Results tagged “Sexuality” from Reformation21 Blog

[Editorial Note: This is the tenth post in a series of posts in which we have invited the authors of "The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel" to expound upon the statement's affirmations and denials. We encourage our readers to take the time to read through our prefatory editorial note at the beginning of the first post prior to reading through subsequent posts in the series.]

Article 10:

Sexuality and Marriage

WE AFFIRM that God created mankind male and female and that this divinely determined distinction is good, proper, and to be celebrated. Maleness and femaleness are biologically determined at conception and are not subject to change. The curse of sin results in sinful, disordered affections that manifest in some people as same-sex attraction. Salvation grants sanctifying power to renounce such dishonorable affections as sinful and to mortify them by the Spirit. We further affirm that God's design for marriage is that one woman and one man live in a one-flesh, covenantal, sexual relationship until separated by death. Those who lack the desire or opportunity for marriage are called to serve God in singleness and chastity. This is as noble a calling as marriage.

WE DENY that human sexuality is a socially constructed concept. We also deny that one's sex can be fluid. We reject "gay Christian" as a legitimate biblical category. We further deny that any kind of partnership or union can properly be called marriage other than one man and one woman in lifelong covenant together. We further deny that people should be identified as "sexual minorities"--which serves as a cultural classification rather than one that honors the image-bearing character of human sexuality as created by God.

Article X of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel encapsulates two thousand years of basic Christian belief on the nature of sexuality and marriage. For the vast majority of generations of Christians down through the ages there would be nothing at all controversial about these assertions, and past generations would have wondered why we even took the time to include it.

But we live in 2018 and the revolution in Western culture is undeniable. That revolution has extended to such behaviors as homosexuality or "gay marriage" or transsexualism the very status of "human rights," so they must be addressed by any statement speaking to the topic of justice in light of biblical norms and revelation.

In direct contrast to the spirit of the age the statement affirms the goodness of the so-called "male-female binary." Maleness is not something that is "toxic," but something good and right and necessary in God's design. Likewise to be a female is to be created by God with a good, proper, and beautiful purpose. Rather than being ashamed at being so "backward," we should be openly celebrating these good elements of God's creation.

We do not show love to confused, or even rebellious, individuals who transgress God's creative categories of male and female. Though a tiny percentage of people are genetically impacted by medical conditions that lead to gender ambiguity, the vast bulk of "transsexuality" is a matter of the mind and heart, not the body. But our gender is determined by God's will in our creation, and is not subject to alteration based upon our feelings, wants, or desires. There has rarely been a time in history when mankind has displayed such an open and wanton rebellion against God's right to rule over humanity than in the modern transsexual movement.

In the same vein God has the right, as Creator, to not only make His creatures male and female, He has the right to determine the proper parameters within which that divinely-ordained sexuality is to be expressed. Due to the fall of man into sin, some experience disordered and confused attractions for the same sex. A small percentage experience these desires from their earliest memories, while the large majority are impacted by later sexual experiences resulting in a disturbance of normal sexual desire. The consistent teaching of Scripture is that homosexual behavior is opposed to God's will and destructive of human flourishing. The Apostle Paul identified numerous sinful behaviors in writing to the church at Corinth, among them the sin of homosexuality, but then he wrote, "and such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11). The verb is inarguably past-tense which is why the Statement, in the denial portion, rejects the terminology of "gay Christian." As offensive as it is to cultural elites today, the Bible offers hope in the gospel to those who will repent and seek God's ways with their whole heart.

If God, as Creator, fashions mankind as male and female, and then orders the expression of that sexuality as He sees fit, it follows necessarily that His institution of marriage is the logical outcome of the preceding exercises of His divine rights. Marriage is, in fact, a divine institution, biblically revealed to have been designed by, and established by God directly without human cooperation or assistance. No governmental entity existed when God ordained marriage, and, therefore, no later governmental institution has the right to alter, change, or make void, that institution. It is rooted firmly in the created order of male and female, is oriented toward the fulfillment of both the man and woman, together, and toward the raising up of families with children who have in their parents models of how they should live in the future. There can be no question that the most radical and foundational changes in Western culture that have led to the greatest denigrations of human dignity all stem from the collapse of a culture-wide focus upon the sanctity and propriety of Christian marriage as taught in the pages of the Bible.

The truly radical nature of the revolution in morality and ethics sweeping Western culture today is seen most fully in the adoption of so-called "same-sex marriage," a phrase that would have puzzled every generation of humanity globally only a few decades ago. It is, of course, a massive redefinition of the term and the institution based upon a revolution in worldview. Utter human autonomy is now the watchword of the social elites, so that any person is what they think themselves to be. The resulting moral and ethical chaos is all around us. Biological males using bathrooms for women resulting in children either living in fear using the facilities or simply having to "wait to get home." Female athletes left panting in a distant second and third by a "transgender female" who is actually biologically male winning the gold medal in record fashion. Children being adopted into same-sex families, purposefully being denied the model of a father and a mother in relationship to one another. Surgical and chemical mutilation of healthy bodies of both little boys and girls all because of either real (and rare) gender confusion or due to "copy cat" socially-encouraged experimentation. Parents refusing to "gender" their children but to "leave it to them to figure out." Governmental entities allowing for birth certificates with "other" as a gender option. The proper, good societal roles of mothers and fathers mocked and ridiculed and identified as being "backward." The list goes on and on and on. Each society that embraces these revolutionary concepts finds it impossible to stop the acceleration into utter moral and ethical anarchy.

The source of all of this chaos--chaos that is damaging to human happiness and flourishing? As the Statement puts it, it is a refusal to "honor the image-bearing character of human sexuality as created by God." Our secular age has rejected the Creator and therefore has no room for "image-bearing" or transcendent value or objective truth. The downward spiral only spins more tightly as it descends to disaster. God's Word calls us to the upward spiral of life that is based upon the gospel and God's revelation of His purposes in creation. The Scriptures are clear and compelling in their teaching in this vital area, and we would do well to pay very close attention and heed their admonitions.

Revoice and the "Idolatry" of the Nuclear Family


When the Obergefell case was argued before the US Supreme Court to establish the right to gay marriage, many saw little threat to religious liberty. It became clear, however, that the approval of same-sex marriage would in fact result in the delegitimizing of the Christian view of sexuality and marriage in American society. Justice Samuel Alito noted that far from merely establishing equal protection to competing views, the official approval of gay marriage would "vilify those who disagree, and treat them as bigots."

Something similar now seems to be taking place within the "gay Christian" circles of the church, as evidenced by the recent Revoice conference held at Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis. One of the surprising claims to come out of this conference was made by Revoice president Dr. Nate Collins. In his address titled "Lament," Collins suggested that the homosexual community be compared to Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah. "Is it possible," he asked, "that gay people today are being sent by God, like Jeremiah, to find God's words for the church. . . [and] shed light on contemporary false teachings and even idolatries?" The question can be raised as to whether there is a genuine analogy, as Collins sees it, between the poor oppressed of Israel in the days of Jeremiah and the homosexual community today which is joined not only by the afflictions of sin but also by a shared temptation to sin.   But more significantly, when Collins goes on to identify the false teachings exposed by "sexual minorities," he states that the presence of gay people in the church constitutes "a prophetic call to the church to abandon idolatrous attitudes toward the nuclear family."1

I place Collins' comments beside the effects of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision because they share a significant common feature. As Justice Alito pointed out, the right to gay marriage not only grants a freedom to one view but also denies freedom to its opposite. Likewise, the vision of human sexuality espoused by Revoice not only conflicts with but also excludes the biblical vision for sexuality and human society. In both cases, Obergefell and Revoice, this collision is inevitable since the normalizing of homosexual behavior/desires demands a radical revision of human life. The Bible says that God created mankind "male and female" (Gen. 1:27) and then placed them in the covenant union of marriage involving a man and a woman. "It is not good for the man to be alone," the Lord noted, and in direct response to this assessment he created the first woman (Gen. 2:18-22). In contrast, a major theme of Revoice is that homosexual desires existed before the fall and are not in themselves necessarily sinful. Yet as we consider what the Bible says, homosexual desire has no way to fit into Genesis 2 and thus the ordering of human relations by our Creator. There is no male-to-male or female-to-female sexuality in God's created design. Furthermore, Genesis 2 views the creation of nuclear families not as idolatry but as a vitally significant way in which man's purpose in life is fulfilled. The words, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28), described not the worship of a false god but obedient faith in the one true God. If the fulfilling of mankind's creation mandate involves idolatry, then the world created by God must inevitably be a different one from that which is described in Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore, if there is a prophetic call from those who seek to normalize homosexual desires, its message is that the Bible's view of humanity and life must be recast according to the agenda of "sexual minorities."

There are many reasons to have sympathy with the aims expressed by the Revoice conference, especially the genuine sorrows of those who experience same-sex attraction. But the doctrine of Revoice is not one that biblically faithful Christians can afford to view with sympathy. Either the biblical view of humanity, sex, marriage, and society is right or else it is wrong. Likewise, if gays represent a prophetic voice challenging the church to conform, then it is the traditionally understood Christian view of sex and marriage that comes under rebuke. It is for this reason that the PCA cannot afford either to endorse the Revoice message or even to stand by inactive as conferences like these are held in our churches. If the Bible is true, right, wholesome, and good, then the doctrine of Revoice must not be embraced, nor permitted in the counsels of the church. What is at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the commitment of our denomination to the truth of God's Word and our embrace of the Scripture's view of life and godliness.

1. Revoice 2018, General Session 2: Lament (starting at the 36:30 mark).

Richard D. Phillips is senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC. He has been the chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology since 2000 and is series co-editor of the Reformed Expository Commentary series (P&R).

Zero Sum Game

A recent blog post by Sammy Rhodes, a minister in the PCA and RUF chaplain, has caused something of a storm. Pitched as an apology by a theological conservative to the LGBTQ community in the wake of the Orlando massacre, it makes interesting reading.

Rhodes is, he says, speaking mainly for himself. That is good. I find a lot of open letter internet apologies are often ways of surreptitiously and piously distancing oneself from one's chosen constituency rather than expressing any kind of solidarity (even in repentance) with it.

There is much to commend. It is good that he is apparently abandoning his habit of telling anti-gay jokes and of quietly using pornography - at least, that seems to be the only fair reading of an apology offered 'mainly for myself.' Most of us, I hope, did not need Orlando to help us stop doing those things. I would suggest it is also appropriate to confess such things to his congregation, elders, and presbytery too. If he is really speaking mainly for himself, that is.

The problems with the post, though, run deep. An implicit and simplistic connection between the massacre and Christian belief is assumed. There is a series of false dichotomies. Clich├ęs abound. 'Love' and 'care' are not defined and seem little more than sentimental constructs. 'Injustice' and 'inequality' are trotted out without qualification or content. Like poverty, everybody is against such things. But there is little consensus today on what 'injustice' and 'inequality' mean and thus to use them in this way is mere incantatory rhetoric.

Rhodes' claim about the lack of Christian defense of the LGBTQ community compared to concern about 'defending chicken sandwiches,' 'speaking out more about cakes' and 'caring more about bathrooms' is problematic in many ways. He leaves undefined, in both quality and degree, what he believes would constitute an appropriate defense of the LGBTQ community. This renders his argument to be a non-argument, a mere appeal to aesthetics and sentiment. Taste and emotions carry the day. And yet the nature of what Rhodes believes this appropriate defense should look like is surely critical to what he is trying to say. There is a gaping, yet very suggestive, hole right at the very center of his complaint.

Further, he chooses words which trivialize the issues of personal and religious liberty which these other cases embody and he thereby ignores the serious issues of privacy, parental rights and safety which they involve. Is a bloody massacre worse than someone losing their livelihood for their religious beliefs? Yes, of course. I doubt that anybody would argue that point. But this is rhetoric, not argument. In fact, Rhodes is using the Orlando massacre to belittle these other matters. Logically and ethically unnecessary but also very revealing.

In conclusion, two things come to mind. First, Rhodes does not really give the LGBTQs what they actually want. Today, sexuality is a major component of personal identity and as such is driven by the ethics of personal authenticity, thus requiring social recognition. This means that society at large has to recognize the complete legitimacy of that identity. Merely to come close to this but yet to fail to do so completely (as I read Rhodes doing) is thus still to engage in oppression and to facilitate the kind of culture which the LGBTQ lobby (and it would seem Rhodes himself) sees as leading to such as the Orlando killings. Rhodes does not explicitly repent for the conservative Christian denial of the legitimacy of the paradigm of identity underlying LGBTQism. He therefore remains as guilty as the rest of us of maintaining an ideology which the LGBTQers regard as oppressive. Strange to tell, he seems remarkably unaware of this. I would suggest that he needs to make a clear choice on that if his apology is to carry the weight he wants with the LGBTQ community.

Second, I suspect this piece by Rhodes is not so much an apology intended for the LGBTQ community as it is a sermon addressed to his own Christian constituency. That is OK - but if you are going to preach, then do it directly, clarify your terms, offer arguments rather than aesthetics, and do not engage in zero sum games that unnecessarily trivialize other ethical issues and generate false dichotomies.

In the meantime, we should feel horror at Orlando because human beings have been slaughtered - just as we should feel horror at the slaughter of human beings on the streets of American cities every day of the year.

21st Century Challenges Not Allowing Ourselves to be Defined by Sexuality
By Mark Johnston from Place for Truth

It may seem more than a little strange to include this issue as one of the major challenges facing the church in the 21st Century, but the sad reality is that it is. The glaring evidence for this can be seen in the way the church in many parts of the world has allowed itself to be backed into a corner over this aspect of its teaching. In doing so has allowed not only its own credibility to be called into question, but that of the gospel as well.

This situation has not arisen suddenly. For four decades and longer the Bible and the role of women - especially when it comes to holding office in the church - has been hotly debated among those within the church as much as with those on the outside. In many denominations this has led to a deliberate shift away from the belief that the offices of elder (both those who teach and those who lead) and of deacon are intended only for males in the church.

Continue reading...
Since the Garden of Eden and our first parents' "bite of the apple," gender confusion in its various forms has constituted one of the most significant assaults ever leveled upon individuals, the family, and culture. The terrible fallout from such confusion has wreaked havoc on countless lives around the world ever since.

Oconee ARP Church (121 Rochester Hwy, Seneca, SC 29672) is hosting a conference which intends to lay a biblical foundation for understanding many of these gender-related issues. They have invited Rosaria Butterfield, Richard Phillips, and Derek Thomas to examine various aspects of gender confusion alive and well (and increasing) in today's world. They will then also seek to formulate a God-honoring way forward, asking how the church should respond with clarity and grace in the midst of such confusion.

Join them on Friday, Feb 14 through Sunday, Feb 16, 2014. You can register online through the Alliance at,,PTID307086_CHID810294,00-sen.html

Keeping marriage special

Many Christians in the UK will be aware of one or more of the various campaigns opposing the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill currently passing through the Houses of Parliament. There was significant opposition to this legislation in the House of Commons, though the Bill did pass its Second Reading and is now heading for the Committee Stage (keep up at the back). After this it will pass to the House of Lords, where their lordships will hopefully give it a good kicking.

Anyway, one of the campaigns seeking to muster principled Scriptural opposition to the Bill is called Keep Marriage Special (other campaigns are available). This particular campaign deliberately maintains a narrow focus on the teaching of Scripture with regard to marriage, avoiding other concerns (however legitimate). They have been having some technical issues with their online petition, but it is now up and running here.

The petition is for UK residents only aged 16 and over. Anyone answering this description can sign even if one or all of the other similar petitions have been signed (there are also printable petitions for download for those who may wish to sign up but who do not have ready access to the interweb). So, if you are interested, please check out Keep Marriage Special.

Clarity and discretion

When the New Testament deals with sexual morality, it does so unfailing clarity and reassuring discretion. Take, as an example, the instruction of the apostle in 1 Thessalonians 4:
Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given1 us His Holy Spirit. (1Thes 4.1-8)
In this section, Paul - despite the implications of many translations - is not making the preacher's mistake of announcing the end of his material, before producing about the same amount again. He is making clear that he is shifting his focus: "As for the rest . . ." He now advances from countering his critics to counselling his converts, with a particular concern for the practical embrace of his teaching. The Thessalonians needed instruction in the application of what they knew, and it may be that Paul has in mind at least three groups within the church who each need some particular counsels. In doing so, he identifies two areas in which the saints ought to be distinctive in any time and place: sexual purity and loving fraternity, with the whole matter of holiness resolved into a matter of God's calling. It is the first of these that concerns us.

Paul begins with the divine command. He urges them - a sincere request - and exhorts them - rousing them to action - in accordance with certain commands issued with Christ's own authority. He writes as a mouthpiece of his Lord to those who are in Christ, reinforcing things already taught. He has already made plain that the preaching of God's Word is not a human but a divine declaration (1Thes 1.5, 2.13), and now underscores it. Faithful pastoral ministry is never a take-it-or-leave-it matter: holiness is not a desirable option but a divinely-mandated obligation for saints. Paul is not ashamed to communicate divine commands with authority, and to impress them on men's souls. Paul wants these believers to "abound more and more," not static and stagnant but advancing in godliness, walking and pleasing God.

Then Paul becomes more specific: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification" (1Thes 4.3). Set apart to God in principle, that distinction is to be worked out in practice, and Paul is quite willing to address the application of the divine will to the particular struggles of the saints in Thessalonica. Perhaps some of them had begun to resent these 'impositions' (perhaps Paul is felt to be imbibing a legal spirit from somewhere?), or they have begun to waver in their sense of the weight of these obligations, or have begun to evade them, perhaps drawn away by temptation.

The core of Paul's concern is that the Thessalonians saints (he makes no particular distinction between men and women) should avoid sexual immorality entirely. His language is broad and absolute. Such sin is not to be found among the saints: Paul is prohibiting the entire range of sexual aberrations which are contrary to the divine design and purpose for his creatures.

We do not need to suggest that the modern age has somehow advanced beyond the ancient world in its perversions and demands a different mode of address. There is nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1.9), and first century Greece was as confused, carnal and licentious as twenty-first century Europe. The declaration of Demosthenes, offered some centuries before, was fully in evidence: "We have mistresses for pleasure, concubines to care for our daily body's needs and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households." Faithfulness and self-control were alien notions, while sexual sin of all sorts was widely accepted, readily available, occasionally, pompously criticized, hypocritically practiced, religiously condoned and promoted, often encouraged, and generally defended. The Thessalonian believers had not grown up in a sheltered environment: though most might have been Jewish converts or devout Greeks (see Acts 17.1-4), this was the world out of which they had been saved, and doubtless - like the Corinthians - Paul might have said of a few of them, "such were some of you" (1Cor 6.11), for these were men and women who had turned to God from idols (1Thes 1.9).

Paul's point to these believers is that sinful sexual activity and relationships of any kind before, outside or against marriage as God has ordained it, are entirely forbidden by God. The saints are to be marked by radical restraint from sin and real purity in practice, regardless of the norms and pressures of the culture.

Do we not feel the impress of this call to holiness in a society similarly marked by unrestrained and enticing sexuality? The circumstances may have changed, but the challenge remains: men and women are bombarded with images, words, invitations, prompts, enticements and temptations designed to stir up our sexual appetites and to drag them outside of God's appointed boundaries.

But notice Paul's restraint. To be sure, there are occasions when he does list sins, and often among them are found sins of sexual immorality, some distinguished from others, for example in 1 Corinthians 6: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor 6.9-10). What Paul does not do is discuss or describe these sins in detail.

Similarly, when promoting faithfulness and purity, Paul is entirely clear but properly discreet, for example, in 1 Corinthians 7:
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1Cor 7.1-5)
Notice that these examples come from his communications with the proverbially lascivious Corinth where - if anywhere - Paul might have found a reason to be graphically explicit in his denunciations of sin and encouragements to purity and legitimate pleasure.

But nowhere do we find Paul offering examples, charts, diagrams, tables, and detailed recommendations for saints pursuing godliness positively and negatively, nothing that would sully or titillate the minds of men and women striving to leave sin and pursue holiness. For some, there are impurities from which God has spared them, and generally speaking they do not need to have these notions introduced. For others, there are impurities from which God has saved them, and they do not need or wish to have them paraded through the imagination again.

This same spirit continues as Paul continues to press home his point. He develops the matter positively (calling for legitimate possession) and negatively (contending against lustful passion). Some suggest he is calling for self-control in our own bodies, others that he is telling us to find sexual satisfaction only in the legitimate relationship with a spouse. Either way, the principle is clear: our motives to and means of satisfying the God-given sexual appetite must be governed by God's Word and not by our own unguarded appetites, like those who have no thought of God (compare Rom 1.24-32), Gentiles who have never known the restraining and purifying influences of divine truth.

Paul points out that sexual immorality is abusive in all manner of ways and relationships, a gross breach of love. It takes advantage of people: the weak-minded or thoughtless husband whose wife longs for loving leadership; the neglectful or bossy wife whose husband craves a gentle embrace; the vulnerable or ignored woman whose emotions can be so readily manipulated; the hungry or struggling man whose appetites can be so easily inflamed. It defrauds brothers, soiling and damaging what rightfully belongs to another, robbing spouses of their mutually-assured property (1Cor 7.4), prospective spouses of the purity of their husbands and wives, partners in sin of their chastity, the church of her reputation and therefore society of a testimony to the distinctiveness of saints in communion with God.

The apostle closes with some motives for us. We must consider God's judgement, who sees and knows all things, even the thoughts and intents of the heart, and who will avenge those who are robbed by such iniquity - he will deal with the offenders, if not in time, then ultimately in the day of Christ's return. We must consider God's calling, for believers must consider who and whose we are, and that God has called us not to uncleanness but to holiness. We must consider that we are God's possession: we belong to him, having been bought at a price, and he has given to us his Holy Spirit, to make us and keep us clean, to produce increasing godliness in us. To indulge in sexual immorality is therefore not a rejection of human teaching but of God himself at the very heart of his intentions for and dealings with his people.

These things need to be remembered by believers when our eyes, desires, and imaginations begin to wander, lest our heads turn, our hearts burn, and our hands reach for what God has put beyond us. None of us are immune to such sins, and some of us are prone to them, and God's judgement, calling and possession need to be pressed into our consciences if we are both to recover from sins committed by us and to be restrained from sins excited in us.

But notice that Paul sends this message with both clarity and discretion. I should not imagine that anyone is left in any doubt of what Paul means, but neither are we exposed to anything graphic, vulgar or coarse. I put this in the context of a conversation with a friend the other day, in which he mentioned a conference which he had attended. I asked him how it had gone. He was very positive. He mentioned a particular name. "I know of him," I said, "What was his theme?" "Oh," he responded, "his speciality is sex." If that doesn't give slight cause for concern, kindly text me an explanation of what should. I can imagine preachers seeking to specialise in preaching Christ, preaching holiness, or preaching God's glory (not that those are remotely mutually exclusive) but the idea of specialising in preaching on sex seems somewhat remote from New Testament practice. Even in the Old Testament the occasional graphic language and imagery was generally intended to shock the unrighteous rather than train the faithful (however one interprets the more descriptive passages of the Song of Songs, it takes some effort to bring it down to the level of a sex manual).

Paul shows us what is required for a faithful pastor-preacher in an environment like ours. His clarity rebukes those who would avoid such necessary topics if we are to be "blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (Phil 2.15). At the same time, his restraint rebukes those who - perhaps out of a sincere intention to equip the saints - manage to introduce filth which may both befoul and entice the struggling and unwary. In this, as in so much else, Paul provides us with a helpful model.