OPC Statements and Communications on Issues in Society

From time to time, as situations have arisen, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has spoken to issues in society, whether by statements, letters, or petitions. Here are a few examples:

1. 1937 Statements on Atheistic Movements, Communism, and Pacifism.

At its third general assembly (1937), the OPC (then called the Presbyterian Church of America) adopted an overture to warn all their churches to take their stand against atheistic movements and “that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church.”

WHEREAS atheistic movements under various names are working through the Church life of this nation, not only to overthrow the Christian faith of the present adult generation, but seriously to impair the the faith of the growing youth of our nation, therefore: 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Presbytery of California, Presbyterian Church America, respectfully overtures the Third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, meeting in Philadelphia, June 1, 1937, to warn all of our churches and churches which will ultimately be formed to take their stand against all such movements, and so to indoctrinate our people in the doctrines of the Christian faith that they will be able to discern the true from the false, and that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church. 

Passed by unanimous vote of the Presbytery of California, of the Presbyterian Church of America, on April 13, 1937.

Concurred in by Northwest, Chicago Area.

Concurred with slight amendment, Iowa.

The overture was approved by the General Assembly by a vote of 42 to 30. The same assembly also adopted another overture in amended form publicly reaffirming WCF 23.1-2 in light of “widespread confusion of thought in this nation on the relation of Christians to military institutions of duly constituted civil authorities”.

2. 1972 Statement on Abortion

In 1972, the 39th General Assembly of the OPC adopted a statement affirming that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). 

Believing that unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, given by God as a blessing to their parents, we therefore affirm that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). We state the following reasons:

1. The Bible treats human personhood as beginning at conception (Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Jeremiah 1:4,5; Luke 1:14-44; 1:29-38; Exodus 21:22-25). 
2. The Bible considers the human person to be a complete person (Genesis 2:7; Numbers 23:10; Deuteronomy 6:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). This unity is severed only by death and then only temporarily until the natural, intended union is restored at the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). 
3. The Bible forbids murder because man is created in the image of God (Genesis 9:5, 6). The Bible further says that succeeding generations of men are conceived in the image of God (Genesis 5:1-3). 

We call upon society and the church to show compassion toward unwed mothers and mothers of unwanted children. To this end, not only sympathetic counsel, but also concrete help should be extended (1 John 3:16-18; James 2:14-17).

But we also call upon our society to return to the law of God, recognizing the Word of God that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

You can find this statement on the OPC website here and in the minutes of the 39th GA of the OPC (Minutes, May 15-20, 1972, pp. 17-18, 149). The background for this is that the General Assembly set up a study committee on the topic in 1970 in response to an overture from the Presbytery of New Jersey asking the assembly to declare "that life being given by God should not be terminated by abortion, apart from valid medical grounds related to the preservation of the life of the mother." (1970 was the same year that Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court of the USA.) This study committee delivered its report to the assembly in 1971. This report was sent to the presbyteries, and two of them (NJ and Northern CA) sent overtures to the next assembly with similar proposed statements. A slightly amended version of one of these was the statement adopted in 1972. (The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, a decision that was later overruled by its Dobbs decision in 2022.)

There was a protest submitted by some members of the assembly against making this statement, not for the content, but because they objected to making such statements apart from particular judicial cases. The assembly's response to the protest called attention to WCF 31.2 and added "The church of Christ, in assembly at Jerusalem, resolved a case of doctrine and conscience not brought to it as a judicial proceeding against any individual (Acts 15). Granting that resolutions on such cases should be made with discretion and only in matters of great concern, the Assembly reaffirms its right and duty to declare the truth ministerially to the people of God and the world in which we live."

3. 1993 Petition to the President Regarding the Sin of Homosexual Activity

In 1993, the 60th General Assembly of the OPC submitted a humble petition to President Clinton, asking him to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. The terminology of "humble petition" comes from our Confession of Faith, which says that "Synods and councils ... are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate" (WCF 31.4). 

Bill Clinton had been elected president in 1992 and in his campaign he had indicated he would allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Once he became president, he called for legislation that would lift the ban that prohibited this. In this context, the Presbytery of Northern California sent an overture to the General Assembly with proposed language for a petition, and this was amended and adopted. This petition can be found on the OPC website here as well as in the minutes of the 60th GA of the OPC. 

The 60th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church humbly petitions the President of the United States of America to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. We support this petition with the following considerations.

Based on the Word of God and his creation law, homosexuality (including bisexuality and lesbianism) violates God's non-negotiable moral standard and therefore is sin. According to the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, it is an abomination and contrary to nature as God intended for man and woman. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22). "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27).

The practice of homosexuality is a reproach to any nation. It undermines the family, and poses a substantial threat to the general health, safety and welfare of our citizens. Your own Christian background ought to demonstrate to you the practical benefits of upholding the biblical stand against homosexuality, especially in light of the current epidemic of AIDS and other diseases spread through homosexual conduct.

And, specifically, we urge you as Commander-in-Chief of all the armed services not to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Lifting the ban would effectively discriminate against chaplains who hold to biblical ethics by forbidding them to preach God's law against this sin. Such a prohibition compromises the Free Exercise of Religion clause as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. 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" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Moreover, any such preaching subsequent to lifting the ban might be considered a hate crime.

Therefore, for the honor of Christ and his Church, and the welfare of our nation, we exhort you to remember the words of the wisest magistrate, "Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). Our prayers go with you, your family and your administration, and we commend to you the salvation that comes only though Jesus Christ our Lord. "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Very respectfully submitted,

The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

June, 1993

At the end of that year, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was adopted by the Department of Defense as a compromise measure that continued to bar openly homosexual persons from the military.  

4. 2001 Statement on Women and the Military

In 1998, the General Assembly of the OPC set up a study committee on women and the military, in light of the possibility that the requirement to register for the Selective Service might be extended to women. This committee presented an initial report in 1999. The General Assembly returned the report and pending motions to the committee for further study and reflection and added two more members to the committee. In 2000, the General Assembly ran out of time to consider the expanded report. In 2001, the 68th General Assembly of the OPC heard the report and responded by adopting the following statement: 

The 68th GA declares that the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.

The OPC was not alone in making such statements. I have posted about this before, and you can read the statements from the PCA, RPCNA, and ARPC at this link.

There was a protest made by some members of the assembly over whether there was sufficient biblical grounds for the statement, objecting that the statement rested on a report that argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law, supposing this to be in contradiction to WCF 19.4. The General Assembly responded that it adopted the statement because it was convinced there was sufficient biblical grounds, that New Testament passages affirm the principles that lay behind the direct teaching of the Old Testament on the topic, and that it is legitimate to declare a position argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law (giving examples of where this is done in our confessional standards). I think the General Assembly got it right here and that this is a good example of how the judicial laws of the Old Testament continue to bind nations today as far as their general equity requires (WCF 19.4). In the Bible, men alone are assigned the responsibility for national defense (Neh. 4:14, Num. 1:2-3, Deut. 24:5), and this was not something pertaining to ancient Israel alone, but a principle based in the creation order (Gen. 1:27, Is. 19:16, Jer. 51:30, 1 Peter 3:7). I have written more about WCF 19.4 and general equity here and here. 

5. 2010 Letter to the Department of Defense 

In 2010, the 77th General Assembly of the OPC sent a letter to the The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group. You can find the letter on the OPC website here, and I will quote both the stated clerk's note regarding the context as well as the letter itself. 

Stated clerk's note: The United States Secretary of Defense has established a Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group to "review issues associated with the possible repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654, which would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and to develop an implementation plan, should Congress repeal the law." In the course of that review the working group solicited comments from agencies that endorse chaplains. The 77th General Assembly of the OPC has responded to that request with the following letter.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Office of the General Assembly

George R. Cottenden, Stated Clerk

July 20, 2010

TO: The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group

c/o Chaplain (COL) Gary Linsky

SUBJECT: Concern about Repeal of the Current Military Policy Prohibiting Homosexual Behavior

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is thankful for the opportunity to respond to the letter of Major General (S) Gregory A. Biscone, USAF, Chief of Staff and the subsequent letter from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense under the signatures of Chaplain (Major General) Douglas L. Carver, USA, Chairman and Army Chief of Chaplains; RADM; CHC, Robert F. Burt, USN: Chief of Chaplains; and Chaplain (Major General) Cecil R. Richardson, USAF, Chief of Chaplains soliciting our "views ... regarding the impact of the repeal of [10 U.S.C. §654]" and promoting dialog "with civilian organizations regarding religious issues" (see attachments 1 & 2). We regret that the Assembly itself could not make the 15 May 2010 deadline, for our denomination did not meet in deliberative session until our July General Assembly. This is the official response that supersedes the earlier communication you received 15 May 2010 (see attachment 3).

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is gravely concerned over the potential repeal of 10 U.S.C. 8654 that governs the service of homosexual individuals in our military. Therefore, we are grateful for your desire to consider carefully the moral implications of your approving sexual practices that God has explicitly condemned.

We are concerned that the repeal of the current law may go so far as to force our currently serving chaplains to choose between violating their ordination vows and resigning from the military. They have affirmatively answered the following question in their ordination: "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" Thus, OPC chaplains preach and counsel from the Scriptures because they are convinced that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). (All Bible citations are from the English Standard Version.)

We are concerned that other members of the OPC who are serving in the Armed Forces may also be coerced to teach and enforce a policy that explicitly violates the Word of God. When they took their membership vows in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church they answered "Yes" to this question: "Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?"

Several Bible passages forthrightly state God's condemnation of homosexual behavior. From the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Romans 1:18-33 in the New Testament historically and prophetically describes how the wrath of God is revealed against people who, by their own sinful behavior, suppress the truth about the one true God and how the moral disintegration of society follows. In the consequent moral disintegration in human society, the acceptance of homosexuality is a prominent symptom: "26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature: 27 and 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 for their error."

Our military chaplains and members are concerned about the following specific consequences:

• Chaplains may be open to charges of discrimination or command reprimand when they preach or counsel in accordance with the passages in the Bible which directly speak of the sin of homosexual practice. Such threats compromise the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion clause and the freedom of speech as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11—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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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.)

• Bibles in military chapels and on military bases may be under the threat of excision of all passages which speak very directly to the sin of homosexual practice. Whether it be under the guise of opposing "hate speech" or alleging insubordinate opposition to a policy of the Department of Defense, the effort may be made soon after the repeal of the law.

• Marriage and family retreats conducted by chaplains intended to strengthen traditional marriages and families may have to include homosexual couples, which will violate chaplains' faith tenets and may discourage the voluntary participation of unmarried, heterosexual couples.

• Homosexual couples may seek union ceremonies or marriages, which are in violation of the beliefs and ordination vows of a large percentage of military chaplains, not just those from this denomination. Refusal may invite the charge of discrimination and command reprimand.

These expressions are consistent with the Chaplain's Manual of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains and Military Personnel, Section "Policy and Guidance; V. HOMOSEXUALITY" (we will be happy to provide a copy upon request) and our own denomination's Instruments of the General Assembly, Appendix A (www.opc.org/GA/Instruments2009.pdf, p. 3023, starting at line 530).

We provide this response for the good of the nation, for the integrity and effectiveness of the chaplains who serve the nation on behalf of their church, for the military and spiritual welfare of our members who serve in the Armed Forces, and for the protection of the constitutional principle of the free exercise of religion.

Sincerely,

George R. Cottenden

Stated Clerk, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Enclosures: 3

DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Committee on Chaplains and Military Personnel to CRWG correspondence

cc: Major General Douglas L. Carver, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Army

Rear Admiral Robert F. Burt, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Navy

Major General Cecil R. Richardson, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Air Force

Rear Admiral Mark L. Tidd, Chaplain of the Marine Corps

Chaplain (COL) Thomas E. Preston, Executive Director, Armed Forces Chaplain Board

Flee Fornication: The Bible and Premarital Sex

God created marriage as a one-flesh union of a man and a woman and he designed sexual union for marriage alone. Within that context, it is a good thing. But all sex outside of God’s ordinance of marriage is sinful. God has made us and our bodies and tells us how to use them. Sexual immorality is a rebellion against God and his design. There is much confusion over sexual ethics in our culture today. Some may be tempted to listen to those who claim that sex between unmarried people, as long as it is consensual, is not sinful. In this situation, it is worth reviewing the teaching of the Bible concerning this subject.

Genesis 1-2

“And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22–24)

In the opening chapters of the Bible, we find that God made man and woman and brought them together in marriage, a union of one man and one woman until death separates them. Jesus explained this text as foundational for marriage (Matt. 19:3-9). The union of the two into “one flesh” (a phrase which at least describes sexual union) is a part of the God-ordained marriage relationship. It is not something to be done outside marriage. 

Malachi 2:14

Marriage is a covenant. “…she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14). Marriage is not created by a sexual relationship or cohabitation or even by wedding plans, but by a covenant, that is, by solemn promises made before God and human witnesses.

1 Corinthians 6-7

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul gives a warning to the unrighteous and includes “the sexually immoral” in a list of those who are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent of such unrighteousness and believe in Christ. Then in verses 12-20, he exhorts the saints to “flee sexual immorality.” 

“Sexual immorality” is a general term for unlawful sexual activity, but the kind that Paul particularly addresses is sex between unmarried people. Homosexuality and adultery are listed separately in 6:9-10, being further departures from God's design, not only outside of God's ordinance of marriage, but in the one instance being between the same sex and in the other a violation of an existing marriage. Paul argues against sex outside of marriage, even if neither one is married, by noting that “he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her” and quotes Genesis 2:24, “The two will become one flesh.” This union this does not make them married. It is described as immorality. What it good and appropriate within marriage is immoral outside of marriage. The marriage act belongs in marriage.

The apostle makes it clear that what you do with your body is all the more important for Christians, since your body is a member of Christ (6:15), a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19), and a ransomed possession of Christ (6:19-20). But “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18).

The point is even more clear when connected with the discussion in the next chapter. In chapter 7, Paul argues that “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (7:2). The only legitimate outlet for sexual desire is marriage. He said that if the unmarried have the gift of remaining content with sexual abstinence, then they may remain single. But if not, then the solution is to marry. In verses 8-9, Paul says, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” The arguments of this chapter only make sense if sexual relations outside of marriage are immoral.

Exodus 22:16-17

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16–17)

While this law is primarily concerned with what to do once premarital sex has already happened, it also condemns the act by prescribing a penalty for it. Even if the man is rejected as a husband for the woman he laid with, he would still need to pay money equal to the bride-price (better translated “engagement present”).

Genesis 34

Genesis 34 describes two sins, the defiling of Dinah and the slaughter of the men of Shechem. Simeon and Levi overreacted to the first sin when they slaughtered all the men of the city, but they were right in recognizing what Shechem did as a sin. Jacob’s daughter visited a city, and the prince of that city, Shechem, saw her and had sexual relations with her.

Depending on your translation, you could get the impression that Shechem raped Dinah, but the text does not warrant that conclusion. What Shechem did was clearly wicked, but none of the words used imply the use of force or violence, and all of them can be used to describe consensual relations. The Hebrew word for “seize” is the generic word for “take”, used often for taking a wife (e.g. 34:9). The word for “humiliated” sometimes refers to rape (Judges 20:5, 2 Sam. 13:12) but is also used to refer to violating a woman in consensual adultery or premarital sex (Deut. 22:24, 28-29). The word used throughout the narrative is “defiled,” which is used for defiling immoral sexual relations (Lev. 18:20, 23, Ezek. 23:17). All considered, this event is described as a case of seduction and premarital sex initiated by Shechem, aggravated by the fact that Shechem was a pagan Canaanite.

Shechem’s action is condemned. He had “defiled” Dinah (34:5, 13). He “had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done” (34:7). He had treated Dinah like a prostitute (34:31). 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

In this case law, it describes the situation of a man who married a woman under the impression that she was a virgin, but then accused her afterwards of having not been a virgin (i.e. having had premarital sex before their wedding). If the elders of the city found that his accusation was false, then he was to be whipped and fined a hundred shekels of silver, “because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days” (Deut. 22:19). But if his accusation was true, then the woman was to be executed, “because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house” (22:21). Notice here that “whoring” here does not apply to prostitution in particular, but simply to premarital sex, since all that was proved was that she was not a virgin by the time of her wedding. Notice also that this penalty was prescribed for cases in which a woman pretended to be a virgin but was not - if she had been honest before the wedding or had not married, she would not have received the same penalty - but the sin that is specified as an outrageous thing was not her lie but rather her premarital sex.

Conclusion

The Bible teaches that fornication, sex between unmarried people, is a sin deserving God's judgment. It teaches repentance from this and other sins and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We are called to be chaste in thought, speech, and behavior, abstaining from sexual immorality. This means sexual abstinence for the unmarried and faithfulness for the married. We should honor and appreciate God's design for sex and marriage, not abusing his good gifts.

"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 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, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)

Men, Women, and Sin

God created mankind as male and female. Here are four ways in which sin corrupts and distorts this aspect of God's creation order:

(1) Masculinity and femininity, which are good, being twisted and redirected by sin. For example, man’s strength and aggression, designed to work and keep the garden, is used instead to oppress, exploit, and rob. Both men and women use their respective strengths for evil ends.

(2) Men and women rebelling directly against their design. For example, men who were given strength to protect and provide become lazy and soft, abdicating their responsibilities. Women who were given a unique ability to nurture their young can yet prove cruel and heartless to them. Men and women, designed for sexual relations with the opposite sex, sometimes pursue sexual relations with the same sex, contrary to nature.

(3) Enmity between men and women. They blame each other, are bitter against each other, hating and being hated by each other. There are men who despise and mistreat women, and women who despise and mistreat men. Masculinity and femininity get despised, blamed for their sinful perversions.

(4) Rebellion against the sexual distinction itself. Since the distinction between man and woman is an occasion of conflict, some want to solve it by getting rid of it. Other may be motivated by a desire to transcend their createdness, to avoid any prescribed identity. But one way or another, people rise up against this distinction and promote androgyny. Especially in our day, people seek to leverage the powers of science to overcome nature and free humanity from this distinction, making men and women interchangeable.

The good news is that redemption for sinners is found in Christ. Apart from Christ, humanity is lost in a labyrinth of confused and miserable rebellion, but that is not the case when one is in Christ. In Christ, you are forgiven and reconciled with God. In Christ, man and woman become co-heirs of grace, fellow members of the household of God. In Christ, you all are restored to live in accordance with your created design as the image of God and as men and women. 

Some error by thinking that in Christ we transcend our created nature and are freed from these created distinctions. But the problem was not in your created design. The problem was in rebellion and the misery it caused. Redemption does not destroy nature but restores and perfects it. The unity and distinctiveness of man and woman is restored, purified, and perfected in Christ. 

When Paul says in Galatians, “there is no male or female,” he explains what he means by saying, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Both men and women are fully and equally members of Christ and united as one body of Christ. There is no distinction in that respect, but that is not the case in every respect. The same Paul teaches that men and women in Christ do not loose their distinctive natures and duties, but are enabled and instructed to be godly men and godly women. Just as you are the image of God, and Christ restores your conformity to that identity, so in a similar way you are men and women and Christ restores your conformity to those identities in a way that is good and pleasing to God. 

Covetousness and Contentment

Q. 79: Which is the tenth commandment?
Answer: The tenth commandment is, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.

Q. 80: What is required in the tenth commandment?
Answer: The tenth commandment requireth full contentment with our own condition, with a right and charitable frame of spirit toward our neighbour, and all that is his.

Q. 81: What is forbidden in the tenth commandment?
Answer: The tenth commandment forbiddeth all discontentment with our own estate, envying or grieving at the good of our neighbour, and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his. (WCF)

On this commandment (Ex. 20:17), I would note several things:

1. Coveting is an unqualified (or improperly qualified) desire for that which belongs to another. This commandment does not forbid you from seeking to buy your neighbor’s donkey or asking for charity if you are in need. Good desires are desires that are qualified by things such as lawfulness, permission, and love for others: “I would like that if…” For example, one might properly think, “I would like that sandwich if it is for sale and if I have enough money.” It does not desire a sandwich which has an owner who is not willing to share. It does not desire something that is inherently unlawful for you to have, like your neighbor's spouse. Proper desire for good things evidences its goodness by being content if the qualifications are not met. But covetousness is not limited by such qualifications and is not content to hear “no.”

2. Coveting is an unlawful desire. Not only can actions and choices be sin, but your desires can be sinful as well. You ought to repent not only of your sinful choices, but also for your inclinations for what is forbidden, since even the desire to sin is sin.

3. Coveting is both a sin and a temptation to sin more. Coveting draws us toward committing other sins like stealing and adultery. This is one way that Jesus was not tempted. He was not tempted by indwelling corruption. For example, he was not tempted by his own greed, lust, or pride - for he had none. He had natural cravings like hunger, but not sinful cravings like coveting. He “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He did not give in one bit. But when we give in, it entices us to go further. Coveting will not be content to be alone - it loves the company of other sins.

4. Coveting will influence your attitude toward your neighbor. Covetousness blossoms into envy, resentment, and malice toward the owner of what you covet. It leads you to think things like, “I don’t want him to have that,” “I can’t stand him since he won’t give that to me,” “no one should have more than me,” and “this is unjust - the government should do something about it!” Resentment then encourages more covetousness, causing you to have thoughts like, “I want that because they have that.” But when coveting is replaced with contentment, contentment blossoms into respect and love towards your neighbors. It helps you to seek their welfare as well as your own. “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3–4).

Sex, Marriage, and God's Design

Q. 70: Which is the seventh commandment?
Answer: The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 71: What is required in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The seventh commandment requireth the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity, in heart, speech, and behavior.

Q. 72: What is forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The seventh commandment forbiddeth all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions. (WSC)

As we work our way through the Shorter Catechism, we come to the seventh commandment. The seventh commandment forbids violating the marriage covenant in which husband and wife are bound to be sexually intimate only with each other, being loving and faithful to each other until death parts them (Lev. 20:10, 1 Cor. 7:4). Nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, can give grounds for a legitimate divorce (Matt. 19:3-9, 1 Cor. 7:15, WCF 24.6). God created marriage as a one-flesh union of a man and a woman and he designed sexual union for marriage alone (Gen. 2, 1 Cor. 6-7). Thus, by extension, this commandment forbids all sexual immorality, all sexual activity outside God’s ordinance of marriage. In case there is any doubt, Scripture is pretty clear on the specifics (Lev. 18, 20:10-21, Deut. 22:13-30, 1 Cor. 6:9, 15).

God has made us and our bodies and tells us how to use them. Sexual immorality is a rebellion against his design. Consequently, it also causes great damage to others and to society. And as Christians we have even more reasons to keep this commandment. We are not our own, for Christ has bought us and made our bodies members of his body, therefore we ought to glorify him with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:15-20). Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and therefore we ought to flee from sexual immorality, for the sexually immoral person sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18-19).

As the catechism says, our goal ought to be to preserve our own and our neighbor’s chastity and to avoid all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions. Questions 138-139 of the Larger Catechism provide an excellent summary of how the Bible teaches us to do this. As Jesus taught, we must keep watch over our thoughts and desires, lest we commit adultery in our hearts (Matt. 5:27-30). In the language of the Larger Catechism, we should also avoid “all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, … lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays [e.g. movies]” (Eph. 5:3-4, Prov. 7, Is. 3:16-17, 1 Peter 3:2-4, 1 Tim. 2:9, 5:2).

Positively, we should all hold marriage in honor (Heb. 13:4), as a good and wise ordinance of God for his glory and our good (Gen. 2, Mal. 2:13-16). The one who is married should love and delight in his or her spouse (Prov. 5:15-19, 1 Cor. 7:2-5, Song of Solomon 1-8). The one who is unmarried ought to prepare for and (when ready, with wisdom) seek marriage, unless given the gift of continency (1 Cor. 7:2, 9, 1 Tim. 5:14, Matt. 19:10-12). Marriage is not fool-proof, nor does it elevate one in the kingdom of God, but it is a blessing and provision of God to be treasured and carefully preserved.

Thoughts on Pride Month

“…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)

In his short letter, Jude wrote to warn of those who had crept into the church and were perverting the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4). One of the examples of judgment he gives is that of Sodom and Gomorrah. While Sodom had many sins (Ezek. 16:49-50), Jude identifies its practice of sexual immorality, and of unnatural desires in particular (cp. Romans 1:24-27), as causes for God’s judgment. These cities “serve as an example” that we might turn away from such ways.

The apostle Peter, in a similar passage, adds a positive example, that of “righteous Lot,” whom God rescued. While not everything Lot did was exemplary, he was exemplary in being “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)…” (2 Peter 2:7–8).

As you see sexual sin promoted, this month in particular, it is right and fitting to be distressed by it. It is not self-righteous to be repulsed by the celebration of homosexuality if you are also examining yourself and repenting of you own sins, being moved in both cases by grief and hatred towards sin and a love for God and his holiness.

Near the end of his letter, Jude exhorts his readers to be “building yourselves up in your most holy faith” and to “have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 1:20, 22-23). Aversion to sin and detestation of sin is compatible with mercy towards  those who practice it. Scripture exhorts us to both.

Sensuality

ἀσέλγεια is a Greek word that occurs 10 times in the Bible and the ESV consistently translates it with “sensuality” or “sensual.” This is fairly accurate if you use Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of sensuality, “Devotedness to the gratification of the bodily appetites; free indulgence in carnal or sensual pleasures.” But if you look up the word online, you will see sensuality is commonly used today to simply refer to the enjoyment of physical pleasure. Thus, someone could get the mistaken idea that the Bible teaches that it is wrong to delight in physical pleasures. On the contrary, he gave us our senses and things like food and drink and sexual relations that we might enjoy them and be happy and grateful (Acts 14:17, Ps. 104:15, 1 Tim. 4:3, 6:17). The problem is when we desire or use these things unlawfully and inappropriately. We ought not to idolize them, covet them, abuse them (see here and here), or pursue them in an unrestrained manner or in a way where we loose control.

The word ἀσέλγεια properly refers to a “lack of self-restraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable … esp. of sexual excesses” (BDAG Greek-English Lexicon). The KJV usually translates it with “lasciviousness,” which more accurately translates the word, although it might sound old-fashioned. Other words that can be used to translate it would be licentiousness, wantonness, self-abandonment, or shamelessness.

It is an important concept to note today, as our culture tends to put very few restraints on indulging sensual desires. In fact, some people deem it immoral to hinder or discourage people from indulging any of these desires or to deem any particular indulgence as shameful (at least, as long as they are not harming another person without their consent). But Scripture notes that this lasciviousness is ungodly and something that Christians leave behind. Instead, they are to live in a manner that is self-controlled, dignified, and righteous, gratefully using their God-given senses as God intended, delighting appropriately in what is good and lovely.

“Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God. For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in [ἀσελγείαις], passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” (1 Peter 4:1–5)

“Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and [ἀσελγείαις], not in quarreling and jealousy.” (Romans 13:13)

Ten Theses on Genesis 2:24

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother 

and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” 

Genesis 2:24

This verse is a key text regarding humanity, marriage, and family. It comes at the conclusion to the account of creation and is quoted at least four times in the New Testament. It continues to play a role in many discussions today, and so I propose the following ten theses, along with ten sub-theses, regarding some of its meaning and implications.

1. This verse teaches God’s intention for marriage to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman, bound exclusively to each other.

2. This verse asserts the priority of the marriage bond over all other human relationships, even over the relationship between parent and child.

3. This verse asserts that a child’s relation to his or her parents will change, and that parents should raise their children towards the responsibility and freedom of maturity.
  a. Other passages expect men to assume adult responsibilities when they reach the age of majority. In biblical Israel, men reached the age of majority at age twenty and were then responsible for military service, voting, and the head tax (Num. 1:2-3, 1 Chron. 12:38, Ex. 30:13-14).

4. This verse teaches that marriage is a normal part of reaching adulthood.
   a. Indeed, it is the duty of those of marriageable age to find a spouse and get married, unless they have a gift of continency (1 Cor. 7:2-9, 1 Tim. 5:13-14).
   b. As man and woman came from one flesh, so they naturally are designed to become one flesh, and unless this is consummated in marriage, fallen humanity will normally seek an illegitimate outlet for this natural design.

5. The context of this verse teaches that parents have a duty to help their children find callings and spouses when they reach adulthood.
  a. God provided a calling and bride for Adam, the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), just as he later provided a calling and bride (the church) for his only-begotten Son (John 6:38-39, Rev. 21:2). This pattern is reflected in the duties of human parents (Jer. 29:6, Ruth 3:1, Gen. 24:2-4, Eph. 6:4).
  b. Therefore, parents should prepare their children with the skills and character necessary for these responsibilities. 
  c. Parents should make these decisions in communication with their children. The initial suggestion of a spouse can come from parent or child. Both the couple and their parents should consent to the marriage; parents should not force marriage without the son or daughter’s consent, nor withhold consent without just cause.
  d. While the Bible certainly recognizes occasions when parents cannot afford it, it is expected that parents will help provide a financial basis for their children as they are able (Prov. 19:14, 2 Cor. 12:14). 

6. This verse and its context (Gen. 2:15-24, 3:12) teach that the man leaves his parents and receives his wife, in distinction from the woman who is given to the man.

7. This verse does not require the man to stay at his father’s house until marriage.
  a. A man might leave home to prepare for marriage and find a spouse. Isaac sent Jacob away to Laban to find and win a wife (Gen. 28:1-5). The heavenly Father sent the Son to earth to win his bride, the church (John 6:38-39, Rev. 21:2).
  b. As children mature and transition into adulthood, parents may delegate some of their authority to others for a temporary period of further training, such as in apprenticeship (one type of “slavery” in Ex. 21:3 and Deut. 15:12-18) and discipleship (1 Kings 19:19-21, Matt. 4:21-22, Acts 16:3).

8. This verse does not require a man to physically leave his father’s house when he gets married.
  a. This can be seen from numerous biblical examples, it being common, though not required, for three or four generations to live in one household under the authority of the patriarch (Josh. 7:14-18, 24). “Secession” from this arrangement was possible and sometimes for the best (Gen. 31), but it was often to everyone’s advantage to stay together. This is an uncommon arrangement today in America, but it is not an arrangement forbidden by Scripture. 

9. The context of this verse (Gen. 2:15-20) teaches that a man should be proven as a responsible worker and have a sense for his mission and his need for a helper before he gets married.

10. This verse does not teach that a man’s responsibility to honor and support his parents ends when he gets married (e.g. Prov. 23:22, 1 Kings 2:19, Matt. 15:1-9).

Sexual Desire and Marriage

Last Sunday I preached on Jesus words about murder and adultery, recorded in Matthew 5:21-30. You can listen to the sermon at this link. In that passage, Jesus notes that not only is the external act of adultery forbidden, but adulterous desire is also forbidden. This accords with the similar prohibition in the tenth commandment: "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Exod. 20:17). In my sermon, I quoted the following passage from John Murray's book, Principles of Conduct, and I thought I would post it here as well.

“The line of demarcation between virtue and vice is not a chasm but a razor’s edge. Sex desire is not wrong and Jesus does not say so. To cast any aspersion on sex desire is to impugn the integrity of the Creator and of his creation. Furthermore, it is not wrong to desire to satisfy sex desire and impulse in the way God has ordained. Indeed, sex desire is one of the considerations which induce men and women to marry. The Scripture fully recognizes the propriety of that motive and commends marriage as the honorable and necessary outlet for sex impulse. What is wrong is the earliest and most rudimentary desire to satisfy the impulse to the sex act outside the estate of matrimony. It is not wrong to desire the sex act with the person who may be contemplated as spouse if and when the estate of matrimony will have been entered upon with him or her. But the desire for the sex act outside that divinely instituted and strictly guarded sanctuary which God has reserved for the man and his wife alone is wrong; and it is from this fountain of desire that proceed all the evils by which the sanctity of sex is desecrated.”

The Westminster Assembly on Dating and Courtship

The Westminster Assembly was a 17th century council of English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian ministers who were tasked with unifying the English and Scottish churches with a shared statement of faith, catechism, system of government, and guidelines for worship. Its confession of faith and catechisms are still the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian churches today.

Today I want to share some of what the assembly said about biblical guidelines for the process of getting married. In evangelical circles in our time, there has been a bit of confusion and discussion about how to respond to the culture of individualism, casual dating, sexual "freedom" that surrounds us. Some have used the term "courtship" to describe a way of getting married that is more purposeful, careful, and respectful of parental authority. While this approach has gone well for some, myself included, in other people's experience the attempt to implement this alternative way has been messy and prone to overreaction, which is why I bring in this historical perspective. Over-reacting and under-reacting are both driven by an unbalanced focus on the present situation. The teachings of the church in other cultures and eras can give us balance, new insights, and the wisdom of experience. So what did the Westminster Assembly have to say about getting married?

First, the Westminster Assembly has a chapter on marriage in its Confession of Faith (chapter 24, see link for biblical footnotes). In short, it affirms that the Bible teaches that marriage is to be monogamous and heterosexual, for mutual help, procreation, and the prevention of immorality. Incestuous marriages cannot be made lawful, and divorce is only lawful in the case of adultery or willful desertion which is unable to be remedied by church and state. Article three of this chapter is particularly relevant for the topic of getting married:

"It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies." 

Second, the Westminster Assembly described the duties of the seventh commandment (the one against adultery) at length in the Larger Catechism (Q. 137-139). Not only does it describe our duty to be chaste in "body, mind, affections, words, and behavior," but also our duty to preserve our own chastity and the chastity of others. This requires "watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel" - certainly important directions in our present day which exalts pleasure, autonomous freedom, and irresponsible clothing choices. Most importantly for the topic of getting married, it affirms that one duty of the seventh commandment is "marriage by those that have not the gift of continency." If you are of marriageable age, you have a duty to seek marriage, unless you have a special gift of restraint such that sexual temptation is not a threat (1 Cor. 7:2-9; see this post for more on that text). The catechism says that one of the sins forbidden by the seventh commandment is the "undue delay of marriage."

Third, and perhaps most overlooked, is what the Westminster Assembly said about getting married in the Directory for Public Worship (under "The Solemnization of Marriage"). Before the directory gives directions for the wedding ceremony, it gives directions for the process of getting married. Give particular attention to how it handles the consent of the couple and their parents, beginning in the fourth paragraph. In short, the free consent of the couple (Gen. 24:57-58, Mal. 2:14) and of their parents (Ex. 20:12, 22:17, Deut. 7:3) are both needed before the engagement is made public (i.e. they all have ability to veto the marriage), although parents cannot deny their consent without just cause.

"Although marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.

Marriage is to be betwixt one man and one woman only; and they such as are not within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity prohibited by the word of God; and the parties are to be of years of discretion, fit to make their own choice, or, upon good grounds, to give their mutual consent. 

Before the solemnizing of marriage between any persons, the purpose of marriage shall be published by the minister three several sabbath-days, in the congregation, at the place or places of their most usual and constant abode, respectively. And of this publication the minister who is to join them in marriage shall have sufficient testimony, before he proceed to solemnize the marriage. 

Before that publication of such their purpose, (if the parties be under age,) the consent of the parents, or others under whose power they are, (in case the parents be dead,) is to be made known to the church officers of that congregation, to be recorded. 

The like is to be observed in the proceedings of all others, although of age, whose parents are living, for their first marriage. 

And, in after marriages of either of those parties, they shall be exhorted not to contract marriage without first acquainting their parents with it, (if with conveniency it may be done,) endeavouring to obtain their consent. 

Parents ought not to force their children to marry without their free consent, nor deny their own consent without just cause. 

After the purpose or contract of marriage hath been thus published, the marriage is not to be long deferred."

And fourth, even though it is not the product of the Westminster Assembly, but of one of its members, I would recommend William Gouge's book, Of Domestical Duties (1622), which has been published in a modern edition as Building a Godly Home, 3 volumes (Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), available here. The topic of getting married is covered in volumes 2 and 3. William Gouge was a senior member of the Westminster Assembly, a Puritan pastor in London, and a married man with thirteen children. His book is worth reading. Here is one quote from him on the process of getting married:

"The first liking is sometimes on the parents' or other friends' part, and then made known to the party to be married ... (Gen. 24:58). Sometimes again the first liking is on the party's part that is to be married, and then if that party be under the authority of parents, the matter must be proposed to them, before there be any further proceeding ... (Judg. 14:2). Even if the party is not under the authority of any, it is very fitting that counsel be taken of wise and understanding friends ... After a liking is thus taken by one party for a good mate, that liking must be proposed to the other party so liked, to know if there is a reciprocal affection of one towards another ... Mutual love and good liking of each other is as glue. Let the parties to be married be well settled before they come to meet with trials through cohabitation, and that love will not easily be loosened by any trials ... When both parties have shown a mutual liking to each other, and upon mature deliberation and good advice do think one to be a fit match for another, it is necessary that a joint consent and absolute promise of marrying one another before sufficient witnesses be made." (Building a Godly Home, vol. 2, p. 17-19)

——————

Update: You can find an excerpt from the sermon of another member of the Westminster Assembly, Thomas Gataker, on seeking a good wife here.

Sexual Immorality and Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 6-7

In an earlier post, I had written about sexuality and marriage as God created and designed it: Marriage in Genesis 2. In today's post, I want to look at the same issue from another passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9-7:16, which approaches sexuality and marriage as it currently exists in our fallen world.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God and this includes the sexually immoral, adulterers, and homosexuals. These desires and acts are manifestations of rebellion against God's will and design. Do not be deceived, thinking that everyone will inherit a place in God's eternal kingdom and glory. The Corinthians were to therefore turn away from these sins and to discipline those who refused to repent and continued in these ways (1 Cor. 5:11).

1 Corinthians 6:11 goes on to give hope for sinners and to inspire gratitude and humility in the hearts of believers by saying, "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." Being justified (accounted righteous) and sanctified (cleansed from defilement and made holy) are benefits purchased by Christ, to be obtained in His name, and they are applied to us by the Spirit of our God who unites us to Christ through faith. Therefore, believers are not "the unrighteous." The blood-washed saints will "inherit the kingdom."

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 then goes on to apply this new identity to the present life of the Christian. It says that your body is a body part of Christ, a temple of the Holy Spirit, and a ransomed possession of Christ. Therefore, do not unite Christ to immorality! Do not defile the temple with sin! Do not spurn the great cost of your redemption by using Christ's possession against His will!

Therefore, flee sexual immorality! Make your body holy, consecrated, and governed by Christ. Make it an instrument of righteousness (see also Rom. 6:12-14).

1 Corinthians 7 goes on to describe how one flees sexual immorality. His basic principle is "because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). Marriage is a duty for most adults. The sexual desire is a natural desire, built into human nature, designed for a good end (Gen. 1:26-2:25), so direct it unto good rather than evil.

In 1 Corinthians 7:3-6, we find it is the duty of married people to not deprive each other sexually, except by mutual agreement for a limited time. Why? (1) Your bodies belong to each other - resulting in mutual rights and duties; and (2) for the prevention of immorality, minimizing Satan's ability to tempt you to sin.

In 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, there is an exception to this general rule of marriage. Singleness has some benefits if one has the gift for it (see 7:32-35). Singleness is not the gift. Continency - the ability to be single without distraction and passion - is the gift (see also Matt. 19:10-12). Those with this gift can still marry, but they do not need to, and they should consider whether they might serve the Lord better as single.

1 Corinthians 7:9 returns back to the normal duty to marry, and to this we might add 7:36-37 and 1 Timothy 5:11-14.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 goes on to address the topic of divorce. It begins in verses 10-11 by summarizing what Jesus had taught on the subject in the case of marriage between two believers (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:1-9). They should not divorce (divorce in the case of sexual immorality was an exception taught by Jesus and assumed here by Paul), and if they do, they should remain unmarried or be reconciled. Verses 12-16 address the case of a believer's marriage with an unbeliever, a situation not addressed directly by the Lord while He was on earth. In this case, the believer should not leave - the unbelief of one's spouse does not defile the rest of the family (although this type of mixed marriage should not be entered into, see 7:39). But if the unbeliever does not consent to continue their marriage and separates, then the believer must let them go. In such a divorce, they are free of their former marriage and can remarry.

Marriage in Genesis 2

In an earlier post, we saw from Genesis 1:26-28 that humanity - created male and female in the image of God - is given a mandate to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it, and that this task is especially given to married couples. Men and women share this task in common, but as we move to Genesis 2 we find that men and women approach this task differently. And here we will focus on how they relate to each other in marriage, although these natural differences have relevance in all of life.

A common view today is that man and woman are equal and that marriage is subordinate to their pursuit of their (individual) dreams in which each has the same role in the marriage. (Even as I write this at the local library I hear a mother reading to her daughter the "Feminist ABCs" where D is for dreams and E is for equality.) This makes sense in an individualistic worldview where each person is their own maker, creating their identity and purpose out of thin air. But all this changes when we view the world through the lens of Scripture.

In Genesis 2, we find that man and woman were created by God, and that they were created differently. God made Adam from the dust and His breath (Gen. 2:7), while God made Eve from Adam’s rib (2:22). They had unique purposes behind their creation: Adam was created to work the ground and keep it (2:5, 15), while Eve was created to help Adam with this task (2:18, 20). Neither one of them was independent of the other, but they depended on each other differently. The ultimate end for both of them was the creation mandate, but Adam found the task and therefore received a helper, while Eve found the man and therefore received the task.

The fact that Eve was formed from Adam gave them unity. When Eve was brought to Adam, he saw that she was from his flesh, and so they united in marriage as one flesh (Gen. 2:23-24). Woman was taken from man, and ever since they have desired to become one again, a desire which is designed for marriage. Companionship, friendship, love, romance, and physical union thus play an important and natural role in marriage. And this union of affections and bodies also promotes their original calling to multiply and subdue the earth: it naturally leads to childbirth and it unites them closer so that they might work together as one.

Some have claimed that God's primary intent in marriage is not to make you happy, but to make you holy. But I'm not sure that marriage made Adam any more holy - it did, though, make him quite a bit more happy (Gen. 2:23). In our fallen state, marriage is supposed to make you holy as well as happy, and neither of these exhaust the purposes of marriage (since it's not all about you). Because of sin, marriage sometimes does not achieve its purpose, but this does not alter its purpose and design.

This one-flesh unity shapes the rest of the marriage relationship. Marriage is designed so that husband and wife work as one and treat each other as part of his or her self. The husband does not treat his wife as an external force to be conquered, but as his body to be directed and cared for. The wife does not see her husband as a conquering invader to be resisted, but as her head to be supported and obeyed. John Calvin commented on this chapter that “something was taken from Adam, in order that he might embrace, with greater benevolence, a part of himself. ” He says, “In this manner Adam was taught to recognize himself in his wife, as in a mirror; and Eve, in her turn, to submit herself willingly to her husband, as being taken out of him.”

We see from Genesis 2 that neither man or woman is independent - they both need each other - but they depend on each other differently. Adam helps as a head by directing and caring for Eve in love as His flesh and helper. Eve helps as a body by respectfully following and extending Adam’s leadership. As Calvin comments, “women, being instructed in their duty of helping their husbands, should study to keep this divinely appointed order. It is also the part of men to consider what they owe in return to the other half of their kind, for the obligation of both sexes is mutual, and on this condition is the woman assigned as a help to the man, that he may fill the place of her head and leader.”

Much more could be said on the topic, but from this chapter we can draw the following applications (in line with Scripture's own commentary on this passage in places like 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, Proverbs 31:10-31, and Ephesians 5:22-33):

Both Husbands and Wives: love and desire the other as one’s self. Seek your spouse's good and be close to your spouse in soul and body. Both should seek to help the other and promote God’s glory and fulfill His mandate together. Your marriage serves more than your respective needs - it is so much bigger than you.

Husbands: view your wife as your body. You provide and protect your body, so protect and provide for your wife. You direct your body for purposeful ends, so give her direction and instructions for purposeful ends. You train your body, so teach your wife as an intelligent human and co-heir of grace. You treasure your body, paying attention to what it communicates about its pains and needs, so value your wife and be understanding towards her. You honor your body before others since your body is you, so do not degrade or disgrace your wife before others.

Wives: view your husband as your body, particularly as your head. Even as your body works in unity with the head by following its direction, so help your husband by working according to his direction as one. As the body furthers and implements what the head intends, so take initiative to further your husband's mission by being faithful over your charge. Represent and reflect your husband, working as a faithful steward over his house.

For more on this topic, see my recent sermon "Marriage and Sexuality."  

Three Reports on Revoice from PCA Presbyteries

There was a conference held in St. Louis last year called Revoice, which sought to support gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians who affirmed the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality. This event was controversial before it even happened and has continued to be polarizing, particularly among conservative Presbyterians. While Revoice was clear in teaching that sex belongs only within monogamous and heterosexual marriage, it was less clear on the issues of homosexual desire, orientation, and identity.

Revoice is not a Presbyterian organization, and its speakers came from a variety of denominational backgrounds, but it featured several speakers who are ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and was held at Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA), whose senior pastor spoke at the event and defended it against critics. After the conference, several of the PCA's regional presbyteries set up committees to study and report on the teachings promoted at the conference. These reports have been released as the PCA approaches its annual General Assembly later this month. I am in a different conservative Presbyterian denomination (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church). Yet we in the OPC have an interest in the direction and well-being of our sister denomination. I am also personally involved - I graduated from the PCA's seminary and I have friends in the PCA (on "both sides" of this controversy).

Here I want to review the reports on Revoice adopted by three of the PCA's presbyteries: Missouri Presbytery, Central Carolina Presbytery, and Westminster Presbytery. For those who do not have time to sort through these reports, perhaps this summary can give you an idea how the PCA is addressing this controversy.

Missouri Presbytery - "Missouri Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Memorial Presbyterian Church for Hosting the Revoice 18 Conference in July 2018" (111 pages, 32 additional pages in the appendices)

This presbytery is the one which includes Memorial Presbyterian Church and its senior pastor, Rev. Greg Johnson. Its task was to investigate not only Revoice, but particularly the role played by Memorial Presbyterian Church and its senior pastor. This investigation was first requested by Memorial PCA and later by Calvary Presbytery. Its report is by far the largest of these three reports, but it does include a "Summary of Allegations and Judgments" on pages 29-34 and "Commendations and Recommendations" on pages 110-111 for those who want to read a shorter version.

In receiving this report and adopting and approving certain parts of it, the Missouri Presbytery also noted on their website,

"We would ask readers to take care to not represent this report as an endorsement of Revoice, because our Presbytery does not understand itself to be endorsing Revoice by the actions it took at the May 18 meeting. As we say candidly in the report, we have concerns about where Revoice is going, and even now, how its goals and principles are being worked out by some of its participants under the umbrella this organization has become. We believe it is a young and evolving organization and stands in need of much prayer and guidance, and, in places, constructive criticism, to the end of becoming aware of some corrective moving it needs to make, at least in our judgment." 

More specifically, the report judged,

- "...that both TE Johnson and Memorial ought to have vetted more carefully the speakers and content of the Revoice conference.... In addition, ... by not providing a gracious, clear critique of the conference, especially at those points where it was alleged that there was difference with our doctrinal standards, the Session of Memorial and TE Johnson erred…” (p. 29)

- "...that neither Revoice nor the Memorial Presbyterian Church Session ground homoerotic desire and actions in Creation rather than in the Fall. We believe that Revoice itself does not teach that sexual desire for someone of the same sex is morally neutral and not sinful. In fact, they affirm that it is sinful." (p. 29)

- "...that the way Revoice and Side B believers in general use terms has been confusing to many of our churches. But we reject the claim that this is because terms like 'gay,' 'sexual orientation,' 'queer,' and 'sexual minorities' are always or necessarily unbiblical." (p. 30)

- that Revoice understands terms like "same-sex attraction" and "gay" in an expanded way so that "they are inclusive of 'attractions,' of an 'orientation,' of a quality of 'gayness' that lies behind homoerotic desire and yet is essentially or intrinsically related to it—rather than being simply related to it situationally" and in this "Revoice has committed at least an error of imprudence by indulging in needless and potentially dangerous speculation, and it remains to be seen whether this error will be used in such a way as to strike at the vitals of religion." (p. 30-31)

- that while a Christian can, in some sense, include their sinful desires as a part of who they are, "any part of 'who we are' that is the result of the Fall and sinful must be mortified, and all aspects of our identity must be seen through the lens of our primary identity as those who are made in the image of God and restored to that image through our union with Christ." (p. 31)

- "...that, to the extent that Revoice even entertains the possibility of 'celibate partnerships' (even within the limits expressed above), it has erred in offering unwise, unedifying relational arrangements to Christians who know same-sex-attraction (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12).... TE Johnson, in his Revoice workshop, publicly warned about the danger of friendships morphing into romances and stressed the importance of boundaries." (p. 32)

- "...that Memorial did not err in allowing Roman Catholics to speak in their church building under the aegis of Revoice…. However, Memorial erred in failing to make clear to their congregation our doctrinal differences with Roman Catholicism before, but especially after the Revoice conference." (p. 34)

The end result of this investigation is that the Missouri Presbytery required Memorial PCA to respond to these concerns (specifically, "the judgements and recommendations of this report") by their summer presbytery meeting in July, and that Missouri Presbytery adopted an “Overture to the 47th General Assembly of the PCA to Form an Ad Interim Committee to Seek Consensus on Doctrinal Boundaries and Pastoral Care in the Current Debates About Sexuality.”

Central Carolina Presbytery - "Central Carolina Presbytery Study Committee Report on 2018 Revoice Conference" (16 pages)

The Central Carolina Presbytery's report is generally well written and only 16 pages long. It helpfully summarizes the main talks at Revoice and then addresses them by looking at five issues.

Regarding desire and temptation, this report helpfully distinguishes between the Reformed and Roman Catholic understandings of sin and desire (both Reformed and Roman Catholic speakers were present at the conferences). While the Roman Catholic view is that disordered desires only become sinful when we consent or act upon them, our Presbyterian standards affirm that the corruption of our nature (original sin) is sin to be repented of, and that the desire for sin is a sinful desire. In other words, "when the heart is drawn after an illegitimate end, we must repent of that sinful desire, longing, or attraction and run to Christ for cleanness of conscience and forgiveness of sin" (p. 8). The report critiques the idea that same-sex sexual desire can be purified, leaving behind a unique attraction towards members of one's own sex. Unfortunately, the report ends up arguing that there is no such thing as non-sexual attraction towards another person (!).

Regarding labels and identities, this report notes that "'gay' or 'sexual minority' might be used occasionally in order to identify a persistent struggle that must be mortified by the power of the Holy Spirit. Insofar as identity language is used in this way, we see it as consistent with the manner in which faithful Christians have talked throughout the centuries (e.g., 'I’m an alcoholic but a Christian who is seeking to forsake this sin.')" (p. 10). But it also argues that adopting these labels can seem to foster the idea that these sins cannot be resisted, that they are part of a settled identity, and are perhaps morally neutral. I find this section of the report a bit unclear - it seems to realize that people can adopt these terms in a legitimate way, but then condemns the use of these terms since those who do so "are not merely identifying a struggle. Such linguistic moves signal an inappropriate add-on to what we all agree is a more fundamental category: Christian" (p. 11). It does helpfully recognize the life long struggle with sin described in Romans 7, while also noting that it is a mistake to view sexual orientation as immutable.

Regarding spiritual friendships, this report states, "We certainly agree with the Revoice Conference that same-sex attracted persons can find in the Bible, and should find in the church, examples of deep, loyal, committed relationships between persons of the same sex. We think it unwise, however, to posit a separate class of homosexual friendship that goes by different names and looks substantially different from the healthy friendships all Christians should cultivate and enjoy" (p. 13).

Regarding the "gift of homosexuality", I think the report says it well: "as we discussed above, we do not believe it is right to characterize sinful inclinations as a gift. But if same-sex attraction is not a gift to be celebrated, our brothers and sisters who pursue Christ courageously in the midst of this attraction certainly are. In short, we believe it is important to affirm that same-sex desires are sinful, that the fight against these desires is an admirable struggle, and that those who labor in faith and repentance to overcome these desires should receive our sympathy, our gratitude, and our support" (p. 14-15).

In the end, the report summarizes by saying: "We appreciate Revoice’s commitment to biblical marriage. We commend them for their desire to help sexual strugglers stay rooted in Christ and in historic orthodoxy. At the same time, we are concerned that some of the principal voices in Revoice have not been careful enough with their labels, their theology, and their relational advice. Consequently, at present we do not feel Revoice is a safe guide in helping Christians navigate questions of gender and sexuality" (p. 16).

Westminster Presbytery - "Report of the Committee to Investigate THE TEACHINGS OF THE REVOICE CONFERENCE, Adopted by Westminster Presbytery March 9, 2019" (27 pages)

Westminster Presbytery earlier sent an overture to the PCA's General Assembly with a list of twelve affirmations and denials on this controversy (available here), which I found to be good, though I would push back a little on article nine's denial. Unfortunately, their report is somewhat misled by a misunderstanding of what Revoice speaker Nate Collins meant in his book when he said that "the gay identity is a first-creation identity" (cited on page 3 of the report). While the report understands Collins to say that the gay identity was a pre-fall reality, Collins meant that this identity was part of this present, post-fall age, as opposed to the age to come. Collins does affirm that "sexual desire for someone of the same sex is sinful and something that I should repent from" (source), but also argues that being gay includes a broader aesthetic orientation that is not sinful in itself, though restricted to this age (footnote on p. 3). This understanding of sexual orientation is problematic, but this report ignores these distinctions and so misses the mark in some of its critique.

In short, this report commends Revoice for teaching that "Homosexual Sex and Homosexual Marriage are always Sinful." Yet, it argues that the "counsel and teaching of the Revoice conference is, for the most part, in grave error and is spiritually reckless and destructive" (p. 27)
- because it taught that "Sexual Orientation is Real, Fixed, & Likely Unchangeable, and same-sex orientation is not inherently sinful" (p. 2)
- because "Memorial PCA has put 3 Roman Catholic Speakers in front of the people of God as spokespersons for true Christianity and teachers of God’s word" (p. 13)
- because "Revoice’s Concept of 'Spiritual Friendship' Promoted by Wesley Hill and Ron Belgau [RC] is the Creation of Marriage Culture Minus Sex" (p. 16)
- because it taught that "Gender and Sexual Minority Christians are Victims of the Church Because the Church Will not Acknowledge Sexual Orientation and LGBT Identity" (p. 17)
- because it taught that "Roman Catholicism’s Anti-Scriptural Doctrine of Sin is True (aka: “concupiscence”): Sin consists in actions only, not in desires contrary to God’s Word" (p. 22)

I should note that it was Revoice, not Memorial PCA, that invited the Roman Catholic speakers, although as the Missouri Presbytery report noted, Memorial was not free of all responsibility to note where we disagree with Roman Catholics on these issues. Also, it is not correct to say that the speakers at Revoice taught that desires contrary to God's word are not sin. Some did make the problematic assertion that homosexual orientation or attraction is not sinful and a debatable distinction between lust and involuntary desires/temptation. For example, outside the conference in his interview on Crosspolitic, Memorial PCA's senior pastor, Greg Johnson, seemed to make the distinction that one must repent of volitional sins and lusts while one must mortify homosexual attraction (but that one cannot repent of homosexual attraction). This issue was more accurately handled by the other two reports.

Yet, this report helpfully draws to a conclusion by saying,

"In summary, Christian people and ministers must befriend, love, and express the deepest patience and grace toward people engaged in sexually perverted forms of sin.... And individuals ensnared by such sins must see in us a people who are determined to love and serve them regardless of whether or not they ever repent and come to Christ.... The church must support, encourage, and empower people to repent from and put to death their LGBT identities, attractions, desires, and/or actions with the help of Christ. And we must work hard to counsel and walk beside such people as they do so. Their battle with sin will be no less consuming and intense than our own. This is what the body of Christ and Christian fellowship is all about. We walk alongside each other, support one another in our battles with sin, and cheer each other on as we run the race with endurance." (p. 27)

Gender Identity in a Culture of Autonomy

The desire to define oneself is strong in modern culture. Tradition, the created order, and authority (divine or human) are seen as dehumanizing assaults on the freedom of the individual. In this struggle for radical autonomy, the area of sexuality has been front and center. Earlier, I wrote about how this struggle defines the current debate about the bounds of sexual intimacy. Another aspect of this struggle has been the issue of masculinity and femininity - does the individual have the right to choose and create his or her gender, or are we responsible to embrace the gender we have been given? On this issue, God takes a clear position in His word.

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
(Genesis 1:27) 

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
(Deuteronomy 22:5) 

Here we see that our identity as male or female is rooted in creation and that it is an abomination to rebel against this order. It is not a personal choice. For a man to put on a woman's cloak is to identify as a woman, and this is forbidden. Gender is determined, not by personal choice, but by biological sex, which is clear for the vast majority of people. Notice, in these verses there is both the fact of gender - you are male or female regardless of how you choose to present yourself - and the duty to then embrace this identity and live it out. Someone who is male by birth also has a duty to be a man.

The law in Deuteronomy is a case law. That is, it expresses a principle by using a particular case. Masculinity and femininity involve more than clothing. Clothing is a symbol of a larger identity. Some of the symbols that identify us as masculine or feminine are rooted in the created order and do not change from culture to culture (for example, beards are masculine not feminine). Some symbols, though, may be culturally relative - yet this does not mean we get to ignore them. Language, for example, is culturally relative, but this doesn't give us free rein to use it however we want. The English word "woman" only means "woman" because that is how English-speaking people use the term, but this doesn't give someone a right to use the word to mean "man." Culturally relative symbols with a longer history (like words) will be less flexible than symbols of recent creation. Distinctive clothing, of which Deuteronomy 22:5 speaks, is usually partially based on creational differences (such as body shape) and partially based on cultural language (such as pink and blue baby colors).

Masculinity and femininity go deeper than the symbols. A man who wears manly clothes but fails to provide for his household or proves to be a coward when faced with difficulty and danger is not manly, despite his clothing. A woman who dresses in a feminine manner but seeks to rule or disrespect her husband or church is not feminine, despite her appearance. While men and women were both created in the image of God, they were created differently with different bodies, different abilities, and different responsibilities (Gen. 2-3, 1 Cor. 11:7-9, 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Pet. 3:7), and we are called to live accordingly.

The desire to define oneself apart from God's created order is not new. The people of God has lived among sexually rebellious peoples for its entire history and has been in an ongoing struggle to be distinct from this rebellion. For example, the early church drew a strong line between the practice of Christians and that of a sexually perverted Greco-Roman society. Clement of Alexandria, a church father of the 2nd century, strongly condemned not only sexual sins, but also effeminate men who sought to appear smooth and feminine by plucking out beards and wearing jewry and soft clothing. "Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man ... Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature ... O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct!" (The Instructor, 3.3).

Clement, as well as many others, recognized a connection between this effeminacy and sexual immorality, particularly homosexuality. It is effeminate for a man to have sexual relations with a man - he is acting like a woman. It is a feminine thing to have sexual relations with a man. As Romans 1:26-27 teaches, natural sexual relations involve a man and a woman - perversions of this are shameful and a rebellion against the natural order. So a man who seeks sexual intimacy with a man not only commits sexual immorality, but he also violates the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 by acting as a woman.

In our age, the church continues to live among people who seek to blur what God has made distinct, who seek to rebel against God's created order and assert their autonomy. Not only do individuals practice sin, but egalitarian feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, and gender autonomy are promoted and affirmed in the schools, media, entertainment, and politics. To oppose someone's right to define themselves or call them to repentance is seen as a denial of their humanity. What ought the church to do?

1. The church ought to be "a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). It ought to clearly proclaim and defend God's word in the midst of a people who despise it. Rather than retreating to more popular parts of the truth, we ought to defend it where it is under attack. This is a primary task of the church.
2. The church ought not be unequally yoked with lawless unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). It should not tolerate within in it those who teach or promote sexual immorality or sexual confusion (Rev. 2:20). This principle also applies to Christian parachurch organizations and ministries.
3. Christians ought to live out a Christian understanding of sexuality. The church is a city on a hill, called to let the light of its good works shine before men so that they might glorify God (Matt. 5:14-16). The church's defense of the truth is not only intellectual. We also defend it by our example. There are destructive forms of masculinity and femininity out there, and Christians need to demonstrate the beauty of virtuous masculinity and femininity that accords with God's word.
4. As Christians live among unbelievers and do business with them (1 Cor. 5:9-13), they are to do good to them (Matt. 5:43-48), and to lovingly call them to repentance and faith (Luke 5:29-32), being ready to graciously defend the biblical position when they question it (Col. 4:6). We live in the same world, fellow members of civil society, yet we are commanded: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them" (Eph. 5:11).