Audio Transcript

Welcome back to the podcast. This week we’re looking at controversy. We opened the week looking at the sick love of controversy. In APJ 1949, on Monday, we looked at this disease called “craving for controversy,” as Paul calls it in 1 Timothy 6:4.

Today we look at how to best speak of a culture’s sins — when we must do so. Such work is complicated by the fact that Paul seems to tell us there are some sins in a culture that are simply too wicked and too “shameful” to even speak of. That’s according to Ephesians 5:12, at least on the surface of it. So what shameful sins should Christians not even speak about? The question is from a listener named Dan.

“Pastor John, hello to you! I am an elder at my church, and I was thinking about how sin is to be addressed by Christian preachers, both pastorally to the congregation and in calling out the sins of culture. What advice would you give preachers on how to avoid merely complaining or going off on angry rants about cultural sins, and how to wisely identify and call for repentance from sins inside the church? So what cultural sins do we expose and speak out against? What cultural sins do we ignore or refrain from talking about because of their vulgarity? And how do you think preachers in local churches will best balance addressing the sins of culture and the sins in the pew?”

This is an important question because the sinfulness of contemporary society is today more outlandish than it has been for hundreds of years in America — and more in your face because of the ubiquity of social media and online streaming and advertising. Those two facts — outlandish and ubiquitous — are a strong temptation for a pastor to vent his anger and frustration at the degeneration of the world, so that the pulpit runs the risk of becoming not a place mainly of exultation over the glories of God in Christ, but a place of irritation and condemnation of the insanity that is going on out there in the world. A pastor can feel that things are so bad that if he does not linger over the latest grossness of evil, it will look like he’s going soft on sin.

Sounding the Right Note

So, it’s good for us to think about how to speak of sins in the world and sins in the church and yet sound the dominant note of amazement at the glories of the grace of God in Christ, so that that’s what people walk away with on Sunday morning — namely, we are amazed here at the beauty and the glory of the grace of God in Christ.

There is surely a reason why Paul said to the Philippians, who were threatened by legalistic dogs who wanted to ravage their faith (Philippians 3:2), and by “enemies of the cross of Christ” whose “end is destruction, [whose] god is their belly, and [who] glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19) — there’s a reason why Paul said precisely to this embattled church, surrounded by so much belly-god debauchery, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).

We are not to be consumed emotionally or attentively with the latest drag queen strutting among the 4-year-olds or the latest butchery to the genitals of 8-year-olds. There is a fitting groaning and tears over the wickedness of these things, but if it consumes us, we have lost our bearings and need to go back to Christ. Think about this. Paul said, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice” (Philippians 4:4). He said that seven verses after saying, “[I] tell you even with tears, [they] walk as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:18). That’s amazing.

Sins Outside and Inside

So, let’s take Ephesians 5:3–12 as an example of how Paul deals with sins outside and inside the church in his preaching. Here’s what he says.

Sexual immorality and all impurity [and he had a lot of gross stuff in that word] must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk and crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

That is, fill your mouth up with something positive so it pushes out all the filthiness and foolishness and crudeness.

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you [and he’s talking about believers here] with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

See the connection there? You watch out — you Christians watch out for deception. And then he calls those whom he’s really talking about “sons of disobedience,” which means unbelievers.

Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light . . . and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

Uncontaminated Exposing

So, here you have Paul naming the sins of the world: sexually immoral, impure, covetous. And then he warns the saints not to be partners with them. So he’s not just grandstanding against those bad people out there; he’s concerned about the church. “You are saints now. You are in the kingdom of Christ now. You are the children of light now.” But he doesn’t draw the inference from this, “Well, all we need to do is stand aloof, castigate the world.” Rather, he makes the sins of the world an occasion for warning the saints. “We are vulnerable. If you partner with them in those sins, you too will come under the wrath of God.”

“There’s a way to expose the sins of the world without being verbally contaminated.”

And then he closes with something paradoxical. He says, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Ephesians 5:11–12). So, there’s a way to expose the sins of the world without being verbally contaminated. “It’s shameful even to speak of them,” Paul says. Which I think means it’s shameful to find pleasure in talking about them, lingering over them with excessive attention. It is possible to find pleasure — we’re just so deceived on things like this; we can deceive ourselves so easily — in talking about the things we hate. Isn’t that awful? It’s possible to find pleasure in talking about the things we hate. God doesn’t want this. That’s not good.

So, the right way to summarize that paradox would go something like this, I think: Expose, but don’t gloat. Expose, but don’t linger. Expose, but weep. Expose, but pray. Expose, but don’t grovel in the mire, even in the name of mocking the mire. Some people think they’re justified in lingering in the mire by spending a lot of time finding clever ways to put it down. Expose, but then return quickly to the clean, clear, holy, happy air of the mountains of Christ’s fellowship.

Overcome Evil with Good

I have just three more bullet points, observations that might give some more guidance on how to deal with sins outside the church.

“Expose, but then return quickly to the clean, clear, holy, happy air of the mountains of Christ’s fellowship.”

First, when you deal with them, do it in a serious, biblical way. That is, do a biblical analysis, a careful analysis, a thoughtful analysis for why they are sin. Some sins we think are so gross, so harmful that we don’t need to give any kind of biblical analysis or rationale for their rejection. I think that’s a mistake, because it tends to make us think simply on a par with conservative unbelievers. That’s not a good place to be for a Christian, simply on a par with conservative unbelievers. But a biblical analysis would get to the root of how the sin relates to God and to Christ. And our dealing with the sin then would be seen as a passion for God’s glory and Christ’s majesty, his mercy, not just our proper gobsmack at the outrage.

Second, keep in mind 1 Corinthians 5:12–13: “What have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”

Third and finally, aim at the fullest experience possible of Romans 12:21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Sarah Edwards (1710–1758), wife of the great theologian and revival preacher Jonathan Edwards, is most often remembered for her lifelong devotion to God. She had experienced God’s grace even as a little girl. At age 16, she confided in her journal that she had been “led to prize nearness to Christ as the creature’s greatest happiness” (Sarah Edwards: Delighting in God, 27).

In addition to being a devoted Christian, Sarah was the mother of eleven children. Having married at the age of 17, she gave birth to her first baby the next year, and had ten more children at more or less two-year intervals until she was 40.

In the eighteenth century, childbirth was still painful and risky. Rates of maternal (and infant) mortality were high. Sarah’s life was in danger at least once during childbirth. We should not romanticize the physical and emotional burden of bearing and raising eleven children.

So how did she respond to the challenges of motherhood? What might her example teach us today?

God-Centered Home

Parsonages in Sarah’s time would have visitors constantly arriving and expecting accommodation. The Edwardses often had guests staying for extended periods. Such visitors consistently testified that theirs was a joyful home. Delight in God characterized daily family worship and everyday life as well.

“Delight in God characterized daily family worship and everyday life as well.”

The Edwards children were trained from the earliest age to obey their parents, but the training was not harsh. Jonathan and Sarah’s descendent Sereno Edwards Dwight included this glowing tribute to Sarah in his Memoir, written in 1830:

She had an excellent way of governing her children: she knew how to make them regard and obey her cheerfully, without loud angry words, much less, heavy blows. She seldom punished them, and in speaking to them used gentle and pleasant words. If any correction was needed, she did not administer it in a passion; and when she had occasion to reprove and rebuke, she would do it in few words, without warmth and noise, and with all calmness and gentleness of mind. (40–41)

The great English revival preacher George Whitefield visited the colonies in 1740 and was invited to preach at Jonathan’s Northampton church. As a guest in the Edwards home, he was impressed by this happy and godly family, and he confided in his journal the prayer that God would supply him with a life partner just like Sarah.

At the same time, neither Jonathan nor Sarah trusted that their parenting would automatically produce Christian children. During Whitefield’s visit, Jonathan asked him to speak about Christ with the older Edwards children (then aged 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4). After this visit, it became apparent that God was working in the lives of Sarah Jr., Jerusha, Esther, and Mary. Jonathan and Sarah were overjoyed. They did not assume the salvation of their children; each needed to experience God’s grace individually.

Ultimately, Sarah’s parenting rested on the truth that God gives the gift of children. So, despite the unremitting demands of nursing, broken sleep, caring for little ones through sickness, and the daily work of training them, Sarah regarded each child as a gift from God. She longed for God to be glorified in each of their lives. And she trusted that, by God’s grace, each would in turn tell of God’s glory to the next generation:

One generation shall commend your works to another,     and shall declare your mighty acts. (Psalm 145:4)

Her Eternal Perspective

Sarah loved her children dearly. But she loved God more. She was confident that whatever happened to them, she could trust in God’s goodness, wisdom, and love. He was working, and would always work, all things for his own glory and for the good of his people (Romans 8:28).

“Sarah loved her children dearly. But she loved God more.”

That assurance deepened in the spring of 1742 during a time of revival in Northampton. Over an intense three-week period, Sarah enjoyed a sustained and intense experience of God’s love. “My safety, and happiness, and eternal enjoyment of God’s immutable love, seemed as durable and unchangeable as God himself,” she testified (66).

Five years later, Sarah’s confidence in God’s goodness would be severely tested. Her second daughter, Jerusha, had helped to care for a visiting missionary, David Brainerd, who was suffering from tuberculosis (a major cause of death at that time). In October 1747, Brainerd died, aged 29. By then, Jerusha had contracted the disease. She died in February 1748, aged just 17. Unusually godly, Jerusha had been regarded as the “flower of the family” (106). Sarah grieved deeply, but she did not question God’s love. Her enduring delight in God was based on her conviction that God is sovereign in all things. She could trust him with the choice of life or death, comfort or pain, for herself and her loved ones.

Through this, and a series of further trials, Sarah was sustained by her eternal perspective. God’s supreme goal is the glory of his Son, and Christ seeks the glory of his Father (1 Corinthians 15:24). The ultimate success of that goal has been secured at the cross. The last enemy, death, has already been defeated (1 Corinthians 15:25–26).

And so, when Sarah’s beloved husband unexpectedly died in 1758, she was able to respond with towering faith:

A holy and good God has covered us with a dark cloud. O that we may kiss the rod, and lay our hands on our mouths! The Lord has done it. He has made me adore his goodness, that we had him [Jonathan] so long. But my God lives; and he has my heart. (115)

Shortly afterward, aged just 48, Sarah faced death herself. She died peacefully, assured that nothing, not even death, can separate the believer from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38–39).

Every Child a Gift

Sarah Edwards’s assurance that children are a blessing from God stands in stark contrast to today’s society. Many view children as a threat to female fulfillment (and a barrier to the achievement of equal outcomes in the paid workforce). The availability of contraception (often a misnomer for abortifacient medication) often leads to the assumption that we, not God, are in control of when to have children. If a baby is “unplanned,” many claim the “right” to kill their unborn child.

Such is the depravity of a society that has rejected belief in the Creator God. But the consistent biblical teaching is that God is the giver of life. In a fallen sinful world, childbirth and childrearing involves pain and toil, yet even still, children are a blessing.

Conversely, in a society that elevates personal fulfillment over all else, some claim the “right” to have children (with or without a partner). And in churches where, rightly, motherhood is honored, some women see bearing children as the ultimate blessing. They wrongly assume that they cannot be truly fulfilled unless they bear biological children.

But Sarah reminds us that children are a gift, not a right. If God’s glory is our great desire, we will submit to his higher wisdom. He has planned from all eternity the good works he wants us to do (Ephesians 2:10). Christian women may be spiritual mothers, and a blessing to many, whether or not they bear physical children.

Whatever our circumstances, our deepest joy can be found in praising God and seeking his glory. And the testimony of Sarah Edwards can become our own:

The glory of God seemed to be all, and in all, and to swallow up every wish and desire of my heart. (78)

Audio Transcript

Happy Friday — I hope you had a wonderful week. As you might have noticed, we’ve been picking on men recently on the podcast, talking about how a man’s anger destroys the home or how a man’s lust wreaks havoc on his marriage. We looked at the major fallout of one man’s decision to abandon his wife and daughters. And we’ve addressed unbelieving men twice in recent episodes. So what about women?

We end this week with an international question, which I love, because our international listeners are willing to ask questions that don’t get asked by anyone here in the United States. We take it. We pose it. We answer it. We publish it. And very often, those episodes prove interesting to international listeners and to our local listeners as well.

I could give you some very specific examples of how this has played out in the past — on interracial-marriage episodes, for example. Instead, let’s get into today’s question from an international listener, a woman. “Pastor John, hello! I have been hearing from Christians around me that women are more sinful than men. I know from my daily ungodly thoughts and actions how sinful I am. But as a mother of boys and girls, does the Bible teach that I should teach my girls they are more sinful than boys? I know the Bible says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But Eve, Delilah, Samson’s wives, Solomon’s wives, Potiphar’s wife — these have been listed to me as proof that women are more evil than men are. Is this true?”

I think it would be a huge mistake to raise our children with the assumption that our daughters are by nature more sinful or more prone to sin than our sons. Now, let me give you at least six reasons why that would be both misleading and harmful.

1. Scripture’s Testimony Against Men

In response to the argument that Eve, Delilah, Solomon’s wives, or Potiphar’s wife proves that women are more sinful than men, consider how utterly lopsided that observation is when, for example, there were far more wicked kings in the Old Testament than wicked queens, and all the Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, and scribes that Jesus indicted with such deep sinfulness were men — all of them. If you were to make a list of especially wicked people in the Bible, the number of men would far outnumber the number of women.

“Any attempt to argue for the greater sinfulness of women statistically from the Bible is doomed to failure.”

So even if you should focus on those relationships where the woman’s sin is especially pointed out, there’s no evidence, for example, that Potiphar was any less sinful than his wife in the way he treated Joseph, or that Samson was any less of a sinful dupe than Delilah was devious. Any attempt to argue for the greater sinfulness of women statistically from the Bible is doomed to failure.

2. Modern Statistics Against Men

If someone wants to use statistics against males and females, they’ve got this to contend with: in America today, 93 percent of everyone who’s in prison is a man. Of all the people arrested each year, 73 percent are men. Of all those convicted of violent crimes, 80 percent are men. Of all the rapes that are reported, 99 percent of the time the one forcing the other is a man. Of all the homicides that are committed, 89 percent are committed by men. Of all those arrested for robbery, 87 percent are men. Of all those arrested for arson, 83 percent are men. This is devastating. I feel horrible just saying it. If statistics are going to prove anything, we’re going to be hard put to say that women are more sinful than men.

3. Shared Sinfulness

When you look at the principial statements about human depravity in the Bible, what you find is that human beings, without distinction between male and female, are said to be under the power of sin. For example, in Romans 3, Paul sums up his indictment of the human race by saying, “We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one’” (Romans 3:9–10). And later, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

And in Romans 5, Paul writes, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man” — man, by the way, not Eve — “and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. . . . One trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Romans 5:12, 18) — that is, all persons. There is no effort in any of this to say that the corruption we inherited from Adam, not Eve, is worse in women.

4. Failure of Both Adam and Eve

Maybe the most commonly cited text to ascribe to women a greater sinfulness or proneness to sin is the role that Eve played in the fall in Genesis 3 and what Paul says about it in 1 Timothy 2. He writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). And then he gives two reasons for why he says that. First, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Second, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:14).

Now, here’s what I think Paul means. If you look at Genesis 1–2, there are at least seven or eight exegetical pointers that man was meant by God to bear a special kind of responsibility and leadership in relation to the woman. “Adam was formed first” means that, following temporal priority (Adam first, Eve second), Paul infers that giving the role of an elder or overseer to men accords with God’s design. That’s his first argument.

And then the reference to Eve being deceived, not Adam, is, I think, a reference to the fact that Satan assaulted and undermined Adam’s God-given leadership role — snubbing him and ignoring him as he stood there with his wife during the temptation. Genesis 3:6 makes it very clear: he was standing there as Satan was interacting with her and bringing down the relationship. Satan was ignoring the leader and instead speaking to the woman, who was to be protected by the leader if he had been stepping up to do what he ought to do. And the point of the text is, I think, that the disaster that followed is owing to this assault on the God-given roles of man and woman as Eve was made the spokesman and Adam abdicated his role as protector and leader.

Now, which of those sins, hers or his, is worse? The text doesn’t say. There was a peculiar sense in which Satan targeted her in the face of him for deception, and both they both bought it — he passively, she actively.

5. Both Unnatural

When Paul does describe unnatural female sin, he does it in perfect parallel with unnatural male sin. For example, Romans 1:26–27:

God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and [notice the parallel] the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

We don’t come away from this text thinking that Paul saw in men or women a greater bent to sin — even a sin that’s against nature.

6. Our Peculiar Temptations

My last reason for saying we should not raise our kids with the assumption that our daughters are by nature more sinful or more prone to sin than our sons is that there’s a better way. There’s a better way to prepare them for the peculiar male temptations to sin and the peculiar female temptations to sin. The better way is to teach them what it means for sons to grow up and be godly men and not women, and for daughters to grow up and be godly women and not men — and then to show them that manhood and womanhood really are beset, because of our fallen nature, with temptations that are peculiar to being a man or to being a woman. We need to prepare our kids for this. They need to know what’s peculiar about a man, what’s peculiar about a woman. And then they need to know what temptations might touch them peculiarly as a man or a woman.

“There are differences between male and female. And there are, therefore, different temptations that they might face.”

For example, you might say that both men and women have sexual longings. But their peculiarities will tempt them to pursue those in sinful ways that are different. The man’s superior strength might tempt him to use force to get what he wants sexually (called rape) instead of using his strength to protect and to care for the woman. And the woman, being the “weaker vessel,” as Peter describes it (1 Peter 3:7), might be tempted to be more subtle and manipulative to get what she wants sexually. So, there are differences between male and female. And there are, therefore, different temptations that they might face.

Or you might say that because man has a special responsibility to be the sacrificial, loving leader, he might be tempted to neglect that responsibility and be a passive couch potato. And the woman might be tempted to grasp after that leadership and become domineering.

Or you might say that since the husband is designed by God to be a father, and the wife is designed by God to be a mother, he might be tempted to sinfully “father” his wife as he would a daughter. And she might be sinfully tempted to “mother” her husband as she would a son. And thus both of them demean and offend the other in different ways.

Deep Depravity, Deep Mercy

In other words, yes, we teach our children that they are sinners. And yes, we teach them that there are peculiar temptations to sin that come differently to men and women. They are not always the same. But it does no good to try to tally up who has the deeper depravity. It is so deep in both of us that we have plenty of work to do without claiming that we are better or worse because of being a man or a woman.

And we can be thankful that if we trust him, Jesus has died for us and covers all of our sins — the ones that are the same and the ones that are peculiar to us.