Additional Theological Positions
Beyond the fundamental doctrines of the faith, I am often asked about a range of theological positions. While these positions are neither salvific nor key tenets of orthodoxy, they can and often do affect the practice of the faith and the exercise of ministry. I readily fellowship with and lead alongside Christ-followers who hold different views. Still I've chosen to post them here not to be dogmatic about these lesser matters but in the interest of full disclosure because there are several doctrinal points where I have nuanced approaches.
Spiritual Gifts
I believe that when a person comes to faith, the Spirit gives them a personal capacity to contribute to the body of Christ. Because there are multiple ‘gift lists’ in the NT that differ from one another, I do not think we have been given an exhaustive list, but rather a sampling that highlights major gifts. Moreover, I do not hold that all gifts listed in the NT are present and active today. In one of the earliest discussions of which books were apostolic and therefore befitting for teaching in the church, one book (The Shepherd/Pastor of Hermas) was explicitly excluded because it could not have been written by an apostle or prophet.
But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius [c. 142–157], his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (Muratorian Fragment, ca. AD 180-200, emphasis added)
Hence I believe that the gifts/offices of apostle and prophet were recognized as closed early in church history.
With regards to the charismatic spiritual gifts, I think God can do what He wants however He wants. If He can speak through donkeys (Num 22:28-30), He can speak to people however He wants. However, I don’t think the gift of tongues is what the popular Pentecostal theology teaches. It isn't taught (as they believe it can be), nor is it a personal prayer language, as spiritual gifts were intended to benefit the body as a whole, not simply the individual believer (1 Cor 12:12-26). In the case of healing and miracles, if He can raise the dead (John 11:1-44), He can heal whomever He wants however He wants whenever He wants. He answers prayers, and I think we see miracles every day and fail to recognize them as such. So while I believe tongues, healing, and miracles can appear in our day, I believe that they are authenticating gifts, gifts given for the purpose of building credibility to the message of the gospel where Jesus and the gospel are unknown (cf. Acts 2:1-41). As such, they are most likely witnessed in frontier missions, not in contexts where the Jesus and the gospel are well established.
With regards to the charismatic spiritual gifts, I think God can do what He wants however He wants. If He can speak through donkeys (Num 22:28-30), He can speak to people however He wants. However, I don’t think the gift of tongues is what the popular Pentecostal theology teaches. It isn't taught (as they believe it can be), nor is it a personal prayer language, as spiritual gifts were intended to benefit the body as a whole, not simply the individual believer (1 Cor 12:12-26). In the case of healing and miracles, if He can raise the dead (John 11:1-44), He can heal whomever He wants however He wants whenever He wants. He answers prayers, and I think we see miracles every day and fail to recognize them as such. So while I believe tongues, healing, and miracles can appear in our day, I believe that they are authenticating gifts, gifts given for the purpose of building credibility to the message of the gospel where Jesus and the gospel are unknown (cf. Acts 2:1-41). As such, they are most likely witnessed in frontier missions, not in contexts where the Jesus and the gospel are well established.
Sacraments - Baptism & Communion
I believe that there are two clear ordinances in the Scripture: Baptism and Communion. Neither is salvific, but both are reminders and experiences of God’s grace.
I believe that the best understanding of baptism is that it is a rite reserved for those who profess trust in the One God, Father, Son, and Spirit. However, I also believe that the theology and early practice of infant baptism should not be entirely dismissed. While I do not practice infant baptism, I do not feel it necessary to insist that a person baptized as child should be re-baptized. However, when that person’s own conscience has prompted them to be re-baptized, I have gladly obliged.
As for the mode of baptism, the practice of immersion is preferable, but not absolute. The writings of the 1st century church, specifically the unofficial church manual known as Didache (c. AD 75), ranked different modes and locales of baptism. They gave preference to immersion in running water, but it also allowed for immersion in stagnant water, sprinkling, and even the use of oil where water was unavailable. As a result, I hold that immersion is ideal but not mandatory.
With regards to communion, I believe it is an act of covenant renewal. I do not believe that the actual body and blood of Jesus are involved, but that it is a spiritual experience. I recommend that it should be practiced weekly, as was the practice of the early church, and ideally only believers who have been baptized and are in good standing with their church should participate.
I believe that the best understanding of baptism is that it is a rite reserved for those who profess trust in the One God, Father, Son, and Spirit. However, I also believe that the theology and early practice of infant baptism should not be entirely dismissed. While I do not practice infant baptism, I do not feel it necessary to insist that a person baptized as child should be re-baptized. However, when that person’s own conscience has prompted them to be re-baptized, I have gladly obliged.
As for the mode of baptism, the practice of immersion is preferable, but not absolute. The writings of the 1st century church, specifically the unofficial church manual known as Didache (c. AD 75), ranked different modes and locales of baptism. They gave preference to immersion in running water, but it also allowed for immersion in stagnant water, sprinkling, and even the use of oil where water was unavailable. As a result, I hold that immersion is ideal but not mandatory.
With regards to communion, I believe it is an act of covenant renewal. I do not believe that the actual body and blood of Jesus are involved, but that it is a spiritual experience. I recommend that it should be practiced weekly, as was the practice of the early church, and ideally only believers who have been baptized and are in good standing with their church should participate.
Hell
I strongly affirm an eternal destiny of judgment and punishment for those who reject and oppose Christ. That said, I can’t dig down into the earth and locate Hades or Hell. Moreover, I think we can hardly fathom the full heinousness of hell. So that we might begin to understand, I believe that God drew from of the first-century and ancient-near-eastern cultural imagery to depict a reality that would otherwise be incomprehensible. Similarly, while I believe that John saw an actual lake of fire in his vision, I can’t whip out a map and point to the lake of fire. Rather I think the lake of fire was shown to him in order to help John describe the indescribable to the readers of Revelation.
Creation
I recognize that a spectrum of Christian views exist on Genesis 1 and 2, the creation of the universe and of man. My particular view is not a young-earth view. I believe that Genesis 1 is an apologetic against the Egyptian theology that had engulfed Israel for the 400 years prior to Moses writing Genesis. I do not read Genesis 1 as a formula or recipe for creating a universe, especially with 11 other conflicting accounts of creation in Scripture. I don’t know how exactly God made the universe, but I know that He made it, that He was intimately involved in the details whether things happened instantaneously or through divinely ordained and orchestrated processes over millennia.
Then I believe Genesis 2 is an apologetic against the Mesopotamian and Canaanite theology that was about to surround Israel. I do hold to an historic Adam and Eve, a first man and woman, but Genesis 2 uses anthropomorphic language (e.g. God molding with his hands, God breathing—all things that an immaterial, spirit being doesn’t have or do). So man may have been an instantaneous creation, or God may have handcrafted some process to bring man into being. If you ask me, my answer is: I don’t know how man came to be, but I do know that he wasn’t an accident. He wasn’t created out of some need of the divine. Rather he was to represent God to the rest of the material creation.
Then I believe Genesis 2 is an apologetic against the Mesopotamian and Canaanite theology that was about to surround Israel. I do hold to an historic Adam and Eve, a first man and woman, but Genesis 2 uses anthropomorphic language (e.g. God molding with his hands, God breathing—all things that an immaterial, spirit being doesn’t have or do). So man may have been an instantaneous creation, or God may have handcrafted some process to bring man into being. If you ask me, my answer is: I don’t know how man came to be, but I do know that he wasn’t an accident. He wasn’t created out of some need of the divine. Rather he was to represent God to the rest of the material creation.
Divorce
To talk about divorce, one must start with the nature of marriage. Genesis 2:24 plainly states that when a man and woman marry, they become one. Jesus echoed this oneness as the result of marriage in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:8. When a person marries, they are no longer under the umbrella of their families of origin, and they are no longer autonomous (1 Cor 7:4). They are their own unique entity as one—two people running a three-legged race. Furthermore, Paul states that so long as the spouse is living, the two are bound by the law of marriage (Rom 7:2; cf. 1 Cor 7:39). Hence marriage was designed as a life-long union.
So then, what is divorce? Jeremiah 3:8 says that God divorced the northern tribes. It was His response to their unfaithfulness. They had disregarded their loyalty and fidelity to God with spiritual affairs, the chasing after other gods. They broke their covenant with God. From this, it would seem that divorce is a) not a sin (because God doesn’t sin), b) divorce is the last resort, and c) divorce is not the breaking of a covenant but the recognition of an already broken covenant, an already shattered union. God had chased and pursued Israel, hoping to restore the relationship. But they would not have it, so the “divorce papers” simply recognized a reality, the truth of Israel’s abandonment of her relationship with YHWH.
In Deuteronomy 22:13-19 and 24:1-4, Moses gave guidelines around how divorce would work in the nation of Israel. In those days, only men could requisition divorce papers, and so these instructions served to protect women from being casually disregarded or uncared for. Centuries later, the Pharisees confronted Jesus in an attempt to trap Him in a contemporary theological debate over Moses’s instructions—what are legitimate grounds for divorce: any displeasure on the part of the husband or just sexual immorality. Jesus made it clear that Moses issued these instructions as remedial prescription for the hardness of man’s heart (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5). Matthew and Mark quote Jesus as saying that whatever “God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9). By inference then, it is only man’s desire, not God’s, for a marriage to end. Hence, any sense that it is God’s will for a couple to divorce is an utter fabrication.
Mark, in his emphasis on the way of Jesus, the way of discipleship, the way of the kingdom, leaves the discussion without actually picking sides in the debate. His point is that those who follow Jesus should view marriage as covenant without an out-clause.
Matthew, on the other hand, records Jesus as affirming adultery as grounds for a divorce (Matt 19:9). When a spouse engages in sexual intimacy with someone other than their marriage partner, they forsake the oneness of their marriage for oneness with a third party, thereby tearing asunder their covenant loyalty (cf. 1 Cor 6:16). With the cultural assumption that a woman must remarry for any hope of provision and security, Jesus said divorcing a wife for grounds other than immorality would cause that woman to commit adultery, and whoever married that woman would likewise be committing adultery. Why? Because the original oneness of the first marriage covenant would still be intact, and both parties in remarrying would violate that original oneness—the original oneness superseded the physical expression found in a certificate of divorce. But if that oneness was already terminated by sexual congress outside the marriage, then the divorce was simply an outward expression of an inward reality, the reality of a spouse having abandoned the covenant.
Because the legitimate divorce between God and Israel in Jeremiah was not the fruit born of sexual misconduct, the question then becomes: is sexual immorality the only form of covenant abandonment and terminated oneness? Or is it a literary device known as a synecdoche of the species where a specific thing is used to refer to the whole category or family to which the thing belongs. For example, in Psalm 44:6, the psalmist disavows his bow and his sword. There the psalmist was not expressing that only those weapons could not be trusted for deliverance. Instead he used those two as representatives for all types of military weaponry and defense. In the case of marital abandonment, then, could there be other acts that signify a terminated oneness? Could one spouse attempting to murder the other be evidence? How about physical abuse? Because Paul gave another grounds for divorce--namely, the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:15)--my inclination is think that there are other acts that signify the death of oneness that would hence be legitimate grounds for divorce—acts which would need wise spiritual counsel to discern on a case-by-case basis.
Yet what remains illegitimate is divorce on the grounds of the self-centeredness that proliferates today--the "no fault" divorce or divorcing over "irreconcilable differences." As a pastor friend of mine recently quipped, "Every marriage has irreconcilable differences." The words of Malachi should haunt any and all who are considering a divorce:
So then, what is divorce? Jeremiah 3:8 says that God divorced the northern tribes. It was His response to their unfaithfulness. They had disregarded their loyalty and fidelity to God with spiritual affairs, the chasing after other gods. They broke their covenant with God. From this, it would seem that divorce is a) not a sin (because God doesn’t sin), b) divorce is the last resort, and c) divorce is not the breaking of a covenant but the recognition of an already broken covenant, an already shattered union. God had chased and pursued Israel, hoping to restore the relationship. But they would not have it, so the “divorce papers” simply recognized a reality, the truth of Israel’s abandonment of her relationship with YHWH.
In Deuteronomy 22:13-19 and 24:1-4, Moses gave guidelines around how divorce would work in the nation of Israel. In those days, only men could requisition divorce papers, and so these instructions served to protect women from being casually disregarded or uncared for. Centuries later, the Pharisees confronted Jesus in an attempt to trap Him in a contemporary theological debate over Moses’s instructions—what are legitimate grounds for divorce: any displeasure on the part of the husband or just sexual immorality. Jesus made it clear that Moses issued these instructions as remedial prescription for the hardness of man’s heart (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5). Matthew and Mark quote Jesus as saying that whatever “God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9). By inference then, it is only man’s desire, not God’s, for a marriage to end. Hence, any sense that it is God’s will for a couple to divorce is an utter fabrication.
Mark, in his emphasis on the way of Jesus, the way of discipleship, the way of the kingdom, leaves the discussion without actually picking sides in the debate. His point is that those who follow Jesus should view marriage as covenant without an out-clause.
Matthew, on the other hand, records Jesus as affirming adultery as grounds for a divorce (Matt 19:9). When a spouse engages in sexual intimacy with someone other than their marriage partner, they forsake the oneness of their marriage for oneness with a third party, thereby tearing asunder their covenant loyalty (cf. 1 Cor 6:16). With the cultural assumption that a woman must remarry for any hope of provision and security, Jesus said divorcing a wife for grounds other than immorality would cause that woman to commit adultery, and whoever married that woman would likewise be committing adultery. Why? Because the original oneness of the first marriage covenant would still be intact, and both parties in remarrying would violate that original oneness—the original oneness superseded the physical expression found in a certificate of divorce. But if that oneness was already terminated by sexual congress outside the marriage, then the divorce was simply an outward expression of an inward reality, the reality of a spouse having abandoned the covenant.
Because the legitimate divorce between God and Israel in Jeremiah was not the fruit born of sexual misconduct, the question then becomes: is sexual immorality the only form of covenant abandonment and terminated oneness? Or is it a literary device known as a synecdoche of the species where a specific thing is used to refer to the whole category or family to which the thing belongs. For example, in Psalm 44:6, the psalmist disavows his bow and his sword. There the psalmist was not expressing that only those weapons could not be trusted for deliverance. Instead he used those two as representatives for all types of military weaponry and defense. In the case of marital abandonment, then, could there be other acts that signify a terminated oneness? Could one spouse attempting to murder the other be evidence? How about physical abuse? Because Paul gave another grounds for divorce--namely, the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:15)--my inclination is think that there are other acts that signify the death of oneness that would hence be legitimate grounds for divorce—acts which would need wise spiritual counsel to discern on a case-by-case basis.
Yet what remains illegitimate is divorce on the grounds of the self-centeredness that proliferates today--the "no fault" divorce or divorcing over "irreconcilable differences." As a pastor friend of mine recently quipped, "Every marriage has irreconcilable differences." The words of Malachi should haunt any and all who are considering a divorce:
You also do this: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears as you weep and groan, because he no longer pays any attention to the offering nor accepts it favorably from you. Yet you ask, “Why?” The Lord is testifying against you on behalf of the wife you married when you were young, to whom you have become unfaithful even though she is your companion and wife by law. No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this. What did our ancestor do when seeking a child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth. “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord who rules over all. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.” (Mal 2:13-16, NET)
The men of God's people were walking away from their marriages. They had grown tired of their spouses and were choosing to abandon them, to be faithless to them. God's response was to stop listening to their prayers. Not only that, His wrath, His anger is against those who divorce their spouse. Divorce is a violent act against a covenant made before God. To tread these waters carelessly, these waters of divorce, is to invoke His divine anger and opposition.
Salvation of Infants & Mentally Handicapped
Are infants and severely mentally-handicapped individuals saved? The question at hand is the extent of the inclusivity or exclusivity of salvation—in other words, who is and who is not saved. Because of Acts 10-11 (Cornelius and Peter), I believe that in this age, salvation clearly is the gift given to those who expressly believe in and put their trust in Jesus’s substitutionary death and bodily resurrection. At the same time, anyone who rejects or denies Jesus is consequently condemned. So what do we do with those who have not heard or cannot understand?
In the case of children, some contend that at some age, children become morally accountable before God. Prior to that age, children are by default saved. I see no clear scriptural support for such an age of accountability, or other exception clauses for that matter.
So my answer is that I don’t know if infants or the severely mentally-handicapped are saved, but I do know the God who makes that decision. I know that He is just and gracious, loving and holy, perfect in all His ways. He decides who He will and who He will not save because salvation is ultimately a gift from Him in the first place, and His decisions are good and true. Consequently, I will stick with what is clear and certain—namely that faith and trust in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, saves—and trust Him with the rest.
In the case of children, some contend that at some age, children become morally accountable before God. Prior to that age, children are by default saved. I see no clear scriptural support for such an age of accountability, or other exception clauses for that matter.
So my answer is that I don’t know if infants or the severely mentally-handicapped are saved, but I do know the God who makes that decision. I know that He is just and gracious, loving and holy, perfect in all His ways. He decides who He will and who He will not save because salvation is ultimately a gift from Him in the first place, and His decisions are good and true. Consequently, I will stick with what is clear and certain—namely that faith and trust in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, saves—and trust Him with the rest.
Tithing/Giving
Tithing is a practice to express man’s dependence upon and gratitude towards God. As a bonus, it also helps free him from the idolatry of money and possessions. Under the Old Covenant, the expectation was that 10% of a person’s income be given to the temple. But by Jesus’s time, tithing had mutated into an instrument of self-righteousness (cf. Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42; 18:12). To further complicate how Christ-followers were to give, the New Testament prescribes neither a fixed percentage nor a fixed recipient. Rather, we have statements like: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart…” (2 Cor 9:7). Moreover, we no longer have a temple or a nation-state, but a kingdom of God.
So what do we do? How much should we give? And to whom? Good questions. I think it’s spiritually dangerous to read the Old Covenant as though it automatically applies to Christ-followers today. After all, it was a legal agreement between a specific people and their God. Since Paul says that the amount is between a person and God (cf. 2 Cor 9:7), then I think that’s what we can say with certainty. The expectation was that Christ-followers would give and that the amount would be generous (cf. 2 Cor 9:11) and given cheerfully (2 Cor 9:7). That said, I think that the 10% of the Old Covenant is a benchmark for a good starting place.
The recipients of such giving seem to include at least teachers of the Word (cf. 1 Tim 5:17-18) and saints suffering persecution and hardship, like the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor 9:1-5). Here I am comfortable broadening the list of worthy recipients to initiatives that support the kingdom of God and its mission in the world—churches being the preeminent expression of that kingdom.
So what do we do? How much should we give? And to whom? Good questions. I think it’s spiritually dangerous to read the Old Covenant as though it automatically applies to Christ-followers today. After all, it was a legal agreement between a specific people and their God. Since Paul says that the amount is between a person and God (cf. 2 Cor 9:7), then I think that’s what we can say with certainty. The expectation was that Christ-followers would give and that the amount would be generous (cf. 2 Cor 9:11) and given cheerfully (2 Cor 9:7). That said, I think that the 10% of the Old Covenant is a benchmark for a good starting place.
The recipients of such giving seem to include at least teachers of the Word (cf. 1 Tim 5:17-18) and saints suffering persecution and hardship, like the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor 9:1-5). Here I am comfortable broadening the list of worthy recipients to initiatives that support the kingdom of God and its mission in the world—churches being the preeminent expression of that kingdom.
Alcohol Consumption
The Scriptures are littered with stories of lives devastated by the effects of vast alcohol consumption. Consider Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:32-33) or the behavior of Ahasuerus (Esth 1:10-11) or Elah (1 Kings 16:9-10) or Amnon (2 Sam 13:28-29). Proverbs issues a strong warning against a life captive to alcohol (Prov 23:29-35). Paul categorized drunkenness as a sin (Rom 13:12-13) and told the Corinthians not to associate with fellow believers who were unrepentant about being a drunk (1 Cor 5:11). Peter equates drunkenness with unbelief, godlessness (1 Pet 4:3). One cannot read the Scriptures and walk away thinking that drunkenness is the way of a Christ-follower.
That said, prohibitions against drinking alcohol altogether are remarkably rare. Levites couldn’t drink when they were on duty (Lev 10:9). Kings were admonished not to drink so that they could rightly administer justice (Prov 31:4-5). And abstaining was part of the Nazirite vow (Num 6:3). But for the everyday Joe, it seems that consuming some alcohol was normative. Paul prescribes it for Timothy (1 Tim 5:23), and even Jesus brought the best wine to parties (John 2:1-10).
Hence I am led to conclude that drunkenness is sin but social drinking is fine so long as: a) a weaker brother (i.e. a fellow believer who is a recovering alcoholic) is not caused to stumble (cf. Rom 14:13-23); and b) the person who drinks does not become addicted to alcohol (cf. Titus 2:3).
That said, prohibitions against drinking alcohol altogether are remarkably rare. Levites couldn’t drink when they were on duty (Lev 10:9). Kings were admonished not to drink so that they could rightly administer justice (Prov 31:4-5). And abstaining was part of the Nazirite vow (Num 6:3). But for the everyday Joe, it seems that consuming some alcohol was normative. Paul prescribes it for Timothy (1 Tim 5:23), and even Jesus brought the best wine to parties (John 2:1-10).
Hence I am led to conclude that drunkenness is sin but social drinking is fine so long as: a) a weaker brother (i.e. a fellow believer who is a recovering alcoholic) is not caused to stumble (cf. Rom 14:13-23); and b) the person who drinks does not become addicted to alcohol (cf. Titus 2:3).
Sex & Sexuality
I believe that sexual intimacy was designed for a man and women to enjoy with solely one another in context of a covenant union, namely marriage. In the beginning, God created woman for man, and together, they became one (Gen 2:18-25). So I believe that any pursuit of sexual gratification outside of that context is sin (cf. Gal 5:19). Whether it is lust and coveting or adultery and sexual immorality, believers are called to repent from it (cf. 2 Cor 12:21) and to abstain from it (Eph 5:3; Col 3:5). In fact, abstaining from sexual intimacy and gratification outside of marriage is both the express will of God and a part of a Christ-follower's sanctification (1 Thess 4:3).
With regards to homosexuality, Paul tells us that the fruit of rejecting God, of idolatry, is men having sex with men and women having sex with women (Rom 1:20-26). It is both a corrupted expression of love and an expression of divine judgment (Rom 1:26-7). (For a further discussion of that passage in Romans, see my commentary "The Consequences of Rebellion" below.) That said, Paul also equates the level of sinfulness of homosexuality with that of gossip, slander, pride, disobedience, murder, and all manner of unrighteousness (Rom 1:26-32). So while homosexual sex is a sin, it also wrong to brand it as somehow worse that any other sexual sin or any other form of unrighteousness.
With regards to pornography, Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully was adultery (Matt 5:28). What is the purpose of looking at porn if not to look lustfully at other men and women and achieve some measure of sexual gratification? I believe that, just like any other sexual sin, believers are called to repent from it (cf. 2 Cor 12:21) and abstain from it (Eph 5:3; Col 3:5).
When it comes to sexual sins, e.g. homosexuality and pornography, and for that matter all patterns and habits of sin, I think it’s important to appreciate two truths. First, a person does not come to the cross already cleansed and sinless. Rather they come broken and in need of a healer, sick and in need of a doctor, sinful and in need of a redeemer. Hence the church should throw wide her arms to welcome men and women who don't know God and are ensnared by their sin. After all, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift" (Rom 3:23-24, ESV).
The second truth is that those who have walked habitually, regularly in sexual sins—or, for that matter, any other repeated sin pattern—are addicts. They are hooked on how it feels walking in that pattern, just like a person hooked on the experiences that come with alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs. The strength of their addiction will be a function of how long and how deep the person walked in whatever pattern versus how long it’s been since he got his last fix. And though I believe Jesus can and does sometimes amputate those fleshy desires in an instant, most of the time once a person is addict, he is always an addict regardless of whether or not he or she is actively feeding the addiction. The temptation will be a real one, likely haunting that person the rest of his/her life. The good news, though, is that the temptation will be a divine tool for discovering God’s grace and nurturing dependence on Him. It will be a reoccurring reminder of his brokenness as well as his dependency upon God's grace for both forgiveness and the power to walk uprightly.
With regards to homosexuality, Paul tells us that the fruit of rejecting God, of idolatry, is men having sex with men and women having sex with women (Rom 1:20-26). It is both a corrupted expression of love and an expression of divine judgment (Rom 1:26-7). (For a further discussion of that passage in Romans, see my commentary "The Consequences of Rebellion" below.) That said, Paul also equates the level of sinfulness of homosexuality with that of gossip, slander, pride, disobedience, murder, and all manner of unrighteousness (Rom 1:26-32). So while homosexual sex is a sin, it also wrong to brand it as somehow worse that any other sexual sin or any other form of unrighteousness.
With regards to pornography, Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully was adultery (Matt 5:28). What is the purpose of looking at porn if not to look lustfully at other men and women and achieve some measure of sexual gratification? I believe that, just like any other sexual sin, believers are called to repent from it (cf. 2 Cor 12:21) and abstain from it (Eph 5:3; Col 3:5).
When it comes to sexual sins, e.g. homosexuality and pornography, and for that matter all patterns and habits of sin, I think it’s important to appreciate two truths. First, a person does not come to the cross already cleansed and sinless. Rather they come broken and in need of a healer, sick and in need of a doctor, sinful and in need of a redeemer. Hence the church should throw wide her arms to welcome men and women who don't know God and are ensnared by their sin. After all, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift" (Rom 3:23-24, ESV).
The second truth is that those who have walked habitually, regularly in sexual sins—or, for that matter, any other repeated sin pattern—are addicts. They are hooked on how it feels walking in that pattern, just like a person hooked on the experiences that come with alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs. The strength of their addiction will be a function of how long and how deep the person walked in whatever pattern versus how long it’s been since he got his last fix. And though I believe Jesus can and does sometimes amputate those fleshy desires in an instant, most of the time once a person is addict, he is always an addict regardless of whether or not he or she is actively feeding the addiction. The temptation will be a real one, likely haunting that person the rest of his/her life. The good news, though, is that the temptation will be a divine tool for discovering God’s grace and nurturing dependence on Him. It will be a reoccurring reminder of his brokenness as well as his dependency upon God's grace for both forgiveness and the power to walk uprightly.
| The Consequences of Rebellion - Rom 1.24-32.pdf |
