We will repent of our stereotypes and prejudices towards those struggling with sexual sin and we will never single out sexual sin as worse than any other but is sinful.  At the same time, we respect the power of sexual sin and the severity of its consequences unlike any other sin.   1Cor 6.18-20  18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.  God hates sexual immorality.  1Cor 10.8 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

SPEAK & ACT HUMBLY ABOUT SEX

1Cor 6.9-11 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God We will acknowledge that everyone is capable of every sin.  There is no sinful behavior that given the right circumstances my sinful heart will not adopt.

SPEAK & ACT HONESTLY ABOUT SEX

James 5.15-16 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.  If you are struggling with sexual sin, healing will not occur hiding away in the darkness.  You must bring it to the light-married or not.   If you're not satisfied in your marriage relationship, then you must speak boldly and openly. 

SPEAK & ACT TRUTHFULLY ABOUT SEX

John 8.31-32 31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him,  "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." If you do not learn the truth, you will be enslaved to lies.  Become educated and be open with your spouse and your children.  If you are going to speak truthfully then you are going to need to become a student of sex. 

SPEAK & ACT FRANKLY ABOUT SEX[i]

Hebrews 13.4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.  Marriage is ALWAYS the context to speak frankly about sex in.  If we speak about sex frankly without speaking about marriage we cannot glorify God.  So, we will lift up marriage & we will not be silent but celebrate God's gift sex as we use the Bible, not culture, to teach on sexuality and relationships.  We also must speak frankly to those who continue to sin...stop.  1Thessialonians 4.3ff

These questions were adapted from M.Driscoll's Radical Reformission. I adjusted them and dropped a couple; they didn't originate with me, but I found them personally helpful. Here they are:

1. Is this helpful to me personally? 1Cor 6.12a

We cannot glorify God if what we do causes me harm. The "right" to something doesn't make it helpful, beneficial, or constructive to one's person physically, emotionally, spiritually. True liberty demands responsibility. Freedom without discernment becomes recklessness. At the same time, pleasure is not sin. There are many things that we don't need and there is no sin in delighting in the creation of God.

2. Am I promoting the good of others around me, or just being selfish?
1Cor 10.23-24 23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

We cannot glorify God if the exercise of our freedom tears someone down. Our freedom must be regulated by a love for others NOT just avoidance of harm. At the same time, don't assume we agree on what is most loving or what causes harm (Rom 14.1).

3. Will this cause someone whom I know weak and who is in my presence to sin?
1Cor 8.9-10 Romans 14.21
We cannot glorify God by causing another Christian to fall into sin. Cultural decision-making should always include a discussion about the weaker brother

4. Will this break any laws of the land? Romans 13.1-7

We cannot glorify God by breaking laws of our city, state, or nation.

5. Will I lose self-control and be mastered by this? 1Cor 6.12 12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.

We cannot glorify God by addiction and enslavement to sin. We must never adopt an "I can handle it," mentality. That is the first evidence of pride which is the last step before falling on your face. Temptation to sin is not sin. Jesus was tempted but he did not sin. We must we diligent to protect ourselves from self-indulgence or self-righteousness. We do this by living a life of self-denial. 1Cor 9.27 I discipline my body and keep it under control...disqualified

6. Will I miss an opportunity to share the gospel? 1Cor 10.27-30 27

We cannot glorify God if we're not always on mission.. There is a sense in which we must ask ourselves if partaking of an aspect of culture OR not, will in fact do more to gain a hearing. We make decisions moment by moment. We do not partake every time because we can. We do not abstain every time because we can't. We discern every time because we must as a benefit to the gospel.

7. Can I do this to the glory of God? 1Cor10.31-33 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

We cannot glorify God when we're more concerned with glorifying ourselves or something else. By glorify God, I mean, to magnify the greatness and beauty that is God. If your participation is not glorifying God, then, it is most likely self-glorifying or another form of idolatry. This doesn't mean you have to sing hymns as you have a beer or only get crosses as tattoos. I believe it demands we ask whether what we're doing every moment of our lives is driven by a desire to make God's greatness, magnificence, holiness, excellence, power, sufficiency, grace, mercy, beauty and character known...if not, it is sinful.

8. Can I do this with a clear conscience? Romans 13.5

We cannot glorify God when we cannot participate joyfully without doubt. Your choice to exercise your liberty is not bound by anyone's conscience, nor should your conscience bind anyone else's. Think of the conscience as "self-knowledge." Other than God, no one knows you better than you. Without Jesus, your conscience is governed by your sinful desires. When you are redeemed, your conscience is freed from sin and informed by the Holy Spirit. It will then lead you to conclude what is best for you even if it means you don't participate in what you have the "right" to do. (Romans 7 speaks of this struggle and Galatians 6 describes it as a conflict)

9. Am I imitating the example of Jesus Christ? 1Cor 11.1

We cannot glorify God if we are trying to require more than Jesus did. People like to ask WWJD, until the answer is something they don't want to do. Let's be honest about who Jesus. He wasn't drinking fermented grape juice and he didn't live less than a life as a real human that I can emulate.

10. Does my participation of this proceed from faith in Jesus? Romans 14.23

For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. If your decision to partake, abstain, participate, or not participate does not begin with a relationship with God, it is sin.

John chapter 10 is one of those difficult passages.  In one sense, it's easy to envision what it means for Jesus to be a "Good Shepherd."  But, when you begin to really meditate on who the sheep are, how they get into the fold, how one becomes part of the flock, who are the robbers and thieves sneaking in, who are the wolves in sheep's clothing, who is the stranger that comes to the door, and why Jesus only calls some sheep out...things get a bit confusing. 

As I develop as a preacher, my hope is that I am able to make these difficult passages less confusing, not more.  But, even if I fail to do that and brutally butcher what God means, I pray that when people walk away they leave sensing that all things are centered on Jesus.  That is enough for me. 

What is the fold of sheep?  How many folds are there?

Literally, the fold is where the sheep stay for protection.  From the Jewish perspective, the fold is the nation of Israel.  Jesus says quite clearly that He has sheep within THIS fold (Israel) that He will call out from it-his disciples and others.  From all appearances, everyone thinks ALL Israel is the true flock, but Paul (one of the true sheep of Israel) explains, the sons of faith are the true sons, not just being in the "fold" (Gal. 3.7).  But there are TWO folds, as Jesus later says.  The other fold is all other GENTILE (non-Jewish nations).  They too are sheep, in a sense, but His true sheep will come out of the GENTILE world in the same way the Jews did from Israel, they will respond to His voice. 

When we talk about "folds" today, we need to ask where we would consider God's flock to gather.  Typically, God's supposed flock gathers in today's local church.  Of course, we would say that the "flock", or God's church, exists spiritually in that it transcends the walls of buildings, denominations, etc.  It is within these folds that we find the flock.  Without question, everyone who gathers in these different folds are not all true sheep of God.

What or who is in the fold?

So who is in the fold?  There are all kinds of animals in the fold.  Calling all of the people sheep makes sense in that God describes his creation that way.  To call them all sheep then is just a general term to describe what all people are in relation to God and delineating between true and false sheep is a specific way to describe a different type of relationship to God.

Who are the thieves and robbers that climb in the fold?  Why are they there?

The thieves and robbers are all of those who do not come through the door-which is Jesus.  In other words, they are all of the people who are not God's people in the church.  Why are they there?  They all have different motivations, of course, but all their purposes amount to stealing and destroying.  There are different ways to accomplish this.  Describing the different types of people in the church is simply a way of characterizing the different types of false sheep that have come into the fold but are not hearing the voice of God. We must recognize that there are true sheep that also act a bit beastly too. These are not false teachers per se, these are the people in the fold who disrupt and harm it from within.

Who are the strangers that come to the door?

The difficult part of this particular piece of scripture is that Jesus mixes all kinds of metaphors and images, making things a little confusing.  This is somewhat Jesus' method throughout most of His ministry so, if things don't make perfect sense, we're in good company.  The strangers who come to the door are those wolves (False teachers of Matthew 15) that come from outside of the fold to lead the sheep astray.  When this false teacher comes to the door, the true sheep ignore him because they see right through him-they have been trained well by their good shepherd.  Those false sheep who have snuck into the fold, will be duped by this stranger's lies, leave, or cause further conflict in the fold because they're confused and deceived easily.

Who is the Shepherd at the door?

This is Jesus.  He calls His sheep, and those who KNOW their Shepherd, respond.  The question is then, how some of the sheep in the fold are able to understand and some are not.  Do they simply refuse to listen or are they unable to?

How is Jesus the door and the Shepherd?

Entering by the door is the right way to enter the fold.  Those who do not enter through the door of Jesus are not saved.  They look like they're "part of the flock" because they are in the fold, but they have come in a different way, by sneaking in or digging a hole, or some other way different than the door.  A lot of people come into the fold by acting "religious".  The true sheep do not come as result of their religious merits, but of Jesus' death on the cross. Going through the door means entering through Jesus.  It is through this door that He leads His sheep out and leads His sheep in.  Life begins and continues to take place through the door. 

Does the Shepherd die for all the Sheep? 

Does the Shepherd die for everyone in the same way?  Does Jesus sacrifice Himself for the ‘whole' fold or just for the flock that He elected before all time?  Some would argue that Jesus' sacrifice is "sufficient' (enough) for everyone, but only efficient (effective) for the "true sheep."  Others describe it as "limited" or "unlimited" atonement, describing the extent to which the atonement of Jesus is applied.    The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby He cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased holy wrath against us for ALL the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God (Rom.3.25-26).   It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners by just sweeping the sin under the proverbial rug.  So the question remains, for whom does Jesus die and for whom did He bear the curse due to our sin?

It seems like we have two options:

1.      Jesus died for every human being (all sheep) in the same way, making men "savable" and giving them the opportunity to hear the voice and choose.

2.      Jesus died for all men, in that all men benefit in some sense, but for the elect (His sheep) with actual redemption in mind, enabling them to hear the voice when others cannot.

We would agree with option 2 from above, that the blood of Jesus did more than purchase the opportunity for everyone.  In fact, the Bible appears to argue that the "death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people whom God will draw, as opposed to every individual who may or may not choose it. Consider the following Scriptures:

What does all of this mean?

Clearly, this short blog is not intended to explain every theological nuance that you might come across.  When all is said and done, it seems clear that the Bible teaches that God draws some men and not others; that God causes men to be reborn while not giving that grace to others; that God the Father gives particular men (and women) to Jesus to save and not others; that God reveals Himself by opening the eyes of some and not others.  In other words, God makes the first move.  This might seem insignificant, but at its simplest levels, it protect us from any sort of self-righteous boasting that is not rooted in the cross of Jesus.  Then, at much deeper levels, we learn that if God is our Shepherd and choosing us, then although we wander, we can't get lost again.   In other words we never lose God, or more accurately, Jesus never loses us.

When Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” we see all the hypocritical and prideful men who wanted to see her punished, walk away.  Even though they were legally “right”, their consciences served well to convict them of their prideful motivations devoid of grace.  We usually overlook the fact that there was one person there who could throw a stone at her, the one against whom she had in fact actually sinned—God incarnate.

But Jesus does not throw a stone; he tells her that he won’t condemn her.  Jesus decides not to judge according to the letter of the law (or at all), rather, the spirit of the law.  Even though God has the legal, positional, natural, judicial, moral, ethical, and personal right as the Creator we rebelled against to end us, he does the very opposite.  But it’s not that God has in fact chosen the judge ONLY according to the Spirit of the Law and ignore the letter of the Law.  From our perspective, he judges us with the Law of Spirit, but the death of Jesus on the cross proves that he in fact still judges according to the letter of the Law. 

Of course, the church has been giving Jesus somewhat of a bad name since AD 33.  What I mean is that we will never reflect a perfect image as the body of Christ; it's just that what we see from our TV evangelists is often as perverted of an image as you can often find.  I think I could probably handle it if it was just Christians making "church people" look a bit foolish.  But more often than not, when I turn on channel 18 or 20, I see a full out molestation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Let me give you some examples.  Last night one guy spoke for over 20 minutes.  I listened and listened and listened.  He mentioned Jesus' name once and that was to invoke His name as power to bless the viewers financially.  Of course, that is only if you "sow a seed."  The gospel that is being literally pitched by these guys is nothing short of a pile of prosperity crap.  Their evidence of God's blesisng is health and wealth.  Their evidence of God's judgment or man's lack of faith is suffering.  Hmmm...guess that rules out Jesus entire life experience (Did I mention that this guy has two BIG gold rings, nice watch, and a suit fit for mobster?)

Now these guys are getting a bit more saavy with their pitch these days.   They used to be able to sell anyone a small vial of holy water that would heal cancer for $77.77.  They've realized that enough people paid their money as they pray that their next round of Chemo won't be as painful as the last.  So, their new pitch is to say "If you sow a seed into this ministry….I am called to resurrect every harvest you …God told me there would be a 100 people, a 120 people….who would sow a seed of $100 and Jehovah God will give you a harvest that you didn't get before."  I am not sure who this guy dialed when he called "God", but it certainly wasn't the God of the Bible. 

Yes, this is a bit of a rant.  But I am sick and tired of people giving God's church and God's people a bad name by selling Jesus as some sort of commodity to fix your earthly woes.  This guy even went so far as to say, "If you give $100 today...I guarantee you the next 30 days willl be the greatest days of your life," and that, "within 24 hours God will bless your socks off." Then, as a way to prove that he's really listening to the Spirit, he starts throwing out really specific (sense the saracasm) words of knowledge like, "I feel that there is someone needing a job promotion…a guy is watching whose wife has left...a couple who is saving up for a home…if you give $100 God is going to fix all those things."

The gospel of prosperity sickens me and makes me want to puke.  I want to throttle a guy like that because he's sellling people a bill of goods that is based on false doctrine.  The gospel is about a value system that is counter cultural.  It is a value system where our God and savior said power is sacrifice, wealth is giving it all away, healing comes through suffering. My prayer is that we read 2Corinthians 4.7-18 and learn to live with an eternal perspective.  So that, whether God blesses us or allows us to suffer, he is glorified in our wealth and our poverity, in our sickness and in our health.   

Here is John Piper's opinion too....

How do you reveal someone's need for Jesus?  Perhaps this is just another way to say, "convince" without saying it.  Convincing someone of their need for Jesus isn't my responsibility, and its not biblical.  Even though the Bible clearly teaches it is God who draws men, God who chooses, God who regenerates, God who reveals...I still feel a heavy responsibility.  I feel like I should be able to say something beyond "come to church" and then cross my fingers that God will grab them.  It's it that random? 

For lack of a better term, it seems like it might be easier to convince people of their need for Jesus if their suffering.  But what if their not suffering?  What if their life seems perfect? What if they cannot see the need...again, I'm beginning to tread on God's turf now.  Nevertheless, if I was going to provide a persuasive argument as to the advantages of knowing Jesus (assuming these advantages would demonstrate need), what would I say:

Any time I preach a sermon, I usually spend the afternoon rehashing everything that I said, didn't say, shouldn't have said, or said differently.  Today is no different.  It is been said by men smarter than myself that some of the best preaching are those willing to simply let the scriptures speak for themselves.  This might lead us to believe that the best preaching then is opening the Bible just reading the Scripture publicly.  When all is said and done, I hope that I never step in front of Jesus and let my thoughts and words dominate what He wants to say. 

Today, the only thing I desired to make perfectly clear is who Jesus says that He is.  A lot of people say he is this or that or another thing, but it's probably best to let Jesus tell us who He is.  In John 5, he does just that.  Quite plainly, without apology or explanation he says, I am equal with God, we work together and He tells me everything.  Further, he claims he can raise the dead because he possesses life in himself, and that he will judge everyone who has ever lived.  If any of these claims are false, he's anything but a great teacher, a good man, or a wise prophet.  He's either the biggest nutjob who ever lived or the most persuasive used cars salesman we can imagine.  But if their true (which I believe they are), then what do we do with the fact that Jesus is God.  If our theology doesn't actually impact our lives, why believe it, why meditate on it, why speak about it at all. 

If Jesus is God then he is not some good man to like or respect, he's to be worshipped. If Jesus is God then he is not just some great teacher with good moral advice, he's a god with commands to obey. If Jesus is God, then his blood is of infinite value-it's God's blood on the cross. If Jesus is God, then God is no longer some cosmic distance deity, our God has arrived, he's entered humanity, and we can connect with him.

More than anything, if Jesus is God, that makes God quite specific.  We cannot continue to speak in general terms of worshipping God, or praising God, or praying to God, or loving God, we must speak of Jesus, specifically, Jesus of Nazareth.  We a person who has shown us God by what he said and how he lived.  Any religion, cult, or spiritist can speak about "God" and remain eons away from the God that we might imagine they mean.  When you say Jesus, worshipping Jesus, praising Jesus, loving Jesus, living for Jesus...things get much more specific..  We're no longer worshipping the idea of God as we might imagine, but the person of Jesus as written in the Bible.   

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Although I'm far from the a "cussing pastor", admittedly, my sermons are laced with an occassinoal "crap" or some other euphemism for poop that some people may be offended by. Quite simply people want pastors to talk a certain way to the extent that there are certain words you just don't say from the pulpit. I'm still looking or the list in the Bible.

I don't like swearing as much as the next guy, well, occasionally a good old $%#$% feels good. But other than that, I don't make it a practice to fill the air with verbal color. Verses like Ephesians 4.29 are often used to speak out against such ‘filthy' talk, subjectively defined as anything you or I might define as "dirty" or "off-color". Of course, such labels are open to various understandings and culture dictates that levels of appropriateness in fact change over time (according to the world) as do its various definitions of the words themselves. This line of argument is similar to making a rule to avoid any "rate R" movie. When is the last time that we let culture dictate what is "acceptable" for us as Christians? There are plenty of PG-13, even PG movies that are worthy of being called many swear words. I hope you get my point.

Few would or should argue that there is a line where talk becomes obscene, vulgar, indecent, or contrary to acceptable standards. Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast "rule" with what is appropriate or inappropriate. Without question, there are audiences where the language must be curtailed out of love, to remain above reproach (especially in a pharisaical crowd), or simply to be heard among various peoples, ages, etc. But any attempt to quantitatively identify specific good and bad words, or acceptable and unacceptable joking with any sense of consistency will only prove futile and may impinge on the idea of freedom of conscience, not to mention inch us closer to some sense of self-righteousness.

Once again, we have fallen victim to basing spirituality on the appearance, and assuming that we're "good" if we stop "sinning" with our mouths. The gospel teaches us that, while what comes out of the mouth is an indicator of what is in the heart, there isn't a list of "good and bad" words that exists out there that impacts our justification-alone in Jesus. A problem arises when you create a list of "bad words" because you suddenly miss the point of the sin in your heart. It's easy to avoid the sins of commission here...just don't say XYZ. What about the sins of omission, where you actually could have said something to encourage to build up or to defend and you remained silent? Again, we are looking too close at behavior to the extent of ignoring the core issue.

I can avoid using any of those "bad" words and make some feel terrible by putting or breaking them down verbally. In other words, WORDS are not the point. There have been times when I have cried out to God and said, I'm such an #$%#$% God. I really don't think he's offended but he's hearing what I really feel in my heart and can see past that. Of course, as a public speaker, I have a responsibility. As much as is possible, we want to make sure we don't fall into a slippery slope of establishing self-righteousness apart from the blood of Christ, even in a small way.

Lastly, there is also the controversial element of making sure you speak the language of the people. Of course, this doesn' t mean you have to swear, but I imagine there is a context in which it might be very appropriate to swear in order to express truth (and have it heard) in a language that can be understood. Of course, this might seem extreme in a service, but there are many people for whom swearing is so entrenched in their vernacular that they don't even realize they are doing it. Perhaps using a smatter of their language will help them to connect with you so that they hear the gospel where the power of transformation really sits.

We must remember these three different ideas when discussing sin or we will make the mistake of looking at ourselves, other people, and the entire world incorrectly.  We can never forget that, because of sin, we are broken.  This is not a superficial blemish, but a deep and complex root problem.  We can't just "stop sinning" or call people to "stop sinning."  Such calls for purity make light of the problem we have.

We must also remember that, because of sin, we cannot meet God's standard.  If we think we can, we are getting close to a legalistic mentality where we try to develop our own self-righteousness.  Jesus' sermon on the mount told revealed to us that just trying to avoid BAD SINS does not mean we'll ever live out the ideal God wants for us.  Just because we don't hate someone does not mean that we love them as we should. 

Finally, we can't forget that we are willfully rebellious. We are not just mindless victims.  This is both good and bad in that we are held accountable for what we do, to a person, God, but it is also possible for us to change.  Although we are broken and born with a sinful nature, we also violate God's authority by choosing to sin ourselves.  

Remember all of this should challenge us to approach the world differently.  It is broken, it is sinful, it is dirty, and so am I.  Instead of throwing down moral pronouncements on all of the "SINNERS" in the world, perhaps it would be best to build relationships so that we can identify what they are using to fill the void that only Jesus will satisfy.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IuiUOapK1w

When said visitor doesn't like or disagrees with something, these well seasoned expert-church-hoppers will take the time to tell you why they don't like it.  Of course, they won't say they don't like it, they'll through out terms like unbiblical, not like the New Testament church,even immoral...yada, yada, yada.  I believe that at the core of their complaint is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, specifically, they fail to discern between descriptive and prescriptive passages of Scripture. 

Descriptive passages are passages of Scripture that describe a situation or an example of A WAY to do something; they provide facts not necessarily commands.  These passages are often called "historical" in nature in that they report what has occurred in the past.  These passages tell us something that happened, but they do not necessarily apply to all of us. For example, the bible tells of tells of King David's adultery and act of murder, but we are not expected to follow this example, but learn from it.  The same goes with miracles--we cannot expect the same necessarily to happen to us.  We could also argue that the Psalms, especially the emotional content and specific structure of David's Psalms, are just the way he did it...not necessarily how we are supposed to.

Prescripitive passages are those passages of the Bible that in fact prescribe something to be done or not done--they call us to action.  These passages are often called "normative" in that the activity is prescribed in such a way as to be understood in universal application.  Examples would be DO NOT murder, DO NOT lie, WORSHIP the Lord alone, etc.  Prescriptive laws can be obeyed or disobeyed, kept or broken.  There are also prescriptive behaviors either explicit or implied such as a weekly gathering of the church.  That the church must gather is prescriptive but how, when, and where is descriptive.

A problem occurs when people CONFUSE descriptive things in the Bible with prescriptive ones.  Some people take a prescriptive passage like "homosexuality is wrong" and make it descriptive by suggesting it was just a "cultural" thing of the time.  Others take descriptive passages like the Pslams of David sung with a lyre and flute and declare that we must sing only Psalms of the Bible as worship and in same way David did.  Both are wrong. 

These are the dangerous tools of the critical consumer.  The apostle Paul asks in Galatians 1, "Am I concerned now with the approval of men or the approval of God."  Let us never compromise what we know to be true for the approval of men.  And let us never let men twist the Scripture to alter what "they say" God approves. 

Honestly, Matt would probably explain this better but I'll give it a shot considering it will be another 6 weeks before he writes anything about it.  In the last few words of my sermon today, I said that God wants more that just our salvation.  God uses the sexual relationship to describe his relationship with us.  When we don't love him, we become harlots, having sex with a myriad of other Gods.  God wants us exclusively and he wants us in ALL the three ways that he defines love as.  In a sense, God wants more than just sex with us.  I wonder if I want more than just sex with him.  True sexual intimacy, the way God intended it, can only occur when we've been patient and disciplined enough to develop the relationship BEFORE anything sexual occurs.  When sex is divorced from relationship, then chaos reigns.  Sex becomes physical.  People become objects.  And we grow more and more detached from the intimacy that we're wired to have. 

Maybe the same thing happens with God.  Are we only interested in God for the sex?  Do we ever desire or work toward that relationship with Him?  Do we seek this relationship for the sole purpose of just knowing him more? OR are we cultivating a relationship so that we get what we really want, peace, love, ease of suffering, etc. All of that is just sex.  What about companionship?  What about having something to talk with?  To rejoice with?  To cry with?  To be vulnerable with?  Isn't that what God wants?  If Jesus is the perfect husband and I am the bride one would think that He wants to do exactly what he calls me to do as a husband--seek after a relationship, be a true companion, commit even when she/I are not committed, and then the beauty and intimacy of sex becomes something beautiful--a sharing of ourselves completely, emotionally, physically, spiritually.  Perhaps that is why God says "Love me with all of your heart, and soul, and strenght. " 

Alas, like our Lord, we must be slow to speak and quick to listen without dimissing anyone who disagrees with us as "fuddy-duddies"  I have had to learn this the hard way sometimes as my mouth often moves before my mind knows what is going on.  At the same time, when "a brother" takes something insignificant and uses it as a vehicle to attack the theology of the church or the integrity of its leadership, we must defend ourselves.  What is most disconcerting is that these well-intentioned men are doing little more than emphasizing division on secondary issues that do little to spread the gospel and a ton to ensure the unchurched keep shaking their heads at the two "friends" who can't seem to play nice.

All that said, we pray for any man who, driven by fear and pride, seek to divide the church.  We mind as well start crying out "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" again.  I am not here to defend or explain our position on Alcohol, honestly, it's not worth my time.  We know what our church is about--Jesus.  We do not seek to be any more or less than he was.  But, if you would like to know the position of Acts 29, well, here it is.  

God: I had a really good time last night. A really, really good time.
Silverman: Thaaaanks (in a disdainful tone). Me too.
God: Come to heaven with me today.
Silverman: Today.
God: You'll see the past and the future. You can fly, and I will introduce you to Thomas Jefferson. Silverman: Oh, awesome. I told my friend, Natalie, I'd help her move, though.
God: I can stop time!
Silverman: That is so sweet. Oh, your pants are over there. I mean, not like I'm asking you to leave. I just mean, like if you can't see it from this angle of still being in my bed.
God: Right, I should go.
Silverman: OK, um, all right, so, I guess I'll see you around some time.
God: Do you mean it?! Or are you just saying that?
Silverman: I don't just say things. I'm a lot of things. I'm not dishonest.
God: Can I get your cell number?
Silverman: I don't have a cell phone.

Of my first reaction should probably be that of disgust.  Or, perhaps I should immediately write some "family values" Christian organization with a bigger voice than mine so that they can call for an immediate public apology and boycott Comedy Central.  Honestly, some time ago I wrote a personal journal called "Sex with God."  Before you dismiss such an endevour as freakish, know that it was an attempt to challenge the nature of my personal relationship with God--in other words, it's not about you so relax. 

I asked myself some really simple, but raw questions.  What is sex with God? Is it the moments when I see his grace, the times when I want to see his power the most?  If so, do I only want sex with God and not really a relationship with him?  Do I "sleep" with Jesus like a one night stand? Am I the whore that God tells me I am sleeping around with other gods?  Am I only interested in Jesus for the momentary thrill and feelings?  Do I just want to date Jesus or be a "friend with benefits" but no obligations of course.  If it wasn't for "sex", would I ignore or avoid the "relationship" most of the time?  I am "afraid" to commit? Do I spend any time with Jesus or call him up like a drug addict needing a fix when I'm dry?  Am I using Jesus like some spiritual gigolo? 

We must recognize that IF we are believers, that our relationship is described as a marriage to Jesus.  Jesus is not our date, he is not our fiance, he is not our gigolo.  Jesus is our husband, who protects us, saves us, and loves us.  If we only talk about having "sex" with God and never talk about our marriage, we make the relationship look and sound shallow and meaningless.  Focusing only on the "sex" in the relationship, makes us sound like we only love God when he comes through big for us, when he splits the red sea or turns water into wine.  If we only talk about Sex with God, we talk only about what we can get out of him, how he should make me feel, and how often he should do it for us.  I wonder if this is at all like our own marriages?  What if the only, or even primary, thing we wanted out of our marriage relationships was sex.  How shallow.  How incomplete.  How sad.  It is a part of marriage...but it is not all there is.  It is part of the relationship, but it can never be the foundation nor the sustaining power that holds it together.  In fact, it is more reflector of the health of the relationship than it is a creator of it. 

In short, I think we can learn a bit about ourselves from this seemingly profane piece of pop culture. 

In this new documentary, Cameron claims to have found the tomb of Jesus.  Today, there are many different arguments for where exactly the tomb of Jesus is located.  More accurately, no one knows what tomb out of the myriad of options is the "one" tomb--I guess it would have made identification a bit easier if Jesus would have just stayed in a tomb.  Regardless, Cameron claims to have found a tomb and goes even further in arguing that he has found the burial box of Jesus himself...and his son.  Sound famililar?

This new search was somewhat inspired by a discovery of a similar box early in 2003 with "James, brother of Jesus" enscribed on it.  Cameron argues much of the authenticity of his find on a comparison with the James box--failing to mention that it was deemed a fake by Israel's Antiquity Authorities.  At this point there are expert on each side saying YES, this is Jesus burial box, and, NO, this is a fake.  I won't be surprised to hear talk of scouring the boxes for DNA so that they can create some sort of sicko JURASSIC JESUS come back to life. 

At first glance, this might seem like a harmless little argument from a really crappy director with some sort of axe to grind.  Perhaps mom and dad drug him to church when he was younger and now is his chance to tell them they were wrong.   As Christians, we can't freak out about such attacks.  They are quite common, and as Solomon so aptly says, "there is nothing new under the sun." 

We do however, need to make sure we understand the implications of such a "find" so that our faith is not rattled and we are equipped to have conversations with those who would love another chance to either bash our faith or pervert it. 

Paul says it quite clearly in 1Corinthians 15.14-19 where he says, "...if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain...we are of all people most to be pitied." 

Jesus bones are not found because He rose from the dead after dying on the cross and lying in a tomb for three days.  This is not "A" truth to know, it is "THE" truth to be believed and contended for. As we approach Easter, we will study the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.  The evidence biblical and historical evidence for this truth is overwhelming.  Check back for other posts soon...