I coined the term “Neo-Sexual” churches to refer to churches, groups of churches and even denominations that oppose the consistent Biblical teaching that sexual intimacy between a husband and wife within their marriage is the only form of sexual intimacy pleasing to God.
This blog post has been a long time coming. It has been over 50 years in the making, I guess. It has been that long that the Western world has been experimenting with, become infatuated with, and now become obsessed with, sexual immorality. The so-called “Sexual Revolution” began formally in the late 1960s, and our culture has been suffering from its ill effects ever since.
As someone who has grown up in both Christian culture and Western culture all my life, I have observed something rather remarkable: Most of the Western cultural Christianity I’ve been part of has continued to treat the fruit of the Sexual Revolution like the proverbial ostrich treats a threat to their own well-being: They stubbornly keep their heads stuck in the sand, hoping that the threat will go away on its own.
It hasn’t. And it won’t.
Since that’s true, I suggest that finally, after all these decades, the Body of Christ in the West needs to draw a line in the sand. Rather, it needs to re-draw a line that was drawn by our earliest Christian leaders, centuries ago, but seems to have long been forgotten. We need to vocally, publicly and collectively dust off that centuries-old line in the sand, and remind our culture—and those in our churches--that those who claim the name of Christ but promote the practice of sexual immorality in all its many and various forms, rather than calling people to repent of lust in thought and action, stand outside the bounds of genuine Christianity. Their persistence in doing so requires us recognizing them as a non-Christian cult.
The early church was faced with a problem: What defined Christianity, compared to Judaism, or any other religious movement of their day? We may be surprised to find out their answer. They didn’t make a declaration about who Jesus was. That question was answered definitively in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. They didn’t make a declaration about who the Trinity was. That question too was answered faithfully at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. So what line did they draw in the sand in the first major meeting of Christian leaders? As they got together to answer the question of whether or not followers of Jesus were required to be circumcised, the Holy Spirit led them to a rather remarkable set of conclusions, four to be exact.
Here’s what James, the half-brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church said, in Acts 15:19-20…
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”
Later on, the letter the council sent to the early Christian churches read like this, in Acts 15:28-29…
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things”
One line in the sand—the first official one—that defined Christianity for what it both was and wasn’t. One line, with four conclusions.
Well, two, really.
Here’s what I mean: Three of the four conclusions were really dealing with the same issue, not causing other people—Christian or otherwise—to stumble morally, falling away or further away from Jesus and salvation. Paul powerfully addresses this very issue in 1 Corinthians 10:27-33…
“If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.”
The first Christian leaders were united on this: Anyone who says that he or she is a follower of Jesus is going to do their absolute best not to cause anyone to stumble. And if they do, they will repent of it and certainly not promote it. This is one of the first two distinguishing marks of a follower of Jesus Christ.
And the other was equally easy to understand: A follower of Jesus Christ is someone who will abstain from and avoid sexual immorality, as the Old and New Testaments define it. If they fall into lust in thought or action, the believer will repent of it and certainly not promote it. This too is one of the first two distinguishing marks of a follower of Jesus Christ.
Wow. Bet you didn’t realize that, right? Yet it’s true. In the early church, anyone who claimed the name of Christ, yet continued to—unrepentantly—practice and promote sexual immorality, was someone on the other side of the line drawn in the sand that defined what Christianity was and who Christians were.
Not difficult. But completely relevant for today.
My question is: Why has it taken us over 50 years to remember this?
I think I know why. Historically, lines drawn in the sand that define both faithful Christianity and non-Christian cults have focused on beliefs, not practices. The early church focused on who Jesus is and who the Trinity is. The first big church split, between east and west in 1054, focused on the nature of the Holy Spirit. The second big church split, between Protestants and Catholics in 1517, focused on the doctrine of justification—how we are saved, made right with God. We’ve become familiar with drawing lines in the sand over doctrinal issues, but not so much over issues of ethics, morality and practical living. The bulk of Christian history up to today has for the most part said that if someone truly believes in the three major Christian creeds—the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles’—they were followers of Jesus, and not a non-Christian cult.
We now need to remember that first line in the sand.
Practicing and promoting sexual immorality is another mark of a non-Christian cult.
Several current (as I’m writing this) events have prompted me to write this post.
1. The Methodist situation. For the first time that I’m aware of, an amicable split is being proposed within a major denomination, specifically between the two major groups within the United Methodist church in the U.S. One group believes that godly sexual activity is reserved only for a husband and wife within their marriage. The Neo-Sexual group believes differently. Within the next few months, individual members and entire congregations will be choosing which side they line up with.
Based on the Acts 15 wisdom of our first Christian leaders—people who not only knew, but some who even grew up with Jesus Himself—once the Neo-Sexual group has been defined, it should be called for what it is: A group of people who have willingly lined up against Biblical teaching, practice and tradition on an issue of such significance, that it needs to be called a cult. They may well be “religious”, but they’re not Christian any more.
2. The Church of England. Last week (as of this writing), the Archbishop of Canterbury—the worldwide head of the Episcopal church in the U.S. and the Anglican church in the rest of the world—made a solid, Biblical statement about human sexuality. Well done.
A few, scant days later, however, he apologized for his statement. He rolled over. He caved. He capitulated. Why? Because of a vocal minority of voices both within his church and outside in pop culture, who he chose to follow instead of the voice of Jesus and the Word of God. Unthinkable.
Here is his original, solid Biblical statement…
“It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman making a public commitment to each other, is central to the stability and health of human society. We believe that it continues to provide the best context for the raising of children, although it is not the only context that can be of benefit to children, especially where the alternative may be long periods in institutional care.”
All good, right?
Apparently not. Practically before the ink had dried, the apologies were already being made…
“We as archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologise and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.”
Wow.
How can a global Christian leader apologize for simply stating what the Word of God says, speaking truth in love? I guess I know how. It’s what happens when a person fears people more than he fears God.
The Church of England is in grave danger of positioning itself outside the boundaries of what Acts 15 defines as basic Christianity.
3. Earlier this week (as of this writing), Peter Buttigieg won the Iowa Primary. He is now currently leading the nomination race for the Democratic Party. He is a vocal, professing “Christian.” Yet he is also a practicing homosexual, living in a homosexual “marriage.” Whether he wins the nomination or not, he’s already made history: He’s the first person to come this far in a U.S. Presidential nomination race who at the same time calls himself both a Christian and an unapologetic, unrepentant homosexual. What is a follower of Jesus to make of Peter Buttigieg?
Once again, based on the Acts 15 wisdom of our first Christian leaders—people who not only knew, but some who even grew up with Jesus Himself—the Neo-Sexual beliefs and practices of Peter Buttigieg need to be called for what they are: He is indeed a person who has willingly lined up against Biblical teaching, practice and tradition on an issue of great significance; he has bought into the beliefs of a non-Christian cult. He may well be “religious”, but he’s not a Christian anymore.
If he lived liked that and didn’t call himself a Christian, different story. If he called himself a Christian and was honest and open about his personal struggle with lust and living in a repentant state until he gains victory over it, different story. But that’s not the story. A line needs to be drawn.
4. Last weekend (again, as of this writing), was the Super Bowl. With every Super Bowl comes a halftime show. I didn’t watch the show—not even a second of it—but this week there has been a lot of outcry in Christian circles about the hyper-sexualized nature of the performance. But not every Christian agrees with that assessment. A Facebook thread started this week with a post by an Oral Roberts University alum (I’m one too, by the way!) supporting the show and its provocative sexuality. The post prompted hundreds of responses, many by other alums of this charismatic, Christian University. What grieved me was this: Apart from a handful of lone voices, the vast majority of responses and responders were supporting the show, something that would easily have promoted lust to be inflamed in the hearts and minds of many of the millions who were watching, of all ages. It was as if—within students and former students who truly know better—Jesus’ words about lust were pushed aside and rejected, when He said in Matthew 5:27-28…
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
This is the place in our culture where the Sexual Revolution has taken us—even believers—in large part because for over 50 years the vast majority of pulpits in the Western world have refused to draw that line in the sand that James, Peter, Paul and all the others were not afraid to draw almost 2000 years ago.
The promotion and practice of unrepentant sexual immorality was one of the first defining points both for who Christians were, and who they weren’t.
Interestingly enough, this last example also hits home on the other major part of that original line: We must not cause others to stumble, nor should we support and celebrate other people who do. For many believers, this recent Super Bowl debacle clearly managed to violate both parts of that original line.
There’s nothing new about sexual immorality invading—or potentially invading—the church. Obviously, it was a big enough problem in the early church that the Jerusalem Council had to draw the line they did. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5, also had to draw the same line as he dealt with the infamous case of incest. The Jerusalem Council’s line in the sand was so clear, that for centuries, there really wasn’t any significant movement within Christianity to challenge the Biblical view of sex. Until the past few decades. And now we need to draw that line again. The battle for the soul of the church today is not primarily about who the members of the Trinity really are, or how we are to be saved. The Sexual Revolution has opened Pandora’s Box in our culture. It’s our job, as the restrainers of unrighteousness, to do all we can with the Lord’s help, to try to close it again, and clean up the heartbreak it has caused. The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers did a great job in their day of defining what Christianity was and wasn’t. We owe it to the Lord, to them, to our children and grandchildren, and to our world, to do as good a job as they did, speaking the truth in love.
Because of the hollow silence of the church on the issue of sexual immorality for so many decades, confusion about sexual identity and all the related issues is now reigning. Let’s draw a line in the sand together, using the Word of God as our measuring stick, and help our confused culture come to know the certainty of salvation in Jesus, along with the joy of sexual purity.