Phil Gons

Bible & Tech

You are here: Home / Messages / Modern-Day Issues

Modern-Day Issues

I delivered this message at Spring Creek Bible Church on December 13, 2015, as part 9 of The Doctrines of Man and Sin series.

Prefer what I actually said? Read the transcript (lightly edited for readability).

1. Introduction

This is part nine of our series on the doctrines of man and sin. We’ve covered most of the major topics concerning who we are as fallen humans. Today we’ll wrap up by trying to apply these doctrines to various areas of the Christian life, especially some that pertain to life in our day.

2. Review

  1. 9/20: Introduction
  2. 9/27: The Origin of Man
  3. 10/11: The Nature of Man
  4. 10/18: The Image of God, Part 1
  5. 11/8: The Image of God, Part 2
  6. 11/15: The Fall
  7. 11/22: Original Sin
  8. 12/06: The Nature of Sin
  9. 12/13: Modern-Day Issues

3. Outline

Here are the mean areas we’ll cover today:

  1. Thinking Theologically
  2. Cultural Issues
  3. Technological Issues
  4. Love as the Guiding Principle

4. Thinking Theologically

Right Doctrine Isn’t Enough

We’ve spent eight weeks digging into systematic theology. We’ve explored many of the key biblical teachings about humanity and sin. We didn’t do this merely to improve our doctrinal accuracy. Don’t get me wrong. Thinking rightly about God and his world is important in and of itself, but the aim of sound theology is right living. Right theology alone is insufficient. Satan, fallen angels, and demons have right theology (Jas 2:19). In fact, their theological accuracy probably surpasses even the best of human theologians.

It’s vital, in our day especially, to develop the skills of thinking theologically, that is, thinking about everything in relationship to God and his revelation. We should start with applying the explicit commands and prohibitions of Scripture. For example, when the Bible forbids murder, what does that mean? Yes, it means we shouldn’t take another person’s life out of hatred or anger, but it also means we shouldn’t have hate or anger toward others (Mt. 5:21–22).

Thinking theologically means identifying your anger toward a coworker or your spouse or child or neighbor as murderous and taking steps to mortify it. Thinking theologically means seeing the meaning below the surface of a text.

While there’s a lifetime of work to do in thinking theologically about the explicit commands and prohibitions in the Bible, we must move beyond that foundational level. There are many things the Bible doesn’t address so directly. We need to piece together various passages of Scripture and strands of truth and draw conclusions about what God expects of us. If we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, we need to do the hard work of thinking theologically about all of life—even the areas we can’t find mentioned in the Bible.

Thinking Theologically with Jesus

Jesus taught this kind of theological thinking. We noted this in the passages we looked at last week in the Sermon on the Mount about anger and murder and lust and adultery. But I’d like us to see two others:

Jesus and the Sadducees (Mt. 22:23–33)

Matthew 22:23–33: The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” 29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Jesus chided the Sadducees for not thinking theologically about the resurrection. They should have known there would be a resurrection because the Old Testament taught that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even after they were dead (Ex. 3:6). Jesus concluded from this that if God identified himself as the God of people who were dead presently, there had to be a future resurrection. And it’s clear from what Jesus said that we’re responsible for drawing the same conclusion from that text.

Actually, the Sadducees were thinking theologically, but not accurately. They ignored one truth at the expense of another. They elevated their assumption and treated it as truth without challenging it in light of other truth. There is a danger in thinking theologically. That’s why theological thinking shouldn’t be done in a vacuum, but in the context of the rest of Scripture and in the of the local church, the universal church, and the historical church.

Jesus and His Disciples (Lk. 24:13–27)

On the road to Emmaus, Jesus rebuked his disciples for not figuring out that he needed to die before entering into his glory. He called them foolish and slow of heart and identified it as a matter of unbelief.

Luke 24:13–27: That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

It’s a sin not to think theologically and dig into the Scripture and understand what it means and how it impacts how we should live.

Thinking Theologically with Paul

Paul’s writing are the most theological writings in the Bible. In them he models for us a way of thinking theologically about all of life.

Paul structures several of his letters in the form of indicative followed by imperative, theology followed by application. That is, he tells us what is true and then tells us what we should do.

Romans

The letter to the Romans begins with 11 chapters of theologically riches. Chapters 12–16 shift toward the application of those truths to life. After unpacking universal human sinfulness, the justifying righteousness of God by faith, the transforming power of grace, the role of the law, the power of the Spirit, and sovereignty of God in the salvation of Jews and Gentiles, Paul transition to application.

Romans 12:1–2: I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The therefore signals for us that what Paul’s about to say is based on what he just said.

(By the way, identifying and understanding the logic behind these key connective words is crucial for understanding your Bibles. When you see a then or therefore or another word that expresses result or purpose or cause, take time to ask how all the pieces hang together.)

If you try to obey Romans 12–16 without understanding Romans 1–11, you’ll fail. Romans 1–11 provides the power to obey Romans 12–16 in a way that doesn’t result in legalism or moralism.

By the way, thinking theologically is not less than thinking gospel-centeredly.

There’s a prevalent view of the gospel in our day among evangelicals that treats the gospel as a narrow message for the lost about how to get saved and go to heaven when you die. The gospel is that, but it’s so much more. The entire NT, even the entire Bible, is about the gospel. The gospel is deepest and richest of theological truths in the Bible, and it’s primary audience is believers. All of the Christian life is rooted in the gospel. Everything we do as believes flows out of what God has done in Christ by the Spirit in the gospel.

Ephesians

The letter to the Ephesians follows the same pattern. The first three chapters are doctrine; the last three chapter are application of that doctrine to life.

Ephesians 4:1–3: I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Galatians

Galatians follows a similar pattern. Chapters 5 and 6 contain most of the imperatives in the letter, and they point back to what preceded as the basis:

Galatians 5:1: For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

The first phrase sums up the first four chapters: we’re freed from the bondage of the law by the work of Christ received by faith alone. Because of this, we must stand firm and not slip back into keeping the Mosaic law. The rest of the letter unpacks the implications of this for the Galatian Christians.

Not all of Paul’s letters are structured like this, but his pattern is always to root right living in right thinking about God, ourselves, and the gospel of grace.

It’s vital that we learn to think theologically and gospel-centeredly about all of life.

5. Cultural Issues

I’d like us to turn our attention now to some issues that we should think theologically about.

There are a handful of hot issues both in the culture and the church that demand careful theological thinking. Five of the biggest issues relating to the doctrines of man and sin are:

  1. Homosexuality: same sex sexual relations and marriage
  2. Gender roles: alternate views of the roles of men and women in the home and the church
  3. Abortion: taking the life of an unborn child
  4. Evolution: views on the origin of the universe
  5. Violence: war, weapons, and protecting those you love

We don’t have time to unpack each of these. What I’d like to do, though, it challenge you to think deeply and theologically about each of these topics. The pressures from the world show no signs of letting up, and those pressures are going to increasingly come from inside the church as well. It’s essential that we are firmly rooted and grounded in the truth of God’s Word.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is gaining broader support in our culture of tolerance, not just in secular culture, but also in the church.

Let me give just two recent examples.

Calvin College1

Calvin College, a school of the Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, MI, recently posted an article about two former male students who were the first two in their county to be granted legally married status. The article celebrates their homosexual love and describes how the Holy Spirit told one of the men to embrace who he was as a gay Christian. It was flooded with comments of support and affirmation.

The CRC’s position on homosexuality is that God forbids it, but somehow they allow their school’s official online newspaper to publish a story that embraces what God hates. Instead of being met with a biblical response, most of the comments affirmed its unbiblical perspective.

Wheaton College

Wheaton College, where Philip Ryken is president and some of the best evangelical scholars teach, has had its own issues with homosexuality in the last couple of years.

This summer Julie Rodgers,2 a former counselor at Wheaton College, resigned due to her support for homosexual relationships.

In January of last year, former lesbian and now Reformed-Pastor’s-wife Rosaria Butterfield3 shared her testimony of grace at Wheaton College. She was met by a large crowd of protesting students, who embraced and defended their homosexual identity.

A website called One Wheaton is a group of former Wheaton students united together around their LGBTQ-ness. An open letter is signed by almost 1,000 former students.

These are real issues facing the evangelical church from without and within, and we need to be prepared to engage them with cogent theological thinking and Spirit-wrought love and compassion.

Does the Bible really prohibit homosexuality, or does it merely prohibit unfaithful sexual and marital relationships?

Should homosexuals be invited into the church? What about non-practicing homosexuals?4 There’s a growing number of Christians who identify themselves as homosexuals in nature only, and not in practice. They testify to their homosexual desires, but choose to not act on them because they believe the Bible’s teaching about their sinfulness. They are committed to lifelong celibacy, or until God changes their attractions. How should the church treat such individuals who identify as gay celibate Christians?

What are the theological underpinnings for a biblical view of sexuality and marriage? How do the doctrines of man and sin help us think theologically about homosexuality?

Let’s discuss.

Support:

  1. God created Adam male and female.
  2. There’s a complementary relationship that examples between male and female that doesn’t exist between male and male or female and female. [There’s actually a connection between egalitarianism and homosexuality. Egalitarianism makes men and women interchangeable. Homosexuality is its logical extension.]
  3. Procreation is one of God’s primary designs for marriage and sexuality.
  4. Is doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that men and women were physically created for one another.
  5. The Bible forbids homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; and Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:9–10)

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [If this merely prohibits unfaithful love or sexual relations with younger men, then what about verse 23 in its relationship to animals?]

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26–27: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8–11: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Gender Roles

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage? What about the role of women in the church?

Does the teaching of Paul on the role of women apply today, or was is limited to the culture of the New Testament, like footwashing, head coverings, and holy kisses?

Is slavery an analogy for complementarianism or patriarchy? The church used to affirm slavery on the basis of the Bible, but due to cultural pressures have since rejected it. Is the same thing happening with the role of women?

Were these roles instituted as part of the punishment for the Fall? If so, are they removed in Christ?

Is it defensible to affirm that men and women are equally in the image of God and of equal value and worth, but to affirm that there are necessary and permanent distinctions in their roles in the context of the home and the church? Many argue that this is philosophically untenable. Some have responded that we have such an analogy in the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Others have argued that no such hierarchy exists in the Trinity, but that there’s an equality in the Godhead just as there is an equality in the home and the church between men and women. I wrote a chapter for a recent book by Crossway on the Trinity that evaluates these philosophical arguments. I’m happy to share the chapter with anything who’s interested in it.

What are the theological underpinnings for a biblical view of gender roles? How do the doctrines of man and sin help us think theologically about gender roles?

Let’s discuss.

Support:

Feminism and egalitarianism are nearly universal outside the church, at least in most progressive cultures. And they’re becoming increasingly so inside the church. Complementarian Christians are in the minority, and their numbers are shrinking at a rapid pace.

We must think theologically about the roles of men and women and live as God designed us to live.

Abortion

The evangelical church is largely in agreement on abortion, but there is strong opposition to the pro-life viewpoint in the secular culture and the liberal church.

What are the theological underpinnings for a biblical view of life in the womb? What does the Bible teach? How do the doctrines of man and sin help us think theologically about abortion?

Let’s discuss.

Support:

Evolution

Outside the church, evolution is the majority opinion. Those who hold to its religious belief system and its pseudo-science are winning more and more people through the tactics of shame and intellectual mockery.

What are the theological underpinnings for a biblical view of the origin of all things? What does the Bible teach? How do the doctrines of man and sin help us think theologically about evolution?

Let’s discuss.

Support:

Are you equipped to think deeply and theologically about these matters? Are you prepared to show love in your witness to the world and the church?

Violence

Until Christ returns and eradicates sin and makes all things new, there will be war and violence. But how should Christians think about war? Should they participate in war or in law enforcement? Should they own weapons and use them to protect their families?

Pacifism, the belief that all violence is morally wrong, is growing in popularity in the church. There’s a movement, which goes by several different names,5 that aims to get back to the early church and their practices. Leaders of the movement include Frank Viola, David Bercot, and George Barna. Adherents are usually pacifists, and they point to pacifist statements in the writings of some of the early Christian writers. Pacifism also has roots in the Protestant Reformation. The moderate Anabaptists, from which Mennonites originated, were pacifists. There’s a revival of pacifism underway right now, even among evangelicals.6

I have a cousin involved in a church that rejects much of modern Christianity and advocates pacifism, among other things he sees taught in the early church. His brother is a police officer, and he’s told him that unless he repents of his violence he’ll perish eternally. He appeals to Jesus’ teaching on resisting evil:

Matthew 5:38–39: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He concludes that this eliminates any and all use of violent force.

He points as well to Jesus statement to Peter to put his sword away:

Matthew 26:52: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

He sees this as a universal prohibition to using weapons for violence.

Is it? What do you think? We’re commanded to love our enemies. Is it possible to love your enemies while you kill them?

What are the theological underpinnings for a biblical view of violence? How do the doctrines of man and sin help us think theologically about violence?

Let’s discuss this.

Support:

6. Technological Issues

We live in the digital age, an age which brings all sorts of new ethical challenges and issues that the church isn’t well equipped to address.

Technology is changing at such a rapid pace that it’s difficult to keep up with it. The church is already weak at thinking theologically. The ever-expanding landscape of new ways to engage with content and intellectual property brings all sorts of new questions and challenges. This is compounded by the fact that most of the church’s best theologians aren’t on the cutting edge of technology. That leaves younger people to wrestle on their own through these issues without the maturity and wisdom of those best equipped to understand and apply the Bible. There is a need for those who are knowledgeable about new technologies and careful theological thinkers to guide the church forward into uncharted territories.

Most books on ethics don’t address most of these issues. The church could benefit from work in the field of digital ethics. In the last few years some texts on ethics and technology have started to surface, but most of these are secular works. I’ve not been able to find any significant Christian contribution to this important area.

These are issues that many in the church are facing on a daily basis. Here are some of the questions Christians are or should be asking.

  1. Is it okay to download or listen to music I didn’t purchase? Why or why not?
  2. Is it wrong to connect to my neighbor’s Wi-Fi network without permission? Why or why not?
  3. Can I use my friend’s Netflix account? Why or why not?
  4. Is it okay to use software I’ve not purchased? Why or why not?
  5. Is it okay to bypass some sort of wall to get access to someone’s website (e.g., using to remove popups and overlays that block access to content)? Why or why not?
  6. Is it okay to accept EULAs without reading them? Is it a lie to click the box that says you’ve read the EULA when you haven’t? Why or why not?
  7. Is it okay to list a product for sale on Amazon.com and then ask for a price match? Why or why not?
  8. Is it okay to link to or watch copyright protected videos on YouTube? Why or why not?
  9. Is it okay to block ads on websites? Advertising is how some people make a living. They’re trading you access to their content for money they make when you see the ads they show you. If you block their ads, should you still read their content? Why or why not?
  10. Is it okay to use other people’s copyright protected content without permission (i.e., copyright protection)? Why or why not?
  11. Is it okay to use an image you find online for a presentation on Facebook, etc.?
  12. Is it okay to use other people’s content without giving them credit for it (i.e., plagiarism)? Why or why not?
  13. Is it okay to write under a pseudonym? What about writing on behalf of another (i.e., ghost writing)? Why or why not?
  14. Is it okay to be anonymous or pseudonymous online? Why or why not?
  15. Is it okay to rate and review your own products online? Why or why not?
  16. Is it okay to keep something sent to you by accident? For example, what if Amazon sends you something you didn’t order? Or what if they send you two of an item when you only purchased and paid for one? Why or why not?
  17. Is it okay for a company to buy likes on Facebook or use a tool to get followers on Twitter? Why or why not?
  18. Is it okay to pay someone to get lots of links to your site so you can show up higher in Google’s search results? Why or why not?
  19. If it’s illegal, is it also sinful?

There are many other issues we could add to this. Does anyone have something else they’d like to add?

Justification for Ethically Questionable Practices7

There are websites dedicated to sharing digital intellectual property online. Perhaps surprisingly, there are even sites for Christians to work together to pirate software and other content. It’s no longer up, but one such site was called What Would Jesus Download dot com.

A Barna report from over a decade found that only 1 in 10 Christian teens thought pirating music was wrong. The number is probably even lower now.

Several years ago I came across a blog post by a seminary student would was unashamedly testifying to his pirating everything he could get his hands on. He defended his actions and encouraged others to feel unashamed in their illegal practices.

This individual, and the many like him, reason along these lines:

1. It’s not actually stealing, so it’s not wrong.

Argument: Stealing some physical item means depriving a person of something that belongs to them. “Stealing” a digital item does not deprive a person of something that belongs to them. Taking a digital item without permission is not stealing. Therefore, it’s not wrong.

How would you respond?

Response: Just because you’ve taken something that didn’t deprive the person of the thing itself doesn’t mean you’ve not deprived them of something else they deserve. You may be depriving them of your business, your financial support to do their work. You may be depriving them in other ways. Using someone’s Cloud-based digital service costs them for streaming and bandwidth. Using your neighbor’s Wi-Fi network might cost them money if you push them over a download threshold or might slow down their speed, requiring them to upgrade to a faster speed or buy a better modem or router. In short, you’re almost always depriving the owner of something.

2. If no one gets hurt, it’s okay.

Argument: As long as it’s not costing someone else money or hurting them in any way, it’s okay. It’s just like looking over someone’s shoulder and reading their newspaper.

How would you respond?

Response: This misses the larger point of loving your neighbor as you would want to be loved.

3. I wasn’t going to buy it, so they’ve not lost any money from me.

Argument: I wouldn’t have ever given them money, so they’ve not lost anything on me.

How would you respond?

Response: The worker is worthy is his reward.

4. Trying it may help me decide to buy it, so they’ll win.

Argument: If I try it and like it, then I’ll buy it. Pirating can be good for the rightsholders when it results in more money for them.

How would you respond?

Response: The worker is worthy is his reward.

5. They left a loophole, so they probably don’t mind.

Argument: My neighbor didn’t password protect his Wi-Fi network, so he probably doesn’t mind if I use his network.

How would you respond?

Response: It’s not safe to assume intent from non-action. They may not know any better. You shouldn’t take advantage of someone who through ignorance or oversight left a door open. Would you think it fine to enter your neighbors house just because the door was unlocked?

6. I have the right to access the content.

Argument: People who create content have an obligation to share it with as many people as they can. All intellectual property that can be share for free should be. Since they’re failing to fulfill their obligation to share their content with me, I’m justified in taking what is rightfully mine.

How would you respond?

Response: None of us has a right to anything that belongs to someone else.

Principles for Thinking about Digital Ethics

  1. Just because no one gets hurt doesn’t mean it’s okay.
  2. Just because you can get away with it doesn’t mean it’s okay.
  3. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean it’s okay.
  4. Just because you can’t afford it doesn’t mean it’s okay.
  5. Just because you would benefit from it doesn’t mean it’s okay.
  6. Just because you may buy it eventually doesn’t mean it’s okay.

Our sinful hearts are skilled at justifying anything they need to. We’re so good at rationalizing what we know to be wrong in order to get what we want. Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked, and we mustn’t listen to them.

7. Love as the Guiding Principle

Love is at the heart of living as God intended us to live. Jesus taught that loving God and neighbor is the fulfillment of the law. Sin is fundamentally non-fulfillment of the law, which means it’s fundamentally not loving God and neighbor.

Thinking theologically about these issues means asking what it looks like to love God and others.

What does this love for others look like? Jesus tells us that it looks like this:

Matthew 7:12: So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Compare this to these

Matthew 22:37–40: And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Galatians 5:14: For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Doing to others what you would want them to do for you is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Loving others is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Therefore, loving others is doing to others what you would want them to do for you.

  • The central way you love others is by treating them the way they want to be treated or as you would want to be treated.
  • The central way you sin against others is by not treating them as they want to be treated or as you would want to be treated.

Love should guide us as we engage with the culture and the church on issues like gay marriage, gender roles, abortion, evolution, violence, etc.

Love should guide us as we wrestle to think and live theologically in relationship to technology.

In both of these categories of issues, we must be committed to thinking theologically and living in love.

What does love look like?

  1. Show genuine care for others. Love is seeking the highest good of the one loved. Let the wellbeing of others be evident in all you say and do.
  2. Kindly and compassionately speak the truth. You can’t fully love others without speaking the truth to them. We mustn’t replace love with tolerance. Tolerance is one of the great evils of our day. We mustn’t tolerate what God despises. We must be unwavering and unflinching in our commitment to the truth, and we must present that true in a cogent and defensible way. But we must also deliver that truth with kindness and compassion.
  3. Acknowledge, repent, and confess your own sinfulness. We’re are fallen people ministering to fallen people. We must be quick to acknowledge our own sinfulness, to repent, to confess, and to continue in the battle of sanctification. It’s easy to see the sins of others while looking over our own. Ask God to give you sensitivity to your own sinfulness and need for grace.
  4. Be humble, be prepared, and be careful. God calls us to engage the culture and the church in these areas, but he also warns that we ourselves might fall into the same sins if we’re not careful. Pride makes us susceptible to falling. Lack of theological groundedness may make us question what we believe.
  5. Keep your distance (or not). God calls us to engage with others in different ways. Sometimes we are to separate from them; other times we are to be among them. It depends on the clarity of the issue and the profession of the person. Christians shouldn’t separate themselves from the world. We’re called to be in the world, but not of it (Jn. 17:15). We should continue to be salt and light to those who need it. But Christians mustn’t fellowship with professing believers who persistent in unrepentance (1 Cor. 5). Church discipline is a way God brings wandering sinners to repentance. It’s important to respond appropriately to each person and situation.
  6. Treat others as you want to be treated. This rule should govern all we do and will ensure that we’re acting properly toward our neighbor.

8. Conclusion

We must think theologically and gospel-centeredly about all of life. We must develop the skill of seeing below the surface of the text. Because the Bible is sufficient, we must seek to apply it to all of life. As we wrestle to apply the Bible to debated issue inside and outside the church and new issues we encounter through technological advancement, we must let the ethic of love govern all we do. We must wed together the truth and love.

13. Pray and Dismiss

God, please help us to take the truth we’ve learned and live in light of it. Help us to learn and practice the skill of thinking theologically about all of life, about these important cultural issues outside and inside the church, and about these new technological issues that the church is wrestling to think through. Let all we do be driven by love for God and others.

9. Resources

10. Review Questions

Extras

Is the door ajar for salvation of pagans apart from hearing and believing the gospel?

Articles from Desiring God

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/four-steps-toward-joy-in-repentance

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thirteen-practical-steps-to-kill-sin

What’s at stake?

The authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

The ethics of deception

It’s not just your coworkers and neighbors you need to be prepared to engage with. It may be your friends and family. If we’re to love our neighbors, we need to know what that looks like. How do you love your cousin who just told you he’s gay? How do you show love to a girl who is preparing to be a pastor?

7. Temptation and Conscience

Many of these are difficult areas. A good guide is to be sensitive to your conscience. God has written his law on our hearts. We have a sense of right and wrong by nature. As Christians, we have a renewed conscience that is informed by the Spirit and the Word. We mustn’t ignore the our God-given moral compass. If in doubt, don’t do it. Take time to think, pray, research, evaluate, and discuss with others you trust. Whatever we don’t do in faith, that is in confidence of our freedom to do it without displeasing God, is sin (Rom. 14:23).

8. Repentance, Confession, and Mortification

Martin Luther illustrated this distinction nicely in a line from the desert father that he quoted often: “Dear brother, you cannot prevent the birds from flying over your head, but you can certainly keep them from building a nest in your hair.”8

Tracing Sins to Their Roots

Christians often have a tendency to externalize sin and make sin in the things we do or say or wear or in the places we go. There’s often sin in these external expressions and manifestations, but it goes much deeper. And we won’t truly understand our sin or how to fight against it until we see how deep it goes.

Is it a sin to hit someone? Maybe, but maybe not. You can hit someone because you’re angry and trying to hurt them. But you can also hit someone on accident or because you’re trying to kill a mosquito about to bite them or because you’re disciplining them in love and obedience and deep concern for their soul. The act of hitting isn’t itself sinful. What makes one kind of hitting sinful and another not? It all has to do with your heart, your motives, why you’re hitting them. Sinful hitting flows out of a heart that is full of pride and directed toward itself, one that is living independently from God and rejecting his authority, one that sets itself up as the god and ruler of the universe.

Is it a sin to say certain words? Maybe, but maybe not. Saying a word that expresses and evil heart is bad because of what it represents. Saying that same word to teach your children and instruct them on matters of the heart is not. Sin isn’t fundamentally in words; it’s in the attitude and desires of our hearts that express themselves in words. Choosing not to say certain things doesn’t get us off the hook. Now, we may by grace resist the temptation to express our sinful hearts and instead repent and confess. That’s better than expressing our sinful hearts and compounding our sin.

It’s important in all of our sins to connect the dots back to our heart and find out what’s going on. This is critical for parents as well. We regularly ask our kids when they’re misbehaving what’s going on in their hearts. We don’t want them to have a superficial or external view of sin. We want them to know that sin goes down deeply into the very core of who they are. They don’t just need to stop doing and saying wrong things. They need the radical work of regeneration; they need a new heart. And they need to be united to Jesus and counted righteous in him and because of him.

If we’re going to put our sin to death, we need to find its source and go below the surface of its expressions.

Notes

1. http://www.calvin.edu/chimes/2015/12/04/first-gay-couple-married-in-kent-county-share-testimony-of-faith-love-and-time-at-calvin/ ↩

2. https://julierodgers.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/an-update-on-the-gay-debate-evolving-ideas-untidy-stories-and-hopes-for-the-church/ ↩

3. http://www.wheaton.edu/Students/The-Record/students-hold-demonstration-before-chapel-speaker ↩

4. Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality ↩

5. Simple church, house church, etc. ↩

6. Preston Sprinkle, Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence. ↩

7. https://philgons.com/?p=1407&preview=true ↩

8. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 42: Devotional Writings I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 73. ↩