Archive - February, 2005

Can we effectively communicate via new technology? Have we moved from an incarnational form of communication, to a more technologically driven, removed form?

I have taken the last few days off from blogging, just feeling exhausted, and thinking through this topic of God’s will. I was ready to get up this morning, and continue down that direction, when I came across an excerpt of writing, issued by Pope John Paul II. The excerpt was posted today on Hugh Hewitt, and dealt with the issue of the Church and media. Such a huge topic for the Church these days, especially for everyone who either communicates via computer technology, or is wanting to.

Before I post this excerpt, let me say a few things. One, communicating through technology could come in the form of a few different types of transmissions. You could be a blogger. You could just surf the web. You could primarily email. You might IM. You might text message. Or maybe you do everything through your cell phone. These and more, are all ways that we communicate through technology, and it’s ever changing forms.

But the questions I have been asking myself recently have been: 1) How effective is communication through new technology, such as blogging? 2) Do messages, or ideas, or nuances, or emotions, or expressions get lost through the transmission of communication via technology? 3) Do we tend to mis-read, or mis-interpret people when we communicate through technology? 4) Have we substituted the face to face encounter with people, for communication through technology?

Why all these questions? Because as much as I love blogging, or communicating through email, or through text messaging, sometimes I wonder if the effectiveness of my communication has waned because of this? Or have I gotten too lazy? Do I avoid the face to face, and submit emails instead? All these questions have arised recently, as some of my friends and I have found ourselves going back and having to explain to each other what we actually meant in a communication statement, done through technology. Or we have questioned, whether or not we were too harsh, or too emotional, or too…whatever. Somehow, during the transmission of communication our real emotions, or hand gestures, or body expressions were lost, than if it was a face to face encounter.

So though I think the new forms of communication are a great thing, there is a cost to be paid, and some cautions to be warranted.

As I was reading the Gospel of John last night, I came across this passage. “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:16-17). Amazing passage. But what I have been thinking about is this: How do we as Christians, communicate grace and truth, and the person of Jesus Christ through new forms of technology? And when we communicate through new technology, have we tended to try and communicate the truth, without the grace? I mean really…it seems like grace is sometimes the first thing to go when we no longer have to have a face to face encounter with someone. Being in the presence of someone changes everything. God communicated through the prophets and writings, until the Incarnation, where Jesus came in the flesh, to communicate to us. But maybe we have headed the other direction? Have we moved from a fleshly, incarnational ministry, to a more technologically driven one?

I’m wondering about these things, and I have some things to think through. But until the next post, meditate on the Pope’s statements below: posted at Hugh Hewitt

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Posted at 3:25 PM, Pacific

Pope John Paul issued a letter on the Church and the media, and here is one example of the power of his presentation:

To Communicate with the Power of the Holy Spirit

13. The great challenge of our time for believers and for all people of good will is that of maintaining truthful and free communication which will help consolidate integral progress in the world. Everyone should know how to foster an attentive discernment and constant vigilance, developing a healthy critical capacity regarding the persuasive force of the communications media.

Also in this field, believers in Christ know that they can count upon the help of the Holy Spirit. Such help is all the more necessary when one considers how greatly the obstacles intrinsic to communication can be increased by ideologies, by the desire for profit or for power, and by rivalries and conflicts between individuals and groups, and also because of human weakness and social troubles. The modern technologies increase to a remarkable extent the speed, quantity and accessibility of communication, but they above all do not favor that delicate exchange which takes place between mind and mind, between heart and heart, and which should characterize any communication at the service of solidarity and love.

“Throughout the history of salvation, Christ presents himself to us as the “communicator” of the Father: “God, in these last days, has spoken to us through his Son” ( Heb 1:2). The eternal Word made flesh, in communicating Himself, always shows respect for those who listen, teaches understanding of their situation and needs, is moved to compassion for their suffering and to a resolute determination to say to them only what they need to hear without imposition or compromise, deceit or manipulation. Jesus teaches that communication is a moral act, “ A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. I tell you, on the Day of Judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” ( Mt 12: 35-37).

Finding the Will of God? What does that mean? Is that possible?

As I was online this morning, I came across a wonderful post by my friend Cameron Jorgenson at Summa Aesthetica. Everyone should be reading his posts…one of the smartest guys I know…he will definitely have a few books out in the next five years, and they will be ones that you will want to read.

But back to the topic at hand. Cameron discusses the concept of finding God’s will, and whether or not that is something that we can actually find, or whether, the whole process of trying to discern God’s will is a more frustrating and complicating matter.

I think this is a very good discussion, and very timely as a lot of us, especially those of you in my college group are on the cusp of making very big decisions…some that may feel like the future of your life’s direction may be hanging on whether you properly choose God’s will or not. That is a tough place to be.

In part, Cameron states:

“First of all, that is the message of Proverbs…the day to day realities of life should be guided by wisdom, the sort of common sense shaped by God and wise fellow travelers along the way. (Of course, Job and Ecclesiastes muddy the waters a bit by demonstrating that life is complex, and even the wise life is not always rosy)

Also, in proverbs you get this personified Wisdom in the early chapters. That character gets expanded even more in some of the pre New Testament writings that Protestants don’t accept as scripture. The reason this is interesting is in John chapter 1 where it describes Jesus as the Word, many of the phrases echo this picture of personified Wisdom. There is the subtle message that Jesus is Wisdom in the flesh.

All of that is to say something relatively simple–I think my brother out theologized me. We will drive ourselves crazy trying to read God’s mind and figure out God’s will. Besides, there is a scary side effect to all of that…I begin to feel like a fortune teller reading tea leaves. God’s ways are bigger than that. We can’t know with clarity all the time. Sometimes there is a sense of rightness, and other times there is the grit-your-teeth reality of tough decisions.

The role of prayer and thinking and asking advice of wise friends is to shape us, to hone our instincts, to help us conform to wisdom. Romans 12 seems to get at this: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good pleasing and perfect will.” While this could be interpreted as a clear endorsement of the “will of God” position, I think one could read this as a call to undergo transformation according to the pattern of Christ, the highest sort of Wisdom, which enables us to feel our way through the tough situations. Even then, I am not sure there is always a clear “right answer,” especially if it involves choosing between two good things (i.e. finishing your education, or taking a job).

And, to make that leap you don’t have to ditch the idea of Providence. (Doing so would be a tragic loss.) Providence is God’s active care of and involvement in the universe. What that looks like is beyond me. It is deeply shrouded in mystery, in the same league as the Trinity and the human/divine natures of Christ. While it is an inescapable idea, I don’t think we have access to fully comprehend it. If my little bro is right, wisdom is as close as it gets.”

I think that Cameron is right on in many aspects, and this is something that I have been wrestling with for about a year and half after a hearing a life changing sermon on this subject while at the young adult retreat.

How you view the Will of God, and if that can be determined, will be greatly shaped by what type of theology you have. What do I mean? Well, your outlook at the future, and how that is discerned, or determined, and whether or not that falls in line with the Will of God, can be very different, if say, you are a Five Point Calvinist, which many in the reformed faith are. Or it might take on a very different look if you are someone who is more influenced by arminianism. Or what if you are being shaped by open theism? What type of theology you have, or believe in, will greatly shape the outlook you have on determining the Will of God.

As for this question of whether or not we can determine the Will of God, is still up for debate for me on one level, and on another level I have come to some conclusions.

These are some of my conclusions of my work in progress:

1) I believe that the Will of God is more of a moral command, to not be conformed to the world, but rather to be tranformed through the presence and power of God, than it is about choosing one thing over another (i.e. a job, or a relationship, or a school; see Cameron’s post on this).

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God–this is true worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:1-2.)

How about this?

“As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God.” (I Thess. 4:1-5)

2) Seeking out God’s Will, discerning what He wants you to do, is more about pursuing God, and living among and treating others with Christ’s love, than it is about finding the one perfect thing. The one perfect decision.

“Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and everyone else. Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” (I Thess. 5:12-18.)

3) Constantly fretting over the one, right, Will of God paralyzes us from living freely in Christ, or experiencing the abundant life he has brought us. (John 10:10)

4) Because the Will of God is more about conforming to the mind of Christ, and not the ways of the world, how you live then will greatly affect how you discern future decisions. For example, if in I Thess. 4 I am urged to be sanctified, and not live like the pagans, then how I am living can either cloud, or bring clarity to the decisions I want to make. Maybe your lack of discernment is less about God not revealing this one perfect thing to you, than it is about how you live, how you use your body, or whether or not you give yourself over to passionate lust, and not living in a holy and honorable way.

These are just a few of the conclusions I have come to in this area of thinking, as I am continually seeking out God’s will, if you will, in this matter. Though this may be a bad analogy, this is one that I have to appreciate when it comes to God’s will. And it is the analogy of a football field, and football game.

Like the boundaries of a football field, God too has given us some boundaries to live our life within. I see these mainly being moral boudaries, which keep us from living like pagans, and keep us from being only about passionate lust, but rather help us live lives that are holy and honorable. And within those moral boundaries, there is a life being lived out, or a game being played in the football analogy. Within those boundaries there are multiple players, with multiple plays. There are rules, and there are penalties for violation of the rules. But there is only one task: That is to cross the finish line and score, so that at the outcome of the game, you have more points than your opponent. I see this as very analagous to life in many ways, while at other places it breaks down.

But I believe God has placed in this world, a world full of many different people, who all contain many different possibilites. All of this affects us as a person. Our interactions, the decisions we make, the outcome of those decisions. Some we seem to control, and others we seem not to. But our task, or job, or goal, or vocation (whatever you prefer) is to live that abundant and free life, within the moral boundaries that God has set-up. To be conformed to the person of Jesus Christ. But how we go about doing that, can take many different routes. I may marry this person, or that person. I may take this job or that job. I may have kids, or not have kids. Are any of these decisions outside of the Will of God? When we are being renewed, and transformed by the person of Jesus Christ, we go down many different paths, in aim of one direction. To love, and to serve God, and others. Which route I take may not be the issue, but rather, how I conform to the person of Christ on that route that I choose.

This obviously will have a lot of problems for many of you. Some of you don’t want that responsibility. That is too scary for you. Others will think this takes too much away from God’s sovereignty, and gives men and women too much free will.

Quick question: Isn’t it interesting how we all want to have free will, and make decisions in life, but we really don’t want to take responsibility for them when they fail, or we make a mistake? Then we say, that must have been God’s will. Or isn’t interesting how we want to give some decisions to God, and others we do not? It’s like we trust Him with this, but not these? Or isn’t it interesting how we want to give God complete sovereignty, but then when something bad happens, we want to take the responsibilty off of God, and blame it on people’s free choices? The problem of theodicy. Very inconsistent of us. So what is it? Do we really want God’s Will, or do we want our own will? Are we really seeking out God’s Will anyways, or are we hoping that our wills will be what God wants?

I would challenge you to think through these things, and to be in pray about them. Do not be afraid to have your whole understanding, or paradigm of belief in this area, blow up in your face. Wrestling through this issue, and not settling for an easy answer, will bring you to a deeper understanding, and more clarity.

A book that has helped me greatly in this area, is by the renowed, Old Testament, and Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke. His book Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? is an amazing book. He believes, as do I, that a lot of our notions, or attempts to find the will of God, are more based on pagan practices, as well as our attempt to simply life down to easy steps, without us having to really wrestle or struggle through anything.

Let’s begin this dialogue. What are your thoughts?

Bible Translation Questions?

For all of you who put some tough questions to me at Mammoth over Bible translations, specifically the TNIV…or for those of you who have questions about it in general. Mark Roberts, pastor, scholar, author, and blogger, from Irvine Presbyterian has a great series on it right now. Go to the link above and read his last four postings. Very insightful.

Sex Part 2/Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness

I have begun to have a better understanding just how difficult it is to have frank talks with people about sex! I don’t mean discussions that guys have in the locker room, or in the privacy of their apartment with each other, or the discussions women have when they are out together, or having a slumber party. But I mean, real, honest, open discussions about sex, their sexuality, and how it fits into the Biblical context. Is it not any wonder that some parents find it so difficult to have this discussion with their kids? But by not having that discussion, who is left to teach their kids about the proper way to express their sexuality, and in what context, according to God’s Word? Certainly our culture will pick up where the parent’s left off, or where the parents had even failed to start. Hollywood will do it. Media. Advertising. Internet. Magazines. Movies. Music. Television. You get the point. All of these mediums are screaming out and vying for the attention of young people. So it is with this in mind that I decided that I needed to be honest with my students about the topic of sex. If the church can’t share this news, then who can? And really, shouldn’t we as Christians be the first to be open about sex, especially since it was part of the design by our Creator, God?

So who cares if my face gets red from blushing, as I speak out words that my students have never heard come from my lips. My momentary embarrasment is worth it, if I might help others through the heartache and pain, or help rescue some students from going in the wrong direction sexually, or if I might be able to help shine God’s redemption on their past failures.

Last night was the second talk in my four part series on Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness, Sinful Distortions, and Redeemed Potential. On January 26, I began with an overview of Sex, Christianity and Culture, and last night I picked up on the theme of “Created Goodness.”

One of the most important messages that I wanted to convey to my students last night was that sex is a good thing. A beautiful and wonderful thing. But only when it is expressed in the proper context and relationship that God intended for it. When it is expressed outside of those boundaries, than all kinds of things go haywire, and we fall into what Lewis Smedes referred to as “sinful distortions.”

So why a talk on the Biblical foundation of sex? First, because as I mentioned before, with everything else in this world begging for your attention, and for you to follow their ideas and rules about sex, I think it’s about time that we look at what the Bible says. Second, since we as Christians view God as Creator of everything, from the universe, to the earth, to humanity, then isn’t it important that we look at what His original intent, or design for sexuality was and is?

With that in mind, let me say that the topic of sexuality is a very heated and controversial subject, because it really cuts to the core of who we are as creatures and people made in the image of God, reflecting His likeness.

“How to feel about our sexuality is part of a larger question. For the Christian believer, at any rate, the larger question is how to feel about creation. If our sexuality belongs to creation, our feelings about it can be of a piece with God’s feelings about what he made.” (Lewis Smedes in Sex for Christians).

With that in mind, I approached last night’s sermon, wanting to accomplish a few things. One, I wanted to look at a passage of Scripture that I believed really set the foundation, and gave guiding principles as to who we are as sexual beings, and how we are to live that out. Second, I wanted to allow the text to speak, to allow the mystery of the passage permeate our thinking, and not to simply try and pull systematic principles out of the text. Sex, marriage and relationships, are much too complicated and mysterious to simply put in simple, mechanistic terms. Third, I wanted to stir up their thinking. I wanted to pick a text, and to preach an angle on the text that they were probably not used to hearing. I think that my goal, and our goal as Christians in preaching is to stir people to think. To not simply provide some simple answer so that they can nod their heads up and down, and uniformally fit into the right group.

The Bible does not say tons about our sexuality. If you are looking for a sex manual, the Bible is not it. Though some might argue for Song of Solomon. If you are looking to the Bible to lay out clear and simple do’s and dont’s as to how far you can go physically, the Bible is not that either. Rather, the Bible provides a strong Biblical foundation that we can build on. That is why I began in Genesis, using that as the foundation for our sexuality.

With Genesis as our foundation for Biblical sexuality, there are three things that I want all of my students, and you as readers to keep in mind. These are three problems, or assumptions, or biases that I think we all can carry at times that keep us from having a healthy perspective on our sexuality, or sex in general:

1) I think that a lot of Christians hold a very Gnostic, dualistic view of sex, and especially our own sexuality. What is a Gnosticism and dualism? In very simple terms which don’t quite do it justice, it is the belief that all matter is evil, and that spirit is good. Therefore, anything related to the flesh, or its desires would be evil, and not of God, while those things related to the spiritual would be seen as good. For more details, read up on gnosticism. This was an early heresy that a great part of the church was fighting, as well as the author of I John, where in I John 4:2-3, he writes, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.” You see, many gnostics and dualists did not actually believe that Jesus could have come in the flesh because their view was that only spirit matter was good, and flesh was bad. I think many Christians still carry this view around with them unconsciously. They have been taught, either at home, or in the church, that any type of desires that they have, and that are related to their fleshly urges are automatically bad, and therefore, could not be related to the spiritual and divine matters related to God. My professor friend confirms this idea from the sex questionnaires that she issues as part of her class on Biblical sexuality. Most students she says, still carry a negative view of sexuality with them based on this dualist, gnostic, heretical view.

2) Speaking more specifically to men. I think and believe, that how we as men view women in the creation account, will greatly affect not only our future marriages, but how our sexuality is expressed in that relationship. What do I mean? When God says in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helpmate,” the Hebrew word “ezer” is used, meaning, suitable helpmate, co-laborer, helper, etc. That is what God has intended for us as men. But I think in many Christian circles, men prefer to use, or confuse the word “ezer” with “eber” which is slave, and which is picked up after the Fall. And I think how you decide to view women, as helper and co-equal, or as subservient, and a slave, will have drastic implications on your sexuality, and sex life in marriage.

3) As creatures, people made in the image of God, what does that mean for us then? If we our sexual beings, and we are made in God’s image, what does that say about God as a sexual being? Or maybe we prefer not to think of God in those terms, as having sexuality. But doesn’t our sexuality, point back to a Creator, who sees sexuality as something that is to be important? We are made in His image? Part of this goes back to the gnostic views, but I think we are more comfortable as viewing God only in terms of divinity, and not humanity, so we would prefer to keep our sexuality on a lower level of nature, than our spiritual. These views will affect not only what you think about your sexuality, but about God as well.

It is important that we are aware of our biases, or assumptions whenever we approach a subject, or when we look in the Bible. Because our prior assumptions and biases greatly shape what we read and interpret, sometimes blocking out what God is trying to say to us. So with those three assumptions fresh in our mind, let’s begin by looking at the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and how they help us set a Biblical foundation for our sexuality.

In Genesis 1:26-31 we get a very brief account of the creation of humanity, as in comparison to what we will read in Genesis 2. But Genesis 1:26-27 says:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ ‘ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’” (NRSV)

From this passage we get a quick snapshot of the creation of humanity, and the distinguishing of the sexes, male and female. God then commands them to be fruitful and to multiply. We already see then that a male and female relationship is the foundation of our sexuality, and a sexual union is established, where they are asked to continue to multiply.

But then we come to Genesis 2, which I believe is one of the most beautiful, most mysterious, and most poetic passages in all of Scripture. One of the beautiful things about going through seminary was the studying of Greek and Hebrew. And as I read through Genesis 2 in Hebrew, I realize how much of the beauty, and poetry, and mystery of the text is lost in the English translation. In Genesis 2:7-24 we pick up a very amazing story.

In Genesis 2:7 we find the creation of “man”, or the “adam”. “Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” God takes from the ground, from the dirt, the materials to form “man”. And then God breathes into his nostrils and the “man” is given life. In the Hebrew text, the word for “man” is “adam” (not in the proper name sense; by the way, the proper name Adam, is not used till Genesis 4:25), and the Hebrew name for ground, earth, dust is “adamah.” Leaving many theologians and scholars to say that this creation of “man”, is a creation of really this “earth creature.” This creature, that is created out of the dust of the ground, who shares the almost exact sounding name to that of the ground. He is a creation without any sexual differentiation. And this “adam” is put in the garden to tend to it.

Then we come to another remarkable passage in 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’” Though “adam/man/earth creature” was there in the garden, in communion with God, that was still not enough. God then begins to search for a suitable helper, or partner, “ezer” in Hebrew.” So then God forms out of the same ground, and earth, and dust, that he formed ‘adam” out of, he begins to form every animal of the field, and bird of the air. This is more evidence for scholars to believe that the creation of “adam/man”, is more similar to that of “earth creature”, because they were formed from the same material. God brings all these creatures to ‘adam”, and ‘adam” names them, giving them an identity. “But for the man there was not found a helper as his partner” (2:20). A very funny story if you think about it. God realizes that it is not good for “adam/man” to be alone, so he creates all these animals and brings them to “adam/man”, but none of them were suitable. A very early version of dating as one of my Fuller professors jokes about.

So in Genesis 2:21-22 the text tells us, “So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” So beautiful. God doesn’t take from the earth, or the ground, or the dust, the same materials that he had used to create “adam/man/earth creature” and all the other creatures. But rather, he tears open the “man’s” side, and takes out something close to his heart, something close to the core of who he is, a rib, and he forms woman out of it.

And then the Hebrew changes. In Genesis 2:23, it says, “Then the man (adam) said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishah), for out of Man (ish) this one was taken.’” Did you catch that? The “earth creature”, “adam”, or “man”, who was formed from the same materials as the animals, is given a new name, a new identity. He becomes ‘ish”, or ‘Man”, and the “Woman” is “ishah”. It is not until “Woman” is created that the “adam/man/earth creature” realizes his full idenity, realizes who he is. Where there was no sexual differentiation in the text before this passage, there is now sexual differentiation in the union of “Man” and “Woman”, of “ish” and “ishah.” For a closer look at this passage in Hebrew and English or here.

Then the passage closes in Genesis 2:24-25, saying, “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to hiw wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” A mystery for sure. Two people, with full identities, coming together as whole persons, and becoming one flesh. Not explainable. Only something that God can do. And the passage closes with a reminder of why sex should only be expressed between a husband and wife, a man and a woman, in a commited, marriage relationship. They were both naked, and not ashamed.

And that is how that beautiful story in Genesis 2, of the creation of man and woman ends. So what does that story have to do with our sexuality, or with sex in general? Everything! Sure there are other places in the Bible, such as Paul’s words in I Corinthians 7, where we could turn and read. But would you start a novel at the tail end of the story? I hope not. So why do we read only parts of the Bible, or read only the New Testament, without properly building a solid foundation from the beginning. Jesus fulfills the OT in the NT, but the OT is not replaced. Genesis is our solid foundation. In this text in Genesis 2, we are given a solid, Biblical foundation of humanity, of sexuality, of our relationships with each other. So what exactly does this story in Genesis 2 have to say to our sexuality? Good thing you asked. Here are some things that I think we can take from this story:

1) Sex is a great and beautiful thing when it is expressed in the right context. God forms man and woman, and unites them as one flesh in a sexual union. It is a union made in God’s image, which points us back to the Creator, who is a designer, and designed sex, and delights when the sexual act is expressed in the right relationship and context. “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,” (I Timothy 4:4).

2) The right context, the right relationship for sex, in only in the union of man and woman. Together. They are “ish” and “ishah”. Man and Woman. Nothing else was suitable for ‘adam”, for this “earth creature”, but this woman. And it is when these two come together that they exhibit, or display the full image of God. We have a full realization of who we are, when we are in relation, between a man and woman. We can have this realization in a non-sexual way, between friends, between a man and a woman, where there is sexual differentiation, and we are not simply ‘adam”, or “earth creature”. But for a sexual union, for sexual expression, the only place for it is in the marriage relationship of a man and a woman.

3) Other sexual unions are not a proper expression of the Biblical account. Whether it be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or between something more perverse, those are not Biblical, proper expressions of sexuality. The only proper expression is between a man and a woman, and anything outside of that leads to a distorted and sinful view of our sexuality.

4) Not only is sexual expression only proper between a man and a woman, but it is only reserved for marriage. And this expression in marriage, is best understood when each partner, man and woman, has the proper understanding of helpmate, or partners, of co-equality. A woman is not subservient to man, nor vice-versa. Paul will speak on this act of mutual submission in Ephesians 5, and any interpretation of Paul, or the role of women in the NT, is not properly understood, unless it is viewed at in light of the Genesis 2 account and other OT passages.

5) Sexual expression through marriage is a joining of two people, two individuals. A man and a woman becoming one flesh. It is a joint union with both people bringing all of who they are together, not half and half. I think that in many sexual relationships, and marriages, especially in the church, it is taught that the joining of two people, means both people will have to leave part of who they are behind, in order for the two to come together. And in Christian circles, this usually means the woman. I know you can think of many examples. If not, call me, and I will give you some. The woman is often taught that she is supposed to surrender her identity as a person, as a woman, in order to be formed, or joined with the man. This is not a good view. (If you don’t think we inherit some rough baggage in this area, then read up on some of the early church fathers, and their views of woman; even Augustine, who didn’t view women too highly, was barely gracious enough to say that women would be women in heaven, and not turned into men). Rather, the Genesis account displays to us, two individuals, man and woman, coming together as their whole selves, and becoming one, in a mysterious union that only God understands. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke has some great insight on this, when he says,

“The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky…………..Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate–?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself for another’s sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things.”

6) When sex is expressed in this proper relationship, there is no shame, no guilt. Because it is being expressed in the relationship that God has designed, there is not fear, or reservation in the sexual act.. How many of us carry around some shame or guilt because we have been in a sexual relationship outside of marriage? That is not freedom. There is hesitantness and reservation, and shame over many things, i.e. “will we get pregnant”, “am I being used”, “are they committed to me”, “do they really love me.” But in marriage, sexual expression between a man and a woman achieves its highest pinnacle, because it is where God created sex to be, without restraint, and guilt and shame.

This is what I have learned from the text in Genesis 2. And I believe this is the best text to convey the most comprehensive understanding of sex, and our sexuality. And, I think that rather than breaking everything down into some philosophical or theological system, the story narrative of Genesis 2 best expresses the understanding, the mystery, and the complexity of the bonding of man and woman in sex.

This is just the beginning of our journey as we look at the created goodness of sex. We will head next week into looking at what happens when our sexuality expresses itself outside of these boundaries that God has laid out, and heads into the area of sinful distortions. And in two weeks, we will look at what God does with our pasts, and how he can, and does bring about redemption and healing for our lives, when our sexuality was expressed in the wrong contexts.

But for now, let me leave you with a very insightful, and blunt quote, by the late ethicist and theologian, Lewis Smedes:

“Our sexuality is the form we take in life as persons. In this sense, sexuality has to do with much more than genital sex. People cannot live by orgasms alone, nor even by exquisitely sensuous love-making. Any two persons who are living a full life together as persons know that their sexual relations cover a lot more ground than the few moments of intercourse. Sexuality is involved in the quiet hours of communication and contemplation as much as in the volcanic moments. The sexploitation of our time is actually a vast shrinkage of sexuality becuase it concentrates almost wholly on the biological experience of orgasm and everything that stimulates people towards it.”

For further study, or reading on this issue, check out:

Sex for Christians
*bad title, but a landmark book in biblical and human sexuality; also very controversial; read with caution; I am not a proponent of all his views, but he says some things better than anyone else out there in this area.

On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology”

Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Volumes III/1, 2, 3, 4

Man As Male And Female: A Study In Sexual Relationships From A Theological Point Of View

A commenter responds to orthodoxy and orthopraxy….

A response to my blog on Tuesday about orthodoxy (right thinking), and orthopraxy (right practice). The church needs more people like Andrew…

Posted by: Rev. Andrew Eagles – E-mail=[mailto:andreweagles@hotmail.com] Homepage=[] at February 15, 2005 22:53:31
Rhett, the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is fascinating. Might I try to push it even a bit further? Might it be less about “right thinking” or even “right acting” and more about right relationship? As far as orthodoxy goes, those in the universal Church hold many different orthodoxies and yet remain united under the saving actions and grace of Jesus Christ. I often like the Eastern Christian concept of theologuema (sp?) (those things that are not salvific are okay for us to hold different opinions about as we are in process / in the gray about) over the divisiveness of dogmatic orthodoxy. As to orthopraxy, it is a good concept to point out our constant failing to live what we believe, but isn’t that the struggle of Romans 7? Isn’t orthopraxy – in a holy sense – impossible? But the heart and graceful form of both of these concepts are melded in a concentration on right relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here, “right thinking” is held in the midst of the personality of relationship. In relationship we can know instead of theorizing yet also hold mystery in the otherness of our relation – as well as respecting the mystery of our Christian brothers and sisters personal wrestling with God. Also, in this, “right acting” is also balanced by a dependence upon the right and final actions of Jesus on our behalf and his invitation to follow him in grace and out of love. Also involved in this is a dependence upon the Spirit to empower and lead us in living The Way.

This train of thought is very untested so tell me what you think. I think I just have difficulty with the polarization that McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy seems to bring to things. But let me reserve the right to retract that statement when I reread that chapter. Nevertheless right relationship fits a postmodern mindset better than orthopraxy anyway and it also lends more credence to the heart of our faith than its religious tendencies.

Oh, and great links and discussion points on the other issues raised.

Post–Valentine Thoughts From Two of My Favorite Poets

View image

Ahhhhhhh, Valentines! Well, it has definitely been much better for me the last couple of years. Last year with my girlfriend. And this year with the girlfriend from last year who is now my fiance. Sweet!

Two of my favorite poets can at times tend to be a little angst ridden, but as far as I’m concerned, no one says it better than Rainer Maria Rilke and Kahlil Gibran, especially on the issue of a couple’s space in their togetherness.

Begin by reading my friend Cameron’s post over at Summa Aesthetica. He has some interesting thoughts on chaos and order, in love…and there are some interesting comments on his post.

Now for Rilke and Gibran

“On Love & Other Difficulties…”

Rilke on Marriage…
“The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky.”

Rainer Maria Rilke
May 14, 1904, Rome

“To love is good, too: love being difficult.
For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.
For this reason young people, who are beginners in everything, cannot yet know love: they have to learn it.
With their whole being, with all their forces, gathered close about their lonely, timid, upward-beating heart, they must learn to love.
But learning-time is always a long, secluded time, and so loving, for a long while ahead and far on into life, is–solitude, intensified and deepened loneness for him who loves.
Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate–?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself for another’s sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things.”

Kahlil Gibran, “The Prophet”

Marriage

“THEN Almitra spoke again and said, And what of Marriage, master?

And he answered saying:

You were born together, and together you shall be for evermore.

You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.

Aye, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.

But let there be spaces in your togetherness.

And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Love one another, but make not a bond of love:

Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.

Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.

Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

Give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping. For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.”

Reflections from our Mammoth retreat: Is there room for discussion at the evangelical table? Thoughts on hell, annihilation, Bible translations and politics…..

I always love going on retreats with my college students. The retreats are usually very exhausting on many levels, from the physical (not getting sleep), to the emotional (retreats tend to be common place for deep confiding in me), to spiritual (I receive lots of questions, and much conversation ensues).

So it is not unusual that I am returning from this retreat with my head filled with all kinds of thoughts, information and the like. What I want to do in this blog, is to simply raise what some of the issues were, and then to provide some resources and discussions for these topics. I am not providing answers so that you do not have to think. I have been thinking through these issues for years, and have come to some conclusions on them. As for the others, well I’m still thinking through some of them, and I have filed them over “in the margins” at this point, as one of my favorite professors would say.

I realize that most of us are uncomfortable functioning in the “gray zones” especially when it comes to issues of theological orthodoxy (right thinking). But sometimes that is the place we need to be on our way to clearer understanding. By the way, a good question was recently posed by Brian McClaren who is part of the Emergent Church movement. In his latest book A Generous Orthodoxy, McClaren asks, why Christians are often more concerned about orthodoxy (right thinking) than orthopraxy (right practice)? That is a good question. I think that he has hit on something that happens a lot in Christian, and especially evangelical circles. And that is that we are more concerned with having the right orthodoxy, than we are with having the right orthopraxy. I think that both of those are important. We should have good theology, and we should practice what we believe. “Practice what you preach” we often say. The issues below are for us to not only formulate some good orthodoxy, but to live out some good orthopraxy. It is one thing for a Christian to think he or she has all the right answers, and correct doctrine, but it is a whole other thing to practice that among the people we live.

Issue #1:
One of my students raised the question of hell after reading our devotion on Revelation 21:5. That verse began a process where he began to question what hell was, and why hell. If there is going to be a new heaven and earth, what about hell? He stated, “Hell seems unjust. It seems to go against the character of God.”

I assured him that he is not the first person to think on this issue, and that there is currently a debate in many theological circles over this issue, with key figures divided on the issue.

The debate: Is hell really a place, or is it more a state? And is annihilation a viable Biblical option?

Here is the debate in Christianity Today.

Issue #2:
What is the debate over all these Bible translations, and is one better than the other? Is the TNIV not a good translation because they have changed some language?

Here is the debate: TNIV.

Issue #3:
If you are at Bel Air Presbyterian Church, it is more than likely that you will lean right of center when it comes to political issues. That is a true generalization, though that does not fit everyone, nor all of my students. Some of the most interesting conversations I am a part of are discussions where someone left of center, and right of center, have an inteligible and respectful conversation on the relation of politics and the commands of Christ.

The debate: The guy who is often at the center of politics and Christianity is Jim Wallis of Sojourners.

I hope that these issues are some of the things that you have also been thinking over. In fact, you may be the one who raised them, or a part of the group that discussed them. Now begin the process of formulating a good orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Away at Mammoth

I am away this weekend with my college students at our annual winter retreat in Mammoth. I think that this is nice timing on God’s part…putting me somewhere far away from good cell phone coverage and internet connections. I definitely need some rest, and some time to process all that is going through my head. But don’t think for one moment that I won’t be on the hunt for a T Mobile connection at Starbucks.

So don’t expect much, if anything at all from me this weekend. I will be back on Sunday night, with some new posts on Monday.

Have a good weekend.

Can the Church be relevant without bloggers?

The following is the most recent comment on my post on Monday titled “Thomas Kuhn, bloggers and the emerging church: Is the paradigm shift in technology and media a cue for the church?”

Wyatt Smith from the Armed Forces Foundation makes the following statement:

“Rhett, you had a lot of good things to say and you know I’m definitely with you on most of the stuff. However, I had one question on this quote from your blog:

‘If the church wants to continue to be relevant, and to enter into dialogue with the culture at large, which it is wanting to reform, then it must have bloggers within it.’

Do you strongly believe that a church has to have bloggers within it to be relevant to culture? Take for example a church of 500 that is strategically located in Washington, DC, perhaps in the inner city. What if they’re low tech or how about no tech. No webpage no anything. But, they impact people for Christ in their community through reaching out to its youth and elderly. They serve dinners to the homeless. They invite folks into their homes. They do everything that the Great Commission teaches us, yet they aren’t blogging daily. Sure their scope or impact area may not reach beyond its small community. But I would argue they’re still relevant.”

That is a great question. One that we could discuss on many different levels. I would say this. No, I do not believe that a church is irrelevant because it does not have bloggers within it. I obviously view things from my own persepctive at times, and I happen to be at a church which has numerous resources, where having a web site is mandatory, and where lots of resources can be used to communicate. It’s an important tool in my culture. But it may not be an important tool in some cultures.

But what I mean by that statement is this. I think it is important for the church to take advantage of all possible means, especially in technology and communication, so that they can most effectively and efficiently communicate the word of God. So a church can be relevant regardless. Some churches might have a different purpose, and technology might not be a part of that. Their culture may not be a part of a technological blogging culture. Contemplatives, monastics, etc. And I think that is a good thing. In fact, I would like to get away from technology at times as well. But if you are reading a blog, it is probably a part of your culture, and it may be an effective means to communicate.

I do believe that Christians, churches, etc., have always taken the most effective means of communicating when possible, and employed them on their behalf. You didn’t need to print a book in the 16th Century to be relevant to culture, but the invention of the printing press, coinciding with Luther’s translations of the text into German, sure did make the Scriptures readily relevant to the culture at large.

Bottom line…I can communicate one by one on phone or email, or I can communicate to hundreds of my students, and others, all at the same time. And throughout the week. I have found this to be a refining process for my students, and for myself, as we are in constant dialogue. This was not possible before I started blogging. But I must not also replace the face to face encounter in ministry with a blog instead. But rather, a blog is a tool that I add to my ministry.

Each church has to decide what is important to them, and if the use of a blog might benefit them, and the community they serve. A church might not be able to post a website because of a lack of resources, which is more the reason for someone inside that church to begin a blog (free at many places) to communicate with those who have a computer. So now, that church is not only relevant to the people doing the ministry in other areas, where technology is not as important, but it’s relevant to the people in the church who are on computers.

Nothing has been more helpful to my own ministry and thinking, then instantly being connected to a web of people all around the world via the blog. It has given me new insight into my own ministry, and I no longer feel I’m alone on the journey.

I have a whole world of bloggers out there in which I am waiting to explore. So, you will not be irrelevant as a church without a blogger, but having one I believe, puts you light years in a direction ahead of the curve in which I believe ministry is heading with the shrinking of the world due to technology.

Ash Wed…”From dust you came, and to dust you shall return.”

Cameron Jorgenson over at Summa Aesthetica has a beautiful Ash Wednesday devotion that I think everyone should be reading.

I too was “corrupted” by my Lutheran friend into practicing traditional Christian discipines, and attending Ash Wednesday for the first time. My Easters have never been as rich as they have been since I was “corrupted” by him into practicing the season of Lent.

Page 2 of 3«123»