Last week, Josh Collier preached for the congregation here about the challenges facing young people and their parents. He described the typical progression from churchgoing child to atheist: teenager has questions, gets fluff instead of strong Biblical answers to those questions, and looks for answers from YouTube skeptics instead.
I have to be honest, brethren. That sermon convicted me. It made me want to be sure that I, personally, was a preacher who tackled tough questions head-on instead of spouting feel-good claptrap from the pulpit.
In particular, Josh mentioned that many teens have questions about gender and sexual identity. I think Clay did a great job of laying out an entire philosophy of Biblical sexuality during his sermon series late last year, but this morning, I want to zero in specifically on those questions. Our society has all kinds of things to say about sexuality that are completely at odds with what Christians have traditionally believed. What does the Bible say about these things? Over the next several minutes, let’s consider sex, identity, and Scripture.
I think this discussion must begin, though, with an exploration of LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR. Paul lays out what this means in Romans 13:8-10. Here, we learn that as Christians, we are responsible for treating those around us in a consistently loving way. With respect to our subject this morning, it means several things.
The first of these is that love means respecting others’ choices. God has given all of us the gift of free will, and as part of that, we have the freedom to make the wrong decision. Those around us are entitled to their choices, even when, and especially when, we don’t agree with them.
Being a Christian means that we don’t try to coerce others into doing what we think is right. It means that we don’t harass, bully, insult, or belittle them. It means that we always speak of them respectfully, even in our conversations with one another. It means, in fact, that we treat them with the same kindness and consideration we hope they would extend to us. All this is true whoever the other might be.
However, love doesn’t mean approving of others’ choices. This is one of the big lies that the world tells. They try to get us to believe that loving someone means endorsing their behavior, and if we aren’t willing to endorse their behavior, we don’t actually love them. In fact, says the world, we hate them.
I reject that, and I reject it emphatically. The Scriptures tell us that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, and if I love someone, and I see them being unrighteous, how could I rejoice in that? How can I pat someone I love on the back and tell them they’re doing right when I know that their feet are set on the path to hell? That’s not love. It’s selfishness and deceit.
The flip side of this is that love speaks unwelcome truths. This doesn’t mean that all of us have to march down the street telling passersby that they’re going to hell. It does mean, though, that we must remain steadfast in proclaiming Biblical principles that others find offensive. It also means that when those we love are entangled in sin, we must have the courage to speak up. All of this is universally true too.
Now that we’ve reminded ourselves of our duty to treat everyone in a godly way, let’s consider the Bible’s teachings on GENDER IDENTITY. Our analysis here should begin with the words of the Lord in Matthew 19:1-4. The question of transgender, of course, is not one that had arisen 2000 years ago, but the principles that Jesus lays out here tell us which way we need to go.
He reveals that male and female are not social constructs. Instead, they exist because God created them male and female. Gender is a biological fact. If you were to test my DNA right now, you would find that I have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. If you were to test my wife, you would find that she has two X chromosomes. This is because God intended for me to be male and for her to be female.
Everybody knows that biological gender is a fact and, if pressed, will acknowledge it. However, many in our society will insist that one’s feelings about maleness or femaleness are more important than that biological fact. From a Biblical perspective, this doesn’t make sense.
Instead, we must regard our DNA as God’s decree about who we are. Because we are created as male and female, God expects us to conduct ourselves according to His laws for male and female. If we do otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves about our true nature, and our conduct does not honor Him.
Some attempt to rebut this argument by pointing to genetic exceptions. There is some extremely small percentage of people out there whose DNA has become mutated so that it is not obvious whether they are male or female. I acknowledge that these exceptions exist. Unlike Adam and Eve, none of us have perfect DNA, and no one has had perfect DNA for millennia. Mutations are part of living in this fallen world.
However, we should not allow this extremely rare biological ambiguity to justify uncertainty about God’s will in cases where no ambiguity exists. The vast majority of trans people are unambiguously male or female in a biological sense. Their problem is not confusion. It is unwillingness to submit, and we must consider them accordingly.
Finally, let’s examine the subject of SEXUALITY. Again, the words of Jesus are extremely relevant here, this time in Matthew 19:5-6. As Clay observed several months ago, this passage lays out the God-approved pattern for sexuality. Godly sex involves the joining of husband and wife. Anything that is not husband and wife coming together is not godly intimacy. This involves various forms of heterosexual immorality, but it also includes the practice of homosexuality. Those who practice any of these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Notice, though, what it is that is outside of God’s will. Today, the issue of sexual practice has become confused with identity, so that people who never have been intimate with anyone will describe themselves as gay. In the Bible, though, “homosexual” is not some kind of global human identity. Instead, the Bible is entirely concerned with temptation and whether we give in to it.
It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus Himself was tempted. If there is some Christian who is tempted to homosexual acts throughout their life, but they resist that temptation, they are righteous in God’s eyes. Admittedly, those who are inclined only to their own gender must be celibate, but that’s no more than we expect from any unmarried Christian. Only husband and wife have the right to be intimate.
Being tempted is not a sin, but giving in to temptation is. When we repent, we can find God’s forgiveness, but if we don’t repent, we never will be right with Him. Our society today endorses all sorts of sins, but in the end, we know that God will judge the sexually immoral.
At first glance, Matthew 5:34 appears to be a simple passage to interpret. Jesus says, “Don’t take an oath at all,” so Christians should. . . take no oath at all. Like the Quakers, when we are asked to swear to tell the truth in a court case, we should affirm instead.
However, this facial interpretation fails to take into account everything else we know about oath-swearing in Jewish society at the time of the New Testament. Jesus Himself gives us more insight into the matter in Matthew 23:16-22.
This passage says a great deal about the hearts of the Jews and their purposes in swearing different kinds of oaths. It invites us to consider the thought process of a “religious” Jew who has a deceitful heart. He wants to be able to lie when it’s advantageous to him, but he also wants others to accept his word sometimes.
As a result, he comes up with the idea of confirming his word with an oath when he wants to be believed. “I’ll swear by the holy temple of God! That’s what I’ll do!” However, this deceitful Jew discovers that he has a problem. Nobody believes him unless he swears an oath, and if he swears an oath, he doesn’t feel free to lie.
He still wants to be able to trick people sometimes, so he comes up with a hierarchy of non-binding and binding oaths. Now, he can swear by the temple and feel free to lie his head off, but if he wants people to believe him, he will swear by the gold in the temple. He can use the impressive-sounding but meaningless oath to deceive outsiders while still being able to show insiders his good faith.
Apparently, temple/gold wasn’t the only non-binding/binding pair. Crafty Jews would also use altar/gift and heaven/God’s throne, depending on whether they wanted to deceive or to be believed.
Jesus points out, though, that the whole enterprise is morally bankrupt. Regardless of whether they thought their oath by a holy thing was binding, they still were swearing by a holy thing. Failing to keep any such oath brought dishonor on the One who made the holy things holy in the first place.
It is this corrupt hierarchy of oaths that Jesus is condemning in Matthew 5. It’s the idea that sometimes, God’s people should feel bound to tell the truth, but at other times, they can feel free to lie. If that’s what you’re using oaths for, Jesus says, you need to quit swearing them.
Today, Christians must tell the truth at all times and in all circumstances. As a result, the whole question of oath/not-oath is meaningless to us, like circumcision/not-circumcision is meaningless to us (as per Paul’s point in Galatians 5:6). Oath-swearing and circumcision simply don’t have the same significance in our cultural context as they did 2000 years ago.
Certainly, we should examine our hearts if we find ourselves feeling the need to swear oaths on our own. I’m reminded here of a childhood acquaintance who was a notorious liar and so went around exclaiming, “I swear to God!” all the time. If we have to swear an oath before others will believe us, we’ve got a serious spiritual problem.
However, the Christian who is summoned to court need not feel a pang of conscience when they are asked to swear an oath (though if they do and ask to affirm instead, that’s acceptable too). I’m going to tell the truth if asked to swear, and I’m going to tell the truth if not asked to swear. It makes no difference to me. The truth is what matters, and only when we speak truly is God glorified.
Just like it did 2,000 years ago, the Sermon on the Mount challenges disciple's resolve to live the distinctness of the Christian counterculture. Jesus calls us to us fidelity in marriage no matter what, truth telling at all cost, humiliation in the form of nonresistance, and above all to show our attitude of total love even to an enemy. His words here are both most admired and most resented. Yet, despite the difficulty of living our these teachings, our Lord's word is good - intrinsically good for individuals and society. If you haven't already, it’s always a good time to start The Life and Teachings of Jesus 2020 Reading Plan.
The Life and Teachings of Jesus - Week 9 – March 2-6:
Monday – Matt. 5:31-32: The third teaching of Jesus follows naturally from the second, inasmuch as sexual sin often leads to divorce. Again, Jesus requires a more exacting standard of His followers than was the norm of His day. The process for divorce under the Law of Moses is outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The bill of divorce, demanded by Moses and mentioned here by Jesus, was a protection for the woman that freed her to marry someone else. The religious teachers of Jesus’ day wrongfully assumed divorce was a part of God’s will and simply sending away one’s wife with a divorce certificate satisfied the Law’s demands (this is especially clear in Matthew 19:1-12). It’s against such a backdrop that our Savior calls on people to appreciate the true meaning and solemnity of marriage. For Him, marriage is intended to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman, and it is not to be dissolved lightly. Jesus’ teaching on divorce clearly contrasts with His and our culture.
Why do you think our Lord has such a high view of fidelity to one’s spouse? What would make your Top Ten List for how to avoid divorce?
Tuesday – Matt. 5:33-37: The fourth, “You have heard…” statement doesn’t actually appear verbatim in the Old Testament, but is perhaps a conflation of Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:2 and Deuteronomy 23:23. The situation described is one in which many Jews viewed swearing an oath by “heaven or earth, “or by “the temple,” or even by “one’s head” was not as binding as swearing “by God.” Jesus stresses that each one of these items belongs to God, so that the conventional distinctions were spurious. The point of our Lord’s teaching is not avoiding oaths all together (Paul makes oath statements on several occasions i.e. Romans 1:9; 9:1); rather the issue is telling the truth because God witnesses every word one speaks. Therefore, Jesus says, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (v. 37; cf. James 5:12).
According to Jesus, what’s the problem with making oaths? Why should oaths be unnecessary for the Lord’s followers?
Wednesday – Matt. 5:38-42: Revenge comes easily to us, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” the saying goes. However, in this fifth saying, the Lord Jesus calls His disciples to a higher ethic that transcends tit-for-tat retribution. His teaching stresses the need to decisively break the natural chain of evil action and reaction that often characterizes human relationships. Jesus invites His hearers to grapple with the application of His points. Nonresistance means disdaining one’s honor (vv. 38-39), one’s most basic possessions (v. 40), one’s labor and time when others seek them by force (v. 41), and one must also disdain these things in view of the needs of the poor (v. 42); then, when the kingdom comes, one’s deeds, rather than one’s wealth and honor will matter (cf. Matthew 25:34-46). One’s vested interest must be in heaven, not on earth; if one cannot value the kingdom that much, one has no place in it.
Looking closely at vv. 39-42, how would you contrast our natural responses in such situations with the responses Jesus expects of us? What do you think is accomplished by turning the other cheek or going a second mile?
Thursday – Matt. 5:43-48 (Luke 6:27-36): With this, His sixth and last commentary on how the Law of Moses had been taught, our Lord teaches that one whose righteousness would surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees (ref. Matthew 5:20) must exemplify a higher standard of virtue than loving those friendly to one’s own interest. We all love our friends, but love for our enemies is quite another matter. As disciples of Jesus we are not to take our standards from our human nature but rather, from the God we serve. Our God is a loving God who indiscriminately gives good gifts to all, regardless of whether they are friend or foe. Therefore, we must be like Him loving even our enemies.
How is Jesus Himself an example of what it means to “Love your enemies” (v. 44)? How might you reflect the Lord’s character when you are mistreated? Focus on the one person who could be considered your chief enemy and, this week, reach out to him or her with some practical act of love.
Friday – Matt. 6:1-4: Today’s reading begins a new section in the Sermon on the Mount. In the next three readings, Jesus will teach on the proper practice of piety: Almsgiving (vv. 1-4); Praying (vv. 5-15), and Fasting (vv. 16-18). The overarching thesis of this section is: Do your righteousness for God to see you, not others (v. 1). In all three examples, Jesus warns us to not be like the “hypocrites” seeking public praise (vv. 2, 5, 16). Rather, our focus should be on God’s glory, which in turn will solicit His praise (vv. 4, 6, 18). Jesus begins this teaching with almsgiving. It’s an accepted fact that it is a religious duty to help the poor but, as in all ages, some are more interested in public reputation rather than relief of poverty. Our Lord teaches that it is indeed important to give, just not to be known to give.
According to Jesus, how are we to do acts of charity? Why is it important that we give this way? It what way(s) are you tempted to violate this principle?
Some brethren are allergic to slippery-slope arguments. Whenever they see someone arguing that departing from the pattern in one area will lead to apostasy in everything, they link to the Wikipedia page about logical fallacies, which does describe a slippery-slope argument as an informal logical fallacy.
However, we need to understand the limits of this counter-argument. All Wikipedia, etc., are saying is that a slippery-slope argument proves nothing by itself. It does not necessarily follow that because things have gotten this bad, they will continue to get worse. Sometimes, they stay the same. Sometimes, they do get worse.
Sadly, experience has taught us that the latter tends to be true when it comes to matters of Scriptural authority. Indifference to the silence of the Scriptures naturally leads to indifference to isolated commandments. That in turn naturally leads to indifference to the most important commandments of the Bible.
Over the past 75 years, we’ve seen congregations make this sad journey. They began by embracing church support of colleges and fellowship halls, even though we read nothing of such things in the word. Increasingly, such churches are now in the midst of rejecting Bible teaching on a-cappella worship and women in positions of authority. The conclusion of this process seems to be denial of the necessity of baptism for salvation.
As evidence for this proposition, consider this pamphlet produced by the Oak Hills Church of San Antonio, formerly the Oak Hills Church of Christ. I would describe this pamphlet as a model of obfuscation, designed to offer just enough to appease both those who believe that baptism is necessary for forgiveness of sins and those who do not. Though offered the opportunity to stand either with the first-century church or with the denominational world, Oak Hills appears to be doing its best to choose C) None of the Above.
However, there are a couple of sections in this pamphlet that give the game away. The first is its analysis of 1 Peter 3:21 on Page 6 (there are no page numbers; you’ll have to count). According to Oak Hills, the passage teaches that baptism is important because it shows commitment to God. Well, yes, I guess you can get that out of 1 Peter 3:21, but it is hardly the core teaching of the text!
1 Peter 3:21 is important because it says, in so many words, that baptism saves. If Oak Hills acknowledges that, they can’t say, as they do at the bottom of the page, “Please understand; it is not the act that saves us.” Of course, if you repeat Bible teaching on the saving effect of baptism, you also put a stumbling block in the way of those who don’t believe it’s important.
I was also struck by Oak Hills’ message to those who were sprinkled as infants and see no need to be immersed. They say, “If you choose not to be immersed at this time, we still welcome you as a member. We ask only that you respect our teaching position and not be divisive.” They go on to say that members who teach have to accept the church’s position on immersion. Presumably, others do not.
As I understand this, you can be somebody who was sprinkled as an infant, go to Oak Hills, be received as a member, appear in the church directory, be in the church band, and lead prayers, all without ever being immersed, period, let alone for the forgiveness of your sins. In other words, Oak Hills does not view Bible baptism as a necessary part of being made right with God and being added to His church. They may talk a big game about the importance of Bible baptism, but when you get right down to it, they think baptism is an extra.
In Luke 16:10, Jesus notes that he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. Concerns about fellowship halls and orphans’ homes may strike some as rampant legalism, but ultimately, it’s about respect for the authority of the King. We can’t shrug our shoulders at that authority when it comes to matters that seem unimportant to us while still honoring it in things that we think are essential. As Oak Hills’ example proves, such a spirit easily can lead to unconcern with the things that we used to think were essential too.
It seems like I’ve spent a fair amount of time these past couple weeks reading critiques of the churches of Christ from various sources. These critiques, usually written by former members, tend to have a common theme. The churches of Christ would be better off, they opine, if they stopped being so narrow and legalistic and focused instead on mercy and grace.
That’s a fascinating claim, and it even has a certain amount of Biblical resonance. Did not Paul argue, for instance, that the grace of Christ set him free from the law of sin and death. Poor members of churches of Christ! They don’t see that they’ve been set free already!
However, as I've written before, it doesn’t make much sense. Logically speaking, law and grace are positively correlated, not inversely correlated. The greater my respect for God’s law, the more my consciousness of my own sin should grow, along with my awareness of my desperate need for grace.
Things move in the opposite direction when concern for lawkeeping diminishes. If following God’s law isn’t very important, then breaking it isn’t very important either. At that point, grace stops looking like grace and starts looking more like apathy. I really don’t need God’s mercy anymore because my sin is no biggie.
There’s another problem too. As my respect for divine law and my desire for mercy diminish, so too will my willingness to show mercy. Good Bible students know that one of the most sobering passages in the entire volume is the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35.
Most Christians are aware that if you live a life of sin, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. In this parable, Jesus points out that if you are unmerciful, you won’t inherit the kingdom of God either. In fact, your failure to show mercy to others will drown out your pleas for mercy to God.
Christians who honor the law of God, then, should be the most merciful people on earth, both because they have been taught by Christ to show mercy and because they know what will happen to them if they don’t. I am constantly aware of the gulf between God’s perfect law and my own obedience. Without His mercy to bear me up, I surely will plunge into the abyss. For me to be merciless, then, is an act of spiritual suicide.
Without an emphasis on law, though, all this falls apart. If I violate a law I think is unimportant and indifferently accept God’s apathetic grace, that gives me zero incentive to change my conduct toward those who have wronged me. God’s law might not matter much, but the offenses of others against me sure do! We don’t need the law to teach us vengefulness; it’s imbedded in every one of our selfish little hearts.
When I have been forgiven little (I think), I will love little, and I will be little inclined to show mercy. Not surprisingly, people who accept the first part of this statement end up living out the second two. As I wrote about a year ago, some of the most vicious, unforgiving people on earth are “tolerant” secular progressives. Because they do not acknowledge God’s law, they do not admit their need for grace, so they see no reason to extend it to others.
I certainly hope that in the years and decades to come, brethren will be more grace-centric and more conscious of their need to receive and show mercy. However, trying to get there by downplaying the importance of the law of God (all of it) is going in exactly the wrong direction. Paul does not free us from the law. He frees us from the illusion that we can justify ourselves, which is the very illusion that minimizing law creates.