Get Rid Of Slimy guidelineS: Faulty justification and sexual ethics

I grew up doing lots of reading.  One particular thing I read over and over was Bill Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes, which I still consider to be one of the most masterful uses of the comic art form (right up there with Larson's The Far Side and Opus by Berkeley Breathed).  Spaceman Spiff, deranged mutant killer snowmen, and Calvinball were just a few of my favorite elements of the strip, but one recurring gag that also stands out to me is Calvin's ill-fated G.R.O.S.S. club -- that, of course, is an acronym for "Get Rid Of Slimy girlS."  The club's singular mission: to irritate Susie Derkins, Calvin's neighbor and sometimes playmate.  More often than not, however, Calvin's planned methods of pranking or harassing woefully backfire, largely due to Hobbes' partiality to Susie and his reluctance to be an accomplice to the dubious schemes.

We'll return to that idea.

On Monday, I was reading an online scientific journal (not something I make a practice of doing), but the striking excerpt grabbed my attention:

"Approximately 40 percent of men have experienced inexplicable feelings of tearfulness, sadness, or irritability after mutually consensual sex and 3-4 percent experience it regularly, according to a survey published in peer-reviewed journal."

When I saw the post, I turned to my wife, read it aloud to her, and said, "Hmm, maybe all those Judeo-Christian ethics were on to something after all."

The paper, in its entirety, can be accessed here, and is pretty technical.  In short, the study utilized social media and online polling to research a psychological phenomenon called Postcoital Dysphoria (PCD), which psychologists attribute to any inexplicable, overwhelmingly negative emotional responses after sexual activity that, by all normal considerations, was consensual and fulfilling.  Previously documented in women, PCD is being newly observed in men, and is suspected to perhaps be even more prevalent among members of that gender.  The reason for this is not uniform, but the journal suggests strong connections between the dysphoria and a). childhood abuse, and b). cultural expectations surrounding the sexual activity of Western males -- that is, inflated and often self-imposed pressures to desire, be desired, and perform.  If the latter component is true, then the "condition" is at least partly connected to simple disappointment.

However, the real cause seems to be much deeper than that.  In their own words, men involved in the study described their experience of PCD as "a strong sense of self-loathing about myself," "a lot of shame," "negative feelings which are difficult to describe," and "hold[ing] in the sadness for hours until she leaves as we do not live together."  "Weird," says culture.  Because, under normal circumstances, 2 + 2 should -- from a logical perspective -- always = 4.  Therefore, we must decipher why consensual sexual activity between healthy adults would ever result in anything other than euphoria.  The unspoken presupposition is that dysphoria should only be connected with sexual coercion, abuse, trauma, or any variety of other factors, and is out of place anywhere else.

Calvin repeatedly enlisted Hobbes in an ill-fated and juvenile attempt to rid his immediate context of undesirables -- girls in general, but namely Susie Derkins.  He created a structure for his unwavering presupposition (that girls are gross and intolerable), situated the base of operations in the tree fort (to represent its lofty, enlightened ideals), and operated with overtly aggressive parameters (e.g. water balloons, stuffed animal kidnapping, mud slinging, etc).  Our culture has its own G.R.O.S.S. club in regard to this issue, one not targeting "slimy girls," but rather any form of morals, values, norms, or reasonings that embrace a worldview of personal accountability.  In a society where pedophilia is gaining traction as a sexual preference (as opposed to a criminally punishable psychological disorder), is it really any surprise that we would eventually resort to a DSM classification of "Postcoital Dysphoria" to rename guilt and shame associated with sexuality?  In an evolutionary cosmology, experiences of guilt and shame connected to coitus can only be artifacts of repressive religion or an unfortunate psychological dysfunction -- certainly not the result of "sin."

The point of this post is not to question the legitimacy of this study or the diagnosis, or even to accuse our society of being overly diagnosis-happy (which we are), but rather to point out the subtle/not-so-subtle ways our modern, "enlightened," pseudo-scientific minds are so ingrained with presuppositions that we will blindly create justifications for every type of sinful behavior under the sun.  In other words, because we assume sexuality is natural, animalistic, instinctive, preferential, and any number of other dismissive modifiers, then obviously any negative side-effects experienced must be the result of psychological conditions, or the vestigial artifacts of archaic religious worldviews, or some other inexplicable phenomena -- because obviously God is not real and there are no ethical implications for sex, other than what we ourselves legally ascribe to the acknowledged (but modifiable) list of deviant behaviors.

To be fair, Postcoital Dysphoria is something that even married individuals reported experiencing.  By God's Biblical standards, the legitimacy of their relationship is not in question, so marriage itself is not the only issue -- some other psychosomatic or biological factor can cause PCD.  And the reality is that sin truly does affect the psyche (Jer 17.9; Mark 7.20; Eph 4.17; Rom 12.2).  For that reason, I'm sure there are absolutely legitimate cases of Postcoital Dysphoria where committed, sacrificial, otherwise happily married couples still experience some form it -- because sin has damaged everything.  In fact, even if sexual activity in a marriage is not coerced, degrading, or harmful, other crucial elements of the marital relationship could be crying out against false normalcy: unconfessed sinfulness in other areas, unresolved conflict, distrust or disunity, and any number of other contributing factors could result in every symptom listed that characterize PCD in the study.

For that matter, PCD in cases where adults were abused as children seems to be a completely legitimate psychological challenge.  However, when it comes to unmarried couples -- even the happiest, most committed partnerships -- the legitimacy of PCD as a psychological condition becomes obscured by the fact that sin is at the root of those feelings of guilt and shame.  Why?  Because their lifestyle flies in the face of God's intended design for the most intimate human relationship.  Even the most exciting and mutually gratifying consensual sex is STILL SIN if it is done outside the confines of God's designated parameters.  For that reason, a PCD diagnosis rapidly becomes a quagmire of faulty justification for a culture that wants sex with no strings attached.  "Why do I feel bad after sex?  Well, it's just my condition -- certainly not because I'm doing something wrong.  That possibility doesn't fit my worldview."

While Calvin's plots were usually predictable -- and Susie proved again and again that girls are much smarter than boys -- the major downfall of the G.R.O.S.S. campaigns was Hobbes' non-commitment to the cause.  Unfortunately, the cult of post-truth thinking in our society is comprised of many more dedicated members than simply one hyperactive boy and one stuffed tiger.  Dismantling popular thinking is therefore a daunting task, but it is the mandate for Christians, given them by Jesus Himself:

[Jesus] said to them, “...you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1.7-8)

Being Christ's witnesses requires a unified identity that sets us apart from the world -- not only bearing a different message of hope, but also living differently.  In other words, if we as Christians aren't practicing holiness in our relationships, how are we possibly being Christ's witnesses?  It's not very effective to proclaim hope, peace, and holiness if we ourselves are harboring guilt and shame from sexual sin ourselves.  

Christian, have you engaged in sinful sexual activity and found some way to justify it?  Have you made sinful relationship choices, realized they were wrong, but gone on without any repentance or change?  We can't expect gospel truth to really make a difference in people's lives if we ourselves have not been completely, radically changed by it.  So let us carefully evaluate our own hearts in these matters so that we may more effectively step out in faith to accomplish God's gospel incentives.

Sexuality, Pt. 5: Overcoming Temptation

Part I // Part II // Part III // Part IV
_____________________________

With this post, I'm going to wrap up the series on biblical sexuality that I started at the beginning of September.  If the conversation to this point has been more philosophical than practical, I hope this last chapter will provide some simple yet powerful steps to overcoming temptation, specifically in the area of sexuality.  I went through a number of drafts and settled ultimately on what I hope will be a useful and encouraging conclusion.  If you're reading this and struggling for purity as I have, it is my prayer that you will know victory through the power that Christ alone supplies.

By way of encouragement, keep in mind that experiencing temptation is, in itself, not sin.  Christ Himself, fully God and fully human, was tempted in all the same ways we are, but endured the allure without sinning (Heb 4.15).  Therefore, the fact that I feel tempted to sin in a particular way -- though I might be disgusted by my own propensity -- is not the sin itself.

Alasdair Groves, one of the instructors at the CCEF foundation, stated this principle so profoundly: “God is glorified in the struggle.”  Here's what that means.  That means I am aware of my weaknesses.  That means I confess when I fall -- to God, to anyone against whom I've sinned by my choices, and to anyone who will commit to praying for me and keeping me accountable.  That means that I am actively fighting against that sin and taking precautions not to succumb to it -- in other words, not just rolling over when the temptation comes upon me.  By employing all of the defenses at my disposal, I express to Christ His surpassing worth -- that I am not content with the unsatisfactory lusts of the flesh and desire to glorify Him above all else.

If you've read any or all of the posts in this five-part series, hopefully they've provided some motivation to you to continue struggling.  Sexual failures in particular can feel like quicksand, and Satan wants us to think that we're too entrapped to get out of the mire -- so that we won't even try.  Yet the Scriptures teach us that God's grace covers our sinfulness when we repent (so we don’t need to feel guilty anymore), and that His Spirit empowers us to overcome in the future (so we don’t need to feel hopeless anymore).  He is a merciful God who forgives shortcomings, and a powerful God who provides the necessary strength to overcome temptation.

For the believer, giving up is not an option.  It doesn't matter how long and sordid your history of sexual failure is.  God's grace is not conditional.  It doesn't have a deductible.

He completely saves, and He purposefully empowers.

Identify where you are weak

Everybody struggles in a different way.  For some, their weakness might be pornography.  For others, it might be same-sex attraction.  For others still, it might be infidelity.  Often those temptations crisscross and become complexly interwoven.  Regardless of specifics, the Apostle James cuts to the heart of the matter when he defines temptation as the misguided leading of our own carnal desires -- whatever they may be (Jas 1.14).  Therefore, acknowledging our specific weaknesses is an all-important first step to overcoming our areas of temptation.  We can't begin to combat our sin problem if we don't know where it begins or what triggers it -- or if we continue to pretend that it isn't a problem and we can "handle" it.  Maybe we deceive ourselves into thinking that our struggle is no big deal, that we can keep it quiet and limit the damage.  We can try to bury our failures, but they're always there beneath the surface, ready to pop up again whenever we trip over the shallow grave.  Ultimately, no matter how good a job of hiding them we manage to do, there is One to whom we will inevitably give an account of all our deeds -- One from whom nothing is hidden (Heb 4.13).  In order to overcome, we need to choose instead to bring our weaknesses out into the light.

A wise counselor, under whom I had the privilege of learning, used to make a right angle with his arms and say, "You never fall into sin from here."  Changing the L into a severely acute angle, he'd conclude, a fortiori, "You fall from here."

This is not Pastor Joe Schenke, but he seemed like a willing volunteer.

The idea is this: when we fail to identify our weaknesses, we give a little ground.  The angle becomes a few degrees steeper.  We're like a frog in a pot of water, comfortable even as the temperature continues to climb -- so long as it's only one degree at a time.  Each moment we don't take action, we get a little closer to the boiling point.  By the time we actually commit the sin, it's because we've ignored all the warning signs.  Ultimately, the danger comes upon us before we even realize how close we are.

If instead we choose to be honest with ourselves, to search our hearts for our weak points and bolster our spiritual defenses -- acknowledging the warning signs as the temptation nears -- then we effectively sensitize ourselves to our own weaknesses.  Instead of giving our sin the luxury of a stealthy approach under the cover of darkness, we install motion sensing floodlights.

Practice "radical amputation"

Frankly, the concept of amputation seems radical enough to me.  Adding that specific adjective makes it even more extreme.

The concept behind medical amputation is simple.  Damage has been done to an extremity, damage that will spread to the rest of the body and cause further harm if it isn't stopped.  Though the practice of amputation originated in more primitive eras of medicine, there are still injuries and illnesses today that cannot be stopped with medication or alternative treatments, and so the only option is to remove the limb.  Crush syndrome and gangrene are two examples.  For that matter, cancer fits the description also: we have to remove tumors before we can treat the damage.

Applied to our spiritual battle, radical amputation means leaving no room for tolerance.  The disease of sin is so serious and so damaging that it must be violently cut out of our lives in order that we can live.  "Radical" amputation means that I don't wait until gangrene sets in to lop off the limb: I cut it off as soon as I have a papercut.  Sin is truly that damaging if left to fester.  It's worth losing a few fingers or a hand if it means I get to keep my heart.

This is what is meant by Jesus' metaphoric encouragement to His disciples that they should amputate limbs or eyes that offend them (Matt 5.30).  Of course that's not a literal command: what Christ was teaching was that it is far better to deprive ourselves of something that seems innocent or useful than to create a gateway that could potentially lead to sin.  It is better to enter heaven "maimed" than to tolerate sin that could utterly destroy our spiritual health.

Here's what that looks like.  If I'm dating a girl and I'm more likely to be tempted when we go to a certain place -- probably somewhere with few people, somewhere dark and romantic -- then I need to choose another location for the date.  If I'm more likely to be "handsy" after I've had a beer, then I need to not have a drink while on a date, or possibly consider giving up alcohol altogether if it has a tendency to alter my behavior.  If certain conversational topics bring me to the point where I begin to lust after my date, then I need to avoid those points of discussion.  If I struggle with pornography, then I need to install reliable filters, give someone I trust the password to Google Chrome, only use the internet in public locations, or maybe even forgo owning a computer altogether.  It is better to inconvenience myself by sacrificing my right to own a computer than to buy one and constantly battle the temptation to look at pornography.

If I don't take steps to protect myself from sin's allure, I could eventually find myself so enslaved to my desires that the redeeming Word of Christ is choked out of my heart by the weeds and thorns of lust growing up around it.  Through the gateway of tolerance, the disease which began in our limbs will spread all the way to our core.

Find accountability

Typically, we're ashamed of our sexual sins.  Though Hollywood might glorify the libido and promote cultural notions of sexual freedom, the reality is that sex is emotionally scarring when it is misused.  There's enough guilt packaged into sexual sins that makes it incredibly difficult to open up about the ways in which we've violated our own chastity.  We tend instead to bury the truth and keep our heads down -- lest somebody become wise to our failures.

By the same token, however, once we get past that initial hill and open our hearts to another believer, there is incredible encouragement to be found in the sharpening quality of iron on iron (Prov 27.17).  Contrary to popular belief, Christian fellowship isn't centered on potluck dinners after Sunday services.  Christian fellowship is more in line with James' encouragement that believers should pray for one another and confess their sins openly (Jas 5.16).  The writer of Hebrews took that assertion even further, stating that we should engage in this type of mutual exhortation on a daily basis in order to escape sin's tendency to harden our hearts (Heb 3.13).  This is a visceral and uncomfortable practice, but it engages us in a real, practical, and genuinely encouraging way.  We are all wounded soldiers helping each other limp to safety -- requesting aid where we are weak, lending strength where we are strong.  Though Christ has made us whole, there is still a long ways to go before we are completely rid the curse of sin and death.  Accountability is one of the most powerful tools we can utilize to overcome sexual temptation, simply because there is strength in numbers, and we are capable of pointing out flaws in our brother or sister that we might miss in ourselves.

Accountability is a powerful catalyst for change.

I love this song that a friend of mine wrote.  It captures the sentiment that I think many who struggle with sexual sin carry: I'm not worth saving.  I'm too far gone.  Don't waste your time on me.

If that's where you are, remember that God's grace is not conditional.  It doesn't matter how much wrong you've done.  Christ's death was once and for all, and the redemption He offers is enough to cover each and every failure.

So stop lying to yourself.

You aren't too far gone.

This isn't just who you are.

Your sin is a big deal and you do need to stop.

It isn't too late to repent.

God does love you.  He also hates your sin.  That's why He gave His Son -- so you could have something better.

People won't reject you or look at you differently if you open up to them.  In fact, they've most likely struggled in some of the same ways.

You need other believers to help carry you through.

Prayer and honest confession are instrumental in turning a losing battle with sexual temptation into a victory.

Practice godly disciplines

Paul frequently wrote in his epistles about "putting on" and "putting off" different behaviors.  The overarching idea is simply that it isn't enough to stop sinning: we must replace a bad behavior with a good behavior in order to truly implement change.  To overcome a tendency to lie, it's not enough to resolve to stop telling lies -- I must also begin to tell the truth.  To overcome the tendency to sin sexually with a woman, it's not enough to simply stop the act of sex -- I must also begin to seek help, to change my thinking about sex and my own desires, and to seek purity instead.

It's not enough to simply stop.  We must replace the bad behavior with a good one.

Don't misunderstand: we cannot atone for our sinfulness.  Heaping up all of our good deeds still won't stack up to the level of perfection, and that's what God requires.  However, once we have come to a saving, life-changing knowledge of Christ, suddenly we have the ability to stop sinning.  Through God's power, we have a newfound capacity to walk in obedience, whereas before our best attempt to get clean was to take a bath in the mire.  We no longer need to be perfect, because Christ was perfect on our behalf.  Yet we still strive for holiness, because wholehearted spiritual obedience is the natural result of genuine salvation.  That's why Paul talks about replacing poor behavior with good behavior -- not because we can somehow be good enough to earn heaven, but because we can now begin to train ourselves to practice obedience.

Interestingly, when we apply the practice of spiritual disciplines to areas where we aren't weak, it makes it easier to practice obedience in the areas where we are.  When Paul told the Thessalonian believers to "abstain from every kind of evil," he preceded that command with a list of other spiritual "to-dos" -- prayer, service, and the practice of such things as thankfulness, humility, and accepting instruction (1 Thess 5.14-22).  So, if I'm struggling with lust and choose to devote myself to prayer (honest confession, humble thanksgiving, and earnest supplication) and ministering to others (the moral opposite of lusting after them -- giving instead of taking), that sin will have fewer handholds in my heart to grasp.

Here's why this approach works: sin is pervasive.  It isn't neatly confined to one "area" of our hearts.  Sin has the quality of a liquid: conforming to the shape of its container, filling each part of our spirituality.  To do battle in one area is to do battle in them all, which is why we need to use all of the biblical resources available to us -- not just prayer, not just the Word of God, not just the wisdom of our spiritual elders.  To do battle through prayer is to hack at one tendril of sin -- the one that says God isn't enough and that sex should be my right to use how I see fit.  To do battle through service is to uproot the creeping vine that insists relationships exist for my benefit.  All of these areas converge on the same sin.

Furthermore, this approach takes the focus off the sin itself and places it on God instead.  Like Peter, we need to take our eyes off of the waves and put our focus back onto Jesus.  The battle is really His anyway -- we can't fight it alone.  That means that, instead of beating our heads against the struggle with a particular sin, we throw ourselves into desperate, prayerful dependence upon God's strength.   Instead of depending upon spiritual self-help books (and blogs), we can begin to replace the tendency to sin with steps of obedience, taken in God's uplifting grace.

That doesn't mean, of course, that I can tolerate my sinful behavior while trying to be spiritual.  That's often what we try, and it doesn't work.  Going to church, giving an extra-large tithe, and helping a fellow congregant move don't collectively substantiate for the glaring sin problems we are keeping hidden behind the doors of our hearts -- justified because we're "praying about them" and waiting for God to miraculously remove the temptation.  That "approach" isn't an approach.  It's spiritual laziness.  That reveals nothing but a desire to avoid hard tasks, and a heart that values sin over righteousness.

We have to address and tackle our specific struggles -- not just ignore them, and certainly not revel in them.  No amount of good behavior can compensate for any amount of bad, and no amount of blissful ignorance can remove the mountain of temptations that we face.  However, if I am truly developing other ares of my life, practicing spiritual disciplines, and actively attempting to replace my sinful acts with God-honoring behaviors, then the habits I'm forming and the choices I'm making will invariably impact my area of weakness.

Faith can move mountains, after all (Matt 17.20).

Learn to hate the sin

This may be the hardest step to implement.

Let's be honest.  Sin is fun -- especially sexual sin.  It's a forbidden delight.  It's thrilling.  It's addictive.

That's why we not only need to change our behavior, but also our perspective.

I'm convinced that until we learn to despise our wickedness, until we are truly brokenhearted over the state of our hearts, we will continue to wrestle with our sinfulness.  God extends mercy and comfort to those who mourn for their own sinful condition (Matt 5.4).  That doesn't just mean that I feel bad and wish I hadn't failed.  Truly mourning over my sin means being overcome with the type of grief that compels me to confess my wrongdoings -- both to God and to the ones whom I've offended -- as wicked, selfish, idolatrous violations of His perfect order, and inspires heart-changing repentance.

The most difficult command in the Bible to keep is to be holy the way God is.  That's because holiness isn't measured in degrees.  I'm not a mere 85% holy if I have sexual sin in my life.  Holiness is all-encompassing: either I'm made holy through Christ's redeeming blood, or I'm utterly wicked, stained scarlet by the sin I refuse to relinquish.  That type of black-and-white dichotomy doesn't jive with moral relativism, but it is absolutely biblical.  Either I'm for Christ or I'm against Him (Luke 11.23).  Therefore, if I'm truly a child of God, then I will desire to be like Him -- holy as He is holy -- and should no more crave the type of defiling wickedness that categorizes life without Him.

Am I going to be tempted?  Certainly.

Will there ever be a point at which I'll be immune to temptation's allure?  Probably not.

Remember, Christ Himself was tempted in all ways, even through His final moments on the cross.  If the Son endured temptation throughout His human life, then it only follows that we will also.

Am I going to fall?  Probably.  But a mistake is different than a characteristic behavior.

To have a lustful thought and confess it immediately is to hate sin and to pursue righteousness before God.  To allow lust to marinate, however -- to allow it room to grow from thought into action, and to avoid confessing that sin or to do anything about it -- is to make that sin characteristic.  At this point, it is no longer a mistake; it is a lifestyle.  Paul warned professing believers against thinking that they were truly saved if this was how they conducted themselves.  Those who make a practice of sexual immorality -- in other words, those whose lives are characterized by sin instead of righteousness -- cannot expect to enter into heaven (1 Cor 6.10).

If instead we recognize all of our desires can be fulfilled in Christ alone and train our hearts to earnestly desire heaven -- instead of becoming distracted by the deceitful allures of a broken world -- we can begin to hate sin with the same fervency God does.  To tolerate sin is to allow lust to linger; to eradicate sin and pursue Christ instead is to practice the righteous type of hatred for wickedness that characterizes God Himself.  "I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless," David wrote in the Psalms, "I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me" (Psa 101.3).  Hating the sin means allowing it no room for dominion in my heart.

FLEE

Joseph flees Potiphar's wife, leaving his coat in her grasp.

The bottom line when it comes to overcoming temptation, is that -- above all else -- it is to be fled, not tolerated.  We do well to quote 1 Corinthians 10.3 when it comes to a personal struggle: "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability."  But we always leave out the quintessential second half!  Paul continues, "But with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."

Don't miss this.  According to this favorite passage of struggling Christians, endurance is predicated upon the way of escape.  Overcoming temptation isn't about me defeating it by sheer willpower.  That means that I should do everything in my power to be conscious of my temptation, taking all of the aforementioned measures to avoid it before I ever choose to face it.

99 times out of 100, when I try to endure without fleeing, I will fail.  99 times out of 100, I'll find myself immediately thereafter moping, feeling sorry for myself, and wondering why I even bothered trying.  Instead, like Joseph, we need to flee the scene of the crime -- before the crime is ever committed.  It is absolutely futile to screw up my face and insist, "No!  I'm better than this!" but do nothing to get away from the temptation.  At that point, I'm a heroin addict going through withdrawal, left alone with a loaded needle.

Temptation is always to be fled -- often literally.  When we fail, it's not because God tested us beyond our ability or failed to give us the strength He promised: it's that we ignored the prime opportunity to escape that He provided.  We need to use the lifelines He extends in order to overcome the battle with our own weaknesses.

Fleeing sin is not retreating.  It is not conceding the battlefield.  Certainly we take a stand against sin in the world -- against the errors of heretical teachings and against sin creeping into the body of Christ.  When it comes to our personal struggle with sin, however, doing battle means taking precautionary measures to stem the influence of our old way of living, because Christ already overcame sin.  The war is already won, the enemy already defeated.  Our job, therefore, is much less maintaining a self-defeating offensive than avoiding the lingering fallout -- keeping ourselves unstained by the world until the Savior returns in glory, to bring us home for all of eternity.

~*~

All that being said, you can practice all of these steps and still fall into sin.  These are not foolproof methods, and our hearts often deceive us.

Furthermore, we can pray with all our might for God to remove temptation from us, but He doesn't always take us out of harm's way.  Why?  Not because He enjoys watching us stumble, but because He will test our loyalty to Him.  How we respond to temptation is an indicator of how much we love Him.

We will never become perfect.  We've already irreparably tarnished our record.  However, we are made holy by the blood of the lamb, and the charges against us have been placed upon the Messiah -- the Redeemer.  Recompense for the debt of sin had to be made, and so Jesus placed His own perfection on the altar and paid the bill in full.  Through the freedom provided us via His sacrificial act, we have the potential to never choose sin again.  Most likely we'll still fail.  But if we take precautionary steps to approach temptation biblically and repent as soon as we stumble, we can wrap ourselves in the Holy Spirit and never again fall into a pattern of debilitating sinful behavior.

God's grace covers our sinfulness when we repent, so we don’t need to feel guilty anymore.

His Spirit empowers us to overcome in the future, so we don’t need to feel hopeless anymore.

He is a merciful God who forgives shortcomings.  He is a powerful God who provides the necessary strength to overcome temptation.


To Him be the glory, forever and ever.  Amen.

Sexuality, Pt 4: God's Design

Part I // Part II // Part III // Part V
____________________________

Every design can be broken down to its most essential components, based on their functionality.  There is nothing in the natural world that exists without function, even though we might not necessarily be able to identify all the particulars.  Heck, even Target wall art and useless yard-sale nicknacks both serve purposes (albeit not ones that I will tolerate in my house).  Whether we're talking about atoms or appendages, and whether you look at the universe through the lens of creationism or evolutionary theory, it is undeniable that there is functionality in the material world.

The water cycle.  The food chain.  Oxygen.  The sun.

All of these serve a purpose.  All of them are co-dependent in the natural system.  Were one piece to become misaligned, the entire Rube Goldberg would come to a screeching halt.

And speaking of sex...

Maybe it sounds cold, simplified, or ultra-conservative, but human sexuality is also ultimately defined by its functionality, not unlike these other elements of the material world.  Maybe you like to think of sex as a cathartic, spiritual, or social tool, and the biblical mandate sounds restrictive and limiting to your sexual freedom.  Maybe you think that God doesn't care about sexuality.  Maybe you just don't want Him to know what goes on in your bedroom.

Regardless of what we might be prone to think, however, the Bible records God's function and design for human sexuality.  Not unlike the universe operating on its infinitely complex system of ropes and pulleys, one kink in the strings of sexuality can bring the entire system crashing down.

In the Beginning

God originated His plan at creation, a plan that has neither altered over time nor been adapted to make provision for human preference.  You're probably already familiar with the story out of Genesis, but if we're going to discuss the rightness or wrongness of sexuality, we ultimately have to return to its origin in order to determine its purpose and functionality.

In the first chapter of the Bible, the story of creation is abbreviated.  Tim Keller wisely makes the observation that Genesis 1 and 2 together form a literary couplet, much in the same vein as Judges 4 & 5 and Exodus 14 & 15, where "one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or a poem about the theological meaning of the event... Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a 'song' about the wonder and meaning of God's creation... [while] Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened" (The Reason for God, p 97).  We can see the poetry infused into the very text.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them. 

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then, Genesis 2 more specifically documents the mode of creation:

7 ...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... 15 The Lord God took the man [Adam] and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, 

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

So that's the account.  Now let's discuss the particular elements and their implications.

"The man and his wife" / "male and female he created them"

Not even a dog would suffice as Adam's sidekick.

There are plenty of biblical passages with easy to misunderstand subtext.  Not so here.

God designed the base unit of humanity in a pair: one man, one woman.  One male and one female.

No "helper fit for Adam" was to be found in all of the created world.  God's miraculous act of forming Eve from Adam's rib was not His Plan B or an afterthought.  Instead, the specific delay in creating Adam's helper serves as a very intentional reminder to mankind -- even in the beginning -- that man requires a very specific counterpart, and that no other piece of creation had the necessary functionality to fulfill that role.  Eve was created specifically to supplement Adam, to strengthen him, and was symbolically taken from his side as a picture of the intimate and deeply connected relationship a husband and a wife were intended to share.  He, to nurture, protect, and prefer; she, to support, embolden, and encourage.

This was God's first and only design.

"A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife"

This is the establishment of biblical, God-honoring marriage.  Mankind has continued to utilize this lifestyle throughout history -- as much for love and companionship as for the very survival of the human race.  God gave Adam -- a man who had no earthly parents himself -- the instructions to pass down to his future sons: leave your father and mother (in modern terms, become financially independent of them) and become emotionally, physically, and spiritually joined to your wife, for the rest of your life on earth.

Modern society doesn't place nearly as much emphasis on marriage as did older cultures.  Today, it's widely considered more of a novelty than a practicality.  It's treated as a romantic pastime for people who are in love, which is why the marriage can be so carelessly discarded when it grows old or complicated.

"A much wiser and more mature view of the world," this generation argues, "supports cohabitation and committed relationships.  Marriage as an institution has failed."

Of course, the reality is not that marriage as an institution has failed, but that we as human beings have failed.  With the entrance of sin into the world came individuals and even whole societies that have disregarded and even perverted marriage, the core human relationship, extracting the one quality they found attractive and warping it into something that existed only for the gratification of their lusts.  This type of sexual brokenness was one of the first consequences of the break in fellowship between God and man, and continues to be among the most debilitating and self-destructive human behaviors.  Without marital parameters consecrating sex as a sacred act -- something to be protected and valued by a husband and wife -- the leap to things like homosexuality, bestiality, and rape becomes remarkably short.

However, the fact that deviant sexual behavior has existed in one form or another since the fall of man does not mean that its longevity is evidence of its legitimacy.  Sin's very existence is not proof of its acceptability.  Perhaps our society doesn't consider itself wicked for its wanton sexual escapades, nor for its stunning divorce rate, but the all-knowing God of the universe certainly doesn't lose track.  He is a just God who absolutely does not desire to condemn anyone (2 Pet 3.9); yet for those who refuse to acknowledge His absolute truth, there can only be one, final fate.

Marriage, the holy union of one man and one woman, is the order God established in the beginning.  Its sanctity is just as important today as it was then.  It is not an archaic practice or an empty commitment, and in itself is not a broken institution: to the contrary, its parameters are broken only by the ones who practice it halfheartedly.

"They were not ashamed"

Prior to sin entering the world, Adam and Eve's sexual relationship was perfect.  Their intimacy was characterized by joy, beauty, and innocence.  There was no shame to mar the perfection.  Neither wondered what sex with someone else would be like, nor was there any emotional baggage from previous relationships to cloud their marriage.  There was no fear that the ways in which they were physically engaging were wrong.

Whether our culture wants to admit it or not, sexuality makes an emotional mess of us all.  All intimate acts that do not take place in the confines of a loving, committed marriage ultimately bring only regret.  Maybe not in the moment, but certainly when it's over.  Maybe you regret that it's gone, or maybe you regret that you ever engaged sexually with that person.  Maybe you don't know what you feel, or maybe the shame disguises itself as a type of nostalgia for a past relationship that once meant so much.  But no matter the form it takes, this lack of fulfillment is all part of the same thing.

Adam and Eve knew perfect sexuality, one that was untainted by sin.  That was God's design -- for sex to be a beautiful, enjoyable, and fulfilling expression of mutual love and commitment shared between a husband and a wife.  However, both they and we chose the alternative: the allure of sin, which promises something better, but leads only to all manner of brokenness.

Guilt and shame come with the package of practicing sexuality outside of marriage -- as rightly they should.  And yet, when we begin to acknowledge the wrong that we've done, we find that God offers a forgiveness like no other -- a perfect, once-and-for-all redemption that, while not necessarily eliminating the consequences of our sin, does remove from us the judgment we have earned.

God delights to show mercy to all who come in true repentance.

"Be fruitful and multiply"

Let's be frank.  Sex between a husband and wife is not only for producing children.  Marital intimacy serves many purposes, not the least of which is simple enjoyment shared between husband and wife.  It is an expression of mutual dependence and affection, a beautifully unifying experience, and an emotional type of glue.

However, sex is also the vehicle of human reproduction.  That's Health 101, right?  Simplistic though it may be, it's still worth mentioning because the push for homosexual "rights" is essentially a denial of the importance of continuing the species.

"Don't be ridiculous," some would say.  "That's taking it too far."

Well, at its root, homosexuality claims, "I want sex only the way I want it."  And from a purely physiological standpoint, same-sex intimacy cannot produce offspring.  Sure, same-sex couples can adopt, or they can utilize modern medicine and surrogate mothers or sperm donors to crudely construct a family for themselves.  However, because that type of devised parenthood does not occur naturally, and because that is not the way God intended for the family to be structured, it is a strong indicator that the practice of homosexuality not only lacks functionality but also goes completely against the system's design.

"You did NOT just make that joke."

Again, sex is not only for making babies.  Not every couple will want children, and not every couple will be able to have children.  God's directive to Adam and Eve was much more purposeful because they were the only human beings on the planet at that point in history.  However, just because the earth is fully populated in the modern era, and just because we've got what we think are new and updated ideas about sex, doesn't mean that God's design should be forgone.

That would be *ahem* to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

~*~

Maybe it seems like I've shifted gears a little bit, but in the modern era, any discussion of God's design for sex will inevitably lead to the issue of homosexuality.  Pardon my bluntness, but there really isn't any room for argument on the matter when it comes to having an accurate biblical perspective.  Just as the pursuit of intimate heterosexual relationships outside of marriage is sinful, so also is the practice of homosexuality.

I feel that a caveat is necessary here.

Please understand, my goal with the remainder of this post is not to attack homosexuality, to lambast those who practice or sympathize with it, or to add to the argumentative noise of the internet.  However, the truth of the Bible is absolute, and it will offend people when it rubs up against their divergent choices.  Jesus told the masses that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10.34) -- not because He desired to infuriate the world, but because they would inevitably be infuriated by His personal challenge to their sinful lifestyles.  With this post, I don't in any way intend to be militant, aggressive, or angry.  I'm a sinner in need of grace, just like every other person in this world.  It has been my goal throughout writing this series to accurately portray biblical sexuality and share truth in a constructive and understanding way -- not to hurl accusations or to elevate my personal opinion to the same level as the Word of God.

Bearing that in mind, remember -- as I stated in part two of this series -- that the contemporary push for marriage equality is not just a harmless desire for the right to personal sexual expression.  Maybe on the surface the gay agenda is just an innocent quest for individuality, but its pursuit to achieve a new label -- a label handed down by the legal system that not only legitimizes but also promotes their lifestyle -- is an attempt to crack the shell of God's moral law.

That makes it not just an issue of sex.  It's a rejection of absolute truth.

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 7.13).  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 "this way."

Contrary to what many conservative Christians might think, the Bible actually supports the modern hypothesis of genetic predisposition, because it teaches me that I am born into sin (Psa 51.5) -- both spiritually and physically (in other words, genetically).  So yes, homosexual tendency probably does find its root in a malformed gene or hormone imbalance -- not unlike every other sin humans have tendencies to commit.  Yet even still, that doesn't excuse me from my own culpability.  In other words, genetics are no more an excuse for the way I am than a difficult home life is.  I'm still every bit responsible for the sins I commit, whether I point the finger at my genetic makeup or my family.

Even as a believer, 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.  Therefore, even if my genes do predetermine my propensity to sin in a sexual manner, that doesn't mean I have a get-out-of-jail-free card.  In the same way, the man whose genes predetermine his addictive behavior doesn't have the liberty to abuse alcohol and live his life in a drunken, angry stupor.

Whatever our struggle, we're still held to the same standard of holiness as is the rest of the human race.  We either meet that standard through the person of Jesus Christ or we fall short of it.  The beauty of the Scriptures is that He enables me to lay aside my predisposition to sin -- an enslavement to which I'd be completely broken without Him.  The blood of Christ enables me to rise above my inherent genetic weaknesses and become a new creation in Him.  If we refuse to acknowledge this fact, then sure -- we truly can't help ourselves.  We remain slaves to our sin, dead in our trespasses, and willfully ignorant of salvation.  But if we genuinely desire to know God and to pursue lives with meaning, then we will be willing to look past our weaknesses and accept His divine help to overcome them.

Frankly, the "this is just the way I am" argument seems so defeatist to me.  "I can't help it," this perspective claims, ultimately (if unintentionally) implying that homosexuality is nothing more than a genetic weakness, and one that cannot be overcome.

Who wants to live a life where all that I am and can be is predetermined by a genetic factor?

Who wants to live a life where I can't help who I am, so I'll not even try to change?

Wouldn't a more invigorating existence be to rise above what we are?  By the way, Christ enables us to do that.

Keep in mind, though, that our desire for sinful things isn't an indication that our wants are "natural" -- only that our hearts, as John Calvin astutely proclaimed, are wicked idol factories.  We wrongfully think that things besides a loving God and His basic laws will satisfy our cravings, and make idols out of them.  We deceive ourselves into thinking that what we want is our right, that what we want is perfectly acceptable, and that no one has the right to tell us it's wrong.  Anything we place in greater prominence to God and His law becomes an idol -- anything we choose to worship instead of Him.  Whether that's sex or money or something else entirely, it is the very definition of sin.

That being said, has homosexuality become the "cardinal sin" of our decade?  Unfortunately, yes.

All sins are equal in God's eyes.  Being guilty of one is to be guilty of them all (Jas 2.10), and homosexuality is no different.

However, if the gay community feel especially targeted by the church, it is because they are the only group in recent history that has so radically attempted to justify its sinfulness via legality.  Their pursuit of total political, social, and religious validation of their lifestyle is an attempt to eliminate their own spiritual culpability.  What they perceive as a type of civil oppression is millennia of cultural rejection coming to a head.  As previously stated, perversions of sexuality have existed since the fall of man, and while countless individuals have engaged in them, these types of sex acts have always been regarded by the larger community as deviations from the natural order and ostracized.  Only in this modern era, the age of moral relativism, has the drive for recognition made the practice of homosexuality a culture of its own.

In fact, the current generation views the homosexual agenda as a matter on par with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.  From that long-in-coming social upheaval, the world finally recognized that the color of a man's skin shouldn't determine his status or rank him according to old-world notions of racial hierarchy.  Similarly, the homosexual community argues, the rest of the world should finally pull its head out of its keister and recognize their right to every civic privilege that heterosexual people enjoy.

Frankly, I find it insulting that the homosexual community liken their struggle for recognition to African Americans' life-or-death battle for equal rights -- and I'm not even black.  The Civil Rights movement wasn't about legalizing a sinful practice, it was about abolishing one.  Furthermore, a man doesn't have the choice to not be black or to not be white, though either can certainly embrace their racial identity as something God has specifically designed.  However, a man does have the choice whether he will pursue the biblical notion of sexuality or a worldly one -- regardless of what temptations he might experience.  What the Civil Rights movement ultimately taught the world was that the color of a man's skin doesn't make him a sinner.  What the Bible teaches, on the other hand, is that being a human does, and that no matter what justifying labels we slap on our sinful behaviors, they are still condemning.

Though they might cry victim and insist that they have done nothing morally wrong, the homosexual rights crusade doesn't have the same footing to stand upon as did the Civil Rights movement.  We can look again at the Genesis account where God created Adam and Eve specifically male and female, with the intent to harmonically and cooperatively fill social and spiritual roles.  We can look at the modern-day pharisees' favorite passage in Romans 1, where Paul explicitly states that homosexuality is an abomination and an abandonment of the "natural affections" God intended.  No matter which way you slice it, if you claim to have an accurate, biblical understanding of sexual immorality, then you must recognize homosexuality as simply another aspect of the broken nature of this world -- not unlike the racism against which Martin Luther King Jr. fought, a cause for which he would ultimately give his life, in order to see it finally abolished.

This type of hatred is the result of a malformed understanding

of grace, and is every bit as despicable to God as the practice
these individuals are condemning.

Now, have the methods of opposing marriage equality employed by the church been fair, respectful, and pleasing to God?

Certainly not all of them.

Certainly not all of them.

Though the core principle that homosexuality is a sin is 100% biblical, Christendom's manner of conveying that truth has often been equally as sinful.  I am deeply distressed by the church at large's stance toward homosexuality, and moved for a community of individuals who desperately need to hear the love, forgiveness, and regeneration of Christ proclaimed -- not just His judgment.  As bearers of the truth of God, we have a tremendous responsibility to communicate in love that life-changing knowledge to the gay population.  Such a message of grace is most palatable when it is presented to sinners by sinners.  Let's never forget that we're imperfect also, restored to favor with God only by the blood of Jesus Christ -- which we did not deserve -- and that the truth we bear is not our own.

Problems Inherent to Homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a functional application of sex.  It is a misuse of God's design for human intimacy.  It ignores His intent for family structure and denies the opportunity and privilege of natural procreation.  Furthermore, it is fraught with philosophical and logistical problems, separate entirely from the fact that human anatomy itself is not conducive to the homosexual act.

For starters, homosexuality can't be considered evolutionary.  In addition to going against the Bible, it also contradicts Darwinism.  You might be of the impression that afore-mentioned scientific developments are evolution in motion -- that our new ability to perform sex change operations and grow organs and babies in petri dishes is the process of our species evolving into a superior form, and that homosexuality is just one result of nature's inevitable course.  However, the undergirding principle of evolutionary theory is natural selection, or the survival of the fittest -- the preservation of the essential (the functional) in order to develop into the superior.  Without natural reproduction, the theoretical evolutionary process breaks down entirely.

Homosexuality is therefore not evolutionary.  It's devolutionary.

Another problem inherent to homosexuality is that its practice weakens potential same-sex friendships.  For the same reason it is difficult (I would argue near impossible) for a man to be close friends with a woman without creating romantic attachment, it is difficult for gay men or women to have any type of mutually encouraging, spiritually uplifting relationship that isn't at least vaguely tainted by sexual tension.  The Bible prescribes discipleship-based relationships between members of the same gender for the sake of encouraging one another in godly living.   It's why there are men's Bible studies and women's Bible studies: to specifically tackle struggles and challenges inherent to gender -- many of which involve relationships with the opposite gender.  That endeavor would be completely undermined by romantic connection.  Therefore, SSA throws a wrench into the whole concept.

Homosexuality is also problematic to our modern culture because, through its aggressive push for legal recognition, it has opened the door for other deviant sexual behaviors to achieve the same type of legitimization.  For example, though pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder, it has more recently been described as a "disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges before or during puberty, and because it is stable over time" (Brian L. Cutler, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law).  Still illegal, perhaps, but now labeled as something slightly less harmful -- something slightly more sympathetic.  The fact that something like homosexuality -- something once universally considered a deviant sexual behavior -- is now vying for recognition as a legitimate practice means that other deviant sexual behaviors are equally in the running for that type of recognition.

Maybe that seems unfair.  I'm certainly not saying homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia.  However, I don't think their conjunction in this regard is an illogical stretch.  If both homosexuality and pedophilia are violations of God's design for sex, then the legitimization of one is the opportunity for the other.

Jesus requires His followers to do hard things

You've probably been told by the internet, the TV, and even wayward pastors alike that you can be a vibrant part of the church, love God, and still keep your homosexual lifestyle.  You've probably been told that God loves you as you are and that Biblical judgment of sexual sins is for those who don't love God, or for those who are unfaithful to their sexual partners.

This all sounds fantastic to a world that desires no absolute truth: live your life how you want, with a flexible moral code that feels like complete absolution, under the twinkling eye of a "favorite uncle" type of god who allows you to be your own person and make your messes, but still slips you candy at the dinner table.  That notion of "god" makes Him out to be a spineless entity with no real power to help -- a god completely undeserving of our time, dependance, or adoration.

On the other hand, a God who controls the universe, who sustains life and exists beyond full human comprehension, who insists on His absolute law and His absolute glory because He is the rightful, supreme being, yet who made a way for us to have an intimate relationship with Him by sacrificing His Son on our behalf...

That's a God worth believing in.  That is the God of the Bible.

Make no mistake about this: if you are in a homosexual relationship, neither your life nor your actions can be pleasing to that type of God.  That's not because your sin is worse than any others.  The same standard applies to anyone who lies, steals, or sins sexually with members of the opposite sex.  We can't claim to love God and yet continue in sin.  Mistakes are one thing; habitual, lifestyle-based sinning is another.  The God of the Bible requires righteousness of His followers: in order to follow Him, we must take up a cross and walk in His footsteps.  Grace is free to all, but costly to those who choose it.  In order to become like Christ, we must give up our notions about how life should be, the sinful desires that we want to pursue, and our selfish philosophies about what we deserve.

God absolutely does accept you just as you are, weaknesses, failures, and all.  But He is not content to leave you that way.

You might say, "You've never struggled with same-sex attraction, so this is all easy for you to say."  And you'd be right.  However, I have my own temptations to overcome -- temptations that have been difficult to let go of, sins that have felt like "no big deal" and "my right" to take.  It's hard to overcome personal weakness.  It's especially hard to overcome sexual sin.  However, with the strength God supplies, it is not only possible, but also truly fulfilling to find our satisfaction ultimately in Him and Him alone.

We can't follow Him if we insist on keeping our pet sins with us.  Heterosexual or homosexual, we need to recognize that God requires obedience from His followers -- not because that's what saves us, but because that obedience is the evidence that He has saved us.  To lay down our sinful desires is to demonstrate that our true desire is -- above all else -- to love and to glorify Him with our lifestyles.

Yes, it's hard.  But it's functional.  And He is fulfilling.  This is what we were beautifully designed to do.

Ephesians 3.20: Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Sexuality, Pt. 3: Dating

Part I // Part II // Part IV // Part V
____________________________

In a back edition of Reader's Digest, Glenn Cunningham -- the great American athlete and miler -- recounted the following story:

Africa's Victoria Falls produces a cloud of mist that is often heavy enough to impair visibility. While I was walking the path that skirts the gorge into which the Zambezi River tumbles, I noticed a sign on the rim but could not make it out. Not wanting to miss whatever it might be noting, I slithered and slid through the mud out to the very brink only to read the message: "Danger! Crumbling Edge."

To a frightening degree, I think this is how Christians in the modern era handle dating.  We get lost in the cloud of emotion and expectations, knowing all the while that there's a crumbling edge somewhere nearby but never really sure how many steps away it is.  Even though we're trying to keep an eye out -- trying to keep ourselves informed by the biblical principles of love, purity, and holiness -- we often discover ourselves on brink of falling into the chasm below before we even realize the imminence of the danger.

Sexuality in dating is pandemic.  The general sentiment of the modern age is "try it before you buy it" -- that is, if there even is any intention of "buying" at all.  There are a number of things wrong with that sentiment, not the least of which is the fact that it elevates sexuality to the principle element of love and relational connectivity.  An even bigger problem, however, is that it frontloads a complete lack of trust into the relationship, building earthworks of emotional suspicion that are ultimately debilitating.

In the famous wedding passage, 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about love "believing all things" and "hoping all things."  In other words, biblical love is the type that believes and hopes the best of the other individual -- it doesn't assume or presume wrongdoing or malcontent.  It chooses instead to look past the other person's faults, believing in his or her character, and trusting in the legitimacy of his or her reciprocal love.

"That's foolish," the world says.  "How do you know you can really trust that person?"

"Everybody lies."

Well, if we want to be philosophical about it, you can't.  Not really.  Let's be honest: we can only know what's in our own hearts, and even then we often have the nasty tendency to deceive ourselves.  But that doesn't mean we should treat relationships as lost causes, adopting a House-ian, misanthropic outlook and assume the worst in everybody.  Biblically, we recognize the faults inherent in every human being and extend the same type of grace to them that we ourselves have received.

Furthermore, the whole point of dating is to get to know the other person's character -- to begin to know who he or she truly is.  There are so many dimensions to this kind of relational exploration, but "sexual chemistry" doesn't need to be part of the equation.  It shouldn't be.  Sexuality is a wonderful voyage of discovery, but it is best experienced for the first time with your spouse.  Marriage is the appropriate place for sexual intimacy.  Dating, on the other hand, is the opportunity to learn about the person in whom you're romantically vested, to determine whether or not he or she is the type of individual who could help you to become more like Jesus Christ.  Dating is the opportunity to compare interests and backgrounds, to know where each other is strong and where each other is weak, and determine if your mutual interest is something that can grow into a God-honoring love, that can be mutually edifying.  If that is how we approach dating, then the details of sex and the importance of "chemistry" become not nearly as important as our culture makes them out to be.

In other words, you don't need to know how good the other person is in bed to have a meaningful, lasting relationship.  Sex is best experienced the way God intended it: in the protective confines of a committed marriage.

Dating is not the time or the place for that level of intimacy.

Before I go on, please don't take this post as a criticism of dating.  It's not intended to be.  It's also not a followup to Joshua Harris' I Kissed Dating Goodbye (a book I've never even read).  It is, however, a caution to teenagers, college students, and single adults alike who claim the name of Christ, yet find themselves drowning in a sea of cultural expectations, sex-drenched media portrayals of love and relationships, and horribly failed dating attempts.

It's a warning that there's a dangerous, crumbling edge somewhere out there in that murk.

Don't go over it.  In fact, don't get anywhere close to it.

That, of course, can seem tricky at first glance, because there are no explicit "rules" in the Bible when it comes to dating.  In that regard, we have to remember who the Bible was written to (the Old Testament to ancient Israel, and the New to the early church) at the same time we remember who it was written for (all men of all eras now and to come).  Neither ancient Israelite culture nor those who lived during the early church age practiced any form of dating, which is why the Bible doesn't mention it.  However, there are principles that the Bible does teach that should govern the way we conduct ourselves in all manner of relationships, not the least of which is dating.

And by the way, while it might be silent on issues specific to a dating culture, the Bible is not silent on the fact that sex belongs in marriage (just in case you thought or hoped it was).  Paul says that anyone who can't control his or her sexual urges should find a spouse rather than burn with lust (1 Cor 7.9), and in Genesis 29, Jacob's abstention from sexual relations with Rachel prior to their wedding showcases the God-given manner of waiting until marriage.  Under Old Testament law, men who violated virgins were expected to marry them (Ex 22.16; Deut 22.29), and a woman was expected to be a virgin when she married (Deut 22.13-21).  While we are no longer under Old Testament law in the sense that we must follow all its rules and regulations, the principle of holiness that undergirded them remains our standard of living.  Furthermore, God designed the sexual relationship to be exclusive (Song 2.16; Deut 22.22-30) and requires that the marriage bed should not only be honored but also remain unstained by any worldly immorality (Heb 13.4), and marital infidelity is condemned throughout the Scriptures (Prov 5.15; 7:1-5; 10-11).

If there is any standalone passage that seems to me like an illuminating beacon, shining through the mist of how to conduct one's self in a dating relationship, it's Paul's encouragement to Timothy that young men should treat sisters in Christ as though they are literally siblings, in a manner of utmost purity (1 Tim 5.1).  And what is biblical purity, but to love God above all else, and to be self-controlled, disciplined, and untainted by worldly influence (Titus 2.12; Jas 1.27)?  If that is how we should conduct ourselves in general, then it is how we should conduct ourselves in dating relationships.  In other words, if you wouldn't touch, address, or look at your sister the way you do your girlfriend, or if you find that you have a difficult time controlling your sexual impulses around her, both are good indicators that your dating behavior has reached the crumbling edge and is dangerously close to plummeting into the pit of sexual immorality -- if you haven't already fallen in.

Another lighthouse in the murk is 1 Corinthians 13 itself.  If love is to be exercised without selfishness as Paul claims -- without "seeking its own" (13.5) -- then we can logically conclude that any act of sexuality outside of marriage is a form of seeking one's own.  In our flesh, we are always going to selfishly desire personal gratification, but that doesn't mean we have to succumb to that drive.  We can choose instead to value the other person's good.  To act out on my inappropriate sexual desires is to say, "I care more about my own desire than I do about your integrity."  On the other hand, if we were to show honor the way the Bible commands (Rom 12.10), we would treat everyone -- especially our significant others -- with purity, genuinely valuing holiness in ourselves and in others the way God does.

The bottom line here is that sexual immorality is not just a minor issue.  Sex outside of marriage isn't "no big deal."  The sin of lust, which Jesus equated to the act of immorality itself (Matt 5.28), is the type of sin that can affect any walk of life, and it will utterly consume and destroy everything in your life if left unaddressed (Job 31.12).  Therefore, the biblical principles -- "rules," if you will -- that we impose upon ourselves as believers aren't there to keep us from having fun or expressing our individuality as the world might think.  They're there to protect us from the inevitable consequences of sexual immorality.

I was an English student, so I like to think about things through a literary lens.  In that regard, I find it helpful to consider sexual immorality via the five journalistic W's and the H.

The who (not the band) might be less obvious than it seems.  The who could be your significant other, your casual date, or your friend with whom "it's complicated."  The who is anyone with whom you are sexually active who is not legally married to you.  That also includes any kind of sexual intimacy with a member of the same gender.  SSA is as expressly sinful in the Bible as pre-marital sex.  Either instance is taking sex out of the context of biblical marriage and applying it to an unhealthy, unwholesome, and ultimately self-seeking relationship.

The what/why is simply the act of sexual gratification.  What am I looking for when I begin to look at or touch a woman inappropriately?  I'm looking to satisfy a desire.  Why am I doing that?  Because my hormones and my emotions are telling me it's the natural thing to do.  Whether she initiates it or I do, one of us is lusting and choosing to act upon it, thereby forcing the other to refuse or succumb to the sin as well.

The where/when together are the key qualitative factor, naturally informing the others.  We know that sexuality in marriage is not only biblically permissible, but also fully encouraged by God as an act of love between a husband and a wife.  Therefore, the where/when of sexual immorality is any type of sexual activity that takes place outside those parameters.  By the way, that also includes the period of engagement, because the marriage is not legal until the certificate has been signed -- even though the couple is committed to one another and nearing the wedding.  If that's where you are currently, don't trip up at the finish line.  The experience is worth the wait.

Considering the parameters of where and when sexuality is acceptable, the how is hopefully almost irrelevant, because any sexual activity outside of the where/when (marriage) is immoral.  The how list might as well be an umbrella that includes any and all expressions of sexuality: things like masturbation, making out, and oral sex, though they might not be intercourse per se, are not off the hook.  I don't mean to be explicit, but in our flesh, we tend to draw subjective lines that are capable of satisfying both a personal sense of propriety as well as sinful desires, all the while obscuring the truth.  "Well, yes," we admit, "I did do that...  But I didn't do that."  In God's eyes, it's all the same -- whether we "go all the way" or only get to "second base."

Frankly, if you have to ask the question "How far is too far?" then you probably shouldn’t be pursuing a dating relationship.  That question communicates that you are less concerned with honoring God than you are with getting what you want out of the relationship.  On the other hand, if you choose to pursue biblical purity, then you will honor your date by valuing his or her holiness.  Couples who struggle with sexual temptation, but who want to glorify God through their relationship, can ask two broad questions when it comes to their dating choices: "Where do our minds go?" and "Where do our hands go?"  Maybe that seems juvenile, but these questions can apply to issues like "Do we kiss goodnight?" or "Where is a safe place to go on a date?"  The details will look different for each couples, because temptation varies.  For some couples, a kiss goodnight and holding hands on a date are perfectly innocent expressions of affection, but for another couple those same actions immediately lead elsewhere.  Regardless of your specific tendency, the objective should always be to remove temptation -- to flee from it, as the Bible prescribes (2 Tim 2.22; 1 Cor 6.18).  If we are really concerned with living pure, Christ-honoring lives, then we should be willing to give up goodnight kisses and hand holding in order to preserve our sexual integrity.

No matter what your specific sexual temptation is, don't tolerate it.  For that matter, don't tolerate another temptation that might lead to that temptation.  To do so is to create gateways for deeper sinful behaviors and debilitating habits to form that will utterly turn your relationship and your faith inside out.

It's part of human nature to be frustrated by rules like that.  When I was a teenager, I didn't want to hear adults' warnings that my emotional and physical closeness to my girlfriend was both dangerous and inappropriate.  In our flesh, we see rules as limitations on how we are to proceed -- lines that say "here, but no further."  The prideful spirit within us, the voice that says "I know what's best for me," and "Give me the chance to figure it out myself!" doesn't want to recognize the wisdom in parameters.  It sees moral guidelines only as restrictive.

Moral Relativism 101

It's ironic, then, that we enjoy games at all.  Games have rules.  There's an objective, something you must do to achieve it, and something you can't do if you want to achieve it.  The same goes for biblical guidelines: there's an objective (holiness, a life of undefiled worship before the Father), and we have parameters on how to achieve that.  If we follow the rules, we "win."  If we don't, we "lose."  To play tic-tac-toe outside the box is to make the game itself illegitimate.  Therefore, instead of feeling restricted by biblical morality, we should recognize that the path of righteousness that God requires of His followers is the very constitution of emotional health and spiritual stability.  Peter T. Forsyth, the Scottish theologian, made the great observation that the "first duty of every soul is to find not its freedom but its Master." It is only by finding our Master -- by willingly placing ourselves under His wise and completely reasonable rules -- that we may also obtain spiritual freedom in Christ.

In his book, The Reason for God, Tim Keller gives the following account:

A friend of C. S. Lewis's was once asked, "Is it easy to love God?" and he replied, "It is easy to those who do it."  That is not as paradoxical as it sounds.  When you fall deeply in love, you want to please the beloved.  You don't wait for the person to ask you to do something for her.  You eagerly research and learn every little thing that brings her pleasure.  Then you get it for her, even if it costs you money or great inconvenience.  "Your wish is my command," you feel -- and it doesn't feel oppressive at all...  For a Christian, it's the same with Jesus.  The love of Christ constrains.  Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him.

Salvation by grace is a narrow concept, yes.  There is only one way to heaven.  It's God's way or no way at all.  However, the rules that the Bible imposes on followers of Christ are not about limitation.  They're about freedom -- freedom from a life in which it is impossible to please God and impossible to escape from sin.  That's why we are no longer subject to Old Testament law, which was about limitations: Mosaic law (essentially Leviticus through Deuteronomy) was a series of rules that were impossible for the Jews to keep completely, and the point was to demonstrate that they needed God -- not to show them the way of morality that would get them to heaven.  By contrast, the "rules" that New Testament believers follow aren't intended to show us our failures: they're about holiness, and they're a natural byproduct of being a true Child of God.

We are constrained by Christ so that we may be free in Him.

The bottom line, according to the Scriptures, is that there is no freedom apart from Jesus.  Without Him, we are slaves to wickedness.  The Bible describes our previous condition as a type of death -- death in our sinful trespasses (Eph 2.1).  We can't choose not to do bad things.  That's the idea behind Isaiah's equivocating man's good works to bloody menstrual rags (Isa 64.6).  Even the most generous philanthropist acts more to assuage a sense of moral obligation rather than simply out of the goodness of his heart.

In a recent blog post entitled, The Gospel vs. Moralism, Scott Sauls beautifully delineates between moralism (or "religion") -- a toxic deviation from the gospel -- and the gospel itself, describing the former as the practice in which an individual "tend[s] to do the right things but for all the wrong reasons," whose "joy and gratitude about Jesus’ love is less... a motivator than a desire to feel superior to others, to ease guilty consciences with good works, or to somehow impress God."  Only the Spirit can decipher man's intentions, of course, but it is absolutely true that the illusion of morality in the world is merely that -- an illusion.  Why?  Because, as Sauls goes on to say, "We are all much worse off than we think."

There is no goodness in the heart that does not belong to Christ.

For that matter, there is no true joy in the heart that does not belong to Christ.

None of that is intended to sound pessimistic.  It's intended to be realistic.  With God, we are free to love and to serve, to live for righteousness and no longer for our own selfish wants.  Without Him, we are inconceivably wicked.  That is why we must submit ourselves to the "rules" of New Testament living -- not because we need to fulfill a moral obligation, but because our hearts should yearn to love Christ with the sum total of our being.

He doesn't require hands to do His bidding.  He requires hearts to fellowship with Him and give Him glory.

Keep that in mind as you pursue a dating relationship.  The goal of dating isn't just to find a soulmate.  The goal is to love Christ through the God-ordained blessing of loving another human being.

If you are dating or are in a serious relationship, be aware that your infatuation for your significant can easily supersede your love for God.  Don't ever be completely alone with your date, and don't allow your relationship to become a hindrance to your other friendships.  Get reliable accountability -- not just for physical temptation, but also for the emotional temptation to treat your significant other as though he/she is already your spouse.  The appropriate time for that will come later.  Be faithful, be compassionately honest, and be willing to end the relationship if it ceases to be glorifying to God.  Be sure to spend time apart -- at least as much if not more than you do together.  Always encourage one another.

If you are a teenager and your parents don't allow you to date, be thankful for their protection and honor their wish.  I know that sounds unfair, and you most likely have a serious crush on someone whom you'd like to be dating.  Trust that God has given you parents for your training in righteousness and for your protection.  They know firsthand the dangers of dating -- they've been there, and they want to protect you from temptation.  That's a good thing.  It's not that they don't trust you.  And even in the supremely unlikely event that they truly don't trust you, then frankly you've proven to them by your choices that you can't be trusted.  This is still a good scenario even then, because they are keeping you from certain failure.  Either way, your parents are not just trying to keep you from being happy.  They are concerned with your spiritual well-being.  Now, while you're single, is the perfect time to practice submission to their authority, to learn the spiritual discipline of patience, and to devote your heart more fully to God alone.

Whoever you are, don't for a moment think you are strong enough to handle the temptations inherent to dating.  If we think we stand, we need to pause to consider before we fall (1 Cor 10.12).

Remember, there's a crumbling edge out there in the murk.  It will always be there.  But if you cling to biblical purity more than your perceived emotional "needs," you never have to go anywhere near it.

If you love Christ above all else and walk in His footprints, He will guide you safely around the chasm.