The Gospel and LGBTQ Issues

Below is a typed version of my sermon notes from this past Sunday. For the second straight week we had some technical issues that made the recording of a sermon video impossible. So like last week I decided to make my notes available to my congregation and anyone interested in reading.

--

This is a topic with many social and even political implications, as well as personal ones for many of us (most of us are touched by this in family, friendships, or work relationships). 

Maybe surprisingly, homosexual practice was somewhat common in the ancient Greco-Roman world. We could note two New Testament examples: First, Jesus addresses “men in soft clothing” (Mt.11:8), which is a euphemism for effeminate men. Jesus uses this euphemism in a tongue-in-cheek way, with a little sarcasm. Second, in 1 Cor.6:9-11 Paul states that some of the Corinthian Christians had once practiced homosexual living (listed among other sins), before coming to Christ: “Such were some of you” (v.11). The words used in the greek of v.9 refer to both the passive and active partners in homosexual practice (which were thought of and treated differently in the ancient world). But coming to Christ changed them (v.11b): Jesus separated them from that life so that it’s no longer them. 

-Today, leaving that life seems impossible, on the grounds that we assume either a genetic predisposition or addiction to the habit. Perhaps most importantly we understand identity in terms of sexual practice (more on that later). But the early Christians didn’t think this way: If there was a lifestyle opposed to Christ, it needed repented of. Further it needed to be continually mortified, since sin hangs on and rarely falls away without a fight (Heb.12:2). 

-But the point is that the gospel is more powerful than sexual habits, and change is possible, if we’ll let Jesus tell us what’s real and what’s not (if we’re ready). 

Why is this idea—that homosexuality and trans ideology is anti-God and Jesus came to deliver us from it—offensive? 

Our time

Carl Trueman, in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self*, attempts to explain how the late-modern mind was formed across the last several centuries. That is, Trueman tries to show why we think the way that we do, which helps understand the recent normalization of LGBTQ ideology. In summary, Trueman cites: 

a) The rise of the “psychological self” (coined by Philip Reiff)—modern man has made an “inward turn,” so that we understand ourselves in terms of how we feel on the inside, not in terms of what society needs (on the outside). The medieval world was Christian, so at that time, people looked outward and upward (ie, what does God want and what does society need?) Today, we’re self-absorbed: What do I want? I decide who I am. 

b) Freudian sexual obsession—Freud taught that our unhappiness is the result of unfulfilled sexual desires/urges. So sexual gratification becomes central to the modern mind. Since homosexual urges will become a tendency in some, it might feel like acting on those is “the secret” to happiness. I must, then, acted on them. 

c) Post-modern view of history—Since the West’s past is Christian (thus, not putting me and my desires first), it’s oppressive, as is Christianity. So the heroic narrative is dispensing with the Christian past and its hetero-norms. If, then, I’m gay or trans, I’m heroic and brave—and since many celebrate it today (adopting the same post-modern, anti-Christian view of history), I’m entrenched even further in it. 

But however one understands the turn, the Bible is clear that the practice is rebellion against how God made us and intends for us to find happiness. Thus “such were some of you.” They, the new Christians, turned.

Can I prove it? What does the Bible say? 

1. God’s image in humanity is as male and female (Gen.1:26-27), as he creates us (Ps.139:14). “Man” is male and female, and God chooses who we are. (Chromosomal abnormalities are to be expected in a fallen world. But the norm is self-evident.)
2. Through Scripture homosexual practice is always unrighteous and unsafe. We could see Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the men of the city want to “know” the angelic men (“know” is always sexual in the OT, if referring to a person). So Lot begs them to go away, offering them his daughters instead—what a dad! (Unless he was making a sarcastic statement, ie, “How much more do you want, my daughters too?) Further, Lev.18:22 places the prohibition on homosexual practice right after the prohibition on child sacrifice and right before the prohibition on bestiality(!), concluding that such practice is “an abomination.”
3. To Jesus, it’s not normal. In Mt.11:8 he makes fun of the men in soft clothing. Then in Mt.19:1f he defines marriage only in male and female terms. 
4. Homosexual practice AND desires are the effect of a society rejecting God. In Rom.1 societies reject God and one effect is that some will be “given up” (by God) to desire others of the same sex, and to practice such sexual activity with them (Rom.1:24, 26). Godlessness is the disease in all of us, but homosexuality is a symptom of the disease that is not in all of us, but only some (others of us have different symptoms, Rom.1:29-31). 

-So, then, do LGBTQ folks know but deny the truth, ignoring it? No. They don’t know the truth anymore—they used to, but now their hearts are hardened (Rom.1:21-23), and they can’t find their way back to God (like all of us Christians before he found us). 

The gospel, then, is the invitation to come back to God by reading his “map” (Scripture). It’s an invitation into a different “heroic narrative” than the one we so easily accept. Here I’m subject to God and guilty before him, but Jesus comes to the world to save me (he’s the hero). He’ll lead me to “pleasures forevermore” (Ps.16:11) if I’ll bear the cross in this life, which means learning to put his happiness with me before my happiness, until my happiness is one with his. 

How, then, does the church wisely steward this gospel invitation to our LGBTQ neighbors? 

Our stewardship

Evangelical churches in America have simply not know what to do with LGBTQ issues. As an oversimplification, we’ve tended to either become “Love God” churches (affirm Scripture’s truth about sexuality, but demonize the sexually lost) or “Love them” churches (affirm LGBTQ folks “truth”, and demonize Scripture). Option one is safer, but we haven’t grown in our ability to both affirm Scripture and love our neighbors. In other words, we have the gospel but we aren’t doing a good job of sharing it. I want, then, to offer three mind shifts that might be helpful, so that we can better share Christ with our friends, and they might come to him: 

1. From “the Bible says” to “God intends”—I want to be careful here, being an heir of the Reformational sola scriptura heritage. I just wonder if Rick Shenk is right that starting with “the Bible says” starts us off making the Christian faith sound like rule-keeping?** Instead “God intends” personalizes the invitation: It’s about fellowship with him first. And he gives us his word (the Bible) so we’ll know we hear from him clearly. In this shift we’re not jettisoning the Scripture (may it never be); but ministering a personal God to lots souls. 
2. From “your sexuality is the most important thing about you” to “your being an image-bearer is the most important thing about you"—A gay or trans person isn’t first a gay or trans person, but a person, an image-bearer, and they matter to God. They might be under God’s judgment in unbelief (cf. Jn.3:36), but so was I before Jesus found me. I want them to come to church not so they’ll become straight first, but so that they’ll meet Jesus first, and if they do, he’ll change their heart and behavior (again, 1Cor.6). Hell won’t only have gay people in it; but heaven will have only repentant people in it.
3. From enslavement to urges to self-control—Growing up, all the movies I watched had a common denominator: Be true to yourself, do what makes you happy, follow your heart and achieve your dreams, etc. I’m not surprised then that we’ve seen the maturation of self-absorption today, where it’s all about “following your own heart.” Don’t follow your heart, until it’s one with Christ’s. Since that only comes in the beatific vision, scrutinize your hearts with the Scriptures. 

Example: Rosaria Butterfield’s conversion*^: Rosaria, a practicing lesbian and feminist, was befriended by a pastor and his wife, and over years, came to Christ. Her conversion was painful, as it is for many of us (Lk.16:16). But as she obeyed Christ, things became clearer and clearer (cf. Jn.7:17). This is what Larry Osborne calls the dimmer-switch principle: If we obey, God will make our lights brighter so we can see more clearly. If we disobey he’ll dim the light so it becomes harder to see. That’s the invitation of the gospel: Come follow Christ, and learn to see.

—

*Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020). 

**Rick Shenk, The Genesis of Marriage (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2018), 150.

*^See Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey Into Christian Faith (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant, 2012). 

On Marriage and the Gospel

We had a technical difficulty in our Sunday service this past week, so we were unable to record the video of my sermon on marriage. So for this month’s blog, I’m going to share an edited version of my notes. For continued reading, see Rick Shenk’s The Genesis of Marriage and Ray Ortlund’s Marriage and the Mystery of the Gospel. I leaned heavily on Shenk’s book in my sermon preparation, and can’t recommend it enough. Shenk was my doctoral mentor, but I’ll never write as well and clear as he does. 

—

Good Questions: Understanding Marriage - Ephesians 5:28-33 

What is marriage? Most agree that the breakdown of American society is the breakdown of the American family. 

-“Marriage” redefined over the last 50-60 years: “Just a paper.” Divorce numbers the same as when No-Fault-Divorce began in 1969, but it only appears that the rates are down because marriage rates are also down. 50%< of marriages end in divorce. 

-But what we need is not to see what’s wrong with marriage in the world but what’s right with marriage in Scripture.

1. Scripturally, Creation is About Marriage 

-In the creation account(s), the climax is the creation of man and woman to be married. 

-Gen.1: Day 6, male and female in his image 

-Gen.2: “not good” that man is alone, so he makes him a helper FROM him 

-Since “image” is “male and female” (1:26), marriage uniquely depicts God (as the one-and-many God, ie triune; thus “let US make man in our image”). It also depicts his redemption (like a man leaves his father and mother to join to his wife, so God in Christ brings us to himself). 

-Marriage the normal way man images God, unless single unto the Lord. 

-Marriage prominent throughout the biblical story: 

a) Old Testament: So much drama revolves around marriages 

b) Salvation will come through a family/lineage 

c) Prominence in the 10 Commandments (comms 7 and 10)

c) Marriage and adultery are the ways God defines his relationship with us (Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezek.16; Is.54:5-8, 62:5) 

-Is that how you think about your relationship with God, as spouse, or only as rule-giver and rule-follower? 

2. Christ’s First and Second Comings are Ab Marriage 

a) First coming: John 1-3 structured to look like Genesis 1-3, including with the wedding of Gen.2 reflected in the Jn.2 wedding, Jesus’ cleaning the temple, and Jesus saying that we need born again. Thus Jn.3:29 “the bridegroom is here.” These events show that the Bridegroom has come and the Bride must prepare herself.

-Mt.19 Jesus simplifies marriage and divorce down to God’s original purpose 

-Mt.9, 22, 25 — Jesus teaches that he’s the Bridegroom, and his second coming in terms of a bridegroom coming for his bride 

*So in first coming, he pays the bride-price (1 Cor.6:20)

b) Second coming: Revelation - Bible ends with the wedding of Christ to his church (Rev.19), and a joyous marriage (Rev.21-22). 

-So: Bible begins with a marriage that failed and ends with one that succeeds. Rick Shenk: “History has a nuptial structure.”

-Jesus’ first coming: He pays the bride price; second coming: He takes his bride. 

3. Marriage is About Christ’s Marriage 

Eph.5:28f: husbands love your wives like Christ does the church. We’d expect v.32, following the Genesis 2 quote (“the man leaves his father and mother to hold fast…”), to say “Christian husbands, this applies to you.” And v.33 does say that. But only after Paul says in v.32 that it applies to Christ: HE is the son who takes his wife and holds fast to her. Earthly marriage is a mysterious picture of Christ’s marriage to his church, uniting us to himself. Once men know that Christ is faithful to his church, they can learn faithfulness to their wives. 

-Song of Songs: Total intimacy in marriage, supposed to reflect our spiritual intimacy with Christ (Gal.2:20 “loved me; Jn.13:1 “loved his own”). Song is commentary on Gen.2 “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh!” song--it's an extended version of that shorter song) 

-Are you close to Jesus like that? That’s what discipleship is: Him drawing you deeper in to his heart, so that you not only know you need him, but that you have him. In all of your trials, you closer to him, don’t you? 

-Thus John Piper: Marriage as a “parable of permanence,” in which we reflect God’s triuneness in himself and his redemption of us in faithfulness. A profound mystery. 

—

Some practical thoughts: 

1. Divorce: Still 1/2 marriages end. We know “God hates divorce” (Mal.2) and “only for sexual immorality” (Mt.5, 19). Any other allowances? 

-Personally I can’t allow for abuse to continue, especially if it’s abuse of kids. The parents’ job is to protect the children (Eph.6:4), so if they’re letting abuse happen they’re breaking that command! And there’s likely some form of sexual immorality happening if abuse is happening. But I can’t go any further than that: Only cheating and unrepentant physical abuse. 

-“But pastor we were incompatible, and fell out of love. You don’t understand our misery, so we needed to split up.” No, maybe I don’t understand. But maybe you didn’t understand your vows when you took them. You might have divorced for the wrong reasons, and you need to face it squarely. The Lord will forgive you--but don't lie to yourself and make a crooked path where he's made a straight way. 

2. Singleness: Disciples respond to Jesus’ hard teaching on divorce by saying “It’s better to not be married, then.” And Jesus responds (seemingly strangely) by saying, in effect, “Maybe” (“not everyone can receive this.”) (Matt.19:10-12) To Jesus there are two options: 

a) Godly marriage, where faithful man and woman enjoy each other 

b) Godly singleness, where the believer is married to Christ in the Spirit (ie, Paul)

-Today it's thought that sexless living is impossible (Charlie Kirk video: girl who has no category for chaste living). Scripture assumes otherwise: To God, sex is for men and women in marriage as a parable of heavenly bliss (Hans Boersma).

3. Redefinitions of marriage (that is, homosexual, polygamous, incestuous, etc.): The only one with the right to redefine marriage is the one who defined it in the first place. When he “redefined” it (Mt.19) he took it back to the beginning: Man and wife together forever to reflect God and his redemption. 

To God, life is about intimacy: You’ll know and be known by something/someone. Choose Christ. Is there anything more beautiful than companionship and self-sacrifice (Project Hail Mary’s twin themes)? In marriage we learn both as we bear the cross with Jesus, and are promised his glory in the end. 

Not To Us

I look at the calendar and realize that the month of June is almost over, and I have yet to write a post. Let me admit to you, dear reader, that I don’t have the mental bandwidth for a lengthy, in-depth theological post. I’m finishing final edits on my First London Confession study (due out later this year), and I’m fighting a little sickness, along with other responsibilities. I appreciate your understanding! 

That said, I wanted to share the lyrics from a worship song we sing regularly at church. It’s called Not To Us, sung to the old English tune “St. George’s Windsor,” with lyrics written by contemporary pastor and writer Chris Anderson. I’ve been immersed in the song recently because I’ve been transposing and arranging it for our worship team’s guitarists, and I can’t get enough of the lyrics. The lyrics put the words of Psalm 115 to song, reading the psalm as a witness to Christ, emphasizing that he is the true King, and the only one worthy of worship. All other worship is life-sucking; worship of Christ is life-giving. I just think the song so captures the spirit of reformed worship, and the worship of the true, gospel-believing church throughout time.

Not To Us

Psalm 115

Chris Anderson, George Elvey

Not to us be glory Lord, Not to us praise or reward 

You alone be magnified, only Your Name glorified! 

For Your un-relenting love, For your faithful-ness above 

Not to us but to our King: Honor, praise, and glory bring! 

Why should heathen mock the Lord? “Where is he?”—their scoffing word 

In the heav’ns He reigns alone, ruling from His loft-y throne 

What he pleases He per-forms, All to his de-sign conforms 

Not to us but to our King: Honor, praise, and glory bring! 

Foolish men in vain have prayed, to the idols they have made 

Wooden eye and molten ear—gods which neither see nor hear

All who to such stones have fled shall be like them: dull and dead 

Not to us, but to our King: Honor, praise, and glory bring! 

Come, you saints and saints to come; Trust in God, your Help and Home

All who fear Him, He recalls; He will bless us, great and small 

Praise Him! Praise your Shield and Lord, all through life, then ever more! 

Not to us, but to our King: Honor praise, and glory bring! 

Christ has claimed a chosen race for the glory of His grace

Who but He can praises claim? Who boasts such a matchless name? 

We whose song will never cease, long to fade and Christ increase! 

Not to us, but to our King: Honor, praise, and glory bring! 

Calvin on Faith as a Ship at Sea

I came across the following quote from a John Calvin sermon while I was preparing my own sermon on 1 Timothy 1:19-20. In the passage the Apostle Paul warns young Pastor Timothy against forgetting the goal of Christian ministry, which is a life of love driven by clear faith and both positional and practical rightness with God (see 1:5). If the goal is forgotten, one suffers “shipwreck” of faith, a vivid image of utter disaster and death, employed to describe when someone seems steady in Christ but then proves their unsteadiness by leaving their faith. 

Calvin’s admittedly long quotation is as follows: 

What is human life, and what is the whole of its course? A navigation. Not only are we travelers, as the Scripture tells us (1 Pet. ii.11,) but we have no solidity. They who travel by land, either on foot or on horseback, have still their sure and firm road; but in the world, instead of being on foot or on horseback, we must be, as it were, on a sea, and have no solid footing. We are like people who are in a boat, and who are always within half a foot of their death; and the boat is a sort of grave, because they see the water all around, ready to swallow them up. Thus is it is with us, while we live here below. For on the one hand, there is the frailty that is in us, which is more fluid than water; and then all that surrounds is like water, which flows on all sides, while at every minute winds, and storms, and tempests arise. Let us therefore learn that our life is but a kind of navigation, which we perform by water, and that we are, at the same time, exposed to many winds and storms. And if it be so, what shall become of us when we have not a good boat or a good pilot?*

This profound set of insights is well worth extended meditation, but I’ll only note a few items. First, Calvin rightly notes that Paul, in the 1 Timothy passage, takes the frequent biblical illustration of the believer’s life as a journey, and adds that the journey is like a sea-journey, navigated by boat. Journeys at sea are at least by some measures much more dangerous than other modes of travel. Water, which we need for survival, can also easily be the means of our death. And, as Calvin notes, we live our lives surrounded, as it were, by water all around, with no apparent solid footing as though we were on land. As such we step and are shaken, sliding a bit, living ever so close to our demise. Storms rise, tempests come, all threats to the boat’s integrity without which we will easily sink into the deep, and drown. Isn’t it the case that, as Christians, we can’t walk with faith and fruit apart from Christ keep and empowering us? Without him we’re like a boat with no navigator. But I’ll get back to that later. Suffice to say that we do experience all manner of trial, suffering, pain, and fear, even as we look to Christ.

Second, note that the frailty is both outside of us and inside of us. Yes it’s a storm outside, but there’s also a world of ungodliness within us: “Their throat is an open grave” (Rom.3:13); “Out of the heart come evil thoughts” (Mk.7:21); “Your passions are at war within you” (Jms.4:1). Even if the sailing is smooth because the “weather” becomes serene, we still have the inner storm of sin, pride, anger, unforgiveness, covetousness, etc. Folly is bound up in the heart of a child (cf. Prov.22:15) and since we remain God’s “children” all of our days (1 Jn.3:1-2), it ever applies to us for the duration of our days. Thus we are to take heed if we think we stand, or else we’ll fall (1 Cor.10:12)—we might make ourselves fall even if the boat is steady. While I understand the monastic impulse (think monks and nuns) because it means separation from the world and its darkness, I also know that there’s plenty of darkness and worldliness in my own heart that I can’t really escape it. 

Finally, note Calvin’s takeaway question: Since the faith journey is like a boat on the water, what will happen if it is not a good boat or captained by a good pilot? Remember that this quote is from a Calvin sermon, not a book. It seems then, at least to me, that this was Calvin’s pastoral question to his congregation about the state of their sight of Christ by faith (the pilot) and their commitment to stick with him regardless of the danger, outcomes, etc. (the boat). If we have Christ the Pilot as well as a clear commitment to trust him with the ship, we’re safe: “He who calls you is faithful” (1 Thes.5:24); if we’re looking to him and sticking with him, committed to truly die to ourselves and take up the cross daily, the dangerous journey to the Celestial City will be a success. But the question remains, are we looking to him? Are we living our daily lives bearing the cross? As you look at your own life, are you sure that Christ is the pilot of the vessel? And do you make the conscious decision every day to take up the cross, and live crucified to the world and the world to you? Liberal folks, as far as I can tell, are usually in love with the present world. But conservative folks are often in love with the world of yesterday, drowning in nostalgia, wanting to go back. Is that any better? 

But let’s think about cross-bearing a different way. Ask yourself this question: How much do you depend on your habits, your phone, your social media, your “me-time” every day? Do you get grumpy if any of it is threatened? I do! And I have to remember this life is not about my plans and my wants, but Christ’s plans and Christ’s wants. In discipleship, a good ship is under the handle of a good captain. Here the good ship is submission to Christ, and the captain is Christ himself. 

Jesus calls us to see our lives as such a ship journey, him leading us through the darkness, storms, and sea, as we trust him to get us home in the end. May we love where we’re headed and love the one who loved us first and is taking us there. The ship will arrive safely in harbor, with much wear and tear, but nevertheless, still floating and safe in the hands of its able Pilot.

--

*The quote is from a Calvin sermon, and is footnoted in his commentary to 1 Tim.1:19 in his Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, translated from the original Latin by William Pringle (Baker Book House), 47.

Tozer, and a Post-Easter Caution

“To the early Christians, Easter was not a holiday…It wasn’t even a holy day for them. It wasn’t even a day at all. To the early Christians, it was an accomplished fact that lived with them all year long. They did not celebrate his rising from the dead and then go back to their everyday lives and wait another year. They lived by the fact that Christ has risen from the dead and they had risen with him.” -- A.W. Tozer

Tozer (1897-1963) couldn’t have summed up my post-Easter caution any better. It seems at least on the outside, that we modern church folks relegate the cognizance of Jesus’ resurrection to Easter. I wonder if it's because we’re not really living with it in our sights the rest of the year? To the early Christians, Christian life was resurrection life. Paul’s whole ministry was driven by his apprehension of “the resurrection of the dead” (Ac.24:21), that is, “the resurrection of both the just and the unjust” (24:15). 

Why did the resurrection matter so much? Because death came through sin, and God, who can “make alive” (Deut.32:39) promised his people that he’d one day swallow up/abolish death (Is.25:8). The effect of this abolition is a resurrection of humanity from the dust of the earth (Dan.12:1). Ezekiel saw it imagined figuratively at the valley of dry bones, where the pile of dead peoples’ bones come back together to form a living army for the Lord (Ezek.37). Behind all of this, the promised messiah would bear the peoples’ sins and death, after which he would then “prolong his days” (Is.53:11-12), suggesting that the resurrection everywhere else promised comes by him, to be given out to others. 

So the apostles’ message is that Jesus is the New Adam who takes our sin at the cross along with sin’s judgment (death), and then rises from the dead to give his resurrection to us. Paul, then, centered his preaching ministry around Jesus, who is “first to rise from the dead” (Ac.26:23), the “firstfruits” of the resurrection (1Cor.15:20, Col.1:18). The reason Paul was so committed to this is that Jesus’ resurrection was “the promise made by God to our fathers” (Ac.26:6), vivified to Paul when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul couldn’t help but preach it, since his life had been re-centered on the risen Christ. Christians, likewise, are those who’s lives center on and flow out of the risen Christ. 

So to the early Christians everyday was supposed to be Easter: Our life is lived in union with the risen Christ even now: Being reconciled to God by the death of his Son, now much more we’re saved by his life (Rom.5:10). His life in us is our very hope of making it to the new heavens and new earth (Col.1:27). How could we relegate the resurrection to one day out of 365, when Jesus’ risen life is the very fuel of our own hope for life from the dead? What would everyday life look like for you if every day was Easter? To be a Christian is to believe, contrary to external or even internal pressures, that it is.