It would appear to me that the majority of people, even in the evangelical Church, think that young Christians doing degrees should focus on their studies, and that marriage can be put off until later. This attitude needs to be urgently challenged.

Sorry it’s taken so long to get back.
No I was really talking about external factors such as the opinion of other Christians that can discourage one from pursuing marriage young. But I’m just saying that that shouldn’t stop us grom doing whatever God wants us to do.

A common denominator in all biblical covenants, whether it be Gods covenant with Noah, Abraham etc up to Jesus was that there was always a shedding of blood involved. Perhaps marriage is made “official” on the wedding night when a virgin bride first has sex with her husband and her hyman is broken… Although I’m just speculating here, perhaps this is yet another reason behind God’s laws regarding fornication – in that it can take away the symbolism and holiness of the covenant making process.

Of course if one is a Christian, he/she is a new creation, so I believe a Christian can still experience this process (at least on a spiritual level) on their wedding night even if they have “slipped up” in their past and previously lost their virginity.

Nice article! A good one for every Christian (and non-Christian).

Personally, the closest description to my stance on evolution is the theistic evolutionist, even though I disagree that this view “weakens theology”.

The thing I don’t understand is why the weaknesses of the Mature earth view and the 24 hour day view were not developed. For instance, the Catastrophism is not consistent with what we observe in nature. Furthermore, not all our church thinkers (such as Origen, St. Augustine, Aquinas and John Wesley) adhered to a young earth.

When I was a scientist, I did not work under the assumption that God is uninvolved. In fact, I strongly believe I can do science because God was involved in everything.

Thanks for the post, I hope I was not offensive.

But, I must ask the question, this answers the 1 partner question, but what about waiting till marriage and when is marriage defined? I ask this because many of my friends are married and admitted to having sex before their wedding day with their current partner. It’s interesting to note that marriage varies from culture to culture (I add this because I’m an Australian currently living in Uganda and they have a very different measurement of marriage).

From further readings on Proverbs 22:6, my basic understanding is that the phrase, “in the way he should go” isn’t restricted to modeling righteousness but rather digs deeper with the implication of, “model righteousness according to the way of the child.” Righteousness is righteousness across the board (as can be examined in scripture) but when we take the way of the child (his personality, talents and demeanor), which has unlimited variation, we can cater our parenting around what works best for him (while still seeking the glory of Christ). Unfortunately (and I say that because it requires absolute unselfishness, dedication and commitment) This requires that our method of modeling righteousness (not as a whole but in part by how we love and discipline) be child-by-child dependent. I believe parents get stuck in a rut (and I’m sure it’ll be something I struggle with) when it comes to rearing. I think we (well they since I’m not yet a parent) expect what works for one child to work just as well for the rest of them because we fail to take the individual personality of the child into account. Basic observation (as well as scripture) tells us that we are created as unique beings and temperaments DO very among individuals. While sin results in the same punishment for all, how the Lord deals with us (in accordance with discipline) differs person by person. Because of this we are equipped to take the example of our father’s love for us to effectively parent the earthly children he so graciously blesses us with.

From further readings on Proverbs 22:6, my basic understanding is that the phrase, “in the way he should go” isn’t restricted to modeling righteousness but rather digs deeper with the implication of, “model righteousness according to the way of the child.” Righteousness is righteousness across the board (as can be examined in scripture) but when we take the way of the child (his personality, talents and demeanor), which has unlimited variation, we can cater our parenting around what works best for him (while still seeking the glory of Christ). Unfortunately (and I say that because it requires absolute unselfishness, dedication and commitment) This requires that our method of modeling righteousness (not as a whole but in part by how we love and discipline) be child-by-child dependent. I believe parents get stuck in a rut (and I’m sure it’ll be something I struggle with) when it comes to rearing. I think we (well they since I’m not yet a parent) expect what works for one child to work just as well for the rest of them because we fail to take the individual personality of the child into account. Basic observation (as well as scripture) tells us that we are created as unique beings and temperaments DO very among individuals. While sin results in the same punishment for all, how the Lord deals with us (in accordance with discipline) differs person by person. Because of this we are equipped to take the example of our father’s love for us to effectively parent the early children he’s so graciously blesses us with.

Just finished that book a few days ago. Great insight and biblical clarity

Proverbs 11:10

After reading this article, we were all talking about what keeps us from having sex. The reason we don’t have premarital sex is quite simple: because God tells us not to. Our relationship with God is more important than our fleeting desires. Following Jesus is why we get up in the morning; it’s why we go to our jobs day after day. It’s why some of us have given up all of our belongings to move across the globe.

I choose not to have sex because I know that sin separates me from God. I have truly seen God’s goodness and that is all that I want. Someday I will get married; I may be 29 or 30 or 40 before I find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with. Until then, I will wait. I will do it happily, because I know that God and eternity will outlast my fleeting relationships.

Instead of focusing on telling our teens and young adults to abstain from sex, we need to invite them and show them how following after Christ is better than anything on this earth can offer. Following after Christ is the most adventurous decision you will ever make. He will tell you to give up everything. He will tell you love people deeply, more than your own selfish desires. He will take you to crazy places. He will take you to the very end of yourself. You laugh harder and have more joy than you ever thought possible. Yeah, there are days when I entertained the idea of taking a relationship further physically than I should, but Christ reminds me that he wants more for me than an awkward morning after. He wants me to life and have it more abundantly.

—
The more deeply you walk with Christ, the hungrier you get for Christ; the more homesick you get for heaven; the more you want “all the fullness of God”; the more you want to be done with sin; the more you want the Bridegroom to come again; the more you want the Church revived and purified with the beauty of Jesus; the more you want a great awakening to God’s reality in the cities; the more you want to see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ penetrate the darkness of all the unreached peoples of the world; the more you want to see false worldviews yield to the force of Truth; the more you want to see pain relieved and tears wiped away and death destroyed; the more you long for every wrong to be made right and the justice and grace of God to fill the earth like the waters cover the sea.

If you don’t feel strong desires for the manifestation of the glory of God, it is not because you have drunk deeply and are satisfied. It is because you have nibbled so long at the table of the world. Your soul is stuffed with small things, and there is no room for the great. God did not create you for this. There is an appetite for God. And it can be awakened. I invite you to turn from the dulling effects of food and the dangers of idolatry, and to say with some simple fast: “This much, O God, I want you.”

-John Piper, Hunger for God

p.s. accidentally dropped computer and somehow put the (+666) for my name which was not at all what I meant to do sorry.

I do think there is some wisdom to your thoughts here. You do grow to become ready for marriage as you are in a relationship with that person. However, what I am advocating for is “complete intentionality” in a dating relationship. I think it is glorified divorce practice to date someone for a long time, act like you are already married both emotionally and/or sexually, and not begin to prepare yourself to be a husband or wife during the time. If you are not ready to be married (financially, maturity wise, leaving/cleaving wise, etc), then I don’t think it is “wise” to date at such a “committed level.” It mostly leads to hurt and sin.

The gospel, however, is something that is an even greater thing to pursue while one is not ready for marriage. May we be a generation committed to that instead!

The logic of Miss Drew is also extremely frightening. To bring it to its logical end bleeds complete relativism in almost everything. Where do we draw the line of what we “dream of being?”

Authenticity is grasped in truly understanding what we are created to be, not in what we “dream of being.” That sounds more like rebellion to me.

Also, I’d love to go out and get married as soon as my significant other are ready (now), but the whole “success” does play a factor. You can’t be married before having an established career and financial support base, which makes the case for early dating/marriage a much more difficult one to fathom.

I was given no instructions on courtship or dating and was terrified of stepping out to begin my first and only relationship because of all of the horror stories I’d been told and had witnessed.

Pursuing a romantic relationship with a fellow believer had been treated in my life like a drivers ed course with too many worst case scenario clip reels.

And the modern perspective on marriage, even within the church, is painted as a grim and overly sober subject. So much so, that my boyfriend and I spent much time discussing the views on marriage that we’d observed and been fed over the years, even though BOTH of our parents have excellent marriages… I had spent the majority of my life being discouraged almost entirely from even desiring marriage, and primarily being told of the exhaustive list of negatives that accompany it and the probability that I would wind up hating all of the very things I loved about the man and would most assuredly fall out of my honeymoon stage of love and loathe the man I was now almost eternally yoked to.

Thank you so much for providing material that shares the POSITIVE aspects of marriage and for showing me that I’m not crazy for wanting to be a loving wife and a mother someday.

I am eternally grateful. :)

I am 21 years old. I was homeschooled and raised in a VERY conservative Christian home. I came to really know Christ for myself at age 15 and have been diving head first into serving him ever since.

I have always been a very romantic, affectionate heart, but always received a message that relationships were nothing but trouble for believers. I felt extremely condemned within my own conscience for wanting to have a young Christian man to love me and to love in return because the message I received was that “good Christian girls shouldn’t think about things like that.”

I always dreamed of being married at a young age and being a loving wife and mother, but was frequently put down for it and told that I just needed to grow closer to Christ as if I was sinning against my Lord by wanting to be a wife. That having that desire meant I didn’t love Christ enough.

Despite the feedback I was given, I decided to do everything I possibly could to Biblically prepare myself for marriage by myself. I read every scripture I could find on the topic and read every appropriate book I could find on Christian marriage and what a young woman is supposed to be. It started after reading a fictional book about an Amish girl when I was 17, and I avidly continued. It intensified after a woman of God I deeply respected told me that the role of men and women was vastly distorted in our society, especially in the area of spiritual leadership in the home. I had never heard that before, and I began searching for what I WAS supposed to be as a Christian women in the home. I also began praying to become a Proverbs 31 woman and praying for the man God would have me marry someday.

In the fall of last year, I met a wonderful young man at my new church, and we instantly clicked as good friends while we helped in the same ministries at that church. We began dating in January of this year ( amidst quite a bit of resistance from my parents who claimed that 21 was still FAR too young to date in general, regardless of my suitor) and we are still together. His parents approve very much of me and have welcomed me with open arms.

He is, of course, my first boyfriend. I hope him to be my only boyfriend. It became VERY clear very early on that both of us were only interested in being in a relationship if it eventually led to marriage and that we both were all ready VERY interested in marrying each other.

We both dream of getting married as soon as possible, but have received a lot of negative feedback from others that 20 and 21 are FAR too young to be considering marriage, even that it is too young to be a serious couple because because “tied down” would prevent us both from reaching our “full potential”. We’ve both prayed about it and have peace about wanting to spend our lives with each other, but have only found one other mature Christian couple that thinks young marriage is a good idea. I want so much to honor my parents. I also love my boyfriend and the young man of character that he is. I have been extremely discouraged from the idea of being married young and urged to wait until at least the age of 25 or older. I love my parents very much, but I disagree with them. I believe it seems foolish to wait that long if I have all ready found a wonderful young man who loves God and loves me and wishes to marry me.

In seeking the wisdom of those older than me, He and I were beginning to become very discouraged. Your articles have helped me to realize that I’m not crazy or stupid or immature. That the idea of marrying the man I love is NOT crazy when I have have been diligently praying and pursuing God in this area since I was 17 years old. That wanting to marry him soon to help relieve some of the burden of being two very affectionate people who have promised not to be intimate before marriage is NOT a declaration of my non-self-controlled, lustful immaturity but rather an example of scriptural wisdom.

My family may not accept their baby girl being married anytime soon (since at 21 they still don’t want me dating), and I am willing to wait (within reason) to receive their approval and their blessing. However, I very much appreciate finding your articles and the wisdom in them about the benefits of young people who are devoted to Christ seeking to be married early. I want nothing more than to serve the God I love, be with the man I love and have a family that is proud of me. I pray that all of this will come together, but in the meantime,

Thank you for your encouragement. :)

It speaks volumes about our God’s character just knowing that His laws are full of love and are purposed for our good… “submission to God’s law leads to joy which God desires for his creatures. Yet we are prone to reject God’s law and, consequently, God’s best for us.” What a convicting—yet beautiful—yet encouraging reality for all of us.

Christine, thanks for your thoughts. It’s not that we should be hammering down their throats that they should marry young. It is grounded in the fact that we should be hammering down their throats “intentional preparation” and “intentionality.” There is no dogmatic formula for this concept. Everybody’s situation is different. However, we must encourage them to get busy with not delaying adolescence into their 20′s and 30′s.

What do you mean that we can only control our own actions? Are you pointing to each of us simply being accountable for the decisions we make? If so, I agree, but let us equip our young people with an arsenal full ways to make those wise decisions.

Today I had the chance to attend Shawn Achor’s presentation “Science of Positive Leadership”, a two hour session based on his book “The Happiness Advantage”. I have already been eagerly sharing some of the points with my coworkers,……

When working with young people, keep this advice targeted to the men. Men are the pursuers. A woman can want to get marry young, but may not be pursued for whatever reason. Constantly being told that they should marry young is NOT going to help them.

Secondly, this advice MUST be paired with the solid advice I’ve seen in other articles on this blog – advice that points young believers to look for a Christ focused spouse. Young believers should not rush to marry and neglect to consider WHO they are choosing to marry.

I rejoice with you, seeing the work of God’s grace in your life and saving you (as well as myself and everyone redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ). I would disagree that the power of witches in Suriname is simply imagined, but it’s of little consequence since be both agree witchcraft (whether possessing false or true powers) is evil and keeps people from following Christ.

People have been unjustly tortured, beaten and killed through the centuries for every reason under the sun. To imply that denying the belief in witchcraft would solve the problem is misguided. It’s wrong to harm people…but the problem is with the people inflicting it, not simply their reasons for doing so. Either witchcraft is evil or it’s good or completely indifferent –apart from a society’s reaction to it.

You must also consider how many are not only physically oppressed but spiritually damned for eternity by their continuing in witchcraft. While overseas, most Christians testified of demons who did severe bodily harm to them –until Christ gave them salvation and freedom.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond!

I absolutely agree with you about Kids In Mind, I use them often to screen movies before watching them or when I’m doing preliminary film analysis.

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

- Josh

Your facetious remark about prayer shows your disbelief in witches is deeper than them alone. As for spells, I’d ask YOU to qualify that term. What is a spell? Making a person fall in love with another? Controlling wills? The witches (and many I presume out there) I am referring to didn’t practice those kinds of things. They poison people, they send evil spirits to oppress people, they do seances for protection from different kinds of harm etc. As for their effectiveness? Keep in mind the source of the power and His objection. Satan. The real, spiritual existent Satan. So you don’t believe in him? He’s fine with that. You would plausibly not believe in the historical Jesus: miracle worker, resurrected from the dead and one who explicitly mentions Satan countless times in the Gospels. It would make sense that “spells” are often false or ineffective since Satan only gives power to keep people worshipping him and staying out of the LIght (Christ). Moreover, Satan is only as powerful as God allows him to be. Many witches are phonies but some aren’t. Either way, people are deceived and remain in darkness.

I wholeheartedly agree. Materialism, rationalism, empiricism, worldviews that gained prominence with the enlightenment and continue to dominate the west to our present day deny the existence of the supernatural by their very definition. Keith Green wrote a song in late 70′s called “No one believes in me anymore” –a reference to Satan. Those in Suriname whom I met couldn’t believe there were actual people who didn’t believe in God or in evil spirits, it was incomprehensible for them. And this isn’t simply ignorance. I’ve seen men stand in fire while being possessed by demons and not be harmed. No one question’s the validity of the event or the source of it’s power. Keep in mind Satan’s objective: keep people from coming to salvation through Jesus Christ. There’s no reason to believe he would use different means for peoples with varying worldviews. A Shaman in Africa is in the same hell as David Hume. They both denied Christ, but for different reasons.

Real witches do not have supernatural powers. Curses from witches are empty – they will only affect you if you believe what they say. If you have faith in Christ and not in the empty words of witches you will never be harmed. Most witches do not curse or practice physical harmful things – witches only harm their own souls through not accepting Christ as savour and God as all-loving Father and Lord.

Having been a witch and learnt much about herbal medicine, living naturally and with respect for all life through walking that path I believe that the only forgiveness witches need to beg for is that they believe in false gods and deny the true Father. I have asked for forgiveness and received it, I received the Holy Spirit and go through each day singing the praises of the Lord for delivering me from the false life I was leading.

In any case, if you are a true follower of Christ’s way you will not be celebrating Hallowe’en. Hallowe’en is a festival based on the Celtic pagan feast day of Samhain, celebrating the end of the Celtic year and considered the one day of the year where the veil between this world and the next is thinnest and communication with ancestral spirits can take place. Many Christians feel that celebrating Hallowe’en with their children is harmless, but it actually draws attention, profits and loyalty to a pre-Christian feast day. Not only does it draw human attention to it, but spiritual too. Demons are quite happy to exploit this oversight.

Worshipping the dead and celebrating the macabre is taking glory and worship away from God and focusing it instead on the grisly things that the Prince of Lies loves most of all. Turn out your lights tonight, close your curtains. Hold your families close, pray together, eat together. Leave this once-a-year worship of boggarts, witches, demons and candy behind.

I would cordially request that you give a brief explanation for support of your position. I would challenge you to examine the existence of the dark spiritual world extant among hundreds of millions across the globe. I would challenge you to visit a place like Suriname discover for yourself if actual witches exist —or better yet, eradicate your caricatured image of broomsticks, warts and cauldrons. If witches are what I said they were: those who use supernatural power (derived from demons) for malignant purposes than scripture strongly supports this. Hence, sorcerers (as well as those who practice magic arts) are named as those to be thrown into hell in various passages.

You know what really touches my heart? A man able to accept my dominant heart, mind and soul- to embrace it, love it, and compliment it.

You contradict yourself. What if, what touches her heart, is a fully submissive man eager to become completely vulnerable to her and lay at her mercy?

Any how…
For a wife to be submissive Is not for her to be mindlessly obedient, to accept whatever her husband says without justification and reason.

If I was married, I might accept my husband saying “no, you cannot go do XYZ” but I am completely right to question it, to ask “why?” and if my husband does not give me a reason (‘because I say so’ is NOT a reason’) then I should not have to listen.

Some men are naturally submissive, or ‘weak’ as you claim. People telling them that they are not masculine because of their personality may lead to gender confusion and homosexuality. I think a lot of gay men are really just submissive men looking for a strong, sturdy partner- which they feel they cannot find in a woman.

I’m 16, and already smarter than you- you single-minded, incompetent, unintelligent fool. :)

Angela

Right on man. That was exactly what came to our mind. The church there has over 300+ in 3 service and nearly all are from our generation! it was real encouraging and affirmation that Jesus Christ is Lord and King. May his will be done on Earth just as it is in heaven.

Have you ever heard these sayings? — “We must reach this generation!” “The church is in decline!” “We are losing this generation!”

Since when did God, the Father, step down from his sovereign position as King of the universe? He is in control. Christ is still King. The Kingdom is still growing. Let us continue to participate in this Kingdom!

Secondly, I think the idea of only having the number of children that you can provide for changes drastically when you consider what they truly NEED to have provided for them rather than just what they want. It is not necessary for us to have the latest iPod touch, new wardrobes every season, expensive meals out, new designer clothing, etc. As Americans, we tend to buy into the lie that we need so many things that the developing world understands are wants/extravagances. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m all for financial responsibility – but it just seems to me that many times our culture expects that we need things that we really don’t.

Finally, if I read the study correctly, the problem is more in the case of a single mother raising kids on her own and that is an entirely different issue. Of course it would be harder for a single mom to raise and care for four kids than it would be for a married couple. To me, the question in that case is, “What am I doing and what is my church doing to support single moms and help them raise their kids in a Christ honoring fashion?”

I was just talking with my wife about getting a Roku box to stream Hulu and Netflix through. Right now we use our Wii but Hulu will not stream from the Wii currently.

What channels can you get from the Roku box? Also, what Internet sites do you use to stream other tv stations or shows?

Thanks for your comment… Very helpful!

The one caveat: you MUST have an excellent cable/dsl connection. Otherwise, you have shows that slip, try to load continuously, etc.

There are definitely some that would argue for biblical wisdom in being able to provide for your family while not having so many that it would bring you into poverty. I’m trying not to argue for either side right now, as I would like to hear some other thoughts on this…

What an interesting statement. Morality is always relative when someone doesn’t believe in absolutes. The questions for the relativist, then, are many, “Does this relative morality span the gap of humanity and the entirety of human history. How do we define morals pertaining to specific societies. What constants wrong? What constitutes good?”

That was a very interesting, and yes hard, article to read. Thanks for posting!

I wished that Dr Mohler referenced his article, so I can further investigate.

God bless you, and have a pleasant week!

I don’t think that the beauty that God has created is in any way bad. We’re made in the image of God, so I believe that all humans are beautiful in one way or another – it’s just not always in a way that is culturally defined as beautiful. No, that doesn’t mean that I think that we are always attracted to everyone, but rather it means that I believe that God places a beauty that can be appreciated in the slender twenty something and another type of beauty in the hunchbacked eighty year old.

The issue of lust set aside, I think the problem lies in how we approach ourselves more than anything. Women especially long to be seen as beautiful and I think the problem (the “exploitation”) is when we use our God given beauty in ways that draw attention to ourselves rather than to Him. I don’t think that this is always connected to what we classically refer to as immodest clothing because the issue is the heart of WHY you wear what you wear, WHY you put on makeup, etc. You can seek to draw attention to yourself in a turtleneck and long skirt (to show the world just how modest you are). You could wear a certain t-shirt because you want people to think that you’re “cool” by your association with a particular organization. Those clothes aren’t wrong in and of themselves and they’re unlikely to elicit lust in the opposite sex, but the desires behind them are still sinful. Women (and honestly, probably men too) exploit the gift of beauty that God has given them when they seek out the attention and approval of others by how they adorn themselves. The beauty that we’ve been given should bring Him glory and not us.

In the last few months, this is something that God has really been working on in my life. He’s caused me to question why I dress the way that I do or why I put on makeup (ex: do I just want to be a little more dressed up or am I trying to catch the attention of the cute guy at church?). I’ve come to a place where I’m really seeking to be beautiful in HIS eyes. I haven’t sworn off makeup or adopted a wardrobe of frumpy jumpers, but I have seriously questioned if I’m seeking to honor Him or to draw attention to myself. If my motive is to attract attention, then I need to shift gears. If my motive is to be appropriately attired for the occasion, then that’s a different story. It’s a daily battle, but I hope that one day I’ll be described as beautiful, not because of my outer adornment, but rather because of the way that He is reflected in the choices that I’ve made.

Again, sorry for the tangent…my brain just took me down a path of contemplation on the topic of beauty when I read your post. I appreciate both the original post and your comments. Thanks for your time. =)

I appreciate your comments. There’s a reason I posted this: it’s not an easy one to answer….or maybe, as you say Josh, the answer is simply one we don’t want to accept.

I understand the interpretation of ‘turning the other cheek” being an insult rather than an outright assault. I have a problem that Eldridge asserts that what a boy being bullied is defending against is his honor, his dignity, his pride. I know what I would instinctively tell a son of mine –the same thing Eldridge did. But I find his concession a slippery slope. An insult, slander can be as devastating as any physical wound. Why wouldn’t a boy have a right to physically (or verbally) defend themselves against that? We would be going back to the days of dueling.

I believe that those around who see someone oppressed and physically harassed have a biblical obligation to intervene and stop injustice –with force. This is love, this is right. I hope I would do that, I hope you would do that….but not for my own dignity or honor, but out of love.

The government moreover, and God-ordained authorities act to punish evildoers.

I don’t think it would be weakness to endure physical pain with the ability to retaliate….but actually greater courage. Jesus wasn’t weak because he chose not to retaliate and neither is anyone who heeds his words and does the same thing.

I can tell you one thing though, the words of Jesus are as radical today as they were two thousand years ago –we shouldn’t s simply give them a passing glance and use human reasoning to justify our Theology.

The only argument Eldridge can come up with is that it doesn’t make any sense to him to actually do what Jesus said to do. Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks that…

It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on this pro-gay activist to show that homosexuality is not immoral and that it does not harm those involved or society as a whole. Society has long regulated the sexual behavior of its people. They have done this because of the obvious ill effects that failing to regulate sexual behavior has on society. See Albert Mohler’s article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/01/15/the-case-against-homosexual-marriage/ . I would recommend that you read more of Mohler’s articles on homosexuality, as he has dealt with the subject for several years and from numerous angles. I would further ask this person if she would apply her “free love” perspective to bestiality. Is there any immoral sexual behavior within her perspective? Bestiality? Polygamy? Consensual pedophilia? etc.? If so, on what grounds?

From what I have read, sin is more about not following God’s plan than harming someone else (as secular morality advocates), right? In a recent dinner party I was invited too, I was introduced to a pro-gay activist, and she insisted that everyone should be free to love anybody else. (One of our mutual friends knew I was an evangelical Christian, and forced me into a debate with her.) Am I accurate to say that homosexuality is a Chrsitian sin but at the same time not immoral (in the secular sense)?

Thanks again! God bless!

I have written an article concerning much of what you say here: “Modest is Hottest: A Countercultural Approach to Womanly Apparel” (http://wp.me/pE5P5-Ho).

It seems to me that you are addressing an issue that is completely different than what I am addressing here in this article. You are speaking much about what I discuss in the above article, proper adornment and modest apparel. This is not what this current article is about. Here, I speak of physical beauty and physical attractiveness. These are two completely different things.

Both Peter (1 Pet 3:3-5) and Paul (1 Tim 2:9-10) speak about not dressing extravagantly but rather encourage practicing self-control. Both passages are addressing the matter of the more wealthy Christians in the church not dressing so as to flaunt their wealth over the overwhelming majority of poor Christians in the church. But, they also speak about the necessity to dress modestly. Thus, I do think that is appropriate that Christians dress in a godly way. But, neither passage speaks negatively of human beauty or physical attractiveness. Neither passage speaks about veiling one’s beauty from the world. Instead, they just speak of proper dress and adornment.

Beauty is something that God has created for our enjoyment. Look around. Nature is beautiful, and we can give God praise for its beauty. In the same way, I think that there is a way that we as Christians can enjoy human physical beauty without sinning. Is it not possible to enjoy the beauty of a human in the same way that we enjoy the beauty of a sunset? Further, we can present ourselves as beautiful without sinning or being the cause of someone else’s sin. Thus, I believe that human physical beauty can be enjoyed in a godly way outside of a marriage relationship.

Part of the purpose of this article has been to respond to the common tendency within our Christian subculture, which suggests that our spirituality is the only thing that is important. While I do agree that it is important, indeed most important, we must not forget that God created us as physical creatures. We are more than souls, and our bodies are not to be hated or denigrated. Granted, we live in a fallen world “between the times” and sexual sin is running rampant in our culture, but I do not think that this means that we must become nuns, monks, hide in a cave, or wear veils to cover our faces, lest we be exposed to the outside world. No, I think we should embrace human beauty as a gift from God, something that can be enjoyed to some degree by all, and something that should be guarded, preserved for, and enjoyed to the fullest in a marriage relationship. Men and woman should not veil their beauty from the world, but they should present it in a godly way.

You said, “It isn’t wrong for [a woman] to be beautiful, but it is wrong for her to exploit the gift that God has given her for the pleasure (even just visually) of other men.” I guess my question for you is, what do you mean by “exploit”? And, what is sinful about receiving pleasure from the physical beauty of other humans (assuming that it does not lead to lust)? Or, are you assuming that the enjoyment of human physical beauty inevitably leads to lust?

Thanks, Christine, for your post!

Yes, all homosexual behavior is sinful. Thus, all homosexual relationships, whether they exist between committed couples or between casual partners, are sinful. God created marriage as a blessing to be enjoyed between one man and one woman, as I have sought to explain above. Thus, any other kind of relationship–whether it be between one man and another man (homosexuality), between one woman and another woman (lesbianism), between one man and multiple women or one woman and multiple men (polygamy), between a man or a woman and an animal (bestiality), etc.–is against God’s will and is, thus, sin. God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. If someone is involved in any other sort of sexual relationship, then he or she is, as Paul says in Romans 1, worshipping the creation rather than the Creator (idolatry). You are correct to say that there can be ungodly heterosexual relationships; this is particularly true as it relates to fornication, having sexual relationships outside of the marriage covenant. This again is a particular kind of sexual relationship that God did not intend for us as humans. In the end, any kind of sexual relationship that exists that is not between one man and one woman within the covenant of marriage is sinful.

I sincerely hope this is helpful! Blessings!

Hopefully someone can get back to me on this! Thanks in advance!

Please enlighten me, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

Hope that’s not too much of a tangent off of the topic of the article, but I couldn’t help but think that the beauty of the woman is intended for her husband. It isn’t wrong for her to be beautiful, but it is wrong for her to exploit the gift that God has given her for the pleasure (even just visually) of other men.

Blessings,

Evah.

Thanks for your message. I agree that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, but if the Bible is true (and I believe it is) then our God is still in control. What is it exactly about Christianity and Jesus that does not make sense to you?

Blessings,

Tyler

The presuppositions we are arguing from seem to be different. I am a modified cessationist. This means that I think that the ‘apostolic’ gifts have ceased, however, I still believe God could work in these ways for his glory and our good. Even further, this means that the gifts you have listed above (prophecy, tongues, and healings/miracles), I think, were specifically for the apostles.

Yes, the HS works in powerful ways, BUT NEVER APART FROM SCRIPTURE TODAY. We have mystified the HS into this one who gives us these thoughts and messages and decisions to make. In all honesty, this is absolutely not biblical.

To answer a few of your other questions:

- The gift of tongues, I believe, is ceased. And I think churches that practice the gift of tongues openly is just a show. Again, God could work in this way if he wanted to do so, however, not in the current “Christian Church” way. Spiritual gifts are for the building of the church (1 Cor 14). Again, we have Scripture so that God can speak directly to us. Any “word” apart from Scripture, I am going to stay away from, personally.

- If you preach through Scripture, you never have to develop a ‘topical/what subject should I preach today’ view of preaching and teaching. This is called expository preaching. You should always preach the meaning of the text, what the author is trying to convey, and how the text specifically applies to us. All of Scripture is profitable (1 Tim 3), so in saying that, we should teach the entire counsel of God — from Genesis to Revelation.

Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I would encourage you to be very careful in how you use the Holy Spirit as the ‘trump all’ card. Scripture, and only Scripture, should be our trump all card.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read Kevin DeYoung’s Book, “Just Do Something.” If you haven’t already than you are missing out on a great understanding of the roles and functions of the Holy Spirit and how we live our lives and make decisions under his leading, albeit never apart from Scripture.

I am just incredibly interested in what your scripture is in saying that God can no longer reveal Himself or His word to us personally. My understanding is that one of the Holy Spirit’s primary purposes is to be a relay between us and the Father. I am in no way talking about literally hearing the voice of God (not ruling it out though) but simply any personal communication from the Holy Spirit. My understanding of the gift of prophesy or tongues is exactly this, the Holy Spirit giving you a message in order to relay God’s word to the church. I know many people who walk in the Spirit and are constantly in communication with Him. I personally have received a word from Him on multiple occasions. Many of my friends can attest to the same. To address your question of what would the need for scripture be if He still communicated with us today, the same could be said about the gift of prophesy or tongues or even miracles and healings. What is the point of the Spirit showing us that kind of power if it is all told in scripture. My final question is how do you figure out what to teach and preach on? Simply think about hmmm what haven’t i taught in a while, or hmmm what would be good about this time of the year. Every time I have taught on anything where I had to create my own message, I prayed and waited for God to reveal the message He wished for me to speak on. I know many pastor’s who do the same. While I do consult scripture, i never want to trust my own judgment solely on something as important as instructing the church body.

“When feeling disappointed, follow your emotions to their roots. You will find unbelief that requires the herbicide of God’s promises for you.” — Great quote!

We must always look to the core of this issue and chisel away at what’s really laying at the foundation. God, the Holy Spirit, is our wonderful counselor. One that can begin to chisel away at that foundation.

Thanks again for this post.

Thanks for your feedback.

While I wish I could present Scripture to reinforce my views concerning online dating, I cannot cite specific Scriptures that deal with the issue explicitly. Yet, since the Bible is relevant to our day, the writers of the Bible speak to this issue indirectly. So, I would use those Scriptures which concern the characteristics of person (Prov 31, 1 Tim 3, and so forth) which we are to look for in a spouse, just like I would for so-called “normal dating.” Dating and online dating are both relatively new things (within the last 100 years for both). Nevertheless, the writers of the Bible still have something for us, along these lines.

As for your experience with online dating, I plan to address this issue in an upcoming post. Clearly, if we are acting like finding someone is entirely up to us, then something is wrong with our faith in God. Yet, we still have a role to play in the matter, whether using online dating or meeting someone in-person. The role of a man and the role of a woman should be different. Stay tuned for more on this matter 8^)

I am glad that Jason is aware of the errors of his song; thanks for sending me those links! You bring a good point that the song could have been written better. In fact, it should have been written better. Even though he meant to convey something different, the fact remains that what he wrote is poor theology. Hopefully in the future his songs, and those of others, will consider the theology in the song more carefully before publishing it.

“Temptations of a Single Girl” is a “parable” about Kelly, a single woman who has a history of unsatisfying, incomplete, and painful relationships with men. She meets Martha, a relationship “mentor” and guide, and begins a journal through the “temptations” in developing relationships with men. Kelly learns about herself and others as she grapples with the common relationship behaviors and attitudes we have all encountered on our own romantic journeys.

Ever wondered why a guy doesn’t call back (you don’t need to “remind him” you’re still there)? Or why getting sexual too soon (bad idea to get attached to someone you don’t really know) or settling for Mr. Close by instead of Mr. Right (if you aren’t attracted to him now, then in a year you probably won’t be either) doesn’t work? This book SHOWS you why it simply won’t go anywhere. It challenges you to be as honest with yourself as Kelly is with herself.

Before I read this book, I didn’t really understand what “emotional unavailability” meant or what it looked like. I just knew that I got involved with a lot of guys who seemed to be unable or unwilling to love me back. I was really struggling to identify different behaviors and attitudes that would lead me on the same old path towards frustration and pain, but after seeing all the different relationship challenges all lined up, one after another, and the behavior and attitudes that went them, I am learning to recognize these romantic pitfalls and how to start paying attention to what is actually happening, not what I hope will happen or I want to happen.

I highly recommend this book to any woman who is dating now or just getting back into the dating scene after a breakup or wondering if their relationship with Mr. I’m Not Sure is going to be worth their time. This book might change your life too.

http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/04/more-like-falling-love-part-1-why-love-frightens-us/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/04/more-like-falling-in-love-part-2-the-limit-of-words/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/05/more-like-falling-in-love-part-3-lie-hide-or-love/
http://www.rabbitroom.com/2011/06/more-like-falling-in-love-part-4-who-does-what/

Most of my friends are early twenties and married or engaged – some Christian, some not. But at 21, I haven’t met the man I’m supposed to marry ( and if I have, it’s Gods’s secret) and I don’t feel called to marriage yet. I have solid career prospects and I would love to get married and be a mom someday, but not now. I would rather join a group of women at my church who have pursued mission work all over the country and the globe – women who are single, passionate and first and foremost in love with God far beyond their early 20s. I suppose I say all this to make this point – whether marriage be the end game or a life of Paul-like singleness, men and women should be pursuing the will of God in their lives no matter what it may be.

In terms of commenting on your post, I would like to ask if you have any Scripture to reinforce your views. It seems to me that, though I know of several godly couples who met online, the only evidence I have ever heard in favor of Christians using online dating is experiential and not Scriptural. I’d like your thought on the matter.

My experience with online dating is one I do not plan to repeat. For me, it became too much about me and not enough about trusting God with my love life. I found myself a Calvinist in theology, but an Arminian in regards to relationships. I trusted God to take care of my salvation in the whole, but I expected to have to go out and find a husband on my own. After further studying the Bible, I do not believe that the woman is to seek out a husband and so, I don’t feel that it’s wise for me to participate in online dating.

Christie, I think that you’re absolutely correct. It does seem a bit absurd to say that the Chief Shepherd (Jesus) would be disqualified from shepherding/pastoring a local church because of his singleness. Thanks for your thoughts!

Look forward to hearing from you.

I hope you are doing well and Grace and I are praying for you often! Keep in touch!

Would you stop relying on God’s word for answers to daily challenges?

This city is the hub of India. Only a small part of the population are truly from here. When this city gets it, then the people of this city will take the message to their villages and cities. I really do think that if you reach the cities, you can reach the small towns/villages. If you equip people in the big cities to go to their home places, then the gospel will multiply exponentially.

It was refreshing to read this post, even tho I’m a little behind!

But this blog post irritates the piss out of me.

I’m Agnostic. So, does this leave me out of having to use the Bible as a guide to living “the proper way”?

If so, then I shall date and fall in love as I please. And not consult a God whose existence I somewhat doubt.

I could explain what I believe, but you guys are probably already in a state of anger over my saying I’m Agnostic.

So, good night.

While your advice is good and something through which I have thought, limiting myself to the Cincinnati area is my only option right now. My finace, and future wife, wants to finish her masters here. So, while we are here, I must find a job. If I were able to look anywhere else, I know I could find a good job because I have contacts elsewhere. Yet, living in a new area, my contact list is rather short. Although, I have two interviews this week, both of which are second interviews following phone interviews. So, your prayers for these positions are appreciated 8-)

Thanks for your advice. While I worked as a substitute teacher in Louisville, I will be unable to do so in Cincinnati because their public schools system requires that their substitute teachers have a teaching degree. I have a couple of interviews this week so hopefully God will provide something soon. One of the biggest reasons I commented on this blog is because A LOT of mature Christian guys are actively seeking employment, and yet, due to the economy and the large number of people applying for jobs, jobs are very difficult to obtain, especially fulltime jobs.

In my opinion, 13 or 14 is absolutely too young to be dating. The idea here is preparation. Let’s prepare young people during this time, not let them ‘practice.’ Practicing leads to lots of repentance and foolishness. At the end of the day, it is up to the parent on how early they will allow their child to date. We can educate them all we want but it has to be up to them to set the standards.

One thing that comes to mind is cultivating more of a culture of service within singles and college groups. A lot of these groups excel at having lunch after church together or going on a camping trip together, but they unintentionally become so fellowship-focused that they don’t challenge members.

One way to deal with that is to put more service-related activities on the singles group calendar. Leaders can keep their eyes out for mission trips, church-wide ministry opportunities, etc. and bring them up to the group. Sometimes it’s just a breakdown in communication — a pastor may announce a ministry opportunities, but singles just don’t think it applies to them if their peers aren’t talking about it.

Singles also need encouragement (and prodding) to continue growing as leaders in the church. Mentorship is really important at this stage of life, but I’ve seen few singles/college groups that have a formal mentorship programs. Intentionally connecting group members with older church leaders could go a long way to getting singles more involved in ministry.

Those are my two cents … anyone else have ideas on how to get singles to take more responsibility in the church?

I’m sure Tyler will respond when he is able, but I found your comment curious, and so I wanted to respond myself.

What strikes me as strange about your response is its (unintentionally?) uncharitable nature. Tyler has written a concise yet cogent argument for the biblical validity of singleness in pastoral ministry. His reasoning is clearly exegetical and theological. Nevertheless, your chief response is to accuse him of scripture-twisting to support a supposed bias on his part?

I agree with the implicit assumption that we must question our own biases and those of others, but to state your question so baldly and without evidence to support your accusation, seems, well, not very nice.

Perhaps this sounds more like a rebuke than I intend, but I am simply stymied by the question. Would you question the validity of his argumentation and exegesis if he were a married laymen instead of (as you assume) a single pastor?

I guess, in short, what I am asking is: What in the article do you disagree with?

You present a great point about being creative in employment. I am definitely sympathetic to the difficult economy. In my own case, a full-time job would undoubtedly be more difficult to find than part-time. As for ideas, how about substitute teaching. In CA you can take a basic educational skills test after getting your bachelor’s and be allowed to sub. Here there are usually a decent amount of opportunities in that field. They’ll usually pay you anywhere from $100-150 a day. Of course, this is not full time but can be fairly consistent. That’s my best input. I’ll be doing that in the fall.

I have determined that true success for myself is being the greatest husband, father, and household leader I can possibly be. I see it as my primary task to lead a Christ honoring, God fearing family, so that is the standard of measuring my success. It is a success that will offer more meaning to life than any other I am capable of.

After determining success for myself, I worked backwards. I tried to differentiate between unimportant things, important things, and essential things. My education is important, affording me the opportunity to find a job which provides for but does not pull me away from my family. My job is essential, but lots of money is not. Watching hundreds upon hundreds of movies, traveling all over the world, dating whoever I wanted, and many other ways I wasted my singleness all fall under the category of unimportant. Those things have value, but they are unimportant with respect to my success in the future, therefore they should have been indulged sparingly.

After the first bit of advice (Determine Success), the others are just solid wisdom which every single Christian should consider regardless of what he or she determines to be success.

I hope that clarifies a little, but if not, please let me know. I am serious about what I said; I really want to help people avoid wasting their singleness like I did!

“Singleness allows a measure of freedom that can be used for great good. Singles have more flexibility to travel to the mission field, to chaperone the all-night youth lock-in, to put more in the offering because they’ve got more discretionary income.”

That will preach!

Michelle, how do you think this type of attitude can begin to take place in the local church and in the church at large?

I would love to hear from other people and get some discussion rolling on this important topic. Thanks again for this article!

If so, and I am assuming that you are, don’t you think you are approaching the Scriptures with somewhat of a bias toward this position? Do you think that you have taken Scripture and used texts to fit your preconceived notions toward this issue?

I fully agree that men are called to work. I also think that men should be creative in this economy. Yet, I’m currently experiencing the inability to find a full time job. I’ve applied for over 500 jobs in the last four months and still can’t find anything. Thankfully, I am a Pastor of Youth at a church, part time, but, even with a masters degree, I’ve been unable to find anything. Any ideas? I’ve applied for everything in the Cincinnati area and have only had a couple of interviews. This situation is highly discouraging because I’m used to working and now am unable to do so.

there’s no more seeing the ravages of people with leprosy or in iron lungs or getting to see the weekly hanging in the public square

compared to how people satisfied these feelings in the hold days, movies are downright quaint and innocent

For me, the biggest trial is the fact that I don’t feel that the church always has a place for me and that people seem to feel that it’s their job to find me a husband. I don’t see my singleness as a problem to be fixed. It’s a phase of my life. It may last for the duration of my life or it may end next year, but it’s a phase to be enjoyed for what it is, not a plague that I need to rush to rid myself of at all cost.

Would you be interested in having a Sola Fide debate against me? A Protestant fellow began one with me, but he got so busy he had to cancel. Here is a link to my opening Essay, if you’d like to start up a new debate. If not, that’s fine, but I’d like to point out that many things you mention here in this article I’ve addressed in my Essay so nobody should think Catholics made this up.

God Bless

Now, back to natural selection. Looking at the broad spectrum of genetics, if homosexuality were genetic through heredity, it would become significantly rarer with time, would it not? Second, if homosexuality were some type of mutagenic defect, why is there no threat to the person’s mortality like there are with other gene-based disorders?

Thanks for the article–we as believers need to talk about it more, and be more compassionate toward those who are practicing a homosexual lifestyle. I think one of the greatest misconceptions about a homosexual’s conversion is that he/she will become a well-functioning heterosexual. Even with discipleship, that may not be possible. Sanctification, sure. Abstention, sure. Wanting to jump in the sack with the opposite sex? Not necessarily.

HT: All the posts Tim Challies has regarding the topic. They’re all very enlightening, and helpful.

I hosted an event yesterday in which I was in regular contact with the parents of 4, 5, and 6th graders. When we showed up to the event we had 8 confirmed yes, 6 maybes, and about 20 no responses. When we got started, we had 34 in attendance.

It’s not just the kids! Even parents refuse to commit until they show up at the door!

Churches desperately need to stop shying away from these issues until our kids are 16 and already entangled in sexual sin. Abercrombie and Fitch just unvelied a new padded bra for girls, and their target customer for the bra is a six year old; kids know about sexuality long before the church ever tries to institute a Biblical worldview on the issue. That has to change.

It is time for the church to stand up and say ENOUGH. Enough orphaned children living on the streets. Enough orphaned children starving to death. Enough orphaned children becoming sex slaves and drug addicts. Enough orphaned children living and dying having never known the love of Christ.

When will this break our hearts? When will the church finally see? When will we all have enough?

Russ to Ryan Rindels: You, my friend, are the one teaching “faith-less” giving! You are the one who does not want to back away from a minimum you think the Law demanded of everybody when it never did! You are afraid to trust God and teach faith-giving instead of Law-giving.

Paul said in First Tim 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

You are teaching Christians to behave “worse than infidels” when you wrongly call tithes “firstfruits” and then demand them from everybody before any essential bills such as medicine are bought. Shame on you.

Ryan: It comes down to tithing as a model

Russ: No, it does not “come down to tithing as a model.” No, no , no. You have absolutely no biblical justification to teach that everybody under the Old Covenant Law was required to begin his/her level of giving at ten per cent. You manipulate God’s Word in order to make it appear to say only what you want it to say.

Ryan: “I am never hard-pressed if every other financial obligation takes precedence over giving to God FIRST.”

Russ: That is not what I said and it is not what Paul criticized in First Timothy 5:8. (1) Again, tithes are not the same as firstfruits and you seem to want to ignore that. And (2) I did not say “every other financial obligation.” I very clearly said “essentials” like medicine, food, heat — and a very scanty lifestyle. It is wrong to live so “high on the hog” that there is nothing for God’s work.

Ryan: “If I am always justified in dealing with everything else on my own…then giving whatever is leftover to God. And you say God would be pleased with that?”

Russ: If you cannot respond to a question or comment, you simply change the intention of the comment to something you can handle.

Ryan: “My parents tithed the last of their money and had no food left for groceries. What happened? Someone knocked on their door and left exactly what they needed after they prayed for it. Faith.”

Russ: What? They “tithed” and “had no money left for groceries”? Whatever happened to the “overflowing blessings” of Malachi 3:10??? You are giving me proof that the Old Covenant promise does not work today! Thanks for the illustration! Have you ever thought that God is now dealing with believers in terms of the New Covenant?

Ryan: “Your model would suggest God isn’t big enough to do something that miraculous.”

Russ: Your model suggests that God is no longer operating under what he only promised national Israel under the Old Covenant. You admitted that your own parents actually did NOT receive “overflowing blessings” after “tithing.” That proves my point.

Ryan: “Moreover, if there’s no minimum or model than why do you have to justify those who give less than 10% …

Russ: I did not “justify” them; the Apostle Paul did in First Timothy 5:8. The point is that YOU CRITICIZE THEM if they they do not give a minimum of ten per cent.

Ryan: “Why do you not justify people who refuse to give more than 10% because they’re following the Old Testament? Because that’s never a problem!”

Russ: What are you talking about? You are the one stuck on the Old Covenant mentality! You are the one looking at percentages. If done correctly, preaching and teaching on freewill sacrificial giving will out-perform setting a percentage.

Ryan: People start at a point and their faith to give more increases.

Russ: Do not tell them what that beginning point must be. God did not tell anybody where to start other than food producers who lived inside Israel. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not tithe.

Father/Son – Monday night Football….bring your own meat to throw on grill. Tailgate atmosphere

Anything Father/Daughter is huge!

Be careful not to commit ad hominem “make yourself seem smarter” fallacy. I see your scriptural references supporting faith-less giving with this statement of appeal:

“There are many who are too poor, too disabled and are giving sacrificially though less then ten per cent. Do not shun them”

It comes down to tithing as a model, but not an absolute. However, I am never streched, I am never hard-pressed if every other financial obligation takes precedence over giving to God FIRST. I am always justified in dealing with everything else on my own…then giving whatever is leftover to God. And you say God would be pleased with that? My parents tithed the last of their money and had no food left for groceries. What happened? Someone knocked on their door and left exactly what they needed after they prayed for it. Faith.

Your model would suggest God isn’t big enough to do something that miraculous. Moreover, if there’s no minimum or model than why do you have to justify those who give less than 10% and not people who refuse to give more than 10% because they’re following the Old Testament? Because that’s never a problem! People start at a point and their faith to give more increases.

I think there’s an extent to which it is no longer efficacious to debate our positions. I appreciate the responses and respect your opinion. I disagree fundamentally on the issue of faith in giving. And I wholheartedly agree that we SHOULD give expecting something back (John Piper, Desiring God). Seeking happiness from rewards is Biblical.

thanks. It always a blessing to see God prove faithful in that way.

Russ: This is true because it is taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calary.

Ryan: It follows that we should go far beyond the mere 10%. I agree.

Russ: This is only true for those who are financially able to give above 10% sacrificially.

Ryan: With no measurement or minimum, giving becomes too subjective.

Russ: Now your argument comes from you opinion and not from God’s Word. Believe it or not, God’s Word has no minimum. The only only ones who were requred to tithe in the OT were food producers who lived inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Period. And you cannot disprove that.

Ryan: I concede that the New Testament does not prescribe the exact amount we ought to give.

Russ: I suppose you think that the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire this.

Ryan: I find, however, that this concession to give less is a slippery slope.

Russ: You are putting words into the mouths of others to make yourself seem smarter. We argue that many, but not all, should give more. Some are already giving sacrificially even though less. Why are you not willing to concede this?

Ryan: Those who do not set aside their “first fruits” never have much left to give God.

Russ: Now you wrap your false comment around a false doctrine of firstfruits. Firstfrutis and tithing are never the same thing. OT firstfruits were very small token offerings. In the NT the first should go to pay essential bills as in First Timothy 5:8.

Ryan: I believe that tithing is a relevant and salutary biblical principle for all Christians

Russ: You are wrong. If you really believe it, then you will contianue this comment section for a long time and look at all the arguments.

Ryan: training wheels

Russ: Again you argue from the false assumption that the Old Covenant required everybody to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.

Ryan: test; Mal 3:10

Russ: Another false way of teaching tithing. (1) The Old Covenant, including tithing, was only commanded to Israel. (2) The entire Law, including tithing, was a TEST: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. One cannot expect to be blessed for tithing while violating other parts of the law. Be honest with the texts. (3) In Mal 3:10 the tithe was still only FOOD over 1000 years later.

Ryan: Matthew 23:23
If Jesus didn’t tithe, or didn’t believe in it, why would he have mentioned not neglecting the ‘lesser’ matters?

Russ: As a Jew living under the Law, Jesus must teach the Law or SIN. He was discussing “matters fo the Law” and was addressing “you scribes and Phariesses, hypocrites.” He was not addressing the Church. Jesus could not and did not command his disciples to tithe to himself. He also commanded only those Jews (not Gentiles) whom he healed to show themselves to the priests.

Ryan to Gary Arnold: You seem to be making an appeal to exemption for God’s requirements based on what the government demands of you.

Russ: Not all of what God required for Old Covenant Israel is required for the church. As a tithe-recipient in the OT you were required NOT to own or inherit property. Do you? David, Solomon and the kings taxed the people to pay for Levites whom they used as political serants in 1 Chronicles 23 to 26. Do you follow that suggestion?

Ryan: My intent and understanding is undoubtedly to give much more than a mere tenth.

Russ: Of course; you have a vested interest. That is your choice and not God’s command. There are many who are too poor, too disabled and are giving sacrificially though less then ten per cent. Do not shun them.

Ryan: Faith in giving is tossed out the window. For most Christians, it’s a struggle and sacrifice just to give 10%!

Russ: Law tosses out faith.

Ryan to Gary Arnold: Malachi 3
If the percentages in the Old Testament were so frivolous, why wouldn’t God have told the people that the amount was simply “between them and Him”?

Russ: You miss the point comletely. Malachi and Matthew 23 both define the tithe ONLY as FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land which God had increased. You refuse to deal with that fact. Although money was common in Genesis and essential for sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item. The tithe was not “frivolous”; rahter it was commanded by cold hard law for food producers and only for food producers.

Ryan: Christians who don’t give God the “firstfruits” never have enough leftover.

Russ: You keep buiding the tithing lie on top of the firstfruits lie. They are not the same thing. Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-38.

Great words!

That would eliminate numbers 1, 2, and 3.

I find it interesting to hear different parent’s perspectives on Facebook. I know some parents who will not allow their kids to have it until they are 16, for various reasons. While at the same time I know some 8 year old kids whose parents have created an account for them to roam freely. While the latter is definitely not something I would support, it seems to me that the Facebook world is simply an addition to the peer to peer youth culture that has been continually evolving outside of the adult world. Some kids live for peer to peer interaction and are completely and utterly influenced by their peers. Facebook seems to aid in this environment and almost bring the school social environment home to your living room.

What is more, I believe teenagers should have a time limit for their computer use. Go play outside, build something, play ball, goof off… just turn off the TV, the computer screen, etc. and get off the couch!

The development of FB has brought forth several challenging parenting questions for this generation.

Let’s look at Malachi 3. First, who is God speaking to – the priests or the people?
We need to study the entire Book of Malachi rather than take a few verses out of context.

By the time we get to verse 6 in chapter 1, we see it is the priests that are being addressed at that point.

In both chapters 1 and 2 of Malachi there is a conversation going on between God and the priests. Every time the word “you” is used, it is referring to the priests. Chapter 3 continues with this conversation. In verse 5 God says “And I will come near to you to judgment…..” In the Old Testament, during this period of time and generally speaking, only the priests could get near to God. It is only in the New Testament that born again believers, you and I, can get close to God. So up to chapter 3 verse 5, God is speaking to the priests. The word “you” is still referring to the priests. There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this changes when you get to verse 8. But that’s not all.

Read Numbers 18:29-30 and then read Malachi 1:14. Those verses explain robbing God of the offerings. The PRIESTS, not the people, robbed God of the offering by giving to God the worst instead of the best.

In Nehemiah 13 we are told that the priests stole the Levites portion of the tithe; therefore, they had no food to eat at the temple, and they went back to their own fields.

Therefore, taking the Levites portion of the tithe is the robbing God of the tithe. Or to put it another way, THE LEVITES WERE ROBBED. God said He was robbed because the tithe was not taken where God directed.

Next, in Malachi 3:10 God says to bring all the tithes to the storehouse. The people took the tithes to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities, not to the temple. The Levites took the required tithe of the tithe to the temple. (See Nehemiah 10:37-38) Only those tithes ever made it to the temple. The priests then took those tithes to the storehouse. It only makes sense if God is speaking to the priests in this verse.

No one has said that the percentages used in the Old Testament were frivolous. The number ten symbolizes a whole item, and also completion.

From Christian Resources Today, “Ten : 10 – Biblical Meaning of Number: deals with completeness that happens in a divine order or completed during a course of time. There’s nothing that is left wanting within the complete cycle the number ten has just completed.”

That would be the reason for a tenth and not 2 tenths, etc. One tenth would symbolize completeness; a complete transaction.

I count just over 300 occurrences of the words ten or tenth in the KJV of the Holy Bible. 95% occur before Calvary. The number 10 has much significance in the Old Testament but virtually no significance in the New Testament. In fact, some of the few times those words appear after Calvary it is in reference to the Old Covenant.

At Calvary, the Old Covenant came to its completion. There is nothing after Calvary to suggest that the number ten represents completion.

In the New Testament, God wants 100% of us. Since we are now under grace, rather than use percentages or guidelines for giving, God will look at our heart. Many will have a false sense of security by following the Old Testament tithing law as a guideline when maybe God wants that person to give 50% or more. Using the Old Testament law as a guideline is opposite to using the Holy Spirit.

And finally, let’s not mix firstfruits with the tithe. In Nehemiah 10:37 we learn that the firstfruits were taken to the temple for the priests, and the tithes were taken to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities. Firstfruits has nothing to do with the tithe.

OLD TESTAMENT – THE FIRST OF THE FRUITS SHOULD GO TO GOD
Proverbs 3:9 (KJV) “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:”

NEW TESTAMENT – THE WORKER SHOULD BE FIRST TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE FRUIT
2 Timothy 2:6 (KJV) “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.”

1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

The New Testament makes it clear that we are to use the FIRST of our income to take care of ourselves and our family. We are talking about needs, here, not just anything we want. Then we should give generously from what is left.

Those who are good stewards will generally have much left for giving. I teach that Christians should pray and seek The Spirit before making any major purchases. Christians need to distinguish between their needs and their wants. I purposely live far below my means in order to have much left to help others. But I can’t tell anyone else that they should do as I do. Each much pray and seek The Spirit in their total stewardship, not just in their giving.

We must not treat God as a slot machine, hoping to hit the jackpot. We should give because we want to give. We should give with no expectation of getting something back. Once one experiences the joy of giving, giving becomes natural.

I find myself giving more than 10% and I’m glad you do too. Christians, especially those with greater incomes give way beyond 10%….and it would only make biblical sense tha God would expect more from those with more. Like you said, equal sacrifice.

In Malachi 3, we see God says to “test him in this” –why would he give them the challenge unless there was hesitation or incredulity that what was promised would be fulfilled? People are given to doubt and unbelief in their humanity. If the percentages in the Old Testament were so frivolous, why wouldn’t God have told the people that the amount was simply “between them and Him”? They would’ve assuredly short-changed him because of their lack of faith. So we come to today: Christians who don’t give God the “firstfruits” never have enough leftover. Those who look at their check book, see what doesn’t add-up, give a percentage and trust God never fail to have their needs provided. I’ve seen it countless times myself.

But if you make a concession that presumes there will be times when all the bills don’t “allow” me to give God (a realistically small amount) then you never take the leap of faith. You never discover miraculous provision. You underestimate the Lord’s power.

In Matthew 23:23 Jesus is speaking to those still under the Old Covenant; thus, tithing was required on all increase of the seed which could includes spices. Jesus believed in the tithe. Jesus just didn’t qualify as a tithe payer, unless he had crops and/or animals to tithe from. As a carpenter, he had no tithable items.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In other words, give to Caesar the coin with Caesar’s image on it to pay Caesar’s tax. Give to God OURSELVES, since WE were made in God’s image. It has nothing to do with money or tithing.

You can be led by the Old Covenant laws, OR you can be led by The Spirit of God. Being led by The Spirit, I find myself giving far, far more than a mere tenth of my income, but at the same time I have family and friends who could not possibly give a tenth of their income and have enough left to provide for their family.

Tithing ended when the Levitical priesthood ended. To be against tithing today is not an excuse, it is following God’s Word. Trying to tithe today is actually denying a part of what Jesus did on the cross. I say “trying” to tithe today because it is impossible to pay the Biblical tithe today as God commanded. Since God COMMANDED His tithe be taken to the Levites, taking His tithe to anyone other than a Levites would be robbing God.

I stick with the scriptures. History proves that NO Christian Church taught anyone to tithe on their income until 1870. It is a false doctrine made up by ignorant and/or dishonest church leaders. Pastors who teach tithing lack faith that God will provide for His Church. Those same pastors tell their congregation to put their faith in God but they are unable to put their faith in God when it comes to Church finances. Rather, they mislead, twist the scriptures, or try to make Christians believe they are still under the Old Covenant laws.

The Biblical tithe always came from God’s miraculous increase of FOOD from crops and animals and never from man’s income. The tithe had everything to do with God, not man. Church leaders have REPLACED GOD with man in the tithing equation. No man can earn a Holy tithe.

Good insight on the OT references. Maybe 20% tithing just be preached -I can guarantee God would do more with 80% than we could with our 100%.

In Matthew 23:23 Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin and have neglected the weighter provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”

If Jesus didn’t tithe, or didn’t believe in it, why would he have mentioned not neglecting the ‘lesser’ matters?

Also, your reference to mortgage payments, property taxes, sales taxes etc, “Pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” -There’s always civic obligations with our money. You seem to be making an appeal to exemption for God’s requirements based on what the government demands of you. Jesus knew that and thus we see him reference that in scripture.

My intent and understanding is undoubtedly to give much more than a mere tenth. Many Christians do, and those with greater income are undoubtedly required by God to use that for the kingdom. However, EVERYONE has a legitimate excuse not to give to God (taxes, repairs, college tuition, medical bills…anything).

younger people (my intended recipients) could find an easy loophole with no reference point and a “give whatever you feel God wants you to give…and make sure your happy about it….and don’t worry, he understands all your extra costs so if you can’t, then don’t worry about it”

Faith in giving is tossed out the window. For most Christians, it’s a struggle and sacrifice just to give 10%!

God will do as He has promised and “pour out a blessing till it overflows”. It is an incredible thing to experience.

Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18: The First Tithe – a tenth of crops and animals and commanded to take the tithe to the Levites.

Deuteronomy 14:22-27: The Second Tithe aka The Festival Tithe – a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.

Deuteronomy 14:28-29: The Third Tithe aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe – a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.

When you average the Biblical tithing commands over a seven-year period (there was no tithe every seventh year), you get 20%. Therefore, if you believe you must give more than what the Israelite farmers were required to pay in tithes, you must give more than 20%.

The ONLY people in the Old Testament that were commanded to tithe were those who INHERITED THE PROMISED LAND WITH EVERYTHING ON IT. They got the land, house, animals, crops, etc. ALL FREE AND CLEAR. No mortgage payment or rent to pay. And THEY were commanded to tithe on the crops and animals and take it to the Levites who INHERITED the tithe INSTEAD OF the promised land with everything on it. No one else tithed. Wage earners did not tithe. Jesus didn’t tithe. Paul didn’t tithe. Peter didn’t tithe.

HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE PAYMENT OR RENT, INCOME TAXES, PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAXES, ETC?

There is no way to justify making some “principle” out of the Biblical facts and then apply it to Christians today. It is just flat out wrong and makes no sense at all.

The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.

Giving is between the giver and God.

Consider making some “early” touches to the parents of the 5th graders (rising 6th) sometime during the 5th grade year. That 6th grade year is such a transition time so any and every bit of comfort they have with the student ministry will assist in that transition. Also, (you may have planned these already) have some events throughout the year that parents are invited to as well. Playing together as a family will also enhance your influence to communicate your vision.

Consistent communication throughout the year is so vital. The seminars and teaching times are great, but the constant encouragement and reminders to be the primary spiritual influencer should be primary.

great work daniel-son!!

I read an article from Albert Mohler’s blog about a Christian couple in England who would not give a homosexual couple a room together, citing religious conviction. The men sued and won their case and the couple had to shut down their business. The judge candidly said something to the liking of, “I understand that your religious convictions are opposed to homosexuality. 100 years ago, nearly everyone would be in agreement with you. However, most in England today believe the gay lifestyle to be acceptable and therefore, you have to get with the times.”

I’ve read and re-read this post, and I love it. This past year, I tried to develop a similar plan on paper, but I always had trouble getting developing a good balance between models. I think you’ve done it.
Great job!

Piper’s quote, “I wish the church would do this better” is perfect. That pretty much sums it up.

Thanks for your question. Speaking pragmatically, I am almost of the opinion that either approach is fine so long as it gets the job done; that is, you find your husband or wife. I see your point though, and I think that you’re right. Hiding behind a computer screen because you are cowardly is a very large problem; so, if the issue is fear, then fear needs to be dealt with.

I would say that if a guy knows a girl in his everyday life that meets his criteria for a potential wife, then he should start by pursuing her. The benefits for this approach outweigh online dating for sure. Most importantly, you get to observe them and live life together with them face to face. This cannot be done over the internet. But, what if there is no such person in your life? What if you do not know a girl who meets your criteria? Do you sit by idly, or do you use the resources that are made available to you through technology? What do you think, Josh?

I appreciate Piper’s position on this, as usual he seems pretty level-headed yet biblical, however I do have a question for you:

Do you think that online dating could be an easy excuse for a lot of guys who are too afraid to pursue the women in their everyday lives?
Do you think that would be a problem?

I pray that God uses this post to stir up more hearts towards the plight of the orphans.

Amen!

Its really a great article….Great Message….

I understand what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make is that the what is masculine or feminine according to the world is constantly changing. Kilts are skirts for men worn in Scotland. Men in ancient China wore nail polish to signify their high social status. In Jesus’s time, men wore tunics, which are kinda like dresses. (Correct me if I am wrong about that. You are the Biblical scholar. Not me.)

If a picture of me (a girl) dressing in jeans and a button up shirt were to magically travel back in time to the Victorian era when it was socially unacceptable for women to wear pants, would it be unbiblical?

I guess what I am saying is if masculine and feminine styles of dressing are a construct of the world, why worry too much about them? I would think it is more important to raise a boy with a Biblical view of masculinity and not pay as much attention to changing fashion (which is a worldly construct). Not saying I would dress my hypothetical son in pink dresses or “pink panties” as you say. But if we were having a lazy Saturday and he asked to have his toenails painted, I would say why not? Let him be a child and play around. I would let a girl play with hot wheels or toy trucks, so why not allow a boy to have fun playing around?

Anyway, cousin, I respect your viewpoint. I am afraid this is just going to be one of those “Agree to disagree” moments.

Your favorite cuz,
Jessi

The Bible obviously gives zero guidelines on the colors that are appropriate for men and women. Nonetheless, we live in a culture where items are specifically classified as “feminine” or “masculine.” For instance, high heels, dresses, and toe nail polish have been labeled feminine, while wrangler jeans and boxer briefs are considered masculine. What is more, a woman can be a helicopter pilot in the Navy, shoot guns, and fight in the war, all while still caring herself in “feminine” ways, and a man can cook, clean, etc. while still being masculine. Gender roles is not the issue here… gender distinction is.

If we are going to paint our boys toenails pink then why not give them a pair of pink panties as well? Also, why don’t we just teach them that when they grow up they can pick whichever gender they want to be? This is a hue deal. We must model for our children, at an early age, what specifically makes a woman beautifully feminine, while also teaching the core of what manhood is… again, according to Scripture.

Let us not blur these lines.

In WWII, Nazis forced homosexual men to wear pink triangles on their clothing. This negative association lasted into modern times. So basically, we don’t think boys should wear pink now because of what Nazis did!

I just don’t get what the big deal is.

With so much gender confusion happening in our society, this kind of thing just makes matter worse. Kids are growing up today with so much gender confusion. It is disheartening and sick. May we model true biblical manhood and womanhood to our children.

Whether gender neutrality is the goal or not, When I see the J Crew add, there is no doubt in my mind a boy with painted pink toenails graces the add. I do not see a girl in boy’s clothes. The non-distinction made between genders glorifies feminity of men and masculinity of women -it’s unmanly, effeminate, unbiblical.

This sermon is sobering edification.

That was a great read by Driscoll. I’m gonna give that link to a lot of guys in my college group. It’s a must for Christian young men.

I’m a little surprised that you think of Reservoir Dogs as “common culture”. A culturally significant film, yes. But common? A movie can be impacting to the culture without being common. What about the 1932 film White Zombie? Being one of the first zombie films pretty much labels it culturally significant, but not necessarily common. Myself, being a 20-something that has lived and worked around non believers in a common culture, I had never heard of Reservoir Dogs. I’m not saying that automatically precludes it from being common, but it certainly doesn’t help the case. Therefore, it seems a little harsh to rebuke the author for renting a movie he hadn’t read a full detailed plot synopsis of. Isn’t that kind of the point of movies anyway?

After having read the article, I’d hardly call this author “insulated”. That seems like a bit of a leap. Besides, there are so many excellent preachers and ministers of the word that have a far more limited view