Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen.

Yesterday I described how complementarians used deception to replicate in conservative churches what feminists had already accomplished in liberal churches.  With their feminist victory in the final mopping up stages, several prominent complementarians have started switching their focus to pushing LGBT acceptance in conservative churches.  Key to the complementarian approach in both cases is to pretend they are really there to protect the church from the assaults of the culture war.  Complementarians know that if they become the defenders of conservative christian culture they can use their trusted position to dismantle the defenses.

Dr. John Piper was one of the two primary leaders in creating the complementarian movement.  In 1991 Dr. Piper and Dr. Wayne Grudem edited the book that spelled out the theological position of the newly formed Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW):  Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism  The book was critical to achieving the goal of convincing conservative Christians to accept a watered down version of the feminism that had already devastated the liberal church.  Arguably their biggest achievement was convincing nearly all conservative Christians to reject the traditional (and obvious) reading of 1 Tim 2:12 in order to promote women as non ordained preachers.

Dr. Piper is still an influential figure in the complementarian world, and is a Council member of The Gospel Coalition (TGC).  Piper’s website Desiring God regularly includes posts on the subject of Same Sex Attraction (SSA).   The overt message in these posts is that Christians need to get with the times while remaining true to what the Bible teaches us.  More subtly they push the same gay agenda that has overcome our larger society (including liberal churches) in a form that is perfectly tuned to deceive conservative Christians.

For example, see Pastor Nick Roen’s Desiring God article titled Homophobia Has No Place in the Church.  Roen is an assistant to the pastor for Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church* and alternately identifies as gay and SSA, but generally prefers the term SSA.  Roen explains in his homophobia post that unlike gay activists in the larger culture, he isn’t using the term to advance acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle:

…my fear is that homophobia is all too common, not just in society, but even within the church. Some may object to my use of the word homophobia. It can sometimes be used as a politically loaded term wielded to silence any and all opposition to same-sex sexual activity. However, this is not the root definition of the term.

Roen then proceeds to chastise conservative Christians in the same way gay activists have chastised the rest of the culture for decades, but his push for acceptance is couched as a concern that conservative Christians aren’t staying true to the teachings of the Bible.  Roen challenges his readers to search their hearts, asking rhetorically if their disgust at the gay lifestyle is biblical, or are they merely hateful bigots?

Is your belief that same-sex sexual activity is sin based finally on solid biblical exegesis? Or is it really based on the fact that you don’t understand how someone could be attracted to the same sex, and this unknown seems to you just plain creepy?

Roen continues, rhetorically scolding conservative Christians for the sin of homophobia for not wanting gays to change the culture:

Is your opposition to so-called same-sex marriage based on a principled biblical definition of marriage? Or is it more influenced by a fear that same-sex couples might signal the unraveling of comfortable cultural norms and usher in the end of a once-pristine “Judeo-Christian society”? Or maybe your fear is more that one such couple might move in next door, and you might actually be pressured to befriend them?

Roen challenges conservative Christians to make sure their church is gay friendly:

Does your opposition to homosexual practice include the ability to lovingly welcome LGBT people into a Sunday service or other gathering with other Christians? Or does opposition for you mean that you wish they would just stay away so you aren’t made uncomfortable by their very presence?

Note that Roen is performing a bait and switch here.  He is leading with a challenge to accept repentant sinners into the church.  But he can’t be talking about private homosexual sin in this regard.  For how would the congregation know a stranger’s sexual sin unless the stranger was also “loud and proud”, and so outwardly engaged in the gay lifestyle that it is unmistakable when you first meet them?  This is not about accepting other sinners, just as we have been accepted.  This is about normalizing the gay lifestyle for conservative Christians.

But then Roen goes a step further, and chastises conservative Christians who feel that it wouldn’t be wise to put gay men such as himself in leadership positions, or give him trusted access to the congregation’s children.

In standing for Christian sexual ethics, do you encourage and support those SSA believers within the church who are striving to remain faithful to biblical teaching by welcoming them into full participation in church life? Or does standing for biblical sexuality mean that they can come to church, but they can’t grow in influence or serve the body through teaching, and they should probably stay away from the youth group?

This is not about redemption at all, it is about power and accepting the gay lifestyle.  Roen is suggesting that mere salvation isn’t enough!

The truly insidious nature of this becomes more clear when you consider another aspect of the push to get conservative Christians to accept homosexuality.  The push is to get conservative Christians to accept gay Christians forming public and ostensibly chaste same sex relationships called “spiritual friendships”.   Pastor Roen didn’t participate in the recent Revoice** conference pushing spiritual friendships, but he is a regular contributor to the Spiritual Friendship website.

For an idea on Pastor Roen’s position here, see his response to the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage (emphasis mine).  What Roen wants is to take the push for gay “civil unions” and re-purpose it for conservative Christianity.  He wants society and the church to formally recognize his (supposedly chaste) relationship with his gay life partner:

3. Speaking of the civil benefits of marriage, the reason that there are tax breaks and insurance benefits and the like is because marriage is a recognized good in society. But why is marriage the only committed relationship that the state recognizes in these ways as beneficial to societal flourishing? It seems to me that many types of deep, committed, mutual relationships are beneficial to society in similar-but-not-identical ways to marriage; whether it is a marriage, a celibate partnership, a committed friendship, or a chosen kinship, all of these bonds have the potential to be sites of sacrificial love, selfless service, and others-oriented hospitality. All of these things are societal goods.

So what if—regardless of the label one puts on the relationship—two people who have chosen a life of celibacy decide to commit to serve and support and do life with one another? Shouldn’t they be able to visit each other in the hospital? If they can decide to have a joint bank account, why shouldn’t they be able to have joint health insurance benefits? Why is their relationship not worthy of the types of societal privileges that marriage affords? I understand that these perks were put in place to encourage marriage in the first place. But I want to say, “Let’s encourage deep, committed, service-oriented relationships in many forms!”

4. Because those rights are at the moment reserved for marriage, isn’t it easier to understand at least some of the motivation for the legalization of gay marriage? I understand what it is like to not have visitation rights or joint insurance, and I also understand why gay people want those things. So if the state will continue to refuse those goods to other types of relationships (which I don’t think it should), then even if we disagree with gay “marriage”, lets be quick to understand what is at stake. It isn’t only competing moralities and conflicting ideologies and religious freedom and all that. It is those things. But it’s more also. It’s being able to visit your dying partner in the ICU. It’s being able to list the person you love as inheritor of your estate. It’s being able to file taxes with the person you are doing life with. Right now, marriage is the only way those things are possible. I am not advocating for wholesale support of gay marriage. Don’t hear me saying that! (see point 1 above). But I am saying that maybe lets be slow to throw stones at those “radical gays” who are pushing for civil benefits for their commitment to one another. I would like those same benefits, TBH…so I get it.

Put all of this together and you end up with conservative churches welcoming loud and proud gays to join in worship.  So long as gays assure the church they are comitted to remaining chaste, they must be promoted into leadership and given trusted access to the children.  Gay Christians, including those in leadership, must be allowed to publicly declare their life partner, so long as they maintain the fiction that there is nothing sexual or romantic about this gay relationship.  Conservative Christians also need to stop thinking of homosexuality as “yucky”, and bring the gay couple next door into their social circle.

It would do us well to humbly examine our hearts to reveal the motives and fears behind our attitudes toward people who identify as “gay.” Happily upholding Christian sexual ethics is not the same as harboring animosity toward an entire group of people simply because you find them yucky.

Again, this is a movement aimed at and being accepted by conservative Christians.  The liberal churches already fully and openly accept the homosexual lifestyle.  Not all complementarians are on board with this new push.  A number of them want to stop with the progress they made regarding feminism.  Some like Pastor Tim Bayly and Pastor Doug Wilson are actively fighting the new movement.  But even if all complementarians were fighting the movement, they paved the way when they collectively created the script that Pastor Nick Roen and the Revoice/Spiritual Friendship crowd are following.  Conservative churches will find it very difficult to resist this latest onslaught, because they have already accepted the methods and arguments that are being used.

*The Desiring God article identifies Roen as “Pastor, Albert Lea, Minnesota”.  However, Roen’s Twitter page says “Assistant TO the Lead Pastor @hopeinGod South Campus”.  @hopeinGod is the Twitter name for Bethlehem Baptist Church.  Pastor John Piper was senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church from 1980 to January 2013, and is the chancellor of the affiliated Bethlehem College & Seminary. Roen was a student at Bethlehem College & Seminary.

**For an insider defense of the subject, see In Defense of Spiritual Friendship and Revoice by Ron Belgau.  See also Belgau’s follow up post Thinking Deeply about Christian Love: Same-Sex Attraction, Sin, and Spiritual Friendship. Note that Belgau identifies Nick Roen as someone his thoughts are aligned with.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. John Piper, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Loud and proud complementarians, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Tim Bayly, Revoice, Social Justice Warriors, Spiritual Friendship, The Gospel Coalition, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen.

  1. Cane Caldo says:

    Dalrock, man you are way off. This should have been a Monday post. Saturdays don’t get the same traffic and everyone needs to read this.

  2. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Cane. I’ll hold off on rolling out a new post until Tuesday.

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    On point 3, no Roen, gay relationships aren’t beneficial to society. Cue sodom and Gomorrah.

    Conservative churches flirt with piper, and they teach him amongst youth and in study groups.

    I have personally been called out as divisive and angry for noting Piper is a false teacher.

    The level of discernment in Christianity is at an all time low.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Once upon a time I was at a social event and wound up listening to a liberal, Baby Boomer pastor who was from a conservative denomination. Over the rather one sided conversation he expressed pride in the way he and others had liberalized the church, coupled with dismay that some people were taking the ideas he pushed “too far”. The detail really doesn’t matter – he and his comrades had pushed hard against the post WWII consensus on churches. They had won the fight, and then he found that some of his comrades weren’t done pushing, and were going to push harder. “We didn’t mean for it to go that far!” was the crowning comment right before we talked about the weather.

    History from the French revolution onward teaches me “the Revo always eats its own”. So it is no surprise that some of the same Boomer preachers who welcomed conservative feminism into the church as long as it could be labeled “complementarianism” are now dismayed by the active program to push homosexuality or “SSA” into churches. “We didn’t mean for it to go that far” is surely what Wilson, Bayly and others are saying, at least to themselves.

    The campaign described (Revoice, etc.) is just the same stuff with different labels. Anyone who accepted lady preachers really has no ground to stand on to oppose homosexual preachers. Anyone who accepts an open gay couple has no longer any room to oppose cohabitation by straights.

    I’m not too surprised that Piper has an assistant pastor who is an “out” homosexual. He has always struck me as rather effeminate in his speech…

  5. Paul says:

    Pushing of the homosexual agenda is almost as strong as the pushing of the feminist agenda.

    Robert Gagnon (http://www.robgagnon.net) has written the most influential work on the Bible and Homosexuality. Any serious work trying to defend the position of acceptance of homosexual relationships in the church, MUST address the work of Gagnon. Although Gagnon has at times some non-traditional viewpoints on e.g. the reliability of scripture, he strongly opposes homosexual relations in the church.

    Many churches start reconsidering and reevaluting their traditional stance on homosexuality, and in the past years have been discussing “new insights”. One of the reports I’ve read was honest enough to realize it needed to counter Gagnon’s arguments to be taken serious at all, and hence try to refute his arguments. It needed about 400 pages to address only some points of Gagnon, but it failed miserably, using very verbose language to mask the lack of counterargument.

    Not surprisingly, the committee doing the research and being responsible for the report, nevertheless voted in majority to accept homosexual relationships in the church. Only one member disagreed, and needed to fight hard to get his viewpoint included in the final report of the commission. This report has been used by some major traditional churches to actively change their position.

    Only one or two years later, these same churches started changing their stance on women pastors; without much of a discussion, suddenly they effectively allowed women pastors.

    It is clear forces are at work that have been waiting for the opportunity to push this through, without the average churchgoer realizing what’s going on. It’s nauseating.

  6. You do NOT let homos in, they take over and then the culture of sexual abuse and degeneracy is set.

    Until they closed it off (registration fee required), the Institute for Advanced Homophobia at MPC was essential reading.

    These people are NOT like us.

  7. I really wouldn’t be surprised if Piper and Roen were closet cases.

  8. Here’s today’s Seattle times. A former president dies and gets a small mention. The big news is GAY CHRISTIANS OMG!!!

    [img]https://i.imgur.com/lOZBDWc.png[/img]

  9. Mathetes says:

    Such an important post for knowing where many churches are going.

    They’ve totally abandoned the Bible. And I thank you for making it clear with your description of their teaching on 1 Timothy 2.

    Once you read pastor, you should think one-woman man, faithful children, manages his household well, etc.

    Here’s an unqualified gay “pastor” encouraging us to embrace deviance; no, even more, he wants to empower it. Replace homophobia with another sin, like pedophilia-phobia, and you can see how insane this is.

    Thank you for bringing this sad situation to our attention and for standing for the Lord’s teaching. I agree that this topic and your great analysis needs a lot of attention.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    Roen quoted by Dalrock

    In standing for Christian sexual ethics, do you encourage and support those SSA believers within the church who are striving to remain faithful to biblical teaching by welcoming them into full participation in church life? Or does standing for biblical sexuality mean that they can come to church, but they can’t grow in influence or serve the body through teaching, and they should probably stay away from the youth group?

    The “leadership” part is a clever lever. Because those churches that have “modernized” the literal requirements for teacher and preacher by ignoring clear text now have no easy way to resist Roen’s challenge.

    The “youth group” is pure in-your-face testing. The answer has to be “Yeah, no. We don’t send out teenage girls with older men, either” just for a start. Then depending on how obnoxious he got, ask him just why he wants to be alone with teenaged and preteen boys, anyway? Or take a subtler line and ask how he plans to groom such boys for proper, church-centered manhood…

    For sure I will not ever be in Piper’s church, but if I was…I’d get kicked out.

    About 5 years back I told a conservative, married-with-children, preacher that he and his church should start preparing for life without a 501c3 tax exemption…or prepare to accept openly homosexual and lesbian couples as full members. He scoffed, and told me that while his son (who was then 3 years old) might have to deal with such a problem, he didn’t expect it to happen while he was leading a church. I might just have to go look him up and repeat the statement, because social change has accelerated in the last 5 to 10 years.

    It’s not a stretch of the imagination to look down the road into 2022 and see the Johnson Amendment being modified along Social Justice lines, leaving some churches “approved” and thus tax-exempt, while others are “not approved” and required to pay all sorts of taxes and even fines.

    The “Social Credit” system that the Chinese are growing would lend itself well to such a system of control. Churches that intend to resist the pressure better start thinking about the details.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Conservative churches will find it very difficult to resist this latest onslaught, because they have already accepted the methods and arguments that are being used.

    This needs to be spread far and wide. Churches will either have to give up their lady pastors, or accept open homosexual “married” couples.

    PS: The whole “celibate friends” model is something that nobody with any real world experience would believe. It is obviously just a gambit, the camel’s nose under the tent. In order to give any credence to this in debate one has to be lying. At least lying to yourself, if nothing else.

  12. NotaBene says:

    I think a lot of teachers mean well, but err too much on the side of “truth” or “love”. Like falling off a horse, getting back on, and falling off on the other side.

    I’ve learned a bit from this guy, a friend of mine, seems to have a good balance of being doctrinally sound and also “loving”. He speaks all over the country to conservative church leaders, counsels a lot of people. Lived in a gay relationship for many years before being saved, now married (to a woman) with kids. I’m curious what you all think. If nothing else it’s certainly a hard line to tow here in MA 🙂 I know he’s received death threats.

    https://www.leadthemhome.org/

    PS I’m putting those terms in quotes because I’m not defining them and how they look in every situation.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @NotaBene
    The site you linked is another example of pushing LGBT “inclusion” and “acceptance”. It is all of the same slogans I received in college 20 years ago, with a thin veneer of Christianity. From the about page:

    Lead Them Home is North America’s leading resource for church and ministry leaders on LGBT+ inclusion and care.

    Our vision is loving LGBT+ people in the Church via our mission: to enhance church inclusion, increase family acceptance, protect against victimization, and nourish faith identity in LGBT+ lives.

  14. NotaBene says:

    @Dalrock

    I see, I agree and will have to chat with him about this. On this page, which is kind of buried, he at least makes a statement:

    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid same-sex relationships, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who are in same-sex relationships.”

    I’m wondering if his definition of words like “inclusion” and “intolerance” is different. Because in a certain sense, “including” gays in the church is exactly what we want – while being intolerant of/excluding sin. I think he would agree with this if I talked to him alone. He’s very careful to word it with sensitivity to both “sides”, including MA secular/liberal culture and church conservatives. Not easy.

    On a side note, I think they way people use these words is often the cause of a lot of misunderstanding.

  15. Lost Patrol says:

    I’m always looking for the “big one”, that will finally wake up the church men to the fact they are well down the slippery slope and gaining speed. But it never comes, and of course that’s not how it works in death by a thousand small cuts.

    I have to say the Complementarians are effective. The new normal comes on so smoothly and well paced that people will actually defend its errors when confronted, because it is orthodoxy now.

    Another effect that I’ve seen is the changing standards of church elders and deacons when confronted with the behaviors and choices of their own family members. It’s coming at them from above via the celebrity pastors, and from below by their kids’ acceptance of changing mores.

    A church elder that was opposed to women in combat (due to weak men not volunteering or whatever), finds himself with a new daughter-in-law that is in fact a tattooed, pierced, femwarrior, who is also giving birth to some of his grand-kids. He changes his stance.

    A church deacon is opposed to homosexual marriage on biblical grounds, until his own daughter announces her desire to marry a single mom with a couple of kids. The deacon now says that he has chosen love instead of hate, and posted the wedding photos on social media.

    An elder’s daughter finds that she is interested in full time ministry work. She winds up on the church paid staff, as a ‘director’ of outreach services.

    How to rationalize the shifting sands? This appears to be the area of Complementarian specialization.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    NotaBene

    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid same-sex relationships, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who are in same-sex relationships.”

    An easy exercise with such a text is to replace key words, then see if the text still makes sense or not.

    For example: here is the same text with minor changes.

    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid adulterous relationships, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who are in adulterous relationships.”

    Or this:
    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid embezzlement, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who are embezzling the church payroll.”

    Or this:
    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid worshipping Satan, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who are in Satan-worshpping relationships.”

    Or….this….
    “Thus, while we are convicted to believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid murder, we equally believe that the Holy Scriptures forbid any form of judgment or intolerance of the people who happened to deliberately kill our young children on the church playground during Sunday School.”

    Am I obnoxious enough, yet? Probably…

    NotaBene, that site is just putting soft soap on a slippery slope.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Postscript: it will be interesting to see how the “T” of “LGBT” plays out with the older celebrity pastors such as Piper and Keller. It’s one thing to tolerate vaguely effeminate men, or even openly homosexual “but chaste” (yeah, right) men, but how many of the Baby Boomer preachers would really, truly, allow a man in a dress to go into the ladies bathroom right after some 8 year old girl enters it? Just to pick one example. There’s a lot of unpleasant details involved in “trans acceptance” that gets glossed over.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @NotaBene

    On a side note, I think they way people use these words is often the cause of a lot of misunderstanding

    This baffles me. Gay activists show up at the church spouting the same slogans and terms gay activists spout everywhere else. This is taken as proof that they aren’t pushing the same agenda in the church they are pushing everywhere else. I would argue, but if you can’t see it on its face I’m afraid I can’t think of a way to make it more clear.

  19. Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen. | Reaction Times

  20. Echo4November says:

    I think I’ll be a hateful bigot, thanks.

  21. NotaBene says:

    @Dalrock @Anonymous

    I agree with you both, I think the site is worded poorly and not a strong enough stand on the truth. The guy’s my friend, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know too many gay activists, or even anyone really addressing this stuff in the church, so I have nothing to compare him to.

  22. Swanny River says:

    I was looking forward to your promised follow-up, thank you for pointing it out.
    I went to a Piper conference several years ago about putting Christ first. It was very challenging, so it’s frustrating to read this about him.
    Friends in the church use the following rationalizations to not fight against the perversity of public schools, “they do a lot of good, take that and leave the rest.” My guess is that is what they say about women leaders and will say about gay preachers.

  23. okrahead says:

    Pope Francis is currently making the same arguments as Roen for the RCC.
    I was appalled at the Rotherham scandal… then came Pittsburgh and the RCC.
    LGBTQ+…. Eventually the “+ “P” for pederasty.
    This is not a gray area in scripture. The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ both expressly forbid and condemn homosexuality. Christ Himself decried “fornication”, which his audience would have understood to include sodomy.
    Piper and Roen have rejected Paul as an authoritative apostle (Romans 1). Their acceptance of homosexuals absolutely WILL lead to an acceptance of pederasty. Have nothing to do with them or any of their supporters.

  24. Mountain Man says:

    I’m a little surprised that some are shocked at the incursion of LGBT into the church. This it not a “camel nose under the tent flap” situation. Homosexuality has been tacitly approved for decades …. as long as it was FEMALE homosexuality. Since the mid-80’s, I’ve been at several churches and small groups with lesbians present, and even in positions of leadership. Lesbianism is accepted (though perhaps not completely approved of) to a far greater degree than gay men. I suspect this is another manifestation of the men-bad/women-good dynamic, or maybe just the unwillingness to call women out on their sin.

  25. JR says:

    It is past time for us to leave the PCA, OPC and Southern Baptist. I suggest any Church that allows women to defy Scripture by not wearing a head cover is not worth supporting. For 2K years the Scriptures were universally understood to forbid women to worship with uncovered heads and in a decade of feminism they got re interpreted. I want to hear this preached clearly, woman was made for man and not man for woman.

  26. RichardP says:

    @JR – Just in case someone misinterprets you last sentence: Eve was made expressly for Adam, not for everyman. Paul admonished a wife to submit to her husband, not to everyman. Words matter. Concepts matter. The Bible does not teach that everywoman was made for everyman, nor does it teach that every woman must submit to every man. Just to her husband.

    Or does standing for biblical sexuality mean that they [SSA types] can come to church, but they can’t grow in influence or serve the body through teaching, and they should probably stay away from the youth group?

    The church is where the gospel is preached. Of course we should welcome sinners with open arms into the church – so that they can hear the gospel preached, regardless of the sin. But who in their right mind would put sinners into positions of authority within a church heirarchy?

    Regarding the quote about SSA types in the church: it is not their relationship status that gives us pause whether to include them in positions of responsibility within the church. Rather, it is their thought processes that led to the SSA relationship(s). Paul enumerates the qualities / behaviors that a man must already possess / be doing in order to be considered for the office of Bishop. The behaviors imply the thought processes that are desired for church leadership. And so they do also in the case of the SSA types.

  27. RichardP says:

    And so they do also in the case of the SSA types.

    Upon re-reading, that sentence seems confusing. Try this: And so does the behavior of the SSA types imply their thought process – thought processes that are not of the quality that Paul required for positions of responsibility in the church.

  28. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Mountain Man: Lesbianism is accepted (though perhaps not completely approved of) to a far greater degree than gay men. I suspect this is another manifestation of the men-bad/women-good dynamic, or maybe just the unwillingness to call women out on their sin.

    No, I don’t think so. I think it’s more genetic hardwiring. Homosexual men evoke a greater “ick factor” among hetero men.

    When I was 19 (and an atheist), I bought an 8mm porno film called Lesbian Party. Three women. I thought their actions were hot, not disgusting. I would not have thought the same about three men.

    I think a lot of men fantasize about hot lesbians. (Which, in real life, are rare.) Hetero men are more viscerally repulsed by gay men. So it’s natural that in the old days, even traditional institutions were more lenient toward lesbians.

  29. ys says:

    Awesome article and true.
    Unfortunately it’s way past done for most conservative churches. They have gay kids. Or their kids have gay friends. Or they have watched 30 years of indoctrinating television and movies, making them accept the coming gayness.
    Whatever the case, this battle was likely already lost 15 years ago, probably further back than that.
    To answer my own question, and to get help, on when the battle was lost: When did we stop using the word Sodomite? I would put losing this fight right about there.

  30. JR says:

    Read in context, 1 cor 11 Paul is addressing why women, all women, should publicly show submission to men in the chursh by wearing a cover on their head. It is quite true that the wife (singular) should submit to her own husband (singular) and outside Church not to every man (which would be a ridiculous proposition). However, that does say something about the intrinsic nature of femininity. We’re all represented as sinners in Adam, not in Eve (Eve technically did not sin by eating of the fruit, never having been formally commanded not to). We’re all saved in Christ, not His mother (who was a virgin since we all inherit our sin nature through our fathers only). In Genesis 2 God says He created them male (jeberw, He who remembers) and female (she who is penetrated, as in violently stabbed). Elsewhere in Genesis God refers to man as Adam, the red one. Here in Gen 2 though God makes explicit the difference between male and female. The male human has his identity by remembering, possibly the fact that only Adam receives the command to mot eat of the forbidden tree. The female human received her identity from the man penetrating her. We carry this in our linguistic understanding , as in referring to man and wife (because only she is physically changed by sex, not only in hymen, but in the genetics of microchimerism).
    Read the whole passage in context, it is about much more than Adam and Eve as unique people. It is about the entire hierarchy of meaning. We are the glory of Christ. Woman is our glory. This hierarchy is meant to be shown to the angels, both Holy and fallen, by a visible display of submission in Church by women to men, plural to plural. Remember humans are created only a little lower thsn God (something translations often get wrong). Angels are created to serve us, and since God is now human, to worship a human. Think of a far more intelligent and powerful being told he is to serve a weak, disgusting sinful creature like us. If women openly rebel against their nature, why shouldn’t they?
    I can write a great deal more on this, for the mystery of Christ and the Church is deep indeed. Sufficient to say in the words of the song: “woman draws her life from man, and gives it back again.” Or in the words of Ayn Rand, the essence of femininity is hero worship. The words of the prophets are indeed written on the subway halls, and tenement halls; while pastors keep the silent and encourage the worship of the neon God of feminism.
    The uncovered woman in Church is a symptom of a very deep disease. It is only a symptom, the disease is rebelliom, and it affects all. No Church that believes Scripture shoukd permit a woman with an uncovered head in worship, as was the practice for 2k years until Vatican 2.

  31. His initial questions are crucial, and not semantic as he supposes.
    Is your belief that same-sex sexual activity is sin based finally on solid biblical exegesis? Or is it really based on the fact that you don’t understand how someone could be attracted to the same sex, and this unknown seems to you just plain creepy?
    The thing is that if we do not anchor our objections in the explicit commands of Scripture, but only in our emotional squick, nothing more than “don’t knock it until you try it” is needed to knock them down.

  32. Mike says:

    As much as I foresee gay youth pastors a major problem, I could care less if there are a few openly gay couples in the church. The young adults groups are full of slugs and single moms. The problem for the church and evangelicalism in totality is the lack of urgence about young marriage. I go to a top 5 in size bible college in the U.S. and let me tell you, everything is always about the “season of singleness”. And funny’s nough, it’s always some hag, lesbian looking woman pursuing a PhD in theology whose giving the sermon on how she feels just fine at 29 without a man. Little do all the young women know that all there opportunities of finding decent, same-aged men that are Christian will all but evaporate in the next 5 years as they go to pursue their careers. What you’re left with then are young adults groups that are havens or frankly reject and ugly men along with single mothers. Simply, there is a total failure in Christian matchmaking. The Adventist church certainly knows what it’s doing in that regard.
    I am actually totally shocked how little coordination the Christian universities place in helping students meet and mingle. First of all, girls and boys are usually separated in dorms. After the dorm years, girls go blow their mate searching time at college by living with a bunch of girls in a house off campus, which again diminishes the chances of serendipitously meeting a male student. Yes, I’m pissed because you shouldn’t have to pay 40k a year only to have an inept college administration fail to have any form of social mixers or dating oriented events. These are abviouslh feminist administrators that don’t think mate finding is important in undergrad. Well, sadly, many or most of these princesses are being funded by their beta Christian fathers, who, in a last attempt to help his daughter avoid sluttery and life failure, sent her to a Christian university where the hope is she finds a good beta Christian man to marry. Well, the Christian colleges have totally failed at matchmaking or assisting it in any way.

    These churches won’t die because some gay people showed up or even became pastors. They will die because of a lack of family formation from the millennials and gen z.

  33. Otto Lamp says:

    The reason we have gotten to this point, is churches are no longer focused on the fundamentals.

    1: Sex is only permitted inside marriage
    2: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
    3: Marriage is for life
    4: Divorce is only permitted for adultery
    5: A divorced person who remarries is committing adultery

    I churches focused on teaching those 5 rules, then questions like open homosexuality easy-divorce/remarriage would simply not come up. But then, that would be hard, and instead of being a mega-church pastor making a six figure salary, you might end up a little-church pastor who has to work a side job to make financial ends meet (like as a tent-maker).

    So the fundamentals aren’t taught (or are at best glossed over and forgotten) and instead we focus on these fringe issues. It’s almost as if pastors want to appear righteous and thoughtful by debating an issue 90% of their members don’t deal with (being gay) instead of the issues 90% of their members do deal with (heterosexual sex and marriage). So the whole congregation can tut-tut about how misguided and woeful gays are, but never have to worry about the mirror being turned upon themselves.

  34. Otto Lamp says:

    JR: ” I suggest any Church that allows women to defy Scripture by not wearing a head cover is not worth supporting.”

    I know of a pastor of such a church in rural Kentucky who was removed for objecting to a divorced woman remarrying. So even head covering isn’t a protection.

  35. Otto Lamp says:

    Mountain Man: “Homosexuality has been tacitly approved for decades …. as long as it was FEMALE homosexuality. …Lesbianism is accepted (though perhaps not completely approved of) to a far greater degree than gay men.”

    Probably for the same reasons heterosexual fornication is quietly accepted.

    1. Too many men think if it is going on, they might “get some” or fantasize about getting in on the action (failure to guard your thoughts allowing sin to creep into your life).
    2. Large percentages of both men and women are viscerally repulsed by male gay sex. That’s not the case with female gay sex nor heterosexual fornication. Why the different gut reactions, I don’t know.

  36. reason says:

    Otto Lamp.

    i agree with the general thrust of your argument, up to point three, however 4 and 5 is not a correct interpretation of scripture.
    Adultery is not the ONLY basis for divorce in the bible and the bibe does not teach that one cannot remarry upon divorce

  37. feeriker says:

    It’s not a stretch of the imagination to look down the road into 2022 and see the Johnson Amendment being modified along Social Justice lines, leaving some churches “approved” and thus tax-exempt, while others are “not approved” and required to pay all sorts of taxes and even fines.

    The “Social Credit” system that the Chinese are growing would lend itself well to such a system of control. Churches that intend to resist the pressure better start thinking about the details.

    Absolutely correct. We’ve reached a “rubber hits the road” point where the church can no longer just “play ball” with other socially accepted institutions if it wants to remain a force for doing God’s work (i.e., behaving according to Scripture). In other words, Christians are going to have to start showing real faith IN JESUS again.

    The persecuted, underground churches that are becoming the norm in China due to the government crackdown on “non-state-approved religions” are going to become the norm here too (anyone paying any attention clearly sees the closing of the gap between the practices of the Chinese and old Soviet governments and those of the decaying “democratic” governments of the West). Any church that meets out in the open will be a fake, converged organization bearing no resemblance whatsoever to a New Testament biblical church.

  38. Frank K says:

    Or they have watched 30 years of indoctrinating television and movies, making them accept the coming gayness.

    A compelling reason to not have cable or Netflix in the house.

  39. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Seems to me that when the church accepts the courtly/chivalry/romance feelz as the foundation for sex and marriage, they cannot close the door when two dudes have the feelz for each other. Feelz is feelz and you are you to judge? Either God’s Word is the absolute rule for life and practice or the door is opened to the feelz (romantic or otherwise) as the guide. But because women are widely considered to be the more spiritually wise descerning guides and men more all around doofus with privilege, the door is closed to straight cis males because they must repent of their privilige and earn the feelz or be fraged for their lack of chivalric mojo. Queer isn’t it?

  40. Paul says:

    @JR : “Eve technically did not sin by eating of the fruit”

    1 Tim 2:14 “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

    You come across as quite bluepill…

  41. Paul says:

    @OL : “4: Divorce is only permitted for adultery”

    If churches would keep to your 5 rules, that would already help a lot, but I disagree that divorce is permitted for a Christian:

    1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

  42. Paul says:

    On the Chinese ‘Social Credit’ system: Orwell’s “1984” is dystopian literature meant to warn people, NOT a government instruction manual.

  43. Paul says:

    @Mike: “Little do all the young women know that all there opportunities of finding decent, same-aged men that are Christian will all but evaporate in the next 5 years as they go to pursue their careers.”

    Why have Christian leadership stopped admonishing elder women to instruct younger women on how to lead a Christian life?

    Tit 2:3-5
    Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

    Where are these elder women?

  44. Random Guy says:

    I could care less if there are a few openly gay couples in the church.

    Then you clearly have not read nor follow anything that Paul said. Namely, I Cor 5. The sexually immoral shall not have anything to do with heaven…. and such WERE some of you.

  45. JFP says:

    Dalrock: “I would argue, but if you can’t see it on its face I’m afraid I can’t think of a way to make it more clear.”

    Most refuse to see it for fear of being shamed, of being viewed as judgmental. Certainly any man who argues or believes in that whole SSA concept won’t. It is hilarious given the radical gays have been shaming the quiet private ones for years now.

    As mentioned earlier, the only thing that will wake up most people, Christian or otherwise is sources showing what gays really think and do. Say what you want about the MPC forum but that homophobia thread and others like it wake up many with the blunt force truth. A few hours of searching on the web will show one how gays really treat “gay marriage”, namely its an open marriage sexually at the very least.

    It has been a law for about a year now yet I still come across moderates or right wingers of various stripes who consider themselves informed, that don’t know about California’s law pushed by a gay state senator to reduce the criminal penalty for having sex with someone without telling them you are hiv+/aids or have an std. It is no longer a felony to donate blood in CA while infected with an STD or AIDS. All because the poor gays felt left out from donating blood. Despite the stats on high STD transmission rates among gays (let alone the long term threat of AIDS).

    Has anyone here heard about the drug Truvada/PrEP? Look it up. But yeah, gays are totally like straights man. Its all about love, till they call you a bigot for not dating the tranny in the corner pew who is a woman now. Then it will be you’re a homophobe until you try it at least once for yourself.

  46. EPP says:

    Does this Roen character even realize the harm he is doing to genuinely pious homosexuals? We are all tempted to sin, and this squid ink offers a means of rationalizing that particular sin. It is no different than if he were to justify cold blooded and arbitrary murder.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    The core problem here is that, as you have noted often, Dalrock, in effect the church changed its de facto treatment of relationships between men and women, such that the presence of romantic love is seen as justifying/sanctifying both sex and marriage, rather than the reverse. This is also why pre-marital cohabitation between men and women is so widely tolerated by the church — as long as there is romantic love, people are loathe to complain about it, because that is the justifying element that “makes it ok”. Same for how people now mostly view marriage.

    Because of that, it’s really inevitable that most churches will accept SSM at some stage. It seems very unlikely that the churches will go back on their treatment of romantic love as the de facto justifying factor for sex and marriage — that is culturally ingrained in most churches today. And yet because SSA people fall in love, too, it’s only a matter of time (literally … the passing of generations) until that same approach will be used … must be used really for consistency … to permit SSM and also to tacitly tolerate cohabitation among SSA couples de facto as is the case with male/female couples.

    Biblical arguments can be raised, of course, but biblical analysis isn’t the prevalent way that the church already approaches relationships between men and women, anyway — the bible certainly doesn’t view romantic love as justifying sex or marriage, yet that’s exactly what the church does de facto. It really is just a matter of time until that same approach is applied to SSA relationships, and the main issue is generational — with a passing of generations, the rules will change, and that will be that, at least among all but the most traditionalist enclaves. (Among Catholics it’s unlikely that the rules will change in the Catholics marrying same sex couples but what is likely is that people who are known to be in same sex civil marriages will be de facto tolerated and participate more or less fully in the life of the church including sacraments and leadership positions.)

    ——
    Where are these elder women?

    They envy the opportunities to alpha chase that the younger women have, and wish they had those when they were younger. The last thing they are interested in doing is telling the young women not to “take advantage” of what they have available.

    Large percentages of both men and women are viscerally repulsed by male gay sex. That’s not the case with female gay sex nor heterosexual fornication. Why the different gut reactions, I don’t know.

    It’s because gay male sex is de-masculinizing in a way that lesbian sex is not. In gay male sex, one partner de-masculinizes and takes a female/penetratee role, and submits sexually to the other man. This is viscerally repulsive to most men and women, because it represents the opposite of masculinity. Lesbians engaging in sex with each other do not compromise their femininity by means of the act at all, really, which is why it isn’t as viscerally disturbing. This is another reason, by the way, while the whole LGBT thing is directly linked to “gender roles”.

  48. Gunner Q says:

    Mike @ December 2, 2018 at 8:25 am:
    “As much as I foresee gay youth pastors a major problem, I could care less if there are a few openly gay couples in the church.”

    You are dangerously stupid. The OPENLY REBELLIOUS are not to be tolerated in Church, ever. How did you miss all those Scriptures on sexual immorality?

    Furthermore, homosexuals increase their numbers by recruitment, not reproduction. Gay men want to be in authority over teenage boys in order to groom and rape them into lives of sexual dysfunction. That is not a “major problem”, that is child molestation that you would tolerate in God’s own home.

    What is wrong with you, that you cannot see this?

    EPP @ 1:26 pm:
    “Does this Roen character even realize the harm he is doing to genuinely pious homosexuals?”

    Not only does he realize it, they’re the ones he hates the most. They’re the redeemed, the ones who faced the same trials he did yet overcame them in loyalty to Christ. When Roen stands in judgment and blames God for his gleeful perversions, God will point to the redeemed homosexuals as living proof that Roen chose his fate.

    Not only are we God’s people; we will also be the witnesses against all the world’s evils and perversions, having faced them yet overcome them by trust in Christ.

    In the eyes of Sodomites, wanting to kill them is not half as terrible as wanting to cure them. They’re condemned to identity politics because they must recruit new members, therefore the idea that they can live a normal life is an existential threat. “The devil made me do it and how dare you imply that it was my freewilled choice! I was born this way!”

  49. Opus says:

    My former bankers do not have a sign outside their premises saying ‘No Negroes or Irish” yet with the highest of sanctimony and as if there had been a sign saying ‘No Homophobes’ I was expelled from my bank for just that – this in a country where the Head of State is also the Supreme Governor of the Anglicans. On the basis that my enemy’s enemy is my friend I am expecting great things from the Islamists.

  50. Frank K says:

    FWIW, I have always found female on female sodomy to be disgusting. I simply do not understand how a normal man could find it arousing.

  51. Frank K says:

    I was expelled from my bank

    Just to be clear, you’re saying they closed your accounts, or you worked there and were fired/sacked.

  52. Frank K says:

    If churches would keep to your 5 rules, that would already help a lot, but I disagree that divorce is permitted for a Christian:

    It is my limited understanding that there controversy over some biblical translations of said passage, From what I have heard in Greek the word is “porneia”, which is not the Greek word for adultery.

  53. Opus says:

    @Frank K

    I was a customer of twenty-four years and with a sizable bank balance! Not only that but I was placed in a fight or flight position by the Bank Manager – I froze fearful for my safety – I can only think of two other occasions in my life where I have felt physically afraid in an office – and one of those ended with violence (though on that occasion a passing former member of the British Army – and colleague – came to my rescue). Acquiring new bankers is not the easiest of things such that I wondered whether I would be able to pay my way and perforce have to throw myself on the mercy of the local soup kitchen. My former bankers made life as difficult for me as they could.

    I will be taking these matters further both with the Bank’s CEO and with my Member of Parliament.

  54. Otto Lamp says:

    @reason,

    Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18

    From this article: https://medium.com/@alwyn_lau/whoever-marries-a-divorced-woman-commits-adultery-luke-16-18-d86f28555ac9

    “The problem here has to do with Jewish laws that let men freely discharge their wives, often on spurious grounds. One great rabbi, Shammai, taught that the only basis for divorce was sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. But the Rabbi Hillel was more generous: “A man may divorce his wife even if she burned his soup … or spoiled a dish for him.” Rabbi Akiba taught that divorce was acceptable “if he should find a woman fairer than his wife.” Such divorces left women adrift in a male world, without hope of remarriage, and completely at a loss. Jesus is standing against such divorces of convenience.”

    “Jesus was dealing with the aggressiveness of the male in the context of first-century culture…(He) was condemning the callousness by which a man would marry and divorce and remarry with the same ease as he might buy and sell cattle.”

    Sounds a lot like marriage 2.0 in reverse.

  55. Dalrock says:

    Note: I clarified Roen’s position at Bethlehem Baptist Church in the post and added a note at the bottom with further explanation:

    *The Desiring God article identifies Roen as “Pastor, Albert Lea, Minnesota”.  However, Roen’s Twitter page says “Assistant TO the Lead Pastor @hopeinGod South Campus”.  @hopeinGod is the Twitter name for Bethlehem Baptist Church.  Pastor John Piper was senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church from 1980 to January 2013, and is the chancellor of the affiliated Bethlehem College & Seminary. Roen was a student at Bethlehem College & Seminary.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    That clarification is a good thing in terms of accuracy, but I frankly don’t see it makes much of a difference in the larger terms; Roen still has some association with Piper.

    Regarding the label of SSA, let’s consider another group of people with an “attraction issue”.

    Perhaps it is time for churchgoing men who find themselves sexually attracted to the wives of other men to organize themselves. They are obviously men afflicted with Other Wife Attraction (OWA) because they have sooooo much love for women it can’t be fulfilled with just one woman. Isn’t it time for them to come out of the shadows & be accepted just as they are, without all that judgementalism and condemnation?

    Words like “adulterer”, “fornicator”, “cheater” are all hurtful examples of PolyPhobia. It’s time for the churches to accept that men with OWA have different gifts that can be shared with the church in a loving and caring way.

  57. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    That clarification is a good thing in terms of accuracy, but I frankly don’t see it makes much of a difference in the larger terms; Roen still has some association with Piper.

    Right. It doesn’t. Piper is pushing Roen’s gay activism message on his Desiring God website. That is where Roen’s homophobia piece was published. From the Desiring God about page:

    In 1980, sensing an irresistible call of the Lord to preach, John became the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he ministered for almost 33 years.

    Desiring God began inauspiciously in 1994 when John handed off the church’s tape ministry to his assistant, Jon Bloom.

    What started with tapes and John’s books, Desiring God has blossomed into an international web ministry with 12,000+ free resources and 3.5+million monthly users. Today, John serves as lead teacher for the ministry.

    From that alone, this is Piper’s baby. That Roen went to seminary where Piper is Chancellor, and is now employed by the church that Piper lead for decades and is affiliated with the same seminary is just added proof that not only is Piper pushing this message, but it is the fruit* of his leadership.

    *Rimshot! I’ll be here all week!

  58. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Another reason for Christians, especially of the Reformed variety, to reject John Piper and all his works… As with Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, and many other celebrity ‘Reformed’ pastors, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing…

  59. 7817 says:

    “Fruit”

    Nice.

    At least there is something humorous in this mess.

  60. What a viper. Two years from now his blog post or sermon will be “Are you really refusing to let a gay man mentor your teenage son and take him on learning trips because you have Biblical reasons, or are you just bigoted?”

  61. info says:

    @GunnerQ
    ”That is not a “major problem”, that is child molestation that you would tolerate in God’s own home.”

    Seriously the word molestation doesn’t convey the gravity of the crime of rape and that of corrupting the young men and turning them towards depravity. Just like how the camp counselor corrupted George Takei into becoming an ardent homosexual.

  62. Jeff says:

    Cane,

    Once again Dalrock picks low hanging fruit. Why would Piper’s or Roen’s views on homosexuals in church surprise?

    Dalrock finding the sutleness (sp) of Wilson etc is great. I have yet to see him write an article on John McArthur who’s influence is just as great as Piper’s. McArthur teaches mutual submission with his minions Phil Johnson and Travis Allen playing defense that what he means isn’t what he means.

  63. Kevin says:

    I don’t understand Roens false dichotomy. Isn’t it possible I believe Gods teachings in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin AND feel deep revulsion toward gay sexuality. Essentially, can’t it be both?

    One of the deep problems I have seen with this approach by Roen and have seen in my church is the acceptance of the worlds narrative that people are not tempted by same sex attraction – people are “gay”. That starts all the following trouble. He wants to accepted as a gay person but I think Christians should reject that whole paradigm. Our sins don’t determine who we are and who we advertise we are. Someone who says “I am gay” is already in the bonds of Satan whether or not he acts on it because he has accepted Satans paradigm. Much better to privately say to your church authorities that I am tempted with same sex attraction.

  64. Frank K says:

    I was a customer of twenty-four years and with a sizable bank balance! Not only that but I was placed in a fight or flight position by the Bank Manager – I froze fearful for my safety

    So the bank branch manager threatened your safety because s/he decided you were a bigot? And how did this manager come to this conclusion? Were you wearing a sandwich board saying something un-PC? I know that the UK is a surveillance society (not sure you live there)

    And if they cancelled your accounts, what did they do? Did they write you a check, or give it to you in cash?

    I presume that this was some large bank, like Barclays. Do you not have small banks where you live? We have the mega banks in the US, but we also have a plethora of small, local banks and other similar institution, like Credit Unions. In other words, there are options here. But if there are only 3-4 megabanks in the country, I could see this being a problem.

  65. Frank K says:

    Acquiring new bankers is not the easiest of things

    Just to clarify, are you saying that if you had a cheque in hand and walked into a bank to open an account, that it would be a difficult task where you live? In other words, do you need the mark of the beast to bank?

  66. Mike says:

    @gunner, I appreciate the sentiment. I think Dalrock does a weekly expose on marital sin being openly tolerated in the modern church. I’d be curious to know what denomination you are involved with, because all but a few have abandoned the role of enforcing godly behavior and discipline. Sin, especially women’s heterosexual sin, is openly tolerated in the evangelical church.

    Go ahead, let the purging begin! I’d love to see you enforce church discipline on all the remarried couples in the church, for they are living openly in a continuous adulterous relationship, regardless of their marriage license. Let’s audit everyone’s phone for tinder. The problem with church discipline, is that the church is so indistinguishable from the world now, that you will not have a congregation left at the end of it, unless you live in amish america. I know….the red line, the abomination, yadayadayada. What’s an abomination is the lack of any role models in the church for young women.

    1 Corinthians 5:9-13
    “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

    So, I will allow you to pontificate on the differences in scale between premarital sex with multiple partners, divorce and remarriage, gay friendship (hah), and gay sex. I think you’d agree they all should be removed from the church, no? But please, go light on the born again virgins in the young adults group for their fathers’ sake.

    Evangelical churches in southern California are money making vehicles for the leadership. It’s all about growth, growth, growth. I’m simply looking at their salvage value in searching under every rock for a decent woman and am not worried about preserving the rot. I’m sure in the midwest or more traditional denominations it’s better, and of course I’d vote to disallow women and gay people from leadership positions in any congregation.

  67. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    I don’t understand Roens false dichotomy. Isn’t it possible I believe Gods teachings in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin AND feel deep revulsion toward gay sexuality. Essentially, can’t it be both?

    Nick Roen’s task in his article “Homophobia Has No Place in the Church” is to spiritually poz Christian culture. We should all be repulsed by every kind of sin. If anyone has a revulsion to sin that is a blessing.

  68. Opus says:

    @Frank K

    In response to yours of 10.10am it is my view that it was as the French say Cherchez la Femme – in other words we have a strong empowered woman of the Princess and the Pea variety calling on the nearest big man to get into a lets you and him fight over me situation. As I say I was put in fear for my safety and by a short-stocky male half my age – in England there is a joke that the current crop of Bankers are Barrow-Boys and my experience bears that out; and to yours of 10.14am I live in England aka Brexitland (not sure what this UK things might be) and it is indeed difficult for all sorts of reasons to acquire a Bank Account. It is that which I will be drawing to the attention of my M.P. One cannot survive without a Bank Account, there are effectively at best half a dozen banks and thus the Banks have a power way beyond the power of say (should one fall out ) ones Plumber. This cannot be right.

    One of the reasons England achieved greatness and dominated the world (indeed that remains the case of at least of anglo-american domination) is that we avoided civil wars by from the time of the industrial revolution not bringing our religious or political views to the workplace. It is most regrettable that organisations like my former Bankers see fit to override that wise precaution with their anti-family genocidist virtue-signalling where all customers have to walk the gauntlet of being deep-throated with the bank’s visual homosexualist trappings and propaganda merely to reach the teller’s window. I merely asked a question.

  69. Hmm says:

    @Opus:

    Ah, questions! One of the two things the fascist left cannot tolerate. The other is ridicule. Both threaten to pop their bubble of self-important righteousness.

  70. Crude says:

    I used to accept a version of what Piper and Roen talked about re: homophobia. That idea that you had to criticize gay marriage and sodomy for the *right* reasons – have all your philosophical and biblical t’s crossed and i’s dotted immaculately – or else your motivations were wrong and your position hard to defend.

    Then I realized I had been had.

    For one thing: no one ever demands that we scrupulously, with abundant biblical references, justify our giving to charity, helping the poor, being courteous and kind. No one ever says that if you help someone just because it feels nice to then you’re a wicked, poorly motivated person, and what you REALLY need is a plethora of biblical references and some philosophical grounding in Aquinas to even THINK about helping the poor. No one demands this for our inveighing against alcoholism, drug use, etc, etc, etc.

    In fact, those are seen as just-plain-right views to have, admirable acts to engage in when they’re good acts, or proper things to condemn when they’re bad ones.

    It’s only for very specific (and trendy!) sins that we had damn well better have all of our motivations in perfect accord, on pain of our entire motivation being wrong.

    What a horror. Some people may find anal sex to be repulsive *without an exhaustive biblical rationale to back them up*. How wicked. It sure SEEMS like a natural inclination to regard sin as sin, but no, it’s wicked!

    …Yeah, for that and other reasons I finally realized it was all a pantload, cooked up by Christian cowards.

    Or, to put in terms the cowards would understand: if their motivation to be kind and accepting to LGBT people has a thorough biblical and philosophical basis, then and only then it’s justified. If they’re doing it just to ingratiate themselves to secular society, LGBT activists, or the media in general, then they’re wicked sinners and need to repent.

    After all: that is how it works, according to them.

  71. Hazelshade says:

    Crude:

    “For one thing: no one ever demands that we scrupulously, with abundant biblical references, justify our giving to charity, helping the poor, being courteous and kind. No one ever says that if you help someone just because it feels nice to then you’re a wicked, poorly motivated person, and what you REALLY need is a plethora of biblical references and some philosophical grounding in Aquinas to even THINK about helping the poor. No one demands this for our inveighing against alcoholism, drug use, etc, etc, etc.”

    Wow, great point.

  72. BillyS says:

    Mike,

    Go ahead, let the purging begin! I’d love to see you enforce church discipline on all the remarried couples in the church, for they are living openly in a continuous adulterous relationship, regardless of their marriage license.

    Jesus didn’t say the adultery was ongoing and that the man and women should divorce again. He was pointing out that the initial divorce was evil. This is clear from the reaction by the Disciples of not wanting to marry at all, because divorce was not allowed “from the beginning.”

    Should all remarried couples get immediately divorced? What about children of those relationships? Are they doomed to be without both parents because of past mistakes? They will face problems, but forcing their parents to divorce is not consistent with God’s other will and actions. You must take things in their entirety, not just blow up things based on a single incident.

  73. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    One of the reasons England achieved greatness and dominated the world (indeed that remains the case of at least of anglo-american domination) is that we avoided civil wars by from the time of the industrial revolution not bringing our religious or political views to the workplace.

    The influence and pervasiveness of Christianity (with flaws of course) was the reason for their success, not some artificial separation of life. Accepting deviance as normal, especially for the common man, is the downfall of any society, even if it takes many years, as in the case of Rome.

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    @Crude

    It’s only for very specific (and trendy!) sins that we had damn well better have all of our motivations in perfect accord, on pain of our entire motivation being wrong.

    Exactly right. Of course the Nice Patrol of brash church ladies and effeminate men who love outward peace at all costs loves the argument, but it’s also a clever argument against the “Thinking Man’s Christian”. It urges him to be proud in his own thoughtfulness, and to disdain any gratefulness for having been born into a society which rightly and easily shunned sin; which is a grace.

  75. Daniel says:

    Nick Roen and the others writing like him continue to identify themselves as gay Christians or SSA (same sex attracted) Christians. They question the motives of Christians who tell them not to speak this way. But the “distaste” for these monikers is based on the fact that “gay” is a euphemism, designed to remove the shame of homosexual, and “gay pride” is rampant in our culture. They could call themselves “Christians plagued by homosexual temptation” but they will not – that would require humility.

  76. thedeti says:

    @ Lost Patrol:

    “I have to say the Complementarians are effective. The new normal comes on so smoothly and well paced that people will actually defend its errors when confronted, because it is orthodoxy now.”

    Telling gay men they are sinning against God by having sex with other men is difficult. It is portrayed as backward thinking, mean spirited, and the root of evil crimes committed against gay men. That’s why “you’re sinning but we will not condemn you and we will give you leadership positions in our churches” is the way they’re going now.

  77. Damn Crackers says:

    @Mountain Man – Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember it being said that SSA between women was never declared sinful in the OT.

    Also, adultery is included in fornication. Period.

  78. thedeti says:

    Roen:

    Is your belief that same-sex sexual activity is sin based finally on solid biblical exegesis? Or is it really based on the fact that you don’t understand how someone could be attracted to the same sex, and this unknown seems to you just plain creepy?

    Hmmm. Let me think…..

    Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

    2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”

    4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was [a]pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves [b]coverings.
    ___________

    Just sayin’.

  79. Paul says:

    @BillyS: “Jesus didn’t say the adultery was ongoing and that the man and women should divorce again.”

    An often heard, but flawed argument.

    Let me counter this without addressing the underlying Greek:

    If marrying someone else after divorce accounts to adultery, and
    if adultery means having sex with not-your-husband or with not-your-wife, how can adultery magically change into not-adultery? And at what point? The “marriage” did already occur. So what other event beyond that does turn adultery into not-adultery?

    If adultery means having sex with-not-your-spouse, this can only mean that the “marriage” didn’t turn the other into a spouse, but the other is still not-a-spouse.

    So there is no-one to divorce, because there’s no (valid) marriage.

    This is in line with the command (!) in 1 Cor 7
    10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

  80. Paul says:

    @Crude

    You make a good point that we should not be bullied out of responding with biblical arguments against something we perceive as sin.

    “Some people may find anal sex to be repulsive”
    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make her, Anal sex is independent of homo- or heterosexuality.

  81. BillyS says:

    No Paul, your argument is the one that was flawed. Jesus said nothing commanding the new marriage break up. He was answering a specific question (should you divorce), not covering every possible permutation.

    Try again.

  82. Pingback: Best to leave it to the experts. | Dalrock

  83. Crude says:

    Paul,

    What I’m saying is that the complementarians are treating aversion to/repulsion of homosexual lifestyles or inclinations as immoral and condemnation-worthy if they aren’t exhaustively backed by biblical reference and/or intellectual argument. But this standard only pops up with a very select group of sins or moral inclinations. People who are averse to avarice, or cruelty, or gambling, etc, don’t get the third degree about their motivations and how their aversion is actually rather despicable if they don’t advance an exhaustive biblical justification for their acts. It’s simply laudatory. Even if it’s primitive, it’s a good instinct, and regarded as such.

    This is a variation on a gimmick the Catholic Left tends to produce, where in order to criticize LGBT activists, they insist you must prove you are exhaustively and critical of every other sin under the sun, justify your attitude through massive argumentation, biblical and church teaching reference, etc, or else you’re a dirty hypocrite and a bigot.

    Of course, that’s not a standard they ever hold themselves to – ie, the James Martin types who dispense that sort of thing don’t tell themselves that their focus on their favored (often utterly imaginary and political) sin must be met with equal part condemnation of same-sex sexual activity or the like. The whole point is to set themselves up as arbiters of morality, and to also sabotage criticism of sin that they, for whatever reason, favor and want to shield.

    >Anal sex is independent of homo- or heterosexuality.

    So’s PrEP, but there’s a pretty obvious and predictable pattern about what demographics are aware of it and very concerned with it.

  84. NotaBene says:

    @Paul

    I agree, and this is why churches agreeing to re-marry divorced couples is so serious. Because then a new family unit is formed in perpetual adultery, leaving very little chance of reconciliation between the original (still married before God) couple.

    As a product of divorced parents, and my mom on her fifth (sixth?) marriage, I wish churches would take a more biblical stance on this… not grant divorces under any circumstances, not re-marry divorcees, encourage reconciliation, encourage celibacy until the separation is over. It’s the harder path, and the correct one.

  85. Cane Caldo says:

    Sperg 1, what’s your status?

    Thread derailed. Primary objective complete, sir.

    Roger that. Come on home.

    My home is in Indiana.

    Get back to base, Sperg 1.

    Which base sir? We have 172 bases.

    My base.

    No offense sir, but you don’t own that base.

    Sperg 2, take out Sperg 1. Do you copy?

    Copy what sir?

  86. SirHamster says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember it being said that SSA between women was never declared sinful in the OT.

    It’s not explicitly declared sinful, but that does not mean it isn’t.

  87. NotaBene says:

    @Paul (again)

    “Where are these elder women?”

    They’re out there, just not advertising 🙂 My wife mentored for two decades under a wonderful lady who taught all the Timothy stuff, submission, and lots more. I have personally been blessed by her discipleship of my wife.

    This should also be a primary function of the church – encourage apprenticeships like these, hooking up the older with the younger.

  88. SirHamster says:

    If adultery means having sex with-not-your-spouse, this can only mean that the “marriage” didn’t turn the other into a spouse, but the other is still not-a-spouse.

    If it wasn’t possible to create a marriage with a divorced woman, Jesus wouldn’t be talking about how it’s adultery to marry them.

    Trying to un-adulterate a marriage through divorce and re-marriage is like trying to un-scramble an egg. It can’t be done, and the attempts to do so are only going to make a bigger mess.

  89. J says:

    @NotaBene,

    I also live in the Boston area and know the guy you referenced (and have had mixed feelings about his ministry). The word swapping exercise that Anonymous Reader shared was helpful in showing the problem. Once you begin to see the error, it is (thankfully) hard to unsee it.

  90. OKRickety says:

    NotaBene,

    “This should also be a primary function of the church – encourage apprenticeships like these, hooking up the older with the younger.”

    In light of its common usage today, I did a double-take when I saw you encouraging “hooking up”. 🙂

  91. J says:

    It shouldn’t surprise me anymore, but it still is remarkable how quickly the Evangelical church is going off the rails.

    My church has just started embracing “social justice” using Marxist language in a recent sermon series. Going to talk with my pastor, but not expecting a good outcome.

    Talked with a couple younger millennial friends (I’m genx) recently from my previous church and the topic of homosexuality and transgenderism came up. These were guys that I previously thought were solid in their theological understanding. As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that both of these guys were somewhat open to acceptance of transsexuality. #MindBlown

    We need to repent personally and corporately for accepting these cultural (demonic) lies and ask God to heal and restore the church.

  92. I don’t understand how Nick Roen can be by any measure genuinely confused about this subject, or how he can ask such stupid questions of his congregation, when the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, a felony against law of God, and that the punishment is death:

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

    There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Deuteronomy 23:17

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

    Worth noting that Albert Lea, Minnesota is located south of Minneapolis, only a few miles from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and just north of the southern border with Iowa. Population: 20,000. Agriculture, Small, Machinery Manufacturing businesses.
    It’s white bread fred America: 90% white. Median income $32K per year.
    It is a good question to ask Nick Roen why then should gay rights, gay marriage and homosexuality acceptance be front of mind for members of the community.
    They probably have a lot of other more important and worthwhile things to occupy their time, thoughts and endeavors.

    Also interesting how Nick seems to have changed his tune since 2012:
    https://hopeinvisible.weebly.com/about.html

    I’m Nick Roen. I write about issues surrounding faith, sexuality, culture, and other random topics. I subscribe to a traditional sexual ethic that says sex is only appropriate within a one-man, one-woman marriage. I’m trying to figure out how all this works together to the glory of God.

  93. Dalrock says:

    @Constrainedlocus

    Also interesting how Nick seems to have changed his tune since 2012

    I’m Nick Roen. I write about issues surrounding faith, sexuality, culture, and other random topics. I subscribe to a traditional sexual ethic that says sex is only appropriate within a one-man, one-woman marriage. I’m trying to figure out how all this works together to the glory of God.

    He hasn’t. He thinks God wants him to have a gay life partner that he lives with and announces to the church. But he thinks it would be a sin if he and his live in life partner were to have sex.

  94. Paul says:

    @BillyS : ” Jesus said nothing commanding the new marriage break up”

    And you’re wrong that Jesus said nothing about the “new marriage break up”.
    In my argument I clearly indicated that Jesus talking about “the new marriage” as adultery, shows it is NOT recognized as a valid marriage, but as adultery and THEREFORE should be ended implicitly (you cannot continue living in adultery). So that’s saying two very important points!

    You did not counter my argument. If you think my argument is flawed, why don’t you respond to the question in my argument? That should be easy for you if I’m wrong, shouldn’t it?

  95. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : “If it wasn’t possible to create a marriage with a divorced woman, Jesus wouldn’t be talking about how it’s adultery to marry them.

    So tell me, why is it called adultery to have sex with your own spouse?

  96. SirHamster says:

    > So tell me, why is it called adultery to have sex with your own spouse?

    Because you adulterated her marriage with her ex-husband. Divorcing her and sending her back doesn’t undo the adulteration.

  97. OKRickety says:

    Paul,

    Out of curiosity (I’m not going to argue about it), how do you reconcile 1 Cor. 7:12-16 (Paul allows the unbelieving spouse to leave, that is, divorce) with your (Roman Catholic, I believe) no-divorce views? Is the believing spouse allowed to remarry?

  98. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : “Because you adulterated her marriage with her ex-husband. ”

    The text doesn’t use the verb ‘adulterated’. It specifically uses the term adultery. Which is having sex with a non-spouse. How can it be called adultery if you already divorced your spouse before marrying the next?

  99. Paul says:

    @OKRickety: “how do you reconcile 1 Cor. 7:12-16 (Paul allows the unbelieving spouse to leave, that is, divorce) with your [..] no-divorce views?”

    I just hold to 1 Cor 7:10-11: do not divorce, if it has happened, stay alone or reconcile.

    In this case, if the unbelieving spouse leaves: stay alone or reconcile (which is not likely going to happen unless that spouse becomes a believer and repents).

  100. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Paul said: December 2, 2018 at 11:44 am
    @JR : “Eve technically did not sin by eating of the fruit”
    1 Tim 2:14 “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”
    You come across as quite bluepill…

    JR types:
    1- Eve was the one deceived, and it is still the case women are more easily deceived. “I have seen one wise man in a thousand, but not yet a wise woman.” (summary of Ecc 7:23-29). I have never read or heard a deep and true theological exegesis by any woman. There are exceptions, such as one of David’s wives and a wise woman at the time of judges; but women are about as capable of understanding Scripture as mathematics for the same reason: both are very precise.
    2- Eve became a sinner for the same reason all became sinners (including the Earth itself). Nowhere does Scripture say that God commanded the woman not to eat of it, nor to obey her husband until after the fall. The 1 Tim passage you cite makes it clear that Adam sinned in direct disobedience whereas Eve fell into it. Clearly Eve knew this was not right, but in typical female fashion, nothing is clear about the story as there is no legitimate command written about her. This is why I wrote that technically, she did not sin by eating of it. What is not written, is not law. It is not written that she was commanded by God to not eat, nor to obey her husband until after the fall. However, all women are now born as totally depraved as all but one man, the Christ. The point of this is that all sin is because of Adam, not Eve. Therefore it was only a second Adam, truly man biologically descended but with no earthly father that could save us.
    3- As to me being blue pilled, I don’t care what worldly category you fancy me in. I think all women should cover their heads in Church, that no woman ought ever be an elder or pastor (and questionable if deacon, very questionable), and my own wife of 37 years obeys me, as I expect all wives ought obey their husbands in anything that does not DIRECTLY contradict Scripture. If that is blue pilled, so be it.

    I may not answer often, as the sole income, I get busy.

  101. SirHamster says:

    The text doesn’t use the verb ‘adulterated’.

    So?

    It specifically uses the term adultery. Which is having sex with a non-spouse. How can it be called adultery if you already divorced your spouse before marrying the next?

    Because Jesus, Word of God become flesh, said this is so.

    “And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”” (Mark 10)

    The pattern that we can identify here is that the second marriage is adultery. Why? One hint is that God tells us plainly that He hates divorce.

  102. Derek Ramsey says:

    “Dr. John Piper was one of the two primary leaders in creating the complementarian movement.”

    The writings of Tertullian (160-220 AD) highlight that there was an ongoing debate between those who agreed with what is now more traditional teaching and those who thought that Paul was being misrepresented with regards to the role of women. In particular Tertullian used 1 Corinthians 14:32-33 to differentiate the sects. Christians at the time differed on these issues, much as they do so today.

  103. Karl says:

    “He thinks God wants him to have a gay life partner that he lives with and announces to the church. But he thinks it would be a sin if he and his live in life partner were to have sex.”

    Then he defeats his own argument as soon as he utters it. If it’s truly a non-sexual relationship that he wants, he could just as well have a deep and abiding lifelong friendship with a straight man. The fact that he wants it to be specifically another gay man, and also to live with him, shows that it’s a sexual relationship that he wants.

  104. Paul says:

    @SirHamster: “Because Jesus, Word of God become flesh, said this is so. ”

    So, why is it called ADULTERY, not just ‘sin’? Adultery means having sex with not-your-spouse.
    Does this not mean that Jesus considers people who divorced, then married again, as technically not being married at all?

    “The pattern that we can identify here is that the second marriage is adultery.”
    Is the marriage act adultery, or are these people continuously living in adultery?

  105. Paul says:

    @JR : “Nowhere does Scripture say that God commanded the woman not to eat of it, nor to obey her husband until after the fall.”

    “What is not written, is not law. It is not written that she was commanded by God to not eat, nor to obey her husband until after the fall.”

    Gen 2:2,3 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

    The latter part “neither touch it” is a fabrication, either by Adam or Eve. From this we can clearly see that Eve was instructed to not eat from the tree, most likely by Adam. She therefore also understood she was to follow the instructions of her husband.

    And I’m not sure I understand your point on “not obey her husband until after the fall”.
    Adam had authority over Eve already before the fall. That’s why Adam names Eve, just as he named the animals. That is why Eve is positioned as a new helper, just as one of the animals would have been a potential helper.

    “The point of this is that all sin is because of Adam, not Eve.”

    Well technically, no. All descendants of Adam sin ‘in Him’, and Romans tells us that sin entered the world because of the sin of Adam, but still Eve did sin NOT because of Adam, but because she listened to the serpent and was deceived. The apostle Paul uses that as argument that NO women should become teachers, clearly seeing Eve as representing all women.

    The interesting part is that although Eve sinned first, sin did NOT enter the world until after Adam ate. This seems similar to later law that dictated that if a woman made a vow, her man could undo that vow by declaring so. Her vow would be valid if he would not object to it.

  106. info says:

    Here is the image with the Drag Queen demon reading to small children:

  107. Paul says:

    @info: “Drag Queen demon”

    Revolting!

  108. info says:

    @Paul

    Exactly. This is what sodomites wanting to indoctrinate small children looks like. Its predatory.

  109. info says:

    The satanic motivation is clearly evident.

  110. JRob says:

    A stand out among many of the incidents in TRP journey for me.

    I’d left a men’s study which included a John Piper video series. I scratched my head, couldn’t put my finger on it but knew something wasn’t right. It was like the guy used “talk around” and secret code to not really say anything or commit to one opinion or the other. This was at the height of Driscoll’s rock stardom. We as a group figured out he was a charlatan. Piper’s whole hearted endorsement of Driscoll and the weirdness of his video study (thankfully) started a discussion that particular night with a friend of mine. We figured out the recent silliness and slag whispering from our church leadership must somehow have been influenced by Piper. Keep in mind we were both going through frivorces and were the deepest shade of blue-pilled blue.

    His wife of 10 years left him for a woman. She was accusing him of child abuse and any other crime she could come up with. The usual script. Meanwhile she was living with a swinging couple she found on the Internetz, riding the carousel with abandon, and reminding him of it. Then she’d say she was saved no matter what.

    No shit, the GenX pastor told him, “She is saved. This is part of her sanctification process.” I was there for that one, I said, “So, does my sanctification include strip bars and keggers? If this is the case, why are any of us even here? Why did you bother to go to seminary?” Righteous living and holiness were sacrificed on the Altar of the V Jay Jay even then.

    All was already lost 15 years ago.

  111. Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: Tim and Kathy Keller. | Dalrock

  112. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Were does writings of Tertulian (AKA “Tertulian the heretic”) after he became a Marcionite and professed that Christ had returned in Phrygia along with 2 women disciples? Prior to his defecting from Christianity to follow Marcion, a self-proclaimed second coming of Christ, he wrote some very good things. Like Martin Luther prior to the peasant revolt wrote many good things, and in his old age had Baptists killed and recommended the same for all Jews.
    Let us get back to Scripture and not what so called great men have written.

  113. SirHamster says:

    So, why is it called ADULTERY, not just ‘sin’? Adultery means having sex with not-your-spouse.

    Adultery is called adultery because it involves adulterating the promise of faithfulness with unfaithfulness. It is primarily used of marriage, but actually applies to all idolatry and anything pure becoming impure.

    Does this not mean that Jesus considers people who divorced, then married again, as technically not being married at all?

    It does not follow that when Jesus calls it adultery, the choice of a man to marry a new woman will fail to create a marriage.

    When you bring up “technically not being married”, even you acknowledge that it is a marriage.

    Your little semantic game is to call an actual marriage “technically not a marriage”, which justifies destroying it through divorce in pursuit of the older marriage. But the underlying reality is that there is a marriage involved, and “God hates divorce” includes hating divorce of a foolish, adulterous marriage.

    Repenting of the unfaithfulness of one divorce does not involve multiplying divorce through a 2nd or 3rd or 4th divorce. Rather, it requires acknowledgment that despite our “technically following the rules”, we have sinned and fallen short of what God desires, and need to look to Jesus as the author and perfecter of our faith. The children of God practice perfect obedience, not technical obedience.

    Is the marriage act adultery, or are these people continuously living in adultery?

    The divorce of the first marriage is adultery, and the people who remarried have become adulterers. Additional divorce does not undo adultery and create purity. Additional divorce will instead create additional adultery because more promises of lifelong care and affection are broken.

  114. thedeti says:

    adultery: Contaminating a thing by putting another thing that isn’t supposed to be there, into that first thing.

    This is why they call something that is pure and unblemished “unadulterated” – because it’s pure. Nothing foreign to that thing has been introduced into it.

    Sex between a married person and someone not that person’s spouse is called adultery for this very reason. The married man puts a woman not his wife into his heart or onto/next to his body. She’s not supposed to be there. The married woman puts a penis not belonging to her husband into her body. That man and that penis isn’t supposed to be there. The married man has allowed another woman to contaminate him. The woman who had sex with him contaminated him, adulterated him. The married woman has allowed another man to contaminate him. The man who had sex with her contaminated and adulterated her.

    And married people, men or women, can pick up STDs that way. You’ve introduced an organism, a virus or bacteria, that isn’t supposed to be there. And it wouldn’t be there if you had not rubbed your genitalia against the genitalia of a person who isn’t your spouse. If spouses have sex only with each other, there is a 100% chance that they will not contract any STDs.

  115. Gunner Q says:

    Mike @ December 2, 2018 at 11:05 pm:
    “@gunner, I appreciate the sentiment. I think Dalrock does a weekly expose on marital sin being openly tolerated in the modern church. I’d be curious to know what denomination you are involved with, because all but a few have abandoned the role of enforcing godly behavior and discipline. Sin, especially women’s heterosexual sin, is openly tolerated in the evangelical church.”

    Ah, okay. You don’t have the failings I’d thought. Living in Commiefornia, I encounter lots of people who think sodomy is merely unpleasant behavior, a venial sin or whatever.

    I don’t attend church, having tried just about every Prot denomination and found them dead. The sea change in my attitude was when Sacramento legislated shared bathrooms and teaching homosexual behavior to public schoolkids and the entire Church said nothing. Every single one turned a blind eye.

    You might be interested in my blog, gunnerq.com. Having nothing better to do, I make a point of exposing evil, evildoers and the generally foolish. It’s how Christ treated the Pharisees and technically, I’m still meeting with fellow believers. Just in cyberspace.

  116. Paul says:

    @SH: “The divorce of the first marriage is adultery, and the people who remarried have become adulterers. ”

    So if according to you the divorce is the actual ‘adultery’, then remarrying makes absolutely no difference at all, and it makes no sense to even mention it. But that is not what Jesus said; he said that marrying a divorced person is adultery.

    “When you bring up “technically not being married”, even you acknowledge that it is a marriage.”

    I acknowledge that there were ceremonies involved, promises made before the state and possibly the church, and it was called ‘marriage’. But as I have asked you before, if it is marriage, then having sex with your new spouse is NOT adultery.

    However, Jesus calls it adultery. Therefore I interpret that as ‘technically not being married’

    “But the underlying reality is that there is a marriage involved, and “God hates divorce” ”

    And here we disagree; if there’s no real marriage involved, then no real divorce is needed either.
    Furthermore, even though God hates (real) divorce (which happened the first time just before somebody remarries), he commanded the Israelites (see Ezra 10), to end their illegitimate marriages by ‘divorce’.

    ” Additional divorce does not undo adultery and create purity. ”

    No, stop having sex with not-your-spouse stops adultery. Repentance and receiving forgiveness creates purity.

    The problem with your interpretation (calling the divorce ‘adultery’), is that it is not supported by the text.

    Furthermore, 1 Cor 7:10-11 clearly shows remarriage after divorce is forbidden, while divorce itself is to a certain extent tolerated.

  117. Paul says:

    @SH “The divorce of the first marriage is adultery, and the people who remarried have become adulterers.”

    Luke 16:18b “the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Suppose the man who marries the divorced woman was never married before.
    Clearly this man was not involved in the first divorce.
    According to you, it is the divorce that is the adultery.
    In this case, the WOMAN committed adultery according to you by being divorced/divorcing her first husband.

    If the subsequent marriage has NOTHING to do with adultery, and the man has really married this previously divorced wife, and remarriage is fully allowed, then having sex with his wife is perfectly allowed, even recommended.

    Yet Scripture says that the MAN commits adultery, that is, is having sex with not-his-wife.
    The Greek verb used is in the Present Indicative Active, so it is NOT an activity that occurred in the past. It strongly suggests an ongoing activity.

    Therefore, to suggest it is the divorce that is called adultery, is not supported by the text.

  118. Paul says:

    @SH : “The divorce of the first marriage is adultery, and the people who remarried have become adulterers. Additional divorce does not undo adultery and create purity. ”

    So what DOES undo the adultery and creates the purity?

  119. OKRickety says:

    Paul, et al,

    Finding your conversation obfuscated by the minimal differentiation between quotations and responses, I suggest the use of blockquotes or, at least, italics in your comments. You can do this as follows:

    Quoting blocks of text: <blockquote>”Quoted text”</blockquote>    results in:   

    “Quoted text”

    To display text in italics: <i>”Test text”</i> results in    “Test text”

    Note: The site http://htmledit.squarefree.com/ allows you to verify the formatting of your comments before submitting them.

  120. Pingback: The guard in the tower shouts “Lower the drawbridge and unbolt the door!” | Dalrock

  121. Dalrock says:

    Good find OKRickety. I’ll add it to the post on html formatting.

  122. Paul says:

    @OKR

    Thanks! Didn’t know that

  123. SirHamster says:

    So if according to you the divorce is the actual ‘adultery’, then remarrying makes absolutely no difference at all, and it makes no sense to even mention it. But that is not what Jesus said; he said that marrying a divorced person is adultery.

    The reason it made sense to mention it is because that was what the law allowed and Jesus is revealing the difference between legal righteousness and God’s perfection. Legal adultery is sex not with your spouse, so by legally divorcing and legally remarrying one is not committing legal adultery.

    When Jesus calls that legal arrangement adultery, he is revealing that God’s standard is higher than the Mosaic Law the Jews practiced. Divorcing your wife and legally remarrying is adulterating God’s intention for marriage. It is not legal adultery, but it is adultery in God’s eyes, which is of great importance. “You think this is fine. It’s actually adultery.”

    However, Jesus calls it adultery. Therefore I interpret that as ‘technically not being married’

    Jesus is talking about a man who has remarried. He doesn’t challenge the ability of the man to marry. His entire instruction depends upon the fact that the community views this as a legitimate marriage according to Mosaic Law.

    And here we disagree; if there’s no real marriage involved, then no real divorce is needed either.

    Jesus is not designating a special category of fake marriages that have no obligations. Every marriage involves public promises to individuals that are witnessed in public. Those promises were accepted and are binding.

    Furthermore, even though God hates (real) divorce (which happened the first time just before somebody remarries), he commanded the Israelites (see Ezra 10), to end their illegitimate marriages by ‘divorce’.

    That did happen, and is relevant to the topic. But we are Christ followers and have Jesus’s words and NT instructions to work from, which provide a superior framework to please God.

    Does a Christian need to put away a strange wife? Paul provided explicit instructions for unbelieving spouses.

    The problem with your interpretation (calling the divorce ‘adultery’), is that it is not supported by the text.

    Have you not studied Jesus’s words? Is divorce separation of husband and wife?

    “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    I am not speaking from a singular reference, but of the biblical view of marriage from beginning to end.

    So what DOES undo the adultery and creates the purity?

    There is no undoing sin. But forgiveness can be found with confession and seeking God’s mercy through the blood of Jesus, appealing to God’s faithful promise to forgive.

    If a foolish man has created contradictory promises of life-long faithfulness to multiple women, he has put himself in a tough spot. He should seek guidance from a Christian elder, but he will not do wrong to keep those promises to the best of his ability.

    When God tells you He hates something, encouraging anyone to do more of that something should give you pause.

  124. Pingback: Spiritual Darkness & Sacrificing Our Children Part II | All Things Bright and Beautiful

  125. Paul says:

    @SH

    Legal adultery is sex not with your spouse, so by legally divorcing and legally remarrying one is not committing legal adultery.

    [..]

    Divorcing your wife and legally remarrying is adulterating God’s intention for marriage. It is not legal adultery, but it is adultery in God’s eyes, which is of great importance. “You think this is fine. It’s actually adultery.”

    You make a distinction between legal adultery, actual adultery, and adulterating God’s intention for marriage, whereas the text just uses the term ‘adultery’. You state that ‘actual adultery’ is not in fact ‘legal adultery’ as in ‘having-sex-with-not-your-spouse’, but as in ‘adultering God’s intention for marriage’

    Well, the text says otherwise
    Mt 19:9
    Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

    It uses twice μοιχᾶται moichatai
    Thayer’s defines it as:

    μοιχάω, μοίχω: to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with: τινα. in Biblical Greek middle μοιχωμαι, to commit adultery: of the man, Matthew 5:32b (yet WH brackets); (yet not WH marginal reading), 9b (R G L Tr brackets WH marginal reading); ἐπ’ αὐτήν, commits the sin of adultery against her (i. e., that has been put away), Mark 10:11; of the Woman, Matthew 5:32a (where L T Tr WH μοιχευθῆναι for μοιχᾶσθαι); Mark 10:12. (the Sept. for נָאַף, Jeremiah 3:8; Jeremiah 5:7; Jeremiah 9:2, etc.; in Greek writers, figuratively in the active, with τήν θάλασσαν, to usurp unlawful control over the sea, Xenophon, Hell. 1, 6, 15; τό λεχθεν, to falsify, corrupt, Aelian n. a. 7, 39.)

    Which is exactly the definition of what you call ‘legal adultery’. It does not show the interpretation ‘adulterating God’s intention for marriage’.

  126. SirHamster says:

    You make a distinction between legal adultery, actual adultery, and adulterating God’s intention for marriage, whereas the text just uses the term ‘adultery’. You state that ‘actual adultery’ is not in fact ‘legal adultery’ as in ‘having-sex-with-not-your-spouse’, but as in ‘adultering God’s intention for marriage’

    The distinction is made for your benefit, since you are having trouble interpreting the text correctly. You are missing the context and those modifiers are used to make the context explicit.

    Your interpretation is incorrect. Using an example of adultery to define marriage is backwards. That is the same mistake the Pharisees made – they started with what the Mosaic Law allowed and worked backwards to figure out what was acceptable.

    Jesus points out that God defined marriage, and that the legally allowed practice of divorce and remarriage was adultery of God’s definition and intention.

    Which is exactly the definition of what you call ‘legal adultery’. It does not show the interpretation ‘adulterating God’s intention for marriage’.

    You will not find an interpretation of teaching inside a dictionary. A commentary is a better choice, but those would agree more with me than with your novel and wrong take.

    My interpretation does not contradict the text. Rather, you are failing to follow the connection I offered. The absence of that connection in your choice of reference does not disprove the connection.

    The problem with your interpretation (calling the divorce ‘adultery’), is that it is not supported by the text.

    Have you not studied Jesus’s words? Is divorce separation of husband and wife?

    “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    You have not addressed this point. Is the quote I offered in the Bible? Does it support my interpretation or not?

  127. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    God divorces for adultery, all NASB:
    Jeremiah 3: 8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. Also in Jer 31:32b My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says Yahweh.

    Nowhere in Scripture is remarriage after divorce for just cause prohibited. When God says He hates divorce, it is the cause of the divorce that is at issue: dealing treachously with the wife of one’s youth: Malachi 2: 13 “This is [r]another thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the [s]offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 [t]But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And [u]what did that one do while he was seeking a godly [v]offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 For [w]I hate [x]divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and [y]him who covers his garment with [z]wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”
    Notice she is “the wife of your covenant” and that covenant is broken by adultery.

    The party who remained faithful to that covenant is free to remarry. What seems they are NOT free to do is take back an adulteress AFTER she has been another man’s wife. Translated to MRA modern language, God is against cuckoldery. If the wife has been unfaithful and after divorce realizes she walked away from a “good” husband ; then she is NOT to be allowed a return. I would think the reverse is also true of an unfaithful man. Please note truly, only God and those in Heaven are good, but by “good” I mean technically faithful to the vows, fleeting thoughts aside.

    Now for the interesting part, that in which I partially agree with men like Wilson who expect men to bear the entire responsibility.
    God will remarry Israel, see Revelations and the many prophetic predictions of a day when Israel will again be joined to perfect faithfulness to God. For this to be possible though, one of the parties to the covenant has to die, since the breaking of a covenant demands a blood sacrifice from one of the parties (just as to enter the marriage covenant, one party has to seal the deal with a bit of blood, marriage is a blood oath). For this explanation I refer to http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Hosea_1.2.php In essence, when Christ died for the Church, the unfaithfulness of the past mosaic covenant ended, because death ends marriage (contra mormon or romantic nonsense). It is even deeper, because BOTH parties must die to remarry, for not only Christ died and was resurrected, but we individually must die and be reborn to become His bride. This mystery is deep, much more than the link I provided.

    Where Wilson and those that oppose remarriage for those justly divorced go wrong is in demanding responsibility for the “innocent” party. Again, by “innocent” I mean technically innocent, as in not having actually committed adultery (an examination of Christ’s words in the Beatitudes about masturbation is beyond this current discussion: from the eye to cutting off your right hand seems obvious enough to me). Note though Christ is quite clear “except for adultery” when He condemns divorce. Wilson would have the man stay for the adulteress? Actually, the man should die. Sure, just hang yourself with a note “I did it for you.” for the adulterous party to find when they come back from a party, right Wilson? No, Christ DIED for the Church, He did not continue to live in an adulterous marriage as noted in my opening passage. Those that oppose remarriage for the “guiltless” also would place the burden of sin upon the one that was faithful. Both are wrong. If a person chooses to divorce because of adultery, that person is FREE, except not to remarry the adulterous party again; except they both die.

    A divorce ends marriage as totally as death, because it IS death (death = separation everywhere in Scripture). The “innocent” party is not to ever retake the adulterous person back; contra so many Christian books. However, there is no injunction against marriage to someone else, as long as it is in the lord. This is implied in I cor 7: 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” Notice not under bondage, as in free. Granted, that is a weak argument for freedom to remarriage, but where is the condemnation to remarry for the victim of adultery?

    In summary:
    1- God is not against divorce for adultery, as He did it.
    2- God is against remarriage (that is God does not like cucks, Laodicea).
    3- Do not lay the consequences of sin upon the innocent. If the innocent voluntarily takes that burden, they must die, as Christ did.

    Death to willing cucks I say, yet I have been called blue pilled by a little person (look up what Paul means, as in “I am the least of the Apostles” play on words.

    I so wish I had the time for a proper exegesis.

  128. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Correction, I did not mean to imply Wilson forbids remarriage. Only that his viewpoint of “innocent” men bearing the responsibility for adultery violates the same principle that those who oppose remarriage do: to punish the innocent without the consent of the innocent. Christ, though innocent, volunteered. He did so in part for His own glorification, and not just because He loved us. That, the selfish motives of Christ in going to the cross, is another subject.

  129. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    ARRG, correcttion #2
    2- God is against remarriage to the adulterous party.

  130. Paul says:

    @SH A commentary is a better choice, but those would agree more with me than with your novel and wrong take.

    As a first reaction; you might think I have a novel and wrong take, but for the first 1500 years until Erasmus introduced the variant reading in Mt 19:9 in his “Textus Receptus”, and the subsequent ridiculous interpretation of Luther, the church was almost universal in its condemnation of remarriage after divorce.

  131. Paul says:

    @JRT Nowhere in Scripture is remarriage after divorce for just cause prohibited.

    First of all, nowhere in Scipture is any just cause for divorce explicitly mentioned. Any claim for such a just cause depends on quite some extensive handwaving around Mt 19:9.

    Second, adultery is prohibited extensively, and remarriage after divorce is called adultery, therefore remarriage after divorce is prohibited. No exceptions are mentioned, outside the mentioned handwaving around Mt 19:9.

    Third, remarriage is explicitly forbidden after divorce by Jesus in 1 Cor 7
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    After a divorce, remain unmarried, or be reconciled to your spouse.

    Erasmus, and then Luther were the first in the western church to come up with the whole “the unguilty party can remarry after divorce”. The reasoning for that is quite ridiculous actually. And what most commentators conveniently leave out, is that Luther thought it was OK to divorce your wife is she refused to have sex with you.

    “The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; [..] For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another.

  132. Paul says:

    … interestingly enough, Luther shows in his reasoning, that he acknowledges that only death ends a marriage (“the civil government must [..] put her to death”, “the husband must reason that his wife has been [,,] slain”). The ridiculousness is of course that the wife is still alive.

  133. “Porneia” is, I believe, Greek for prostitution or prostitute (and the root for both Pornography and Fornication).

  134. SirHamster says:

    As a first reaction; you might think I have a novel and wrong take, but for the first 1500 years until Erasmus introduced the variant reading in Mt 19:9 in his “Textus Receptus”, and the subsequent ridiculous interpretation of Luther, the church was almost universal in its condemnation of remarriage after divorce.

    I don’t have any issue with the condemnation of remarriage after divorce.

    I take issue with the claim of that those marriages don’t count as marriages on technical grounds. I take issue with the idea that you should break apart those “adulterous marriages” and that it doesn’t count as divorce because technicality. That is Pharisaic and burdensome.

    There are 2nd+ marriages where men have rebuilt their life and family after a frivorce – and you are saying that they should break that apart because it’s not a real marriage.

    Marriage is made for man. Death releases man and woman from marriage obligations. Saints in heaven are like the angels, not given in marriage. So we should not make pursuit of perfect marriage grounds for destroying imperfect ones. That would deprive their members the security and support that even an imperfect marriage provides.

  135. OKRickety says:

    J. J. Griffing,

    ‘“Porneia” is, I believe, Greek for prostitution or prostitute (and the root for both Pornography and Fornication).’

    Wrong. As Paul  points out, porne  is the Greek word for prostitute.

    Strong’s porneia shows porneia  as “illicit sexual intercourse”, more specifically, “adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals”.

    No doubt, these Greek words have some earlier relationship, but, alas, for those who wish to consider use of pornography to be a valid reason for divorce, pornography is not included in porneia.

  136. BillyS says:

    SirHamster,

    Marriage is made for man.

    That is the exact point I have been trying to make here for some time. Remarrying might not be good, but it is not banned forever.

    Note that the Scriptures Paul uses above don’t say a thing about what is required of the wronged man. Nor do they directly address what the woman should do if she was disobedient and left and then remarried.

    This is not a new teaching though. The error of breaking up all future marriages was an undertheme in the 1980s when I noticed it. I have no idea when it started, but I would bet it came strongly along with the ease of “no fault” divorce.

    Divorce is a horrid evil, but the answer to that is not to promote more evil anymore than it was to condemn the disciples for picking grains on the Sabbath. Too many modern day Pharisees ignore the true purpose of the commands.

  137. Paul says:

    @BillyS Too many modern day Pharisees ignore the true purpose of the commands.

    How ironic, given the fact that Jesus was preaching against remarriage after divorce, calling it adultery, while the Pharisees where for remarriage after divorce.

  138. info says:

    @Paul

    The importance of being able to discern rules made by men and that which is of God. And that is in accord with the spirit of the Divine Law (Matthew 5:20-44).

    The Legalism of the Pharisees leave room for sin yet classifies as sin that which is not sin.

    Hence Jesus thereby ends up a Glutton a Drunkard,Sorcerer and Blasphemer in their Eyes even as he is perfect in all his ways.

  139. Pingback: Spiritual Darkness & Sacrificing Our Children Part III | All Things Bright and Beautiful

  140. Pingback: Perversion is love, and love wins. | Dalrock

  141. SirHamster says:

    > Divorce is a horrid evil, but the answer to that is not to promote more evil anymore than it was to condemn the disciples for picking grains on the Sabbath. Too many modern day Pharisees ignore the true purpose of the commands.

    Agreed. Anyone who claims authority to interpret Scripture must use compassion when instructing others in application. God wants us to act justly but love mercy.

    > How ironic, given the fact that Jesus was preaching against remarriage after divorce, calling it adultery, while the Pharisees where for remarriage after divorce.

    The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteously legal. It is not righteous, it is adultery.

    That does not give an obvious solution to a second marriage where two divorced people have joined, raised children, and intertwined their lives. This is unfortunately common today.

    Is it better to have not divorced? Yes. Is it better to not divorce? Yes. Have they screwed up?
    Yes. Does that mean the correct action is to divorce a legally and socially recognized marriage and break the promises made? You say it doesn’t count as marriage, that it is automatically null.

    That doesn’t sound right. What if they have children? What if it’s a 20 year old re-marriage? It’s one thing to say they have made wrong decisions. It’s another thing to demand they unravel their lives.

    Show mercy.

  142. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : Yes. Does that mean the correct action is to divorce a legally and socially recognized marriage and break the promises made? You say it doesn’t count as marriage, that it is automatically null.

    I would like to think otherwise, but yes, that is my conclusion after years (no, really) of study.

    The crux of the matter (and if I have a bit more time, I will respond more extensively on the issue) is what the meaning of ‘adultery’ is in calling a person marrying a divorced person ‘to commit adultery’. The Greek shows it just means literal adultery.

    If it truly is the same as adultery, then it really means some people are having sex outside the bounds of a ‘real’ marriage. First thing is that that should stop. You cannot keep continuing committing adultery, i.e. having sex outside the bounds of a ‘real’ marriage. God will judge (unrepentant) adulterers, they will not inherit the kingdom. And if it is not a ‘real’ marriage, then the divorce should not be a spiritual stumbling block. And as I’ve indicated, the text in Ezra shows at least divorces in case of illegal marriages (those were socially real marriages, even with children!) were commanded by God.

    You argue against that position, but you have still to provide proof your interpretation (adultery does not mean literal adultery) is consistent with the Greek, as well as is exegetically sound. You would allow people to continue to live in a marriage that Jesus labels as ‘adultery’.
    Would you similarly allow people to continue in literal adultery? If not, then you can at least understand my point.

  143. Paul says:

    By the way, did you know why Luther also allowed remarriage for the guilty party?

    Luther knew that according to his interpretation, only the innocent party was allowed to remarry without it being a sin (again, according to Luther). However, he was convinced the guilty party already committed a deadly sin which caused them to “lose” their salvation, so they were damned anyways, so the added sin (!) (again, according to Luther) of remarriage after divorce didn’t make things so much worse for them in the afterlife, they were going to hell anyways.

    As I already mentioned, Luther had a ridiculous interpretation of remarriage after divorce.

  144. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteously legal. It is not righteous, it is adultery.

    I don’t like the way you play with words, it comes across as trying to shift meaning.

    Which of the following are you actually stating?

    A, The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteously legal. It is not righteously legal, it is adultery.
    B, The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as legal. It is not legal, it is adultery.
    C. The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteous. It is not righteous, it is adultery.

    If A: what do you mean with ‘righteously legal’?
    If B: if it is not legal, why do you still allow remarriage after divorce?
    if C: if it is not righteous, why do you still allow remarriage after divorce?

  145. BillyS says:

    Jesus was not addressing remarriage, so pulling huge doctrines on that out of what He said is a big error. He was dealing with divorce. The two have some connection, but I fail to find it consistent with the rest of the Scriptures that tearing a later marriage apart and permanently damaging any children involved is consistent with God’s heart and requirements.

    Quit being a legalist Paul.

  146. SirHamster says:

    I would like to think otherwise, but yes, that is my conclusion after years (no, really) of study.

    Good on you to think long on the topic, but that doesn’t lessen the impact on a family that has through terrible prior choices ended up in a long term 2nd marriage with children.

    Who gets and raises the children after you declare the marriage between their parents annulled?

    @SirHamster : The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteously legal. It is not righteous, it is adultery.

    I don’t like the way you play with words, it comes across as trying to shift meaning.

    Which of the following are you actually stating?

    A, The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteously legal. It is not righteously legal, it is adultery.
    B, The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as legal. It is not legal, it is adultery.
    C. The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as righteous. It is not righteous, it is adultery.

    The Pharisees portrayed remarriage after divorce as legal, and righteous. It is not righteous, it is adultery. It was legal, allowed by Moses’s law because their hearts were hard.

    Closest to C.

    If A: what do you mean with ‘righteously legal’?
    If B: if it is not legal, why do you still allow remarriage after divorce?
    if C: if it is not righteous, why do you still allow remarriage after divorce?

    Answering your followup question for C: I am not the one allowing it. I am operating within a society where remarriage after divorce is legal and commonly practiced.

    Within that context, I am resistant to any line of thought that can be described as Pharisaic.

    “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

    One cannot reach righteousness through legality. What the law allows is not the same as what is righteous.

  147. Paul says:

    @BillyS : Quit being a legalist Paul.

    It’s always remarkable to see that if you try to interpret the bible faithfully, and come to conclusions that indicate the bible forbids some behavior that some feel the need to call you a Pharisee or a legalist for sharing that conclusion.

    It’s especially remarkable in this case where it were exactly the Pharisees that were being legalist by using the Mosaic law to defend remarriage after divorce, whereas I side with Jesus against divorce and remarriage.

  148. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : that doesn’t lessen the impact on a family that has through terrible prior choices ended up in a long term 2nd marriage with children.

    I fully agree with that. However, I do not want to discuss pastoral advice, before we actually truly understand what the text is saying. It doesn’t help anyone to avoid telling the truth.

    Who gets and raises the children after you declare the marriage between their parents annulled?

    … therefore I will only respond to a single pastoral concern. In this case care for the children. Stopping adultery means stop having sex. It doesn’t mean stop caring for the children, nor does it mean to stop caring for your “wife”. Those are separate things. I don’t advocate to send them away to be on their own.

    I would like to add, that I find it usually the case that such pastoral cases are constructed as emotional appeal to make a point. What usually is lacking is a similar emotional appeal to “the other side of the story”.

    What about all those poor men that get frivorced by their wives, get their money stolen, while their wives run off with their new lovers, who they have adulterous sex with, and even breed new children, while their own children are stolen, and they are not given access to?

    Who complain about it in their churches, but their pastors refuse to chastise their wives, and refuse to condemn these adulterous relationships?

    What about these men who try to remain faithful and not have sex outside marriage, but who believe they are not allowed to remarry, but must stay single, and hence live celibate lives?

    What about these men, that have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, and are waiting on their wives to repent and return to them?

    What do you pastorally say to these men?

  149. Paul says:

    @JR : A divorce ends marriage as totally as death, because it IS death

    That is exactly the ridiculous interpretation of Luther, which I exposed above as being nonsensical. Unfortunately, many mainline protestant churches still hold to this interpretation.

    What they usually conveniently leave out are the more “hard to swallow” parts of Luther’s interpretation.

    I’m not a protestant basher, but I don’t have any problems for calling out error, even it concerns Luther.

  150. Paul says:

    @SirHamster

    When I read through your comments and responses, I think we can agree on a lot of points. I commend you for your care for difficult situations and the emotional pain involved. But I think the crux of the argument still boils down to this point:

    is sex between two people who are married and of which at least one of them is previously divorced, actual adultery?

    the second question would be: how should the church handle these situations?

    For me however it is clear, that actual adultery should not continue, as the NT warns several times that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom. I would not like to gamble someones eternal destination by suggesting it would be fine if such adultery would continue.

    As you’ve made some points I did not respond to yet (as you have also not responded to all my points), I will again focus on the core question as stated above in my following comments.

  151. Paul says:

    @SirHamster : “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” You have not addressed this point.

    You’ve said this in response to my statement that if remarriage after divorce is called adultery, people should not continue in it and should therefore divorce, citing as an example Ezra where God commanded “illegal” marriages to be “broken up” by “divorce.

    I think I therefore have addressed the point, at least implicitly. You could interpret it as: in case of remarriage after divorce, it classifies as a something that God has not joined together. Or you could interpret in the context of Ezra 10, and consider that in that case the evil of divorce is less than the evil of the illegal marriage. Or you could interpret it as the evil of divorce is less than the evil of adultery, of which it is said that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom. The same is not said of divorcees.

    So there you have it, 3 possible interpretations within a framework of interpreting adultery as actual adultery that needs to stop.

  152. Paul says:

    @SirHamster

    Let’s summarize what we arrived at until now.

    You’ve made the following statements
    A. Legal adultery is sex with not-your-spouse
    B. By legally divorcing and legally remarrying one is not committing legal adultery.
    C. (Legal) divorcing your wife and legally remarrying is adulterating God’s intention for marriage.
    D. It is not legal adultery, but it is (actual) adultery in God’s eyes, which is of great importance.
    E. the (legal) divorce of the first marriage is adultery
    F. the legally allowed practice of divorce and remarriage was adultery of God’s definition and intention (of marriage).

    Let’s assume your statements are true. Then any logical conclusion from them cannot result in a contradiction.

    B implies
    G. By legally divorcing one is not committing legal adultery

    D and E implies
    H. the (legal) divorce of the first marriage is actual adultery

    G and H and A implies
    I. actual adultery is not legal adultery

    I implies
    J. actual adultery is not sex with not-your-spouse

    Let’s see how this fits the texts.

    Mt 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery

    You want us to read Mt 19:9 as
    Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, does not commit legal adultery

    and as
    Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, does commit actual adultery

    What you call ‘actual adultery’, is the word ‘adultery’ in Mt 19:9. The word means ‘to have sex with not-your-spouse’ according to Thayer. According to you it means the exact opposite. It also perfectly agrees with what you call ‘legal adultery’. However you claim the text should read ‘does not commit legal adultery’.

    That would count as two contradictions. Therefore the assumption that your statements were all true is false. Therefore at least one of your statements is false.

  153. Paul says:

    @SirHamster

    Your definition of ‘actual adultery’ is:
    1. it does not mean ‘having sex with not-your-spouse’
    2. it means ‘being not according to God’s intention for marriage’

    I asked you earlier “So what DOES undo the (actual) adultery and creates the purity?”

    to which you answered:

    “There is no undoing sin. But forgiveness can be found with confession and seeking God’s mercy through the blood of Jesus, appealing to God’s faithful promise to forgive. If a foolish man has created contradictory promises of life-long faithfulness to multiple women, he has put himself in a tough spot. He should seek guidance from a Christian elder, but he will not do wrong to keep those promises to the best of his ability. ”

    That is of course the exact goal of your definition; if the ‘sin’ is ‘only’ that you have acted not in accordance with God’s intention for marriage, then confessing and seeking God’s mercy to have thus acted is sufficient in your eyes. Something along like “I should not have divorced, and I should not have remarried, it was wrong, please forgive me, but now things continue and I will continue in this marriage”.

    The problems with your interpretation is at least that
    a. your definition of ‘actual adultery’ is not according to the dictionary
    b. it contradicts the texts.

    As for a. : the burden of proof is on you to show that your definition of adultery is something else than the dictionary tells us

    As for b:
    You state that the divorce is actual adultery.
    This is NOWHERE stated

    Mk 10
    Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
    And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.

    Lk 16
    Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,
    and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Mt 19
    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery
    and whoever marries her who is put away does commit adultery.

    Mt 5
    That whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery
    and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.

    All these instances put the adultery at the marrying after divorce (except the first part of Mt 5:32, where the divorce is seen as causing his wife to commit adultery in the future, most likely because she is forced to remarry, which again is in agreement), NOT the divorce itself.

    This is in line with 1 Cor 7
    “But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

    ‘Remain unmarried’ is not seen as a continuous state of sin.

    similarly
    ‘But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace.’

    It’s the remarrying that makes the adultery, as also Romans 7 makes clear:
    So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress

    Note that this woman was married to another man, yet is called an adulteress. It is not “the marriage is called adulterating God’s intention for marriage.”

    So clearly, your claim the divorce is ‘actual adultery’ is false.
    It is the remarriage that is called adultery.

  154. SirHamster says:

    Paul,

    I will respond to your posts in a different order, starting with the logic, going to the meaning of the text, and finally addressing application.

    Thanks for putting in the effort to categorize my statements and logic, but there is an error in the logical chain. Selecting only the relevant logical statements:

    A. Legal adultery is sex with not-your-spouse
    I. actual adultery is not legal adultery

    I implies
    J. actual adultery is not sex with not-your-spouse

    The logical error is clear when you swap the items.

    A. Cats drink milk.
    I. Mammals are not cats
    J. Mammals don’t drink milk.

    Cats are mammals. Mammals are not cats does not mean cats are not mammals.

    Going to J from I is a logical error, but I did not do that. I don’t believe in J, and have not said anything supporting such a conclusion.

    For the record and to be explicit: I think adultery in a legal sense (“legal adultery”) is also adultery in God’s eyes (“actual adultery”). I think sex with not-your-spouse is actual adultery.

  155. SirHamster says:

    On the meaning of the text:

    You state that the divorce is actual adultery.
    This is NOWHERE stated

    [ . . . ]

    All these instances put the adultery at the marrying after divorce (except the first part of Mt 5:32, where the divorce is seen as causing his wife to commit adultery in the future, most likely because she is forced to remarry, which again is in agreement), NOT the divorce itself.

    When divorce will cause the effect, treating divorce as the effect is valid and true.

    Don’t forget that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preaches, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    If looking at a women with lust (while married?) is adultery … what about breaking your promise to your wife?

    Jesus is not creating an exhaustive new legal definition of adultery. Your attempt to use his examples on adultery to define what is and is not a valid marriage is wrongheaded.

    Jesus is establishing that abiding by the explicit law is insufficient to righteously live as God desires.

  156. SirHamster says:

    … therefore I will only respond to a single pastoral concern. In this case care for the children. Stopping adultery means stop having sex. It doesn’t mean stop caring for the children, nor does it mean to stop caring for your “wife”. Those are separate things. I don’t advocate to send them away to be on their own.

    This is asking the man to live as if he is married while saying he is not.

    The man is told to care for the woman as if she is his wife, while denied both the sex and intimacy of her being his wife. The man pays the cost of marriage supporting a “wife” and kids, but without the benefit of a wife in his “marriage”.

    In that, this echoes the churchian heresies making woman the head of their families, doling out sex for good behavior, except here the man is denied even the possibility of sex. Harsh. Show mercy.

    The Apostle Paul points out that one does not muzzle the ox while it is treading grain. And the rule isn’t about the ox.

    I would like to add, that I find it usually the case that such pastoral cases are constructed as emotional appeal to make a point. What usually is lacking is a similar emotional appeal to “the other side of the story”.

    What about all those poor men that get frivorced by their wives, get their money stolen, while their wives run off with their new lovers, who they have adulterous sex with, and even breed new children, while their own children are stolen, and they are not given access to?

    Who complain about it in their churches, but their pastors refuse to chastise their wives, and refuse to condemn these adulterous relationships?

    What about these men who try to remain faithful and not have sex outside marriage, but who believe they are not allowed to remarry, but must stay single, and hence live celibate lives?

    What about these men, that have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, and are waiting on their wives to repent and return to them?

    What do you pastorally say to these men?

    Bolding the relevant parts: My position doesn’t ask anything extra of these men. They are doing what is right according to Jesus’s words and deserve honor and encouragement.

  157. Paul says:

    @SH Going to J from I is a logical error

    Your comparison with mammal and cats does not apply.

    Let me rewrite it to make it even more clear
    A Legal adultery = sex with not-your-spouse
    I actual adultery =/= legal adultery

    Therefore
    J actual adultery =/= sex with not-your-spouse

    And I’m using ‘actual adultery’ as you have done in your statements. This is consistent with your denial that the ‘adultery’ after remarriage is talking about sex with not-your-spouse (which is exactly my position).

    I don’t believe in J, and have not said anything supporting such a conclusion.

    I have proven your statements lead to such a conclusion, which is contradictory, therefore there’s an error in your statements A-F. Or I made an error in my reasoning. Feel free to expose it. Or feel free to retract one of statements A-F.

  158. Paul says:

    @SH When divorce will cause the effect, treating divorce as the effect is valid and true.

    You’re mixing up cause and effect. Divorce is the cause, something else the effect. You can therefore by definition of cause-and-effect NEVER treat divorce as the effect.

  159. Paul says:

    @SH If looking at a women with lust (while married?) is adultery … what about breaking your promise to your wife?

    That’s actually quite simple. Looking with lust, is desiring her sexually as if you had sex with her. That classifies as actually having sex with her. This is therefore both called adultery.

    Breaking a promise does not involve having sex with someone, therefore it is not adultery.

  160. Paul says:

    @SH Your attempt to use his examples on adultery to define what is and is not a valid marriage is wrongheaded.

    It’s the other way around; your are trying to create new definitions for “adultery”, that are not even in a Greek dictionary. You still need to proof that your new definitions are sound and supported by the text.

  161. Paul says:

    @SH The man is told to care for the woman as if she is his wife, while denied both the sex and intimacy of her being his wife. The man pays the cost of marriage supporting a “wife” and kids, but without the benefit of a wife in his “marriage”.

    I was responding with my pastoral take. If you don’t like it, fine. I told you I would only respond to a single emotional appeal. I won’t respond to the new emotional appeals.

  162. SirHamster says:

    I have proven your statements lead to such a conclusion, which is contradictory, therefore there’s an error in your statements A-F. Or I made an error in my reasoning. Feel free to expose it. Or feel free to retract one of statements A-F.

    I accept statement I, that you derived from A-F.

    Actual adultery is not legal adultery

    I also accept the following statement:

    Legal adultery is actual adultery

    Those statements are compatible and both are true. If you do not understand this, you need remedial logic training.

    All legal adultery is actual adultery.
    Some actual adultery is not legal adultery.
    Some actual adultery is legal adultery.
    Not all actual adultery is legal adultery.

  163. Paul says:

    @SH Bolding the relevant parts: My position doesn’t ask anything extra of these men.

    Well, carry on men living celibate lives! Good for you while I don’t care that your wives frivorced you, took your money, have adulterous relationships and call it marriage! Harsh. Show mercy.

    You see why I want to end using emotional points and stick to logical arguments for now.

  164. SirHamster says:

    That’s actually quite simple. Looking with lust, is desiring her sexually as if you had sex with her. That classifies as actually having sex with her. This is therefore both called adultery.

    Breaking a promise does not involve having sex with someone, therefore it is not adultery.

    “Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.”

    Blind Pharisee, there it is. Do you notice that the very next part of the Sermon on the Mount talks about keeping vows?

    The man is told to care for the woman as if she is his wife, while denied both the sex and intimacy of her being his wife. The man pays the cost of marriage supporting a “wife” and kids, but without the benefit of a wife in his “marriage”.

    I was responding with my pastoral take. If you don’t like it, fine. I told you I would only respond to a single emotional appeal. I won’t respond to the new emotional appeals.

    That’s not an emotional appeal. That’s a description and analysis of the injustice of your position.

    I’m glad to know you find it emotionally moving, though.

  165. Paul says:

    @SH Those statements are compatible and both are true. If you do not understand this, you need remedial logic training.

    I’m afraid it is you that need a refresher in logic if you think the following can both be true at the same time:

    1. A is B
    2. A is not B

    (A : “Actual adultery”, B : “legal adultery:”)

    For people who apply sound logical reasoning, this is a called a contradiction. It is because of the Law of Excluded Middle.

  166. Paul says:

    @SH Blind Pharisee, there it is.

    Ah, the name-calling begins. Always a sure sign of somebody out of arguments.

    Other than repeating my statement in bold, you did not bring forth an argument against my statement that breaking a vow is not about having sex, and therefore is not adultery.

    On the other hand, you still have failed to bring forward a proof of your contradicting definitions of “adultery”.

  167. SirHamster says:

    Well, carry on men living celibate lives! Good for you while I don’t care that your wives frivorced you, took your money, have adulterous relationships and call it marriage! Harsh. Show mercy.

    I’m not the one telling men to treat their wives as if they divorced them, while still acting as their husband provider, while also denying said wife the honorable title of wife and the sexual intimacy of marriage. That sexless cohabitation that is not marriage is your idea of holiness. I suppose the children shall be called bastards, then.

    You screwed up the counter-example. You should have described a man who has been freshly frivorced, looking at a girl who eagerly desires to marry him, who wonders if this means he should move on with life.

    In that case, following Jesus’s commands as stated is to remain as he is, keeping his promise to his unfaithful wife as an example of God’s unfailing covenant, while treating marriage with the new girl as adultery.

    It is a hard teaching, only accepted by those to whom it is given.

  168. Paul says:

    @SH That’s not an emotional appeal. That’s a description and analysis of the injustice of your position.

    Now that’s an emotional appeal!

    I’m more interested in you showing me my position is false. If you think I err, please feel free to correct me.

  169. SirHamster says:

    I’m afraid it is you that need a refresher in logic if you think the following can both be true at the same time:

    1. A is B
    2. A is not B

    (A : “Actual adultery”, B : “legal adultery:”)

    Paul, you failed to notice that what I actually said was:

    1. A is B
    2. B is not A

    Cats are mammals.
    Mammals are not cats.

    It’s not hard, and I’ve already told you this a few times. Slow down and think it over.

  170. Paul says:

    @SH You screwed up the counter-example.

    I only gave an example of a possible emotional appeal, which by definition is never wrong.

    The rest of your response is starting to look like a rant,
    I’m still waiting for your counter-arguments.

  171. Paul says:

    @SH Paul, you failed to notice that what I actually said was: 1. A is B

    And you fail to grasp the Reflexive Property of Equality.

    “A is B” is 100% logically equivalent to “B is A”

    Notice the subtle difference between “is” and “are”.

  172. SirHamster says:

    And you fail to grasp the Reflexive Property of Equality.

    This isn’t math.

    “A is B” is 100% logically equivalent to “B is A”

    Notice the subtle difference between “is” and “are”.

    He doubles down!

    Cat is mammal
    Mammal is cat? (invalid)
    Mammal is not cat
    Mammal can be cat, but is not always cat

    Care to disqualify your judgement some more?

  173. BillyS says:

    A is a B is different than A is B. The latter is equivalence, not a subset.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.