.  But even this attempt at wordplay, though adopting a humorous posture, is nevertheless offering commentary about this imaginary congregation's not-so-generous view of other faith traditions.

Digital, screen-printed, or old-school plastic, marquees come in a variety of distasteful flavors.  In no particular order, here are just a few types of content that especially make me cringe, groan, and/or low-key rage every time I drive by:

• Dad jokes
• Political commentary or patriotic slogans
• Clunky attempts to make faith pithy
• Sappy invitations that presume to know the audience
• Out-of-context Bible verses or phrases
• Inflammatory or mean-spirited statements presenting one-dimensional theology
• Sadly out-of-touch attempts to be culturally relevant
• Weak efforts to de-legitimize other churches, faiths, or denominations

Who doesn't love a good dad joke, right?  I'm a dad.  It's like my emotional currency with my kids.  But is the church marquee where I want to unload those classic groaners, particularly in association with ideas that I believe are sourced from divine and timeless truth?

How imperative is it that passersby know that the unborn right to life is the capstone of your church's statement of faith, and why does that precede the gospel as the thing of first importance for the community to know about your belief system?

Is it truly helpful to encapsulate in simple catchphrases complex Scriptural teachings that entire volumes have been written to address and expound?

While the inspired words of the Bible have great power, and even an excerpt can be a mechanism the Holy Spirit might use to open eyes to the truth of the gospel, should we continue to feed into soundbyte culture that wants everything condensed into pill form?  Or should we instead make it our practice to be inviting them to participate in a much larger, longer, and richer conversation?

I'm just asking questions.  I may, in fact, share a church's viewpoint on a particular issue, and yet I cannot align myself with their manner of communication.

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one reason for a church to have a marquee, and that is to communicate relevant information about times for gathering.  Even then, I'd still be a proponent of ripping that thing out of the ground and planting a shrubbery instead.

Now that I've complained, let me do some explaining.

Everything communicates, and first impressions are often the most enduring (not the most endearing).  The Church's purpose -- being salt and light, a city on a hill, a redeemed and anointed priesthood to the nations -- does not mean we have to take an aggressively outspoken and public stand on every divisive cultural issue.  How helpful is it to proclaim what we stand against?  Shouldn't we strive to be known only by our love for the simple, uncluttered gospel of Jesus Christ: God Himself freely offered for sinners?  Those outside our gatherings need only the invitation to come.  There, they will hear from us -- personally and over time! -- our particular views on and practices of all other matter of ethics, faith, and theology, where they can be more fully treated and understood.

There is no possible way to encapsulate a rich and nuanced theological point in the amount of characters available on a marquee.  One-liners are a butchers knife or a cudgel while truly pastoral teaching requires a scalpel, wielded with laser-focused precision.  Churches should never prefer bluntness over carefulness, especially not in their most forward and exposed statements to the community around them.  It's easier than ever to be misunderstood in a TikTok-trained, media-saturated, ADHD soundbyte culture, so why feed into the trend?

Attempts at cleverness directly undermine compassion and care.  Is it really a good thing for people to get the sense that your church is "down-to-earth" and "doesn't take itself too seriously?"  Do we not cheapen or tarnish something precious and of infinite value by making light of it?  Are not the things pertaining to following Christ of eternal importance?  Is not the gospel a message of hope and rescue to hurting and needy people?  We should adopt the Apostle Paul's sincerity: he insisted that believers must not be like street peddlers of worthless trinkets, just trying to make a buck for themselves, but rather present ourselves as ambassadors of the New Covenant, proclaiming the triumph of Christ over sin and death, and inviting the lost into an eternal Kingdom of healing and hope (2 Cor 2.17).

Loud political opinions reflect poorly examined and badly applied theology.  It's worth remembering that there are genuine, grace-covered followers of Jesus Christ on both sides of almost every single issue that divides us.  After all, Jesus called both Matthew (a tax-collecting stooge for Rome) and Simon (an anti-imperialist Jewish zealot) to walk together with Him in their shared ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  Even if you can argue your view from Scripture as the "right" one, truth cannot be properly articulated without grace, because our beliefs are not isolated or disconnected from our conduct.  Our manner of speech, verbal or in print, should always reflect Christ's heart of compassion for those who are lost, and a willingness to pursue unity even in our various perspectives.  Broadcasted marquee opinions are, by their very nature, devoid of tact and opposed to the spiritual discipline of good listening (Jas 1.19).

Personal invitation is always more gospel-centric than enticement or provocation.  By their messaging, some churches seem to favor luring the spiritually curious into their services.  The marquee is like a movie teaser for the jaw-dropping blockbuster release of the sermon.  Others use intentionally divisive language as a challenge to outsiders, daring them to react.  Either approach reeks of arrogance.  If our goal is to be mysterious and coy, we reveal our pride over our own spiritual insight and imply that we delight to make theologically uneducated people feel small.  Faithful preaching is neither entertainment, nor should it be an opportunity to flex our spiritual muscles.  On the other hand, if our intent is to use our marquee to spout fire and brimstone, it may as well be a bullet-riddled "No Trespassing" sign, declaring to the community that anyone holding a different viewpoint is unwelcome and beyond the saving hope of the gospel.

Bottom line: it's problematic for a church to misrepresent Christ, the gospel, and God's intent for His people.  As churches, God's people should strive to be as clear, thoughtful, and intentional as possible in all of their communication efforts, especially those targeting the community outside, who have no context to understand our levity or passion.  As individual followers of Christ, it's likewise critical that we be purposeful and winsome in how we communicate.  Everything from bumper stickers to t-shirts to social media posts must be weighed carefully.  These things don't nearly point to Christ as much as we might think they do.  More often, they just serve to highlight our own ideas and opinions, not the gospel.

So!  I'm routinely grateful that our church doesn't have a marquee out front.  If we ever do get one, well...

Sexuality, Pt 2: Sexuality ≠ Identity

Part I // Part III // Part IV // Part V
_____________________________

In an article entitled "The Complexity of Identity: 'Who Am I?'," Beverly Tatum of the White Privilege Conference, a racial equality coalition, expressed the problem of self-identifying in the following words:

The concept of identity is a complex one, shaped by individual characteristics, family dynamics, historical factors, and social and political contexts. 

Who am I?

The answer depends in large part on who the world around me says I am.  Who do my parents say I am?  Who do my peers say I am?  What message is reflected back to me in the faces and voices of my teachers, my neighbors, store clerks?  What do I learn from the media about myself?  How am I represented in the cultural images around me? Or am I missing from the picture altogether? 

As social scientist Charles Cooley pointed out long ago, other people are the mirror in which we see ourselves.  This "looking glass self" is not a flat one-dimensional reflection, but multidimensional.  How one's racial identity is experienced will be mediated by other dimensions of one-self: male or female; young or old; wealthy, middle-class, or poor; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or heterosexual; able-bodied or with disabilities; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist.

What has my social context been?  Was I surrounded by people like myself, or was I part of a minority in my community?  Did I grow up speaking standard English at home or another language or dialect?  Did I live in a rural county, an urban neighborhood, a sprawling suburb, or on a reservation?

Who I am (or say I am) is a product of these and many other factors.

Tatum's thesis involves a complex number of interconnected dynamics -- race, economic status, geographical location, interpersonal and familial relationships, gender, sexuality, age, and more.  All of these are factors in personal identity, and the vast quantity of variables contributes to the struggle individuals undergo to figure out exactly who they are.  Ironically, the vast majority of these factors are external to the individual: the so-called "looking glass self" that the environment provides is completely independent of the image we try to create for ourselves.  Though we might try, we can't truly change our race, age, gender, or familial relationships.  In other words, many elements of our identities are pre-determined, not options we get to pick before we spawn.

The sexual revolution of the 1960's -- the push for "free love" and open, unrestricted sexuality -- elevated sexuality to the forefront of personal identity.  The push against a conservative cultural temperature was a statement of individuality -- a rebellion against what were considered repressive social norms in an attempt to indulge sexual passions without shame.  Because our culture wanted (and still wants) to exert control over their sexual practices (by "liberating" them), and simultaneously wants to feel connected to one another, they were quick to make sexual preference the key factor in self-identification.  Furthermore, because sexuality involves intimacy and vulnerability, it's a voluntary type of self-exposure that we should have the right to control -- how we want, when we want.  In the individual expression of sexuality, our culture wants control over personal identity.  Therefore, they make their sexual preference synonymous with who they are as individuals.

Unsurprisingly, that perspective is not biblical.  In fact, Paul builds his argument about believers being conformed to the image of Christ -- e.g. finding their identity in Him -- in the midst of a discussion on sexual immorality.  Even in the era of the early church, promiscuity and deviant sexual behaviors were a means by which people chose to identify themselves, and so Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 6 addresses the issue at its core, leaving no room for the "my sexual preference is my identity" argument to remain.  In fact, Paul insists that we should "flee sexual immorality," not only because it directly violates biblical commands, but also because it is against the very character of Christ -- the image, or the identity, to which believers should be conformed.  If we claim the name of Christ, then we are no longer our own -- we are bought with a price, and therefore must glorify our Father, choosing to be defined no longer by the world's parameters but by His.

If we are conformed to the image of Christ, then our behavior and our desires will look like His.

Our sexual activities should be defined by who we are in Him, not define who we are.

Paul further discusses our identity in Christ in Romans 8.  There, not only does he outline the compassion of a God who understands and helps us in our weaknesses, extending to us the strength to overcome all the temptations and sufferings set before us, but he also promises the future glory of eternity with Christ.  We are joint-heirs with Him, Paul reminds the believer, destined to judge angels, and redeemed (literally "bought back") from our slavery to sin and restored to a life of purity, honor, and eternal security.

In other words, we have been saved to so much more than sexual "freedoms."

Our identity is found in so much more than just our sexuality.

This conversation is perhaps most applicable to the homosexual community, who define themselves principally by their sexual preference.  A good friend of mine brought to my attention how ironic it is that individuals who stand for marriage equality were willing a few months back to trade their profile pictures on Facebook for a big equals sign.  It's ironic because, as the homosexual community pushes for their identity to be recognized, they are willing to hide their own faces for the cause.  They are willing to cover their physical, emotional, and spiritual identities with their sexual preference.  "This is who we are, get over it," is the principle sentiment of the gay community, which is as much a response to pharisaical bigotry as it is a militant front, and as much a statement of indifference to outside opinion as it is a cloak to cover the shame.  Regardless of the reasoning, to say "I'm a homosexual and this is who I choose to be" is ultimately a surrendering of individual identity for the sake of picking up a banner.  I understand that sexual preference is the issue that's being contested, but to wear homosexuality like a badge is to eclipse the sun with the moon.  It is elevating sexual preference to the single defining feature of identity.

On one hand, the gay community's tenacious defense of their sexual liberty is admirable.  On the other hand, the defensiveness that goes into their stance -- the sneer they wear to prove themselves bulletproof in their convictions -- speaks of the concealed nature of the sin in their hearts.  What they refuse to recognize is that covering their sinful actions with the approving stamp of legal sanction doesn't change the fact that what they desire is biblically wrong.

That being said, I won't victimize, vilify, or vindicate the gay community.  They need Jesus just like I do.  Furthermore, both Christians and homosexuals alike have been at fault throughout the course of this 40+ year debate, and both have proven time and again to be more noble than the other.  Would that self-proclaimed "Christians" were more adamant about the truth of Christ being proclaimed than about getting to throw the first stone.  However, the root issue of homosexuality is fundamentally misunderstood by both parties involved.  To the homosexual, the gay agenda is a personal application of social equality; to many Christians, the gay agenda is contrary to their sense of religious and social stability, a sin expressly condemned by the Bible, and one punishable by death in ancient Jewish culture (Lev 20.13).  Both perspectives ultimately miss the mark, because the gay agenda, so much more than being an innocent quest for individuality, is really a rejection of absolute truth.

"Not true," a member of that community might say, "we just want to have sex the way we want."  And maybe that's true on the surface, but the fact that they push for a new label -- a label handed down by the legal system that not only legitimizes but also promotes the homosexual lifestyle -- is an attempt to crack the shell of God's moral law.  It's itemizing, sure, and doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal, but our God deals in absolutes.  The one who violates one command is guilty of violating them all (Jas 2.10).  Furthermore, the one who chooses to follow Christ must leave everything behind and take up a cross of his own.  There is no halfway with God, and there are no loopholes.  In fact, the only loophole in the Scriptures is the one Christ Himself provided: the way of escape from sin and death, a fate to which we were absolutely condemned without Him.

Our culture -- especially the homosexual community -- doesn't like that aspect of biblical rationality.  They don't like moral absolutes or one-way-to-heaven theology, because they want to dissect the Word and enable one tiny violation.  Just one can't be damning, can it?  However, as the Bible attests, the way to enter heaven is through the narrow gate (Matt 12.13).  Just as the rich man must leave his wealth behind because he can't carry it into heaven with him, so also the man who makes his identity his sexual preference must shed his lustful activities, because his gratification profits nothing in the light of eternity.

Maybe that sounds unfair.  "I was born this way," the homosexual man would say, "I can't help it."

The truth is, we are all born in sin.  We were all born that way.

Sexual sin was a struggle for me all my dating life, and it was hard to stop.  However, just because it was hard to overcome the temptation doesn't mean I had the right to claim I was born that way and continue.  Just because it was my flesh's inclination to pursue sex doesn't mean I was morally excused to float in my carnality instead of swimming upstream.  Even if my genes predetermine my propensity to sin in a sexual manner doesn't mean that I have a get-out-of-jail-free card.  I'm still held to the same standard of holiness as is the human race.  We either meet that standard through the person of Jesus Christ, or we fall short of it.

What I love so much about God's mercy -- aside from the fact that He always extends mercy before exacting judgment -- is the fact that, through it, He doesn't leave us alone.  He doesn't save us from sin and then leave us to fight our own uphill battles by our own strength and initiative.  Christ doesn't ask us to do anything we can't accomplish in His power, or to ever fight a battle on our own (Matt 19.26; 2 Cor 13.4; 1 Cor 10.13).

So, is overcoming a sexual sin hard -- especially homosexuality?  Yes.  Is it impossible?  No.  Not with the strength God supplies.

I love the statement Phil Moser, the teaching pastor at my church, has made on a number of occasions:

"God will not protect you from something He can perfect you through."

The God of this universe certainly welcomes all to come to Him -- just as they are.  But He is a holy God who commands holiness from His followers.  Therefore, though He welcomes you in your brokenness, He is not content to leave you that way.  If you truly give Him your life, He will begin working on it -- shaping you into the identity of a joint-heir with His Son, a redeemed and justified follower of Jesus.  However, that requires humility on our part, and -- above all -- obedience through the difficult tasks that are required of us.  God might not protect us from a temptation to which we are prone, because He wants us to learn to value Him more than we value that sinful craving.  He might not remove a painful trial from your life, because He wants you to consciously rely more upon Him -- instead of merely living on autopilot.  The world lives on autopilot, doing what seems right and navigating unconsciously by the way they feel.  We, however, are no longer conformed to the way this world operates, Paul attests, but transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12.2).  Every day, the true believer is transformed to be a little less like the world and a little more like Christ.

That is why my identity is so much bigger than my sexuality.  As believers in Christ, we shouldn't be labeling ourselves according to the type of sex we enjoy, because a). there is only one prescribed sexual practice in God's Word -- in the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman -- and b). because, frankly, sex isn't all there is to this life.  When I reduce who I am to my sexual preference, all of a sudden I'm defined by my libido.  I'm no longer a man of many facets, but a man who identifies principally with my own pleasure and my own selfishness.  Furthermore, by that mode of thinking, what I like determines who I am -- I don't determine what I like.  I'm even less in control of my identity by that rationality than I am when I choose to conform myself to the image of Christ.

Who I truly am -- who I've been saved by grace to become -- is so much bigger than my sexuality, or any other one individual factor.  We can't eliminate any of the things from Tatum's list: race, geography, likes/interests, skills, and etcetera are all parts of the whole -- all contributing factors to our sum total identity.  And the beauty of this list of factors is that God has given mankind plenty of opportunity to self-identify.  He has given us different interests and placed us in different families with different backgrounds and heritages.  We are each fearfully and wonderfully unique, handmade and hand-held by a God who values beauty and creativity (Psa 139.14).

The notion that personal identity should rightly be fluid seems more problematic than freeing to me.  Sure, my roles throughout my lifetime will change, and maybe my interests, pastimes, and preferences will change, but that doesn't necessarily mean the composite whole of who I am needs to radically shift.  I don't want to go through life wondering when the next set of circumstances will alter how I look at myself.  The core of who I am should be the independent component of personal identity.  The peripheral things should be the leaves and branches on the tree, not the trunk or the roots.  Important, yes; vital, certainly; but not irreplaceable should they change.  I lose who I am if I allow the peripheral elements of my identity to define the core.

I know that's supposed to be an opera singer on the end... but I still
choose to believe I'll have the opportunity to be a viking someday.

In its pursuit-based lifestyle of always desiring more, better, and different, our culture envies the chameleon his ability to change skin.  Americans want to reserve the right to alter who they are -- to be free to redefine themselves on a whim.  And to some extent, adaptivity isn't necessarily a bad wish.  Biblical redemption itself is all about personal change.  Broadening and shaping ourselves via the guidance of Scripture is essential for the same reason pruning is necessary to the health of the tree.  The bottom line, however, is that my comprehensive identity should remain stable even if my circumstances change.  Just because I lose my job or hit my thirtieth birthday shouldn't mean I begin to doubt who I am.

My identity in Christ should be unshakeable, informing the peripheral details of who I choose to be -- not the other way around.

I love verse 11 from Psalm 86, which says, "Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name."  The Bible speaks into the fact that we have so many divided loyalties in this world -- so many different factors pulling us in so many directions that we often feel torn as to who we are and what we're supposed to be doing.  It can make us feel hopeless.  That's why the psalmist prays to God, "Unite my heart," recognizing that He alone is the One capable of consolidating all the messy, complicated pieces of our messy, complicated lives.  He unites the hearts of His followers upon one singular, wholehearted pursuit.

To me, that's worthy of a sigh of relief.  The fact that God is in control of all the details means that I don't have to be.  If I can be content to allow Him to perform His work as the Master Potter, shaping me into the identity He desires for me, then my path is clear and my purpose is undivided.  Maybe the work set before me is not "easy," but I do know that it is far easier than continuing to drag around the burden of my own sinfulness (Matt 11.29), and that living for Christ is more fruitful and fulfilling than an empty and never-ending pursuit of temporary happiness (Ecc 1.17).

"Come to me, all who are weary and burdened," Christ says, knowing firsthand the weight of living in a world of constant motion, bereavement, and crushing frustration.  Find your identity, your hope, and your value in me, He promises, "And I will give you rest."

Sexuality, Pt. 1: Living in the Pursuit

Part II // Part III // Part IV // Part V
_____________________________

Nothing quite encapsulates American culture like Thomas Jefferson's apropos "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.  Such commentary was as much prophetic as it was revolutionary, because the modern-day American still lives in the pursuit -- the thrill of the chase -- perhaps more now than ever before.  His choice of words was as applicable to the sentiments of the American revolution as it is to modern concepts of individuality.

For some, the pursuit of happiness is the noble ambition of chasing one's dreams and refusing to be daunted by opposition.  However, a more shrewd -- if perhaps cynical -- perspective is that the life lived in pursuit is one of continual dissatisfaction.  Pat Monahan expressed it perhaps the most succinctly in Train's "Calling all Angels," that we live in a world where "what we want is only what we want until it's ours."  Truly, that is where we live as Americans: in the pursuit, as opposed the attainment.

It's as much inspirational as it is self-defeating.

That sense of eternal questing is what makes The Great Gatsby such a profoundly American novel.  Even in the face of utter hopelessness, even in his awareness of utter failure, Jay Gatsby's aspiration to regain Daisy Buchanan's love would not be damned.  He was shackled to his quest.  That selfsame willingness to beat on against the overwhelming current -- just a little more, just for one more day -- is the very definition of American rationality.  We are as much enthralled by the perpetual uphill journey as we are cursed to climb.  And keep climbing.

Culturally, one of the biggest ways we live in the pursuit is with our relationships -- not unlike Gatsby himself.  We do this by making a god out of human intimacy while simultaneously convincing ourselves of love's impossible rarity.  "A good man is just so hard to fine."  "A broad who won't treat you bad is one in a million."  This is the theme of every romantic comedy: all men (or women) are scum, and the central characters have been hurt far too much in the past to make another try at dating worthwhile.  But then they happen to meet by a chance encounter and somehow accept one another despite each's considerable emotional baggage.  We watch a movie with an impossibly perfect ending like that and come away reminding ourselves to stay skeptical, because in real life that never happens.  No -- of course it never really happens that way.  People aren't perfect, and forgiveness is harder than the silver screen can testify.  Yet, we choose to dangle the carrot of a perfect relationship in front of ourselves anyway, and continue to seek the Mr. or Mrs. Right who will be our mystical diamond in the rough.  All of this together is how we live in the pursuit: we glorify the romantic relationship by convincing ourselves it is virtually unobtainable, yet continue to crave it like oxygen.  All the while, we train ourselves to become so distrustful of genuine love that when a significant other finally does come along, we're already fortified against the inevitable breakup.

Because we live in the pursuit, even when we finally find ourselves in the relationships we dreamed about we are still unsatisfied.

Now, add to the equation the tremendous emphasis we place on spirituality in the modern age.  We're supposed to "discover ourselves" and define our own identities, encourage self-expression, and value love, peace, and mutual understanding across all cultures.  Lennon and McCartney's "all you need is love" mentality was not just the moniker of the 60's: it is still perhaps the single most driving philosophy of human society.  In that regard, the fact that we more often than not make "sex" synonymous with "love" means that we elevate the value of interpersonal intimacy to an absurdly unhealthy level -- as though the entire point of existing on this planet is to pursue that special person with whom I might possibly be compatible.  If that's my mode of thinking, then copulation can only be the ultimate fulfillment of interpersonal relationships.  Therefore it shouldn't be wrong for me to engage in sex with anyone and everyone if there is an emotional, uplifting connection between us.

That's the type of New Age logic that gets convoluted very quickly.

To most young people, sexuality is a natural expression of love and identity.  Often, it's a statement of commitment that doesn't require the archaic necessity of legal marriage.  Commitment to the current generation looks like, "I love my girlfriend/boyfriend, so therefore I should demonstrate to her/him how much."  On the other hand, there are plenty of young people who view sex as nothing more than a pastime -- something that is purely physical, purely recreational.  Something that doesn't require any lingering emotional connection or commitment or potential heartbreak of any sort.  All that is at stake here is personal gratification: pleasure that is exciting, new, and completely complication-free.  We live in pursuit of it because there is something forbidden and elusive about it -- something raunchy and exciting that we know, deep down, we morally shouldn't have.

Either expression of sexuality is contrary to the Bible.  The wanton pursuit of sexual pleasure in any means available is what Paul describes as making a god of the belly -- that is, our heart or our desires (Phil 3.19).  This type of person finds him- or herself unable to worship anything but personal gratification.  Even the person who engages in sex with his or her significant other only at the point of mutual commitment is still ignoring the biblical framework that God established for mankind.

So, all that to say this.  We have a cultural problem.  As Americans, we don't know any other way but to live in the pursuit.  In so doing, we mislabel love, make gods of sex and emotion, and ultimately use other people as replaceable instruments to gratify our own desires.  Paradoxically, we idolize sex at the same time we cheapen it.

However, this post is not intended to address the "hedonistic masses" in a fruitless attempt to spur social change.  The generation that engages in promiscuity to its furthest extents doesn't need to modify its behavior: they need to understand the person of Jesus.  Otherwise, they're just taking a bath before they take a shower.  The point of this post is to address the fact that our culture's sexual practices are tainting that of the church.

I know this firsthand: my own dating history was a series of sexual and emotional failures, despite the Christian upbringing I was given.  God may have graciously used those experiences to bring me to the wonderful, godly, and understanding woman whom I am now blessed to call my wife, but that doesn't mean that the entirety of the church should learn via trial and error.  We don't all have to learn through mistakes.  While I certainly wouldn't claim myself to be an authority on this subject, I do have experience in the area -- both good and bad -- and I know how alluring sexual temptation can be.  Furthermore, it would be foolish to presume that anyone in modern America has not in some way been influenced by what the world and the media believe human sexuality should look like.

Whether or not we admit it, media informs the opinions of the masses.
Especially when it comes to sexuality, American culture allows itself
to be led around by the nose.

I'm leery of older generations' sentiment that the moral temperature of the world is much worse today than it ever has been.  While I won't disagree that the world is spinning on to its inevitable conclusion, I do think it is safe to say that we are simply more aware of the world's condition than we ever have been in the past, thanks to our saturation in media, news, and the internet -- truthful, manipulative, or otherwise.  Regardless, morality isn't any worse today: it's always been worse.  However, I will absolutely agree (thanks largely to the sexual revolution of the 1960's) that there is no more sacredness when it comes to sexuality.  Sex is cheap when it is the temperature gauge of our relationships, and when it is the ad man's best friend.  When we live constantly in the pursuit of bigger, better, and hotter sex -- when we follow Cosmo and make sex the penultimate standard of human interaction -- we cheapen it to nothing but a thrill, a carnival ride with a maddeningly addictive quality.  Ultimately, we make ourselves into slaves who don't quite realize the destruction our chosen taskmaster can wreak.

So where do we begin?

For starters, we need to change our thinking.  If sex is no longer sacred, then we need to restore its value.  We need to return to a biblical understanding that human sexuality is a beautiful, wonderful, fulfilling gift from God with a joyful and perfectly-structured application in the marriage bed.  We also need to forgo the mindset that sex is something dirty and forbidden, and stop allowing that sense of perverseness to ensnare our carnal passions.  Though our culture has paradoxically diminished the value of sex while simultaneously making it an idol of emotional comfort, we need to keep that perspective from tainting our biblical understanding of the purpose and the joy God intended for sexuality when He designed it.

It is often the case that -- being products of the environment in which we live -- we attempt to make the Bible fit with the worldview we prefer.  We try to make room for our lusts and cravings and think that we are still somehow capable of living for Christ without fully putting to death the flesh.  It is for that reason that I'm going to be writing a series of posts pertaining to sexuality and Christian relationships.  Hopefully none of them will be exceptionally lengthy pieces.  However, the sexual and emotional brokenness that exists in our culture has a much stronger influence on the church than many Christians would like to admit, and I believe that problem needs to be addressed.

Sexual expression is intensely personal.  There is so much shame associated with it -- some earned, some undeserved.  Naturally, people are bound to be offended by someone else's opinion.  I can't promise not to step on any toes during this discussion, though I will be as tactful and as respectful as possible.  However, keep in mind that the Scripture doesn't deal in opinions.  In fact, it uproots them at their foundations (2 Cor 10.5).

His statutes endure through all generations.