Here is a different kind of update on the debate precipitated by the unfortunate Gospel Coalition post from Ed Shaw. In one of my responses to it, I said this:
“Same sex attraction is an attraction to sin. If we lose that understanding, we have lost everything. This is not a trifle.”
I have been asked, both privately and in the comments, to address the question of desire, orientation, and sin in more detail. What do I categorize as sin and why?
The answer, not surprisingly, rests in the doctrine of justification. That which must be justified is sinful. That which must have the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ reckoned to it, is sinful.
When a man comes to Christ, and is put right with God in his justification, the sole instrument of which is God-given faith, what exactly is being declared righteous? What, in other words, is the object of justification? The ground of justification is the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, an obedience which began with His conception and continued through to His resurrection. The instrument of justification is our faith, which is itself a gift of God in case anyone is tempted to boast.
But what is the object of justification? What is justified? God justifies the ungodly “by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous” (WCF 11.1). Notice that justification happens when our sins are pardoned, and our persons are accepted as righteous. Our sins and our persons.
This is another way of asking what a man is repenting of when he cries out to God. He is seeking the righteousness of Jesus, asking that it be applied to him. What, precisely, does he need to have it be applied to? Where must the imputation land?
The answer is that when we repent, we are repenting of two things — what we are, and what we have done. We are ungodly persons who have done ungodly acts. There has been so much soft soap for a generation or more that conservatives are astonished and pleased if anyone emphasizes repentance at all in his preaching. But when we get that far, we usually get a call for repentance for specific and discrete sins. By this I mean particular instances of theft, or drunkenness, or fornication, and so on. But true, heartfelt and complete repentance is repentance that cries out to God for cleansing in two areas — for what I am, and for what I consequently do.
An evil man repenting must not just repent of the rotten fruit lying on the ground. He also must repent of what kind of tree he is (Luke 6:43). Prior to conversion we were, Paul says, children of wrath by nature (Eph. 2:3).
Preaching repentance for specific sinful acts can be heard by unbelievers as flattering. They think it within their power to reform themselves, muttering under their breath that they “are better than this” and vowing to turn over a new leaf. But we need a new life, not a new leaf. This is not flattering at all because who can repent of what he is?
This is one of many reasons why true repentance has to be a gift. And the implications of this remain with us, carrying over into our Christian lives. Because God has not seen fit to remove this body of flesh from us instantaneously, because we are still told to mortify our members which are on the earth (Col. 3:5), this means that on-going repentance as a Christian must continue to include both elements — repentance for remaining sin, and repentance for committed sin.
As a believer walking with God, I continue to need the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to all that I am, and to all that I do. As I do this, it is the process of putting on the new man.
I must put off the old man, with his deeds, note that, and put on the new man. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;” (Col. 3:9). You put off the old man, teeming with sinful inclinations, along with his deeds, and you put on the new man, created in righteousness and holiness. Now where would same sex attraction be located? It is no part of the new man. That means it is part of the old man — which must be repented and put off. But that process is not complete in this life; I must have the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to me — my person, my inadequate good deeds, and my sins. This sets me free to identify deranged sexual attractions for what they are. I don’t need to clean them up for God. I bring them to God just the way they are — all screwed up.
So then, same sex attraction is part of the package of remaining sin. It is sinful, an inclination to sin, and is therefore in desperate need of the righteousness of God applied to it as a sheer gift. Heterosexuals have their own clusters of remaining sexual sin, and the very same thing is required of them — mortify it. Put it to death.
I am quite happy to grant that those whose temptations are exclusively homosexual can walk with God. But they cannot do this if they think that this part of them is neutral. It is in no way neutral, any more than a heterosexual man’s desire to be with various women is “neutral.” It may not be acted on, thanks be to God, but all stirrings of sin are sinful. That which leans that way is as much in need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ as any overt action. I may (and must) distinguish an inclination to sin from an overt committed sin — but the distinction is not to be found in the sinfulness of them. That is not the distinction. One is committed and the other not — that is a distinction. But they are both, in their respective locations, sinful. They have varying degrees of culpability, but they are both in need of justification. I must be justified because of my big sins, because of my smaller sins, because of my teeny sins, and because of my latent sins.
Two more quick points, which might need to be developed further later on. First, we cannot get away from the need for justification by using words like “broken” or “disordered.” Rightly understood, such words cry out for the obedience of Christ. But some think that all we need to do is bring our broken things to God and He has to fix them because that’s His job. There is an element of truth here — God does fix them. But it is essential that we don’t leave something out. What we must not leave out is the fact that His method of fixing them is the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And if that is the solution, then sin was the problem.
Test yourself this way. If you bring your broken sexuality to God and ask Him to deal with it, what would you say if He asked why He should “deal with it”? If you said, “Because it’s broken,” then the response does not go far enough. It is inadequate. But if the reply is the “Jesus died so that it might be fixed,” then that is a gospel answer.
Last point. I suspect that resistance to this point in the evangelical world — a point that is manifestly plain in Scripture — is not necessarily a resistance to God’s prohibition of same sex liaisons, at least not yet. Celibacy is a price that many evangelicals are quite prepared to pay (for the time being), provided they are allowed to retain other vices that they have come to believe are virtues. I believe that in the evangelical world,those ostensible “virtues” come in the form of preciousness, niceness, posing, empathy, approachability, transparency, and all the other grand postures of effeminacy. We would rather die than give those up. And it is not just those with same sex attraction who are doing this. The reason the celibacy scam — by which I mean celibate bodies, promiscuous emotions — is working is that the whole evangelical world is grooving to this same vibe.
The evangelical world will have the touchy feelies for a while more before they start to feel the touchies.
Great post. My question is this: how does temptation fit into all this? The phrase, “it’s not a sin to be tempted,” is one I have heard on several occasions. So what does being tempted to sin sexually but not sinning look like? When we talk about Jesus being tempted, do we just mean that he was offered the option of sinning, but nothing within him found that in the least bit desirable? Or, to use another word, tempting?
Thank you pastor.
Doug, I’m close to agreeing with you, but you lost me at “promiscuous emotions” because I can’t quite figure out what that means for the Christian fighting unwanted SSA.
You keep making analogy to the heterosexual attracted outside marriage, which helps. Can you apply the “celibate body, promiscuous emotions” scam to the heterosexual and elaborate?
I don’t think Doug was referring to the people troubled by their sin, I think he was referring to the evangelicals who prefer being with the ‘in crowd’ to speaking hard truths and risk being ostracized from it..
Ryan I think what Doug is saying is that there are some people who are involved in emotional relationships that go beyond the level of intimacy that is appropriate for someone being celibate. They like to cover this up with Christian niceties.
It is basically Paul saying, “Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?” There is a war going on inside our hearts. Part of us desires the evil and part of us hates the evil (if we are Christians). The same dynamic is at work in countless situations: A married man is drawn to another woman. Instead of contenting himself to keep from having immoral physical contact with her or mental fantasy, he begins to confess the pull. Oh wretched man that I am! My sinful heart is not satisfied in what you… Read more »
I’m pretty much following you, but one point where I’m still confused is the difference between a sinful inclination towards sin and a non-sinful temptation. James 1:14-15 says, “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin.” Is the desire in this case a sinful inclination to sin, manifested when one allows oneself to be lured and enticed by the temptation being offered? Or is the desire in this case a good desire that only becomes sinful when one gives in to the temptation to… Read more »
In my kid dictionary, temptation is “the act of considering doing something unwise.” I like that simple terminology because it speaks plainly. To be tempted is not a sin. It becomes a sin when you are in the act of considering doing something unwise.
In the KJV of James 1:14-15 it speaks of “being drawn away of his own lust.” Whatever the thing is that is tempting us, it only becomes a sin when we allow it to draw us away from Christ within us, from God’s will.
Job did a good job of explaining this withh regard to opposite sex attraction: Job 31 1 “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman. 2 For what is our lot from God above, our heritage from the Almighty on high? 3 Is it not ruin for the wicked, disaster for those who do wrong? 4 Does he not see my ways and count my every step? 5 “If I have walked with falsehood or my foot has hurried after deceit— 6 let God weigh me in honest scales and he will know… Read more »
I would say the same thing that is true for every sexual sin. A flickering thought that comes into our minds unbidden is not sinful if we dismiss it as soon as we are conscious of it. A dream that we wake from with sexual feelings is not sinful as long we don’t continue to entertain it once we are aware it is there.
Can I repent of a lewd dream, even if I don’t entertain it when I wake up? I’m *tempted* to say that I can, and ought to. My thought life is something that needs to be delivered and redeemed too.
My thought life is something that needs to be delivered and redeemed too.
This. “The renewing of your mind” goes the verse and the renewal is real.
The “tightness” between our thoughts and who we are is something that I believe we put there. “If I do not think this way, I will not be me” is a thought that needs to die so that I may live as somebody new..
It cannot be forced. Perhaps it can be nurtured.
I think I see your point but dreams are really not thoughts. I might dream that I am helping lepers or rescuing children from burning buildings, but those dreams really say nothing about my character. I can’t take them as evidence that I am a caring or heroic person. Why, then, would a dream of a disreputable character be evidence of sinful leanings? But daydreams are something else altogether.
I remember a 5-month service in West Africa, we were given a choice of a weekly anti-malarial or a daily one. I first chose the weekly, and soon found one of the unfortunate side effects was gruesome, hideous, horrifically violent nightmares. I felt no conviction to repent, and needless to say I soon switched to the daily medication (which “only” caused hair loss).
On the other hand, it’s possible that to the degree one entertains sinful thoughts/actions in waking life, they may be more strongly represented in dreams, which may in turn be indicators of the need for repentance.
A non sinful temptation towards s.s.a. would look like a sodomite hitting on you and you being scandalized at the thought of sinning in that way.
Whenever a person feels lured and enticed towards a particular sin, he should acknowledge that his sinful heart is the culprit. Just say, “Lord, my heart is not right before you. It longs to do evil. Help me to hate evil and desire the good. Cleanse me of these filthy desires.”
Although, being hit on by a homosexual would seem to be an example of being “tempted” by something unwanted in the first place. I think the temptations of Christ in the wilderness were examples of good things that Jesus really did want, but only in the proper context.
katecho,
Perhaps you could critique the categories I listed below in response to jigawatt and tell me if I have missed something essential or if there is a more helpful way to phrase the various types of biblical temptations in a more clear manner?
In terms of my comment above, I am understanding one neutral form of temptation to be an unwanted external offer as you suggest.
Thanks
There is more complexity around this issue than first glance. I like the internal vs external temptation distinction. Suppose a very hospitable host offers me and my friend a beer, and my friend struggles with drunkenness. We see in this illustration that we can distinguish between a circumstance that is externally intended to cause a stumble, versus a circumstance that is not intended as a temptation, even if it internally causes one. The one external offer by our host is the same with respect to each of us, but my friend is suddenly facing a temptation in a way that… Read more »
I think the internal/external distinction can handle the successful/unsuccessful qualification. It seems you want to make a further distinction between an accidental temptation and an intentional temptation on the part of the “tempter.” In terms of the temptation ofJesus, namely “Jesus being tempted by things that are good,” the temptations of Satan seem easier to explain than Gethsemene. In terms of Gethsemene: I think it is fairly clear that He was not afraid of him who could destroy the body, but strongly desired to not be forsaken by the Father. It seems equally obvious that He had a strong, good… Read more »
On this subject, it feels like we are bumping up against the limits of our particular language. It’s like we need more words to distinguish kinds of temptations and kinds of responses to temptation. As it is, we seem to have to infer the right understanding by contextual clues. Certain enticements shouldn’t even have the effect on us that they do, to even serve to test us, and yet, as in the case of Christ, the mere presence of a real internal temptation does not, in itself, mean we have already sinned.
You said, “Certain enticements shouldn’t even have the effect on us that they do, to even serve to test us, and yet, as in the case of Christ, the mere presence of a real internal temptation does not, in itself, mean we have already sinned.” I do think part of the difficulty involves the flexibility of peirasmos, which can be translated in the neutral “test,” or “attempt to make someone do wrong.” Trying to bring this flexibility into English has led to a fuzzy notion of “temptation” where perhaps a more disciplined distinction between “temptation” and “test” would be preferable.… Read more »
The difference between temptation and sin is the orientation of the will. We can’t stop the temptations from coming, but in Christ we can reject them. Sin enters into the equation when we allow, even invite the temptation to take root. Temptations are the annoying birds fluttering about our heads, that we shoo away. Sin is allowing them to land on our shoulder, stroking them, feeding them, allowing them to whisper sweet nothings into our ear, then inviting them back next time. John Piper suggests a “five-second rule” for prayerfully forcing out tempting thoughts and desires before they inevitably entice… Read more »
I love the way Doug handles a controversy is to first answer it and then create a whole new one at the end.
“I love the way Doug handles a controversy..”
I thought Doug did a nice job as well!
By his empathetic approach of posing darkness and light in contrast to each other, Doug made the truth very transparent!
You can tell Doug has true empathy with our need for repentance.
Wisdom is after all, a woman! ; – )
(Sorry, just had to play those words! I do agree that they are often abused.)
Agreed. I think he likes causing bemusement wherever he can. Or at least to make you think a little bit.
….or, in non-effeminate speak, ;-) he likes to wack a hornets nest now and again!
(and what good natured, adventurous kid doesn’t?) ; – )
I myself recently found that after cutting a honets nest to the ground, my mother’s Buick was just the thing to run it over with, in air conditioned comfort!
“I believe that in the evangelical world,those ostensible “virtues” come
in the form of preciousness, niceness, posing, empathy, approachability,
transparency, and all the other grand postures of effeminacy”
Likely true. However, let’s not dismiss the word “nice” as necessarily effeminate. It has some little known definitions, “virtuous, having or showing delicate, accurate perception; exacting in requirements or standards; and particular and discerning.”
“I believe that in the evangelical world,those ostensible “virtues” come in the form of preciousness, niceness, posing, empathy, approachability, transparency, and all the other grand postures of effeminacy. We would rather die than give those up. And it is not just those with same sex attraction who are doing this. The reason the celibacy scam — by which I mean celibate bodies, promiscuous emotions — is working is that the whole evangelical world is grooving to this same vibe.”
Amen, Pastor. Some of these preachers like Russell Moore and John Piper make Pajama Boy look like John Wayne.
Nice try, Bull.
If you think of Piper as effeminate, you’ve never heard him preach on making war against sin.
If you think of Piper as masculine, you’ve never heard him preach that he refuses to own a gun because if someone broke into his house one night and attacked his family, he might shoot the guy, and the guy might die and go to hell, and he wouldn’t want that on his conscience. Or do you think it’s masculine for a man to respond to the question of “Would you protect your daughter if you had a gun?” with the one word answer “Probably”? “Somebody wrote and asked me, “Would you protect your daughter if you had a gun?”… Read more »
Okay…quite a screed you put together there. I’m not unaware of controversy surrounding Piper, nor do I myself agree or approve of every manner of his convictions (or lack thereof). And I’d certainly protect my child (or another’s) against an attacker at the cost of my own life and/or his. Moreover, I’d like him to take as vocal a stance against SSM as I’ve heard him take against abortion for example. Like many premillenialists, he comes down at a different point of the spectrum on where politics, culture, and the Gospel-witness of the church should and shouldn’t intersect than many… Read more »
A screed? If you think my post constitutes a “long, angry tirade”, well, I’m not sure what to say. (The word hysterical comes to mind…) I said that some popular preachers, such as John Piper, aren’t very masculine. You told me I was wrong, because Piper can get up a real humdinger of a sermon against sin, so therefore he’s not soft and feminine at all, but very masculine. I then pointed out that he refuses to own a gun because he’s afraid he might be tempted to shoot an intruder who’s attacking his wife or daughter. No matter how… Read more »
Advice to you: Bible.
Advice to self: Bye, Bull.
God be with ye til we meet again.
Is Piper masculine or effiminate for standing by his convictions?
Passing a law is not making war on sin and Piper focuses on people waring against their own sin which is more difficult than waring against the sins of others.
Is Piper masculine or effiminate for standing by his convictions? It depends on the conviction. Is Bruce Jenner masculine or effeminate for standing by his conviction that he’s a woman? He’s effeminate, no matter how hard you or anyone else tries to spin his standing by his convictions as “courageous.” And it’s also extremely effeminate to stand by your feminine conviction that you shouldn’t own a gun, because you’re afraid you might shoot an intruder who’s harming your daughter. It doesn’t get much more effeminate that that. Most people would say a man having sex with another man is the… Read more »
“And it’s also extremely effeminate to stand by your feminine conviction that you shouldn’t own a gun, because you’re afraid you might shoot an intruder who’s harming your daughter.”
Piper is trying to avoid sending someone to hell, he’s not trying to avoid protecting his family. Killing someone with a gun is not inherently masculine.
Piper is trying to avoid sending someone to hell, he’s not trying to avoid protecting his family. Yes, trying to avoid his obligation as a husband and father to use deadly force to protect his family is exactly what he’s doing. But cowardice unvarnished doesn’t sell, so he has to pass it off as some sort of deep spiritual concern for the lost, “trying to avoid sending someone to hell.” So John Piper is God now? Only God can send men to hell. Or maybe he’s not claiming to be God and possessing the power to sentence men to hell,… Read more »
“Yes, trying to avoid his obligation as a husband and father to use deadly force to protect his family is exactly what he’s doing.”
What would Piper be if he succesfuly defended his family against a group of thugs without using deadly force?
That would depend on how he did that. Please go on!
If you can’t imagine that it’s possible there is no point.
That’s hilarious. Obviously, you can’t think of any plausible scenarios in which an unarmed John Piper protected his family against a group of thugs that had broken into his home. If you could, you would present it.
So you blame me. Like Jesuguru, you have a feminine way of arguing.
lol.
Thanks for the update, pastor. I think that you and I are almost completely on the same page here. And I would be interested to hear if Denny agrees with this assesment.
I’m not always on board with some of your posts, but this one hit me and I thank you for taking it on. I was a little irritated when I read Shaw’s post on TGC. I “get” how he arrived at his stance (and it’s a popular one), but as somebody who has struggled with same sex attraction in the past, I feel like his post does more harm than good. To tell a Christian with same sex attraction that their “fix” comes in the form of celibacy is dangerous. For one, it gives the idea that sin only exists… Read more »
Thank you for this. We need more people who are willing to speak to the hopelessness which results from believing in the neutrality of s.s.a.
I am concerned that many have embraced behavior modification as a substitute for sanctification, but as your experience shows, behavior modification does not produce lasting change. We only experience lasting change when we interact at a heart level.
Thanks again.
You are absolutely right. I’ve lived an, uh, interesting life. I’m glad Jesus led a perfect one so that my trials could later be my testimony. Between my past as a sexual idolater, and my past as an idolater of false religion (I was Mormon once upon a time, but that’s a whole ‘nother blog comment) I just get so frustrated by tepid responses to idolatry. My own idolatry and the idolatry of others. I’ve seen the incredible amounts of damage neutral responses to evil can cause. I’ve lived it. I wish people would listen to those of us who… Read more »
This was wonderful. thank you. It mirrors my experience exactly. I am so very grateful you commented.
And I’m grateful for all the encouragement I’ve received here. Thanks so much
Bravo Rachelle, I’ve heard similar sentiments expressed to me by some close friends whose walk with Christ has taken almost the same path.
Good to know I’m not living in crazyland on this one. Thanks for the encouragement.
I’m surprised that Doug didn’t use any of these words in this post: creation, fall, Adam, curse, Satan, temptation. These seem to me to be very important to the topic at hand.
The relationship of “attraction” to temptation deserves some more discussion. Specifically how the temptation of Jesus fits in there. I’m wondering if Jesus’ temptation was, like Adam and Eve’s (pre-fall), purely external, from Satan, while ours can also arise from our sinful hearts.
Peirasmos, the Greek word from which we get our English word “temptation,” can be used in two senses: BDAG 1) An attempt to learn the nature of character of something, test, trial (1 Peter 4:12; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:6) BDAG 2) An attempt to make one do something wrong, temptation, enticement (James 1:12) The second sense of “temptation,” can come from (a) without or (b) within, namely it can be an (a)external enticement, an (b)internal enticement, or both in the same instance. The relevant feature of life pre-fall and post-fall is the presence of the “sinful flesh” which was… Read more »
Tim M., From Hebrews 4: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” And from Hebrews 2: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things…. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered… Read more »
Thank you for your interaction. What I am trying to express is the “temptation 2b” category is the simple truth that Jesus did not have a sinful heart. There is a type of internal temptation that James 1 describes that is unique to sinners. I am happy to not use the phrase “sin nature,” my comment above hinted at that. But, we have to interact with the fact that Jesus did not have a sinful heart. Things we can say for certain: 1) Jesus did not have a sinful heart. 2) The soul of the wicked desires evil (Pro 21:10).… Read more »
Tim M.,
Was the devil testing Jesus in order to know him better? Or was the devil soliciting Jesus to do wrong?
I *do* deny the doctrine of Total Depravity. I believe we experience physiological depravity in that we may be subject to birth defects, physical or mental illness, etc. Such weakness may increase the force of temptation to sin, but it has no moral quality in itself.
You say it is incredible to you that feelings lack moral quality. Is your feeling of hunger a sin or a righteous act? What was Jesus’ feeling of hunger?
From the perspective of what the Devil was trying to achieve, he tempted (2a) Jesus. Of what Hebrews 4:15 refers, Jesus was tempted (1) in all respects as we are, but without sin.
If we disagree on total depravity, then we won’t agree on s.s.a.
Feelings, like every other human faculty, are designed for a function, and a biblical doctrine of sin will tell us that feelings of hunger can be corrupted also. Sin gets into everything. But, we will not agree on this because of your doctrinal commitments.
[…] feel free to push back, I have found these interactions helpful. Likewise. Thanks for being here and pushing back yourself. I had a couple of exchanges with you on the other post/thread, and have been trying to figure out how to (or whether to) respond, and do so without coming across like the fool I am. ;) This seems like a good jumping off point since it dovetails nicely with the previous discussion thread, so I will just pick up over here where we left off over there. And I should mention that all of my ramblings should not… Read more »
Nathan, Thanks for the helpful comments. I think I can elaborate as to be more clear. In terms of your first question: “If the temptation/enticement presented externally is not actually tempting/enticing to a given person internally, then how can it be said to be a temptation in that context?” The Greek word peirasmos, from which we get our English word translated “temptation,” has two major uses in the BDAG: 1) a test; 2) an attempt to make someone do something wrong. The latter category has the internal/external aspect. Biblically speaking we have sinful hearts which tempt us (James 1 –… Read more »
Thanks. I’ll probably need to chew on this a bit more.
Just one point of clarification that I think would be helpful for you to make: are our human “weaknesses” being discussed here a class of things inherent to us as we were initially created, or are they specific to a class of things that only exist after the fall? In other words, does that term encompass both pre- and post-fallen humanity or just post-fallen humanity?
Understandable. That is the best way i know how to put all the texts together in a coherant way. In terms of human weakness: The concept is not irrelevant in an unfallen world. Certainly man was created to be a dependent being. Thus even before the fall, man needed to eat. However after the Fall, hunger became painful in a way that it was not previously. Thus, the concept of “human weakness” more naturally lends itself itself to life in a fallen world. In this respect, Jesus experienced the normal consequences that the Fall had on human bodies, e.g. he… Read more »
Some thoughts on this subject:
1. Feelings and bodily desires lack moral quality.
2. Moral quality arises at the level of the will.
3. There is no such thing as a “sin nature”.
4. Sin is lawlessness.
5. He who does right is righteous.
6. God has granted us all we need for life and godliness.
7. God provides a way of escape from every temptation.