Given that our secular age is subjective and relativistic and therapeutic, the reality of objective, transcendent truth is practically incomprehensible to our neighbors and friends, including many within our churches as well. Unless and until that is challenged clearly and directly, what is said is liable to be understood and filtered through such subjectivism and relativism. Thus, the presentation of sin as primarily psychological, interpersonal, and sociological will invariably be understood on such terms. Such sin cannot make sense of why we needed the Son of God to assume our flesh, bear our sin, plunge down into death and hell, and rise again.   

During 2014, I sensed the ground beneath us was shifting. As a pastor, I determined it was necessary to speak more directly and firmly in addressing ideas that were becoming culturally and socially entrenched. I realized our reluctance, silence even, was not serving the people within our churches, who were being daily instructed by our surrounding secular culture. Furthermore, given that prevailing ideas about sexuality and gender pertained to our basic self-understanding as human beings, this offered an opportunity for us to know ourselves as male and female image bearers of God, fallen in sin, called to redemption in Christ, and to commend such knowledge as right and good and true. The interest in, and even volatility of, the subject matter could serve to have us know our own hearts before God, enriching our understanding that we are righteous in Christ, and not in ourselves. In other words, this was a teaching moment.
As we were going through a sermon series on 1 Corinthians at the church where I served, in preaching from 1 Corinthians 6, I taught on same-sex sexual relations and desire. I stated the Scriptures were clear regarding their sinfulness, and that this wasn’t an “agree to disagree” matter. In so doing, I spoke of this particular sin and temptation within our shared and desperate plight as sinners, who are justified through faith in Jesus Christ. Within our young church situated in a highly secular and skeptical cultural context, the sermon seemed to strike a chord on the whole. A professing Christian who left the church, who held an “affirming” view, admitted that I “tried really hard to be compassionate.” (that I “tried” was the best he could offer)
A point I made during the course of the sermon, which was necessary to address a culturally potent falsehood, was to forcefully denounce the comparison of the Christian understanding of sexuality to racism. Such association is a smear intended to discredit, and is wholly without merit.
Race is an amoral categorization of human beings based on appearance, physical characteristics, and ancestry. On the other hand, the way we experience and express our sexuality as male and female image bearers has to do with self-understanding, internal desires, and behaviors, which are moral or immoral, disobedient and sinful or obedient and pleasing to God. For example, “transgender” is not a kind of person one is, but a naming and identity opposed to God’s created goodness and definition. Sex has to do with love, marriage, procreation, and family. Neither race nor the unjust differentiation and brutal mistreatment of human beings on account of race have any bearing on this. Simply stated, race and sex are two starkly different categories.
Shortly afterward, in a discussion with a group of pastors, there was an overt expression of disbelief that I had dared to directly address the comparison of race and sexuality. This sense that I said what I’m “not supposed to say” struck me.
Secularization Meets Church
These fellow pastors were evaluating what I conveyed to them based on what I will refer to as the Secular-Sensitive ministry model. While the Secular-Sensitive ministry model often speaks of idols and warns against idolatry, it was clear there were certain cultural idols that were untouchable and not to be provoked. The thought I had in subsequently reflecting on our conversation was: “You cannot minister to people whose good opinion you are governed by, and whose hostility you determine must be avoided.”
It seems to me that in the Secular Sensitive model, the goal of the church service, and especially of the sermon, is to expertly and precisely fit the gospel into the unconverted heart. This is supposedly based on the truth of our common humanity as image bearers of God, and of common grace, in that God has not left “himself without witness” (Acts 14:17), but there is evidence of his goodness and presence within all cultures and times and places.
What is a sound theological conviction, with explanatory power, is misapplied, twisted, and hardened into a rigid and pervasive rule confining the gospel to being the fulfillment of misdirected desires and what might be worthwhile convictions.
What’s communicated is something like: “Look, unbelieving person, if you give him a chance, you’ll find that Jesus fits right into what you already believe. Jesus measures up to your expectations. Don’t you see how wonderful he is!” That’s the way of establishing common ground and is the platform from which the call to turn to Jesus is presented.
Read More
Related Posts:

If same-sex marriage were simply about allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, then once Obergefell ruled the United States Constitution required states to license same-sex marriages, that others had a different opinion and maintained their understanding of marriage as the joining of man and woman wouldn’t have mattered. But, of course, that wasn’t and isn’t the case. This is because same-sex marriage is about what people say, what they think, what they believe. It is about eliminating from public acceptance those who don’t endorse it, even simply as a matter of conviction.

Towards the end of 2022, with passage of the federal law named, “The Respect For Marriage Act,” the subject of same-sex marriage reemerged as a prominent public issue.
“How does two people getting married affect you?” supporters of same-sex marriage say. There have also been Christians effectively saying, “What’s the big deal? Why should we expect the government to pass laws requiring non-Christians to live as though they’re Christians?”
While, in general, there can be truth to be heeded in these and similar statements – “mind your own business” has its rightful place after all! – the Christian’s participation in civil society, which includes the command to love our neighbor, does not limit our evaluation to what’s in our self-interest, i.e., what affects us. Furthermore, in this case, these and similar sentiments are missing the essence of the case that has been advanced in favor of same-sex marriage. Contrary to many arguments advanced in its favor, same-sex marriage as a public and legal issue is not about regulating conduct or controlling people’s lives.
David French, one of the more prominent evangelical defenders of civil same-sex marriage, wrote: “I don’t want my gay friends and neighbors to live in fear that the law might tear their families apart.” 
However, this concern is not well-founded. The contemporary secular state does not require marriage for any type of family arrangement. As a matter of fact, as it unfolded, the same-sex marriage debate was not about how people order their lives, or the choices and decisions they are free to make or not make.
The same-sex marriage discussion was about the meaning of the word, “marriage.” In particular, it was and is about whether the male-female union’s unique characteristics, uniting the two sexes in the only life-generating relationship, could be recognized by virtue of having the appellation “marriage” only applied to it. Inseparably, it was and is about the distinction between male and female.
It was this assignment of the word “marriage” to the male-female union alone, absent any restriction or regulation of conduct or life-decisions pertaining to other relationships, that the United States Supreme Court in 2015, in declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, determined was “demeaning,” “hurtful,” “imposes stigma and injury,” “deprives dignity,” “diminishes personhood,” and “works a grave and continuing harm to gays and lesbians.” Correspondingly, a core conviction underlying same-sex marriage and Obergefell is that there is no meaningful difference between male-female and same-sex relationships. The sex of one’s marital partner is simply a matter of personal choice, incidental to the meaning and significance of the marriage itself. Such decision is no different than a woman deciding who she will marry between James and John. Vital to same-sex marriage is the insistence that man-woman and same-sex unions are themselves “the same.” Any other perspective, acknowledging the different character of the joining of the two sexes, is “demeaning, hurtful, etc.”
The attribution of such dehumanizing harms to the understanding of marriage as a uniquely male-female union was at the essence of Obergefell and, arguably, its most significant effect.
In that regard, Obergefell functioned as a theological and moral treatise, referring to transcendence, meaning, love, sacrifice, devotion, freedom, intimacy, and spirituality. It was practically a religious declaration, rooted in particular views of life and purpose and human well-being.
Read More
Related Posts:

Do not advance the lie. Do not agree to the lie. Once you give into the lie, you become defenseless to it and its insatiable demands. It has you in its grip and will not let you go.

“Inclusion” is a word that’s often cited as a motivator supporting the decisions and developments taking place in our society.
“Inclusion” is a good word on its face. But how is it actually functioning?
I’ve seen it and heard it often used as a conversation stopper. Once something is labeled “inclusive,” then its virtue can’t be questioned.

“You’re not against inclusion, are you?”

Sometimes, it’s meant to reassure. “We’re just being inclusive.”
What I offer isn’t a full analysis of a concept that I think has many layers to it. But I do believe that this is the way this word/concept is being employed.
So here’s what I think is key: In order to be inclusive of those who struggle, are “different,” reality and meaning and language are being redefined for everyone.
In that case, “inclusion” doesn’t have to do with how we treat others, whether we’re kind, compassionate, etc., but whether we are accepting of the redefinitions of reality and language, including physical, biological reality and language.
Actually, kindness and compassion assume a normalcy of development or experience that some are struggling to be within, which requires special attention and care. The concept of health in general requires such a standard or target.
Today’s cultural understanding of “inclusion” rejects that and instead deems such normalcy as oppressive and even bigoted. Such ideas, words, thoughts are to be excluded, as well as the people who “stubbornly” hold onto them.
Read More
Related Posts: