Considering The Gospel & Sexual Orientation

Released in 2012, the report by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, North America (RPCNA) has been the gold standard among Reformed and Presbyterian churches for statements on sexual orientation. I’ve been meaning to read The Gospel & Sexual Orientation, edited by Michael Lefebvre for some time.

Controversies have arisen since then that touch on the issues covered, but aren’t addressed directly by this report. I wish I had read it when the Revoice controversy hit. It would have been helpful to show how the RPCNA report actually supported much of what I was trying to tell some of my brothers who hold this in report in high esteem.

Now that the PCA ad interim committee report has come out, I decided to read The Gospel & Sexual Orientation (GSO) for comparison. I won’t be comparing them here, but as I continue my series on the PCA report, I will be able to more meaningfully refer back to the GSO.

The Forward is quite helpful. It reminds us that much of the New Testament was written in response to controversies. We dread controversies. They are an opportunity to refine our thinking and re-think pastoral strategies and responses. Yes, some will fall victim to the spirit of compromise. But not all who want to talk these things through are compromisers, but can be people of good conscience who want to think more clearly and pastorally on these issues.

This was my goal as more people in the church were being honest about their struggles with same sex attraction. I wanted additional guidance on how to effectively care for them and minister to them. I think I have a firm grasp on the Scriptural teaching (some have claimed I don’t) but wanted additional wisdom.

“Contemporary questions about sexual orientation are not simple, and they must not be treated simplistically. There are sophisticated medical, scientific, theological, and exegetical arguments at issue in the present controversy.”

According to this report, that is not a bad thing at all. It is, in fact, a necessary thing. Similarly, I don’t see the PCA report as a sign of compromise but to help us see how to apply the Scripture and Standards more thoroughly to the issue at hand in our day. I would be concerned if my fellow pastors in the PCA were jettisoning Scripture and the Standards but they are not. Yes, I get defensive with people claim they are. Thus, I do not see us taking the path of the denominations that cast off the Scriptures and ended up conforming to the world.

The first chapter is Introduction and Terminology. The focus of the chapter seems to be the word “homosexuality”. In that regard it is quite helpful. There are other terms in this discussion that I wish were laid out in similar fashion. In the more recent controversy people have been using various definitions without actually defining them and so there was a fair amount of talking past one another by assuming definitions. These additional terms would include sin and temptation.

The term, homosexuality, originated in 1869 by the social reformer Karl-Maria Kertbeny. It was in a pamphlet written in opposition to new anti-sodomy laws being proposed. Slowly use of the new term spread, and the older terminology focused on behavior fell aside. Terms for sexual orientation are relatively new, and were used to justify ending laws against same sex practice. The discussion shifted from behavior to psychology, and now that it is not considered a psychological disorder there is the search for genetic origins. In a materialistic world, there must be some material cause for such desires (is the argument).

“The term homosexual (along with its counterpart, heterosexual) was coined to convey the new idea that some people are same-sex oriented by nature and ought not be prejudiced against simply because it is a minority orientation.”

This is why I try not to use the term. It comes with baggage and is a late-comer to the discussion. This is met with a mixed response. But in light of this big shift in terminology and resulting shift in thinking the GSO proposes:

“Either the church’s traditional understanding of genders and sexual identity needs to be corrected to accommodate the new perspectives on homosexuality, or the church’s traditional positions on these matters need to be re-articulated in ways that show their relevance to the modern claims.”

We need to do exegetical work to answer the claims of those who want the Church to change its views. We also need to do pastoral work to lovingly care for those in our midst who love Jesus but still experience same sex desires. These things are not opposed.

GSO moves on to Biology, Gender, and the Biblical Doctrine of Man. The new terminology shifts thinking about same sex attraction away from morality to sociology, psychology and biology. The quest has been on for a few decades to find the material cause of homosexuality. They note that a degree of skepticism about research can be maintained for two reasons: the faulty presupposition of physiological causes in a materialistic worldview, and the reality of personal and political bias that can affect studies and conclusions. There is a great deal of pressure to validate same-sex desires. We discover similar issues in global warming, the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and a host of other issues. There is money at stake, peer pressure (not simply peer review) as well as personal agendas at play.

“… even scientific consensus is not formed in a vacuum, and the immense political pressure in this field introduces an unavoidable degree of wariness. Many of those involved in the quest, as the proponents themselves admit, have a personal interest in proving its existence.”

This is not intended to be a denial of science, nor the scientific method. Nor is it intended to rule out the possibility of an innate cause. There are physiological causes for a number of problems, including alcoholism in some cases. Finding a cause shifts our pastoral response, but not our theology. They believe that finding a cause would result in greater compassion in the church’s ministry to many of those who struggle.

“If science shows us that sexual disorders are more deeply enmeshed in human biology than the church has traditionally understood, this ought to stir our concern for even greater understanding and compassion for those who experience these desires; however, it does not change the fact that such inclinations are contrary to human nature as God designed it- and as he is redeeming it.”

Adam’s sin has broken us all. We are disordered and corrupt. The Fall has affected us spiritually, morally and physically. While the Scriptures do not speak of a sexual orientation, they do speak of “dishonorable passions” which include but are not limited to same-sex desires. We all bear brokenness, though in differing degrees and in different ways. Our lives are profoundly affected by Adam’s sin, our own sin and the sins that others commit against us. Why a particular person experiences same sex desires may be quite complex.

Romans 1 is not about an individual’s decline but a culture’s decline as it turns away from God. We are watching it unfold in America these days. There is a profound descent into spiritual and moral folly, degrading passions and cultural decline.

They also note that Jonathan Edwards wrote of a person’s ‘natural constitution’ being the root of many sins. People have different weaknesses, or sins to which they are more prone. He therefore calls for allowances to be made. Not excusing it, but recognizing the weakness. This is part of our total, or radical, depravity.

“The bondage and afflictions of the curse really do run that deep; but it is against the backdrop of such struggles that the profound power and immeasurable greatness of God’s grace shines forth with splendor and stirs our hearts with a yearning for sanctification and hope in heaven.”

They rightfully remind us that “EVERY person will face profound struggles sexually.” When we are honest about our own sexual struggles we should have more compassion on those who struggle differently. Note, compassion not compromise.

Personality Traits and the Multiplication of Gender Categories brings us back to 19th century Germany. This time it is Karl Heinrich Ulrichs who proposed new terminology. He spoke of himself as “a female soul confined by a male body”. He saw himself exhibiting some typically female traits. He thought his feminine qualities indicated that he was differently oriented. His views developed into the common saying that “sex is between the legs and gender is between the ear.” Gender became separated from physiology, which is odd in a materialistic worldview. But sin (as a power) does this kind of thing.

Our world tends to think of masculine and feminine as generalizations. When someone doesn’t fit the stereotype, they are considered to be the other gender. Instead of a strong woman simply being a strong woman, she’s considered manly and therefore masculine. Christians have fallen into this kind of cultural thinking. We really confuse people who don’t fit our strict categories. Rather than simply being an outlier, we treat them as if they are actually the other gender.

Into this they interact with the profound differences between Esau and Isaac. Esau was a “man’s man” who loved to hunt and explore. Jacob preferred life among the tents. While more “sensitive” Jacob was not a homosexual as some might supposed based on his more feminine (supposedly) qualities. While these two men had very different traits, they were both men.

This brings us to Hermeneutical Issues of the Homosexuality Debate. In this section they deal with the main arguments to adjust our theology and refute them. These arguments are:

1. Since same-sex orientation is a recent discovery, the biblical texts  addressing same-sex activity don’t apply to orientation. Yet, the Sermon on the Mount expresses Jesus’ teaching that activity flows out of the heart and reflects a Godward or selfward orientation. Paul and other NT authors speak of passions, not simply actions. They weren’t ignorant of internal dispositions but refused to allow them as an excuse to transgress the law of God. Robert Gagnon also points to similar concepts in Plato and Aristotle (inner orientation and by nature).
2. Many interpretations are based on a view of Scripture as an evolving religious understanding. This is the trajectory hermeneutic made popular by Rob Bell. It asks the question, “what would Paul think today” as if Paul was actually writing under the inspiration of the Spirit but rather the spirit of his age. But they use this concept to negate what the Scriptures say. This is obviously to be rejected as well.
3. Some use Barth’s “christocentric” interpretation in a way Barth likely never imagined. Christ is separated from the written word, and the word must be interpreted “through the lens of Jesus’ redemptive life and ministry.” As a result it re-interprets Scripture to minimize differences between people- social reconciliation. Jesus essentially, in this view, redeems homosexuality rather than redeeming saints from the sin (in both a want of conformity and transgression) of homosexuality.

“We would urge ministers and laymen to be alert for these kinds of hermeneutical errors when encountering those who quote Scripture to contradict the historic stance of the church on same-sex issues.”

Addressing the hermeneutical issues, they shift to Exegesis and Confessional Statements. Here I think they inadvertently make a huge error.

“While the exegesis of biblical texts is our only authority, confessional statements offer us the fruits of the church’s exegesis in ages past.”

I get that they are distinguishing between the role of the Scriptures from that of the Confession. But it is not our exegesis of the Scripture that is authoritative but the Scripture itself. Our exegesis can be either accurate or faulty. We are disagreeing with the exegesis of our opponents, in part, based upon their faulty presuppositions. I’m quite surprised this wasn’t cleaned up, or I am really missing something.

The rest of the chapter is quite good. They are not trying to be comprehensive in the chapter, or it would be far too long for a report. They do take us to the creation of man in  Genesis 1 & 2 to see that there are two genders. They are “two distinct categories of humanity (not poles on a continuum).” Much of what we might call gender differences are more likely differences of personality having little to nothing to do with gender. Along with gender we see the institution of marriage, including sexual union, to be heterosexual. This is social orientation determined by anatomical gender. They speak of it in terms of “head and helper” which is true as far as it goes, but remember that God is our helper too. This passage is not simply descriptive but also prescriptive regarding marriage.

They spend a fair amount of time on Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Genesis account focuses on their intention to rape the “men” who sought refuge in Lot’s home. Many claim they were judged for other sins, and discount the role of homosexuality. They root this in Ezekiel. Yes, Ezekiel addresses other sins that characterized Sodom and Gomorrah. He focused on the sins of which Judah was also guilty, and for which judgment came upon them. Similar to this is the Levite’s Concubine in Judges 19. This is handled more briefly, stressing the fact that Israel had so quickly become like the Canaanites.

Another good amount of space is devoted to Leviticus 18 and 20. They draw attention to the fact that both parties were to be put to death. It was against God’s law to play either role in a same-sex encounter. Admitting that “abomination” can refer to ceremonial uncleanness, they provide 7 reasons that these are moral injunctions and not simply “temple prostitution.” For instance, the general word for “male” is used, not the word for a “male prostitute”. The contrast is not simply about worship but with normal sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. We also see Deuteronomy 23:17-18 addressing cultic prostitution.

GSO moves on to 1 Corinthians 6 and Paul’s vice list. They spend time explaining malakoi which can refer to the “effeminate” but was also used for the penetrated, often younger, partner. Used in conjunction with arsenokoitai we see the sexual nature of these terms and that Paul is considering both roles are not conforming to the law of God. Lev. 20 also makes the same point, and Paul is likely just drawing upon it.

In 1 Timothy 1 Paul uses arsenokoitais in his discussion of the ten commandments. He sees same-sex sex as a violation of the moral law. They spend far more time on Jude 5-7 and the “different/strange flesh”. Some get around homosexuality in saying the men of Sodom sought angel flesh, but they didn’t know the men were actually angels. The surrounding towns were also guilty of this sin, and there is no record of them seeking to assault angels looking like men. Jude wasn’t concerned about his audience seeking to have sex with angels, but lapsing back into the same-sex activity common in the Greek and Roman world.

Then GSO addresses Romans 1 again. There is much there that hearkens back to creation. This is about perversion of the created order. It is not simply about actions, but we see a focus on passions or desires which are corrupt. It is then back to Genesis and Ham’s sin against Noah. Ham is the father of the Canaanites, and their sexual perversion. We aren’t exactly sure how, but that much is clear.

They shift to the Standards, particularly WLC 139 which addresses not just homosexuality but lust, fantasies, adultery, pre-maritial sex, pornography and more. Their mention of lusts or desires reflect the fact that we are to put them to death, not just behaviors.

GSO concludes with Pastoral Implications. They want us to remember “homosexuality is not just an issue to try to understand, it is a struggle experienced by real people.” Some of those real people are in our pews and need our help. There are two things that GSO does that are reasons why I wish I’d read it prior to the Revoice controversy.

1. Don’t treat homosexuality as a special sin.  They say “they are not all that different from other temptations common to human experience. … Christians must avoid the stereotype of homosexuality as a sin greater than all others… Like many other temptations, same-sex desires often arise without warning and feel hopelessly overpowering. But all human brokenness is within reach of the Gospel’s power.”  Later, “Christians must avoid the stereotype of homosexuality as worse than all other sins and beyond the reach of God’s grace.”
2. There are no quick solutions. “Deep-seated desires are never resolved easily. They are certainly not resolved by mere will-power or ‘steps of treatment’. We dare not promise quick solutions; but neither should we shy away from the full hope of the Gospel for total redemption by the working of God’s Spirit.” They have good balance in this matter. “The Spirit of Christ may work patiently or he may work quickly.” In fact, one of the primary reasons for “failures” is unrealistic expectations. I suspect that is the reason for most people I know of that left the faith in order to live according to their sinful desires.

In the great Revoice debates it would have been great to say “I’m saying nothing different than what is expressed in the GSO.” I’m not trying to minimize sin, under-sell the Gospel, and I’m not self-deceived. I’m simply recognizing what the Westminster Standards say about sanctification. Repentance doesn’t mean we are free from temptation from within, or even that we never act on our temptations. It is an endeavor for new obedience, but our reach often exceeds our grasp in the area of sanctification. We want to be more fully sanctified.

The authors when us to remember that sanctification is about more than same-sex attraction. It is but one aspect of discipleship, not the whole enchilada. They also briefly mention that the guidelines they layout do not replace evangelism, but are generally to be understand in the context of discipleship. Generally you want to develop trust because discussing such a personal struggle is often quite difficult. Most people in the church are not proud of their struggle. They often feel legitimate shame. I’m not going to go through all their guidelines (it is short, and I want you to read this). One great need is generally healthy same-sex relationships. Non-sexual relationships. It is not about doing “manly” or “girly” things, but about building edifying relationships. It becomes about spending time together, sharing life together.

As far as GSO goes, it is excellent. Being a human document it couldn’t anticipate all of the controversies which would arise since then. It is a product of its time, and its controversy. It provides good guidance in other controversies that touch on the same issues. It provides plenty of pastoral wisdom. It should become a helpful addition to a pastor’s and church library.

Read Full Post »

Considering Sexual Morality in a Christless World

I first heard of this book from Tim Challies’ blog. It piqued my interest. I thought it may prove a good resource when I preach through NT epistles.

This book is Sexual Morality in a Christless World by Matthew Rueger. Rueger is a Lutheran pastor who was asked to teach a lesson “on the other side” at a university class on ethics. The argument by cultural progressives is that Christianity is morally regressive. Rueger explodes this myth/fallacy by showing what the world was like before the Christian sexual ethic took root in the Roman Empire with the spread of the gospel. The sexual morals of societies before the spread of Christianity looks like where the progressives are trying to bring society. Rueger then moves to the present and discusses the current debate over homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

“My desire in writing this book is to help Christians engage the world around them in reasoned discussion.”

In a sense this feels like two books at times- or perhaps three. There are historical sections, theological/expositional sections and then sociological sections. They all work together to build a compelling case.

In many ways this is not an easy read, or one that should be read by everybody. In particular, some may struggle with the early chapters discussing the sexual morality of Greece and Rome. It made me very glad I was not born in that time and place. People who have suffered similar victimization may be troubled by it. However, this is an excellent book to offset the views students are taught in public schools and centers for higher learning.

The first chapter is The Roman Context, which necessarily includes Greece too. At the time of Christ, much of the Roman Empire had once been part of the Greek Empire and Hellenized. There were not really differences of practice, but there were differences of rationale behind those behaviors.

He begins by noting that orientation is a “modern phenomenon” which seems to be lost on most conservatives. Orientation is slippery, in a sense, because some gay activists freely acknowledge that orientation is a concept of recent conception, and some would not agree with the way orientation is defined by the courts. They see orientation as fluid, while the courts have defined it as immutable (he notes Varnum v. Brien, Iowa 2009).

The ancients, therefore, including the early Christians “did not understand sexuality in terms of orientation.” For Greek culture, “sex was about the pursuit of beauty”, and they took it where they could get it. The ideal of beauty in their culture was young boys. In Roman culture, sex was tied to their idea of masculinity which was domination. Men were honored for dominating others sexually, and ridiculed if they were dominated sexually. It was an ethic very much like what we see in prisons today. This shaped their view of rape in the legal system. It was only rape if it involved a free Roman citizen. Slaves and non-citizens could be raped without consequence, particularly by free Roman citizens (talk about privilege!).

Greeks made no such distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Pederasty was common among Greeks and Romans, though there was some taboo in Rome where freeborn boys were concerned. Young male slaves were vulnerable. You were expected to take advantage of them.

“Our early Christian ancestors did not confess biblical chastity in a safe culture that naturally agreed with them.”

Marriage was not between equals. Male privilege ran rampant in these “progressive” cultures. Marriage was for status and heirs and the Empire, not love. Sexual pleasure was sought elsewhere. Seeking sex from a boy or man was viewed as a higher form of sexual relationship which included intellectual love.

He discusses the role of the gymnasium in Greek and Roman life. The word meant ‘naked’ for it was where the boys and young men exercised naked. One of the more popular sports was wrestling. Clothes, inhibitions and modesty were all shed together. Generally slaves were prohibited from entering the gymnasium. These teens were watched, and pursued, by older men in this environment.

Family life was twisted by their diminished view of women. Greek wives were virtually prisoners in their homes. They would leave for some religious rites, but that was about it. Roman wives had more rights and mobility. They could conduct trade. Since their “job” was to produce children for the Empire, women were often married once they were able to have children to maximize the child-bearing years due to infant mortality rates. For the population to grow, you needed to have at least 3 children survive to adulthood (it’s all about the Empire)so you needed to have at least 6 children. Expectations were different for the wealthy (you can’t have too many elites), and infanticide was a problem in Rome.

Husbands had rights over their wives, but not wives over her husband. He was free to sow his oats outside of the marriage. She was not. If caught, she and her male partner could be prosecuted (assuming the husband was a free man with means). In keeping with the twisted view of sexuality in Rome, the husband could “rape the male offender and then, if he desired, to kill his wife.” This was a brutal and depraved society.

It was a world of promiscuity and perversion into which the gospel of Jesus Christ was first preached. Paul called it a crooked and twisted generation (Phil. 2:15). The Gentiles who converted came from a background of pornography, prostitution (including temple prostitutes), homosexuality/bisexuality, and rape. Like those around them, they had been given over to their disordered desires. The Gospel called people out of this perverse way of life, confronting the sexual mores of Rome.

Rueger then addresses the Jewish Context, which should not be assumed to be the same as the Christian viewpoint because it wasn’t. Judaism did not permit homosexuality like the Gentiles did. It prohibited prostitution. It did, however, permit polygamy and concubines. There was also a double standard concerning adultery. Wives were to produce heirs.

The sexual abuse of children was considered punishable. But it was merely a fine in the Mishnah. Generally, Jewish culture was less perverse than Greek and Roman cultures. But we see it was still warped by sin. The Gospel and subsequent definition of holy living would confront aspect of Jewish sexuality and marriage as well.

“We live in a culture that has a vested interest in misinterpreting the passages about sex and morality.”

He then moves into the expositional section of the book. Rueger looks at particular passages that are central to these discussions. He discusses context, briefly, to help people understand how to interpret texts. He includes some passages about marriage to indicate the equal rights and responsibilities of spouses in sexual matters. He then moves into sexual immorality and homosexual sex. In 1 Corinthians he notes the two words used for homosexual activity which indicate both the penetrator and penetrated are guilty of breaking God’s Law, which is quite contrary to Roman ethics.

“It should be noticed that Paul does not treat homosexual sins differently than heterosexual sins when it comes to the application of Law and Gospel. Both are addressed side by side as equally contrary to God’s Law and both are spoken of as equally forgivable.”

He then moves to the present with “Mom, Dad, I’m Gay”. As a Lutheran pastor, he applies Law and Gospel to this situation. He also challenges the basis for those who challenge traditional/biblical teachings on homosexuality. In our culture, objectivity is laid aside and subjectivity is embraced. He discusses the many reasons why someone could be homosexual.

“It is important for us as Christians to understand that not all homosexuality is the same. … Christians do a great disservice to those who seek Christ’s grace and mercy by lumping all same-sec attracted people into one group.”

In that application of Law and Gospel, he draws a big distinction between those who seek to normalize homosexuality and those who believe it is wrong and struggle with their same sex desires (as well as other sexual sins). The former need the Law to convict them of sin, and the latter need to Gospel for forgiveness and sanctification. Too often I hear Christians speak of people struggling with same sex desire as one big group, as if they are all activists. There is a quiet majority (?) of those who are conflicted in themselves between what they experience and what they believe is right.

Additionally, the Church needs to remember that heterosexual desire also creates sinful desires (such as for adultery, fornication, pornography, polygamy etc.). I’ve had pastors say to me that it is different because same-sex attraction is unnatural. But we need to put those desires to sin to death because they are just as deadly & dangerous, just as sinful, as same-sex desires. Until we do that, we will treat them as lepers.

He stresses the role of the Church as making the pardoning and purifying grace of Jesus Christ known to its members who struggle with these desires. Being Lutheran, he stresses the sacraments. As a Reformed Christian, I hold a high view of the sacraments and their being means of grace. But not as high as Lutherans. He seems to disconnect their efficacy from faith. But the Table is a place to bring disordered desires of all kinds to Jesus and receive His help through our union with Him.

“Temptation is not the same as sin. Temptations play on those elements of our inner being that have a weakness for a certain sin, but in and of themselves temptations are not sins.”

He moves into an area of debate among even conservative Christians. He distinguishes temptation from sin. His statements are similar to those of Nancy Pearcey, Rosaria Butterfield and others (though Rosaria then seems to put homosexual temptation in a separate category in the next paragraph). The gospel does teach us to say ‘no’ to unrighteousness, which means we are mortifying our temptations. As Christians our temptations, while real and present, should not define us. He includes three paragraphs from Luther’s Larger Catechism in which Luther differentiates temptation and sin. Luther further distinguishes temptation from desire (or what we call lust), in which we are entertaining or giving way to temptation rather than mortifying it, but have not yet committed the act in question. This is likely what Owen means in his phrase “entering into temptation.” I find this a helpful distinction.

Tempted? Mortify it! Lusting? Mortify it and repent! Done it? Repent!

“Christians are not less sinful than non-Christians, but they do have a Savior who both forgives sins and fights within them against the temptations in their path.”

He returns to the question of orientation. It usually refers to the idea that sexuality and attraction are essential elements of a person resulting from their individual biology which cannot be changed. This “immutability” is an accident of their birth. This is how the courts have spoken about this. As Rueger notes, real life is not some simple. For some people, “orientation” or attraction is more fluid. They shift between heterosexual and homosexual at points in life (as opposed to bisexuality). The claims of the courts, and activists, don’t fit reality. Instead of orientation, he advocates talking about sexual identity or gender preference. These leave room for the gospel to be at work, while the language of orientation is misleading and fatalistic.

Rueger then addresses “A Mixed Bag of Objections”. He brings up objections to the Christian understanding of homosexuality and refutes them. We see objections like “inconsistency in applying the law” to which he responds with the three divisions of the law. He brings up racial prejudice and slavery, genetics and brain studies, and twin studies. He explores them, affirms where there are real concerns (Christians have been guilty of prejudice and advocated for and against race-based slavery rooted in man-stealing). He examines those studies and mentions other studies that sought to correct methodological flaws.

The next chapter focuses on same-sex marriage. He builds a case against it from natural law and reason since most people (especially the courts) aren’t concerned about what Scripture says. He brings up studies indicating that children thrive to a greater extent with two parents of the opposite sex. They do better in school and get into less trouble with the law. Where traditional marriage decays (including through divorce and never-married parents), state funding to support children increases greatly. He recognizes the limits of these arguments. Most people, while appealing to reason, often don’t listen to it. Their hearts want what their hearts want. Only God, by His Spirit can change that.

“Sexual promiscuity leaves a trail of broken people and regret. It also tends to go hand in hand with an attitude that sees people as objects for one’s own sexual gratification and not as beings worthy of committed love.”

This was a very helpful book. It is not a long book. Rueger is generally succinct and gets to the point. He does make a number of good and necessary distinctions which often trip up discussions by their absence. This would be a helpful book for pastors, youth workers, teachers, parents and students facing pressure to conform to worldly standards.

To return to his thesis: Christianity is not affirming regressive sexual mores, but continues to call people out of the regressive sexuality that results in rampant promiscuity, sexual abuse and assault, societal instability and misogyny.

 

Read Full Post »