Sermon Video: A Depraved Mind, the Cost of Ignoring God - Romans 1:24-32

Having demonstrated that humanity is without excuse for failing to acknowledge God, Paul then explains the consequence of this rebellion: God lets humanity experience the consequences of their own lustful and depraved hears and minds.  This takes a variety of forms, one that stood out because of its connection to Ancient Near East pagan worship is Lust.  The mixing of worship of the gods with fertility rites of human sex is an example of this process in action as that which is intended for our benefit is traded for a self-destructive version.  Paul goes on to connect this to the larger issue of sex/sexuality apart from God's design, the variety of forms of which are also by definition perverse (that is, contrary to the intended purpose).  In the end, the picture is a difficult one, humanity in rebellion against God embracing all manner of 'things that ought not to be done', but the solution will always be the same: repent, receive grace, and believe.

One way to redefine Biblical morality: theorize the original text meant the opposite

In an article recently published in the New York Times, The Secret History of Leviticus by Idan Dershowitz, the author claims that the text of Leviticus that is known to history (the earliest manuscripts, the LXX and DSS, as well as the rabbinical commentaries) is not the original text of Leviticus and that this hypothetical original text in two very culturally significant instances, that of Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable") and 20:13 ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") the original text's intention was in fact the opposite.  In other words, Dershowitz is theorizing that Leviticus was changed (sometime before our earliest extant evidence of the text) from his theoretical text which permitted sex between men to the text that is known which prohibits it.

Two paragraphs from the essay by Dershowitz will uncover his viewpoint:

Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.

But I think a stronger claim is warranted. As I argue in an article published in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.

In the first paragraph, Dershowitz makes it clear that he does not hold to any version of the inspiration of Scripture, but rather like many modern critics views it as a collection of the ideas of various men that changed (in this case dramatically) over time.  That this theory is anti-supernatural goes without saying, but his utilization of redaction criticism (theorizing various stages of edits in the text, in this case without any manuscript evidence to support the claims) is built wholly upon what he believes an earlier text might have said.  In his essay (and the journal article it is based upon), Dershowitz does offer up some grammatical "evidence" to support his theory, but this falls far short of being convincing evidence that the text of the Bible used to mean the opposite of that which our earliest extant copies claim.  {For a more detailed refutation of the thesis of Dershowitz read the following article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Leviticus in the New York Times: What's the real story here? }

In the end, the reason why I comment upon this opinion piece from the NYT is not to start a new round of debate about human sexuality, homosexuality, or any other related topic (so please don't respond by arguing about it), nor is it to bash the NYT for publishing the article (so don't waste your time venting at the messenger), instead my sole purpose is to bring attention to the ongoing  and far too prevalent practice of twisting the Word of God into a pretzel by both scholars and laymen in order to get it to say what the person doing the twisting wants it to say.  Such twisting happens with good intentions and bad intentions, by those trying to defend God and those looking to jettison belief in him.  Motives and intentions do matter, but it is unethical and dangerous when the Scriptures are treated as a means to an end, just another tool to advance a viewpoint.

We can, and should, have discussions (informed by scholarship and research) about the history of the text of Scripture, that is indeed a topic that interests me greatly.  We can, and will, disagree upon how to interpret and apply the text of Scripture once we've reached a consensus about what it said in its original Hebrew and Greek and thus how it ought to be translated into English, those discussions interest me a great deal as well.  But we cannot, in any meaningful way, utilize the Word of God as anything beyond a historical curiosity if those who disagree with the text that has been historically established, decide that they will simply rewrite the text to their liking out of whole cloth.

Let those who do not view the Bible as the Word of God say what they will about it, let them twist it and warp it into anything they like, for to them it has no authority, no power.  It is unrealistic of those who belief in the Scriptures, to expect those who do not, to treat it with the respect that it deserves.  The Church, however, must reject this path of tailoring the text to suit our own opinions, in all its forms, the Church must affirm and reaffirm its commitment to the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, as the foundation for both our salvation from our own sins, and our moral guide in this world.  A method used to redefine the text of Scripture today pertaining to one topic, will be used to redefine it another day for a different topic.  If you build your house upon the sand, don't expect it to stay standing when the rains comes.

Sermon Video: Christianity and Sex - 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

As an introduction to the next seven sermons from 1 Corinthians 7 that focus upon the topics of marriage, sex, and celibacy, this message looks at the nature of sex in relation to the creation of humanity by God as male in female with the inherent capacity and need for sexual fulfillment.  The Church has struggled with this issue in its history, from promoting the false piety of celibacy above marriage, to allowing lax standards in relation to sexual immorality, but despite that failure, the function and purpose of sex remains ordained by God within marriage, a blessing of joy and union for those who embrace the Law of God reflected in our nature.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sexual Immorality disqualifies leadership

The harsh reality of the pervasiveness of sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation throughout society has been brought out of the shadows (where it, like much sin, hides) and into the light of public scrutiny following numerous accusations against powerful men in business, politics, and entertainment.  In many of these cases the person (almost universally male) accused of sexual deviancy has been fired or forced to resign, and in some of the more recent episodes, criminal charges may follow.

What then is the attitude of the Word of God, and hence hopefully the Church, regarding such things?  The N.T. is clear that among the people of God, "there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)  Rather than give sexual temptation a foothold, the people of God are told to "flee from sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18)

From a Christian leadership perspective, any sort of sexual immorality is disqualifying, it need not be any issue of force or coercion.  Consensual immorality, that is sexual conduct not between a husband and wife, is impermissible for those who would lead the people of God (and for the people themselves).  And while the Church recognizes that forgiveness for past sins will be granted to those who repent of them, and that sins committed before a person becomes a Christian are not disqualifying regarding future leadership once that person has matured in his/her faith, the Church ought to hold firm against any notion that ongoing unrepentant sexual immorality can be in any way overlooked or excused, especially by those in leadership positions.

Do Christian men and women in leadership still sin?  Of course they do, they are only sinners saved by grace, only imperfect vessels of the Holy Spirit striving to live righteously in this present age, just like those in the Church whom they minister to.  Are all types of sin disqualifying of Christian leaders?  Obviously not, or there would be nobody in leadership, for all of us who lead the Church remain sinners, none are perfect.  But there are a number of sins which do require the local church (if not the denominational leadership) to take immediate action (with due process), and on that list certainly ought to be sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation, along with adultery (for the married) and fornication (for the unmarried). 

What will happen to the various entertainers, business leaders, and politicians who have been accused of sexual immorality?  Time will tell, but within the Church we already know what the answer ought to be.  Am I afraid that such a message might boomerang back at me?  No, because there isn't a hint of sexual immorality in my life, nor will there be in the future, my vows to my wife are sacred, and she is the only person with whom anything sexual will happen in my life, as long as we both shall live.  I am fully aware that a failure in this venue would end my time here as the pastor of my church, but that's the way it should be for God's people answer to a higher standard and the leadership of the Church to a higher standard still.  The people of God have been called to be holy, and we must honor God.

Sermon Video: Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit - 1 Corinthians 6:14-20

Why does God care about what people do with "their own body"?  As our creator, God has the right to judge those to whom he has given life itself, but for the people of God, for those who by faith have become disciples of Jesus, the reason for God's concern is even deeper.  One of the benefits of being born again in faith is union with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  This union means that sexual immorality (for example) on the part of the people of God ought to be inconceivable, for it would be uniting the unholy (immorality) with the holy (the person whom Christ has redeemed).  Likewise, with the presence of the Holy Spirit within each believer, God's people have become the temple of God, thus bringing immorality (sexual or otherwise) into that temple is to profane it.  Lastly, if those warning are not sufficient, Paul reminds the people of the church at Corinth that there is no such thing as "their own body", for all those who are in Christ have been purchased by God, a debt that can never be repaid.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Don't call yourself a Christian if... 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Bringing the discussion regarding sexual immorality to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that his previous instructions to avoid sexually immoral people was not meant as a restriction on those outside the church, but only on those inside who claim to be a Christian but who continue to live in immorality.  Paul also broadens the application of this principle beyond sexual immorality to include any other type of immorality to which a professing "Christian" might be enslaved.  In the end, the people of God must be holy, a righteous people (by the grace of God), who cannot tolerate ongoing immorality in their midst.  In closing out the topic, Paul reminds the church that it is not their job to judge those outside the church (for God will do that), but those inside.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Growth of Sin - 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

As part of his ongoing warning to the church at Corinth to expel one of their own who has been living in sexual immorality, Paul further states his case by warning the church that sin, like a cancer, will spread if not removed.  To make his point, Paul uses the analogy of yeast within dough, making a connection to the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and thus a connection to Jesus as the Passover Lamb, and to the symbolic purity connected with the removal of yeast from Jewish homes for the Feast.
Ongoing sin within a church is a very dangerous thing.  The presence of sin may be unrecognized, or the particular sin may be tolerated by the people, either way, it is a sign of trouble within the community.  Sin will spread, it does not remain in its place, but will grow within the life of the one who is enslaved by it, and it will grow within a community of believers.  Our response, then, to sin must be both serious and at times drastic.  If one among us refuses to repent, and remains in rebellion against God, that individual must be removed from the church's fellowship until repentance has occurred.
Sexual immorality is a particularly dangerous sin for Christians.  Men or women, young or old, we must not allow temptation/opportunities to sin in this area to remain in our lives, it is far wiser to act preemptively to remove an external temptation (such as pornography, or a person one is sexually stimulated by that is not one's spouse) and thus allow our hearts a chance to overcome temptation than it is to try to remain steadfast in the face of continuing temptation.  Far too many Christians have allowed themselves to take small steps down the road of sexual immorality, only to continue on that path and eventually destroy their career/family/faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Sexual Immorality among God's people - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

There are few issues more frequently discussed or arousing more passionate responses than those relating to sex and sexuality.  Both the Old Covenant given under Moses, and the New Covenant initiated by Jesus, contain significant portions dedicated to defining the proper boundaries of sexual expression.  In both cases, that definition relegates such expression to that within the marriage of one man and one woman.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul expresses his dismay that the people of that church have failed to live up to that standard in that they have not disciplined a member who has married his former step-mother.  In addition to pronouncing judgment on that individual, Paul also commands the church to publicly expel the offending member in the hope that "tough love" will be the necessary prompt to cause repentance.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Where society leads, should the Church follow?

** Disclaimer **  This post is not about politics (none of mine are), so please don't project this into that realm.  All human beings deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law, what "equal" means and whether or not a particular situation is "equal" is a healthy debate for a free society, but not my intention here.  America is not a theocracy, nor would I wish it to be.  My job, as a pastor, is to shepherd my local church, and beyond that to help the universal Church in any way that I can. `


What is the relationship between the Church and the societies in which it operates?  Are we friends, competitors, enemies?  The answer isn't black and white, at times the Church and society can work together, at times the Church is competing with society, and at times society can be an enemy of the Church.  How do we know what the stance of the Church should be on issues of morality, and how do we know when the Church should defy society on an issue, even at its own peril?

Islam is a reflection of 7th Century Arab culture, it champions what that culture championed and rejects what that culture rejects.  Judaism and Christianity are different, however.  When it was given, the Law of Moses was a unique set of moral principles, one that did not simply reflect the society in which it was given, but transcended it.  Over the following 1,500 years, the authors of the various portions of the Bible interacted with that Law and sought to apply it to their time and place.  The New Testament writers, and the Early Church fathers, did not seek to undo the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it under the New Covenant.  Throughout its 2,000 year history, the Church has been both a minority in society, and the overwhelming majority, at odds with culture, and also at times the creator of culture.  The one constant throughout this combined 3,500 year history has been the authority of the Scriptures.  Neither the people of Israel, nor the Church, have been given the power to challenge that authority, nor to supersede it.  Why?  Culture is always changing, what once was shunned is now celebrated, and vice versa, why doesn't the Church change with it?  To answer that question, one needs to understand where the Scripture came from.

We call the Bible the Word of God for a reason.  Paul declared that the Scriptures were "God-breathed", Peter added that its authors wrote as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, it is not the product of the mind of man, but of God.  As such, we cannot, even should we wish to, usurp its authority or declare its commands and principles null and void.

Modern Western society celebrates materialism, the Bible warns of the dangers of riches, many times, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against materialism.  It is not a question of what we want, or what we would prefer, but what God has commanded.  Society celebrates fame and pride, the Bible champions humility, and warns of the dangers of pride, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of pride.  Society celebrates unfettered sexual expression, and an attitude of self-indulgence, the Bible champions self-restraint and self-control as well as purity, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of self-indulgent sexuality in all its forms.

Jesus called his followers to be salt and light in the world, Saint Augustine wrote that the people of God are to be a "city upon a hill".    When society is wrong about morality, the Church needs to stand in contrast, it isn't our preference that matters, but God's Word.  It is unlikely that proclaiming the virtues of self-control and humility, regarding wealth, fame, or sexuality will be popular, but popularity is not our standard for morality.

I would love every church on Sunday morning to be bursting at the seems, full of people who have repented, been forgiven, and now are celebrating the love of God, but it would be the death of the Church if we sought to fill the pews by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of societal norms.  A church without the authority of the Bible, even if it is full of people, is on a path of spiritual oblivion.  We are the heirs of 3,500 years of God's work among his people, we cannot be the generation which abandons that legacy in order to be popular.

God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality.

People want to do what they want, when they want to do it, and how they want to do it.  People don't like being told what they can and cannot do.  This isn't a mystery, its obvious, a commonality of us all.  Our feelings about sex and sexuality are no different.  In order to fulfill humanity's desire to be autonomous, to make our own rules, elements of society have always sought to ignore the clear consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, the desire to be autonomous and reject limitations remains the same.
Sexuality has significant consequences for individuals and society that we ignore at our peril.  It can be a force for good when contained within a loving marriage, an expression of fidelity and love, but it can also be a powerful destructive force when it exceeds that boundary, resulting in STD's, divorce, rape, abortions, and all manner of non-marital sexuality, including homosexual expressions.  Sexual expression has to have limits, no society can function without them.  Biology ought to be one obvious restraint on human autonomy, after all, it takes a man and a woman to reproduce, but even this fact of nature comes under assault when people seeking autonomy are willing to ignore nature and embrace homosexual and transgender perspectives.
God isn't interested in ruining fun, God doesn't want to quash happiness or love, but God, as our Heavenly Father and our Creator, is not going to sit by and let human beings pursue dead-end paths that are only self-destructive, he loves you too much.  God, in the created order, has set limits upon our expressions of sexuality.
All sexual expressions outside of the marriage of one man and one woman are sin, not because I say so, but because the Word of God declares it to be so, thus the cheating husband is as equally ignoring God as the person seeking a lesbian sexual relationship.  All sin is an affront against God, if the Church has failed to make clear its opposition to ALL forms of sexual sin, especially our own, that is our failure.  If Christians have seemed more interested in opposing homosexuality than in helping the people of the Church overcome adultery, that is also our failure.  We, the Church, have failed in this arena, far too often.  Holiness begins at home, the people of the Church have failed to live sexually pure lives, for this we need to repent and return to being what God has called us to be.  As a people redeemed by God, we cannot pretend that sin, of any kind, is ok.  It won't be popular to say so, and we shouldn't expect those who don't believe in God to be happy to hear it, but God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality, and as imitators of Jesus Christ, so does his Church.

My words are primarily for myself, my family, my church, and beyond that, the greater Christian community.  If they spur the people of God toward self-examination, and greater efforts at holiness (by God's grace) they will have achieved their purpose.  If my words speak to the Lost, to those without God, let them hear me clearly: God loves you, his Son died to set you free, God wants you to come home to him, whatever your past, whatever your present, God can and will forgive you if you put your faith in him.  When you do believe, join a local church, it is the place where the people who were lost, but now are found, gather together to celebrate God's mercy and grace, and to share his love.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Mark 10:8b-9 "So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.  The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit."

In defense of brotherly love - Samwise Gamgee and Hermione Granger

As is well known, my favorite book is The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien.  In this masterpiece that launched the modern fantasy novel genre, the character of Samwise Gamgee follows his "master" Frodo on the journey to Mordor to destroy the one ring.  It is well known that Tolkien modeled the relationship between Frodo and Sam after the relationship between officers in the British army during WWI and their assistants, known as a "batman".  The relationship between Frodo and Sam is one of the greatest example in literature of brotherly love, loyalty, and friendship.  It should come as no surprise, then, that some would rather view this relationship through a sexual lense, wanting to see the Sam/Frodo relationship as a homosexual one.  Such a view would obviously ignore the intent of J.R.R. Tolkien, as the author, although for many this hurdle means nothing, but it would also destroy the nobility of the relationship for it would take away its most important quality: selflessness.  Sam is loyal to Frodo, and loves him like a friend, is there something wrong with leaving it at that?  Must every relationship have a sexual angle, can nothing be altruistic?
A similar thought occurs with J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, it has been reported that the author considered having Harry fall for Hermoine, instead of what she actually wrote which had Harry's friends Ron and Hermione end up together.  What was written is far superior, however, for it makes the friendship between these three paramount, and their willingness to risk their lives to support Harry in his quest is more noble without the angle of sexual attraction and romance that would have made Hermione's choice to stay with Harry when Ron left temporarily in the Deathly Hollows a self-centered one instead of a self-sacrificial choice.
Romantic love is crucial to society, helping to hold marriages together, but there is something to be said for simple brotherly love, devoid of sexual connections, for love such as this has often changed the world.  "For God demonstrates his own love for us in this, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

The importance of heaven: a life lesson from Everybody Loves Raymond

In an episode of the excellent sitcom, Everybody Loves Raymond, Ray's brother Robert is faced with a moral dilemma because he for once has a beautiful woman, Stephana, who is interested in having sex with him.  Robert, a lonely middle-aged man with serious fears of commitment, makes the morally correct decision to not get into a physical relationship with Stephana, despite her overwhelming beauty and clear willingness.  As Stephana leaves in anger from his apartment after Robert informs her that they shouldn't see each other anymore, she taunts him one last time with the beauty that he had chosen to abstain from, after Robert had shouted at her, "I did the right thing, morally".  After her taunt, Robert says to himself, "there had better be a heaven".  Sitcoms are meant to be funny, first and foremost, but in this case Robert is also hitting upon an important moral principle.  The morality that we live by is not limited to this lifetime; it is affected by, and carries over into, the afterlife.  Because Robert was a Christian, a Catholic to be precise, he believed that making morally correct decisions was more important that worldly pleasures.  That Robert is counting upon heaven to recompense him for his sacrifice is not a cop-out, but a wise perspective on his part.  Too many Christians live too much of their lives as if this life is really all that they believe there is.  When we instead consider eternity as we think about today, our perspective changes, what we place value in changes, what we focus upon changes, and we find motivation and encouragement that will help us to achieve victory over temptation as well as endurance in our acts of righteousness.  Robert chose to do the right thing, he did so in the hope that there is indeed a heaven, fortunately for him and all of us, he is right.

A vote in favor of monogamy

Who is it that understands the value of sex?  Is it the man or woman, committed in the bonds of marriage to only each other, or is it the modern sex addict, indulging anywhere with anyone or anything?
In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton explains the simple reason why the murmurs against monogamy from a hundred years ago had no appeal to him, "I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself...Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman.  To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once  It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one is talking.  It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it." (p. 48)
There is no way that Chesterton could have envisioned the wholesale swallowing up of modern culture to sexuality, but his observation that it is the monogamist that truly understands and values sex is all the more true in our culture which so very much devalues it.  What value is there in something that is not worth holding on to?  How can anyone say that a one night stand has any real meaning or purpose when the very name of the person with whom such intimacy has been shared is quickly forgotten?
There may be some who are reading this who think that I just don't understand the pleasure to be had in having sex with many women.  They're right, I don't understand it, nor do I want that type of "knowledge".  What I do know is the absolute value of the sexuality expressed between a husband and his wife.  I don't need to experience any lesser imitations to know the treasure that I already have in being bound by sacred oath to my wife.  I value sex far too highly to ever desecrate this gift by sharing it with another.  I only have two parents, they are amazing, what need have I for more?  I only have one nation, America is my home, what need have I for another?  I only have one faith, Jesus Christ is my salvation, what need have I to be saved by any other?  I only have one wife, what could possibly be gained by desiring sex with any other?
All such bargains that promise joy and pleasure beyond that which we have a right are hollow lies.  Those who partake of them will only learn, to their regret, when it is too late.
Sex is a Siren's Song in America.  It promises a veritable buffet of pleasure, only to dash us upon the rocks of venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies, broken hearts, exploitation, and violence.  Men, do yourself a tremendous service, find one woman, marry her, and learn what the real value of sex is.

Sex and Marriage?

The role of sexuality in the life of those who follow God is a horribly misunderstood topic.  We've twisted it around and screwed it up to no end.  That being said, such a knot cannot be unraveled all at once, let me simply pull on one strand a bit and try to help...

What's the purpose of sex?  To those who engage in sex outside of the covenant of marriage, it is an act of pleasure that often tries to be the glue holding a relationship together.  It is an act of hope that is far too often placed in the wrong person.  It becomes damaged by bad experiences and ends up being something it was never intended to be.  Sex should not be a bargaining chip, nor a tool for getting one's way, it should not be bought or sold, nor should be be withheld or forced.  We, as a society, have morphed sex almost beyond recognition.

Sex within a marriage is an entirely different thing.  It is not the glue holding the relationship together, nor is it simply for pleasure.  The bond that holds the marriage together is honor, integrity, and a promise made in love before God, family, and friends.  Now, sex is pleasurable in a marriage, it is intended to be, but it also so much more.  It is a celebration of the union that exists between two people, of the molding of two separate lives into one, of the submission of two independent wills into one common goal of being a mutually beneficially partnership.

  If all of that sounds a little too idealistic to you, good, it should be.  God created the institution of marriage, and made sexuality as a part of it, for a very good reason.  We're not complete when we're alone.  We all feel it, we all know that the joys and sorrows of this life should be shared with another who is designed to compliment you.  A marriage works best when strengths and weaknesses are balanced out by the spouse, when needs and dreams are worked at together and not in competition.

Is sex a good thing?  Absolutely, all of God's creation was good in the beginning.  Has it been wrecked by sinful man?  Without a doubt, but we can begin to reclaim sex by supporting marriage.  Those who find themselves in the midst of divorce or failed relationships can begin again; you can reclaim your honor and integrity by saving your most intimate feelings for someone who is willing to publicly commit to you.  It may be idealistic, but it's also the truth.

Ancient Words Ever True...

I was listening to the song Ancient Words in the office today, considering the words of Peter in Acts 4, and pondering the book, The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch.  Where did all of that lead me?  The Reformation (in conjunction with the Renaissance) was a difficult time for those who wished to respect ancient traditions.  If you wanted to revere all the wisdom of the ancients, you had to deny the observations of men like Copernicus and Galileo in favor of men dead for two thousand years like Aristotle and Ptolemy. 
If instead, you opened up the wisdom of the ancients to doubt, even ridicule, how could you hold the line and protect the Orthodox faith from those who would deny the Trinity (for example)?
For us, the answers seem easy: Copernicus was right and that doesn't say anything about Biblical interpretation, it's just an observation from the natural world.  It wasn't so simple at the time.  We, as supposedly enlightened modern thinkers, may scoff at the foolishness of our forefathers, and shake our heads that they ever burned "witches" at the stake; but the question should be, "Are we any better?"
Take a look around the world we live in.  It has become the accepted belief in the Modern West that a human embryo can be disposed of with not a bit of care, and even an ironic moral outrage at those who would seek to "force" a young girl to give birth to the child growing inside of her.  It has also become the accepted belief in much of the Modern West that any and all variations of sexuality, co-habitation, and separation are equally valid.  That nobody has the right to tell anyone else that their choices are wrong.
Does it really seem so funny that men in the 16th Century were troubled that Copernicus was claiming the earth revolved around the sun?  In reality, humanity hasn't "advanced" much at all over the last five centuries.  We may know more stuff, and have a lot more widgets and gizmoes to entertain ourselves, but our moral state is just as deprived as the day Luther became troubled with Paul's insistence on fallen humanity in his letter to the Romans.