SAET Blog

Author Archive

  • February 16, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    T-Shirt Fundraiser

    Hey everyone, beginning tomorrow our family is participating in a fundraising contest through a great organization called “Ordinary Hero.” They have a great selection of T-Shirts for men, women, and children, all of which promote adoption. The idea behind the name “Ordinary Hero” is that everyone who supports, or is involved in, international adoption is an ordinary hero. So by buying a T-Shirt you support international adoption and become an Ordinary Hero. And who doesn’t want to be a hero?

    Here’s how the contest works: we get money every time someone (you) buys a T-Shirt through our account. But wait — there’s more! The three families who sell the most T-Shirts win an additional $500 grant.

    The contest runs for one week, starting Friday morning (Feb 17). We hope you’ll head on over to the Ordinary Hero store and pick up a T-Shirt or two or seven!

    Please Note: When purchasing a T-Shirt on the Ordinary Hero site, you must click on our name in a drop down menu during check out to ensure the we receives credit for your purchase.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand

    0 Comments

  • February 2, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Sex, Dating, and Relationships: Wrap-Up

    Ambrose once said, “The condition of the mind is often seen in the attitude of the body….Thus the movement of the body is a sort of voice of the soul” (On the Duties of Clergy, I.18). Indeed it is. And nowhere does the voice of the soul speak louder than in our sexuality. Sex carries such significance in our lives because it was ordained by God to point toward that which is most significant—Christ’s relationship with the church. Thus the misuse of sex damages us in ways that other bodily sins do not. As the Apostle Paul states, “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body (1 Corinthians 6:18).

    For too long pastors and Christian leaders have neglected to provide definitive instruction about the appropriate boundaries of premarital relationships. Telling singles that the Bible has nothing explicit to say about premarital sexual activity beyond its prohibition against intercourse is an unacceptable fulfillment of our pastoral responsibility. Sexual ethics are simply too important. We must say something. And as I have labored to show in these posts, the Scriptures have more to say about premarital ethics than many of us have been led to believe.

    While “thou shall not make out” is not as explicit as “thou shall not commit adultery,” the Bible does indeed offer us a clear sexual ethic: sexual activity is to be reserved for the marriage relationship. When we combine this sexual ethic with an intuitive understanding that sexual activity includes more than sexual intercourse, we can confidently conclude that all forms of sexual activity—even sexual forms of kissing—must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

    The reigning premarital sexual ethic of evangelicalism is muddled and unclear. The pressing need of the moment is for evangelical pastors and leaders to articulate a clearer, more pastorally responsible premarital ethic—one that is biblically authoritative, theologically robust, and sufficiently objective. And that is the very thing we’ve tried hard to do in our book.

    For all the posts in this series, see below:

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | SAET Fellow Publications | sexuality

    0 Comments

  • February 2, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 3: Thou Shall Not Make Out?

    Given the cultural dynamics of the ancient world, New Testament proof texts on premarital sexual ethics are in short supply. In a culture that prized female virginity, utilized arranged marriages, and often practiced cloistering, the authors of the New Testament had no need to be overly specific regarding chastity rules for premarital relationships. Simply put, the reigning ethic—even in the pagan culture—was, “keep your hands off my daughter.” Thus we cannot expect the Bible to offer us a detailed list about which activities (e.g., fondling, kissing, oral sex, etc.) are permissible in premarital relationships.

    Yet despite the lack of an explicit statement about “how far is too far” in premarital relationships, the New Testament does offer us a clear sexual ethic: sexual relations are to be reserved for the marriage relationship. Adultery (Romans 2:22), homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9), prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:12-20), fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8), and polygamy (1 Timothy 3:2) are all explicitly condemned in the New Testament. Additionally, the New Testament uses the term πορνεία (sexual immorality) as a “catch all” term to forbid all extra-marital sexual activity. As has been shown by New Testament scholars, πορνεία is properly understood against the backdrop of the Torah, and thus adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and prostitution—all condemned by the Torah—fall within its semantic range.[1] We find a working example of this basic ethical framework, specifically as it relates to premarital sexual activity, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. Discussing celibacy and marriage, Paul writes,

    I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.  To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (ESV).

    Here Paul is responding to a series of questions posed to him by the Corinthians. Many at Corinth viewed celibacy as the ideal Christian state. Even married individuals, it seems, were attempting to live a celibate life.[2] Paul notes his own commitment to celibacy and agrees that celibacy is indeed ideal for increasing one’s capacity to serve in Christ’s kingdom. Yet Paul rec­ognizes that the ability to live a chaste and celibate life is a unique gift from God—one that God has not given to everyone. Given the ever-present temptation toward sexual immorality, Paul instructs those who have a strong desire for sexual intimacy (i.e., “burn with pas­sion”) to fulfill that desire within the context of a marriage relationship. The implications here are clear: the marriage relationship is the only legitimate context for sexual activity. Given the clear teaching of the New Testament, the church—broadly construed—has historically viewed sexual relations as appropriate only within the context of a monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage.[3]

    Thus far we have broken no new ground. Nearly all evangelical pastors and ministry leaders agree that sexual activity should be reserved for the marriage relationship. [4] But it is here that evangelical sexual ethics begin to flounder. Our problem is not that we have failed to recognize the New Testament’s prohibition against premarital sexual activity; rather we have failed to fully reckon with the reality that there is more to sexual activity than intercourse. Oral sex, fondling, and mutual masturbation, for example, are all sexual activities. It is inconceivable that the New Testament’s ethic—in as much as it is an extension of the Torah—intends to leave room for such activities outside of marriage. Once we embrace the biblical ideal that sexual activity must be reserved for the marriage relationship, the question, “How far is too far?”—a perennially vexing question for singles—is easily answered. If an activity is sexual, it is to be reserved for the marriage relationship.

    Yet for the sake of clarity we must press this farther. Beyond the seemingly obvious activities above, there is real confusion among evangelicals about what constitutes sexual activity. There are a wide array of physical activities that are inherently non-sexual; holding hands, a kiss on the cheek, a peck on the lips, hugging, walking arm in arm, etc., are all non-sexual activities. While sexual arousal may indeed accompany such activities, the activities themselves are not inherently sexual. But there are other physical activities that are exclusively sexual. It is these activities (at least) that must be reserved for the marriage relationship. But how are we to tell which is which?

    Perhaps the most objective way to determine the sexual nature of an activity is to consider it against the backdrop of the family relationship. Within the context of family relations, there are certain physical forms of affection that are inappropriate (fondling, oral sex, etc.). And the reason they are inappropriate is precisely because such activities are sexual. Thus we can quickly intuit which activities are sexual by considering an activity within the context of the family relationship. If an activity would be sexually inappropriate to do with a biological relative, then that action is clearly of a sexual nature. Or again, the activities that we intuitively exclude from family relationships because those activities are sexual, are, in fact, sexual activities. To clarify, note here that this way of identifying sexual activity is not primarily concerned about what I would (or would not) do with my mother, but rather about what is deemed to be generally appropriate between biological relatives. While a particular man might never hold hands with his mother (given the interpersonal dynamics of their relationship), that same man would not view it as sexually inappropriate for a mother and son to hold hands. If Genesis 26:28 is any indication, even ancient pagan cultures have distinguished between sexual and non-sexual activity via the context of the family relationship.

    This criterion becomes enormously helpful when considering appropriate premarital boundaries, particularly as it relates to one of the most common activities in contemporary dating relationships: passionate kissing. Many (perhaps most) Christian dating couples regularly engage in passionate kissing. And for the most part, evangelical pastors and leaders have not provided definitive, biblical counsel here. Clearly some forms of kissing are non-sexual. Fathers kiss their children, and sons their mothers. But there are other forms of kissing that men reserve exclusively for their lovers. And the reason they do so is because such forms of kissing are sexual. When we consider passionate kissing against the backdrop of the family relationship it quickly becomes clear that passionate kissing is not merely affectionate, but sexual. Under no circumstances would it ever be appropriate for a brother and sister to engage in passionate kissing. Thus we may properly conclude the following:

    1) All sexual activity must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

    2) Some forms of kissing are sexual. Therefore,

    3) Sexual forms of kissing must be reserved for the marriage relationship.

    The logic of the above is, I believe, inescapable. In order to legitimize sexual forms of kissing in a premarital relationship, one would need to, 1) provide a cogent rationale for why passionate kissing is not sexual; or alternately, 2) legitimize at least some sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship. The first is counter-intuitive to the way human sexuality actually functions. The second runs counter to the ethic of the New Testament.

    The objective definition provided by the family test is not the last word on sexual purity. There is, of course, more to purity than how one behaves with the body (Matthew 5:27). And every “objective” boundary can be worked around by sin-inspired creativity. But in spite of its limitations, it does provide a solid framework for clearly identifying which bodily activities are inherently sexual. Humans are embodied beings; as such, we need an embodied ethic. While it may be a sexual act for a particular man to look at (talk to, etc.) a particular woman, it is always a sexual act when he does something with her that would be sexually inappropriate between blood relatives. To be sure, there may be good reasons to refrain also from non-sexual acts of intimacy outside of the marriage relationship.[5] If Jesus condemns even the look that leads to inappropriate sexual desire, how much more the touch (sexual or not) that leads to inappropriate sexual desire. But while wisdom may often call for a more restrictive posture than what is required by the family ethic, it never calls for less.

    Pastors and ministry leaders have been sending a mixed message about premarital sexual activity. On the one hand, in keeping with the sexual ethic of the New Testament, we’ve clearly articulated that sexual activity should be reserved for the marriage relationship. But on the other hand we’ve largely ignored—or actually legitimatized—sexual forms of kissing. We are in effect saying that while sexual activity is not permissible in premarital relationships, sexual activity is permissible in premarital relationships. If the preceding sentence doesn’t make sense to the readers of this post, it’s not making sense to singles either.

    At its heart, the New Testament ethic calls for premarital relationships to be completely non-sexual. Sexual forms of kissing fall afoul of this ethic, likewise any activity that is sexually inappropriate between blood relatives. Simply put, if an activity is inherently sexual, it is to be reserved for the marriage relationship.

    [1] Etymologically, πορνεία referred to prostitution or fornication, but was frequently used more broadly to denote any and all forms of sexual misconduct. For an analysis of the use of πορνεία in the New Testament, see Raymond Collins, Ethics and the New Testament: Behavior and Belief (New York: Cross Road Publishing Company, 2000), 80-83; William Loader, Sexuality in the New Testament: Understanding the Key Texts (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2010) 71-76. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2007), 73. The terms ἀσέλγεια (sexual immorality, impurity) and κοίτη (sexual immorality, lasciviousness), also function as general terms denoting sexual misconduct, but are used in the New Testament with less frequency. For the full range of terms denoting sexual misconduct, see the entry in Louw-Nida on sexual misbehavior (88.271-88.282).

    [2] My brief reconstruction here follows the standard interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, i.e., that Paul is addressing a form of asceticism. For interpretations along these lines, see Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (Louiseville, KY: Westminster, 2004), 77, and Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., SP (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 253. Contra this reading, see Barry Danylak, Redeeming Singleness: How the Storyline of Scripture Affirms the Single Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010). In either case, my central point above remains valid regardless the extent to which the ascetic question is resolved.

    [3] Only in relatively recent times has this sexual ethic been questioned. The contemporary rise of homosexuality, combined with a post-modern way of reading texts, has raised questions about the church’s traditional sexual ethic. For a detailed analysis of the New Testament’s sexual ethic, see Collins, Ethics and the New Testament; Loader, Sexuality in the New Testament; Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.

    [4] The Colorado Statement on Biblical Sexual Morality offers us a standard evangelical articulation: “Sex outside of marriage is never moral. This includes all forms of intimate sexual stimulation that stir up sexual passion between unmarried partners.”  Quoted in Heimbach, True Sexual Morality, 370.

    [5] Even non-sexual touch can arouse sexual desire. Further, physical affection (whether sexual or not), makes a statement about one’s intentions, and often creates misplaced expectations. For a discussion about the mixed messages men and women send to each other via non-sexual interaction, see my Raising Purity, 53-100.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | SAET Fellow Publications | sexuality

    0 Comments

  • January 30, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 2: Theological Foundations

    In chapter one of our book, Sex, Dating and Relationships: A Fresh Approach, Jay and I seek to lay out a theological foundation for everything we say later in the book about sexual ethics (and dating). The book is pitched at the popular level, but as I stated in my first post in this series, I think more robust theological work on this topic  is in order. What follows below  is an extended excerpt from an essay I’ve been writing on premarital sexual ethics that seeks to develop more fully the central theological argument of our book…

    When it comes to sexual ethics, constructing a  theological, Christocentric framework need not take us long. As it happens, Paul provides us with an obviously Christocentric reading of sex in Ephesians 5:30–32. In what is certainly the New Testament’s most developed treatment of sex and marriage, Paul pointedly describes the sexual relationship within marriage as an image of the spiritual relationship between Christ and the church.  For Paul, sex and marriage typologically point beyond themselves to an ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s marriage to the church. Which is to say, sex is fundamentally about Christ and the gospel. Note carefully the significance of the last sentence of verse 32 within its context.

    For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (ESV, emphasis added).

    Paul is here discussing the relational dynamics of Christian marriage.  And as he gives instruction to husbands and wives about how they are to treat one other, he draws a tight parallel between human marriage and Christ’s relationship with the church. The way Christ treats the church, Paul tells us, serves as the pattern for the way in which a husband is to treat his wife.  And the way the church relates to Christ is the way a wife is to relate to her husband. But by what logic does Paul ask husbands and wives to relate to one another as Christ and the church?  The answer is found in verse 32. The sexual oneness of human marriage, Paul tells us, “refers to Christ and the church.” Drawing upon the ancient marriage formula of Genesis 2:24, Paul reveals that sexual oneness within marriage was created by God to serve as a typological foreshadowing of the spiritual oneness that has now begun to exist between Christ and his church. The New Testament’s many references to the church as the “bride” of Christ, and to Christ as the “bridegroom” further highlights this parallel.  Additionally, many of Christ’s parables use the wedding motif as an illustration of his return and consummate union with the church. And the book of Revelation explicitly refers to the wedding supper of the Lamb as inaugurating the dawn of the eternal age.[1]

    What Paul says here about marriage is equally true about sex itself. True Christian marriage cannot be constituted apart from sexual union. The phrase “οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν” (the two shall be one flesh), used in 5:31 speaks specifically about sexual union, not simply marital union in a general, legal sense. (See 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul deploys the identical “one flesh” phrase to denote sexual union with a prostitute.) Within the context of the Ephesians passage, the metaphor of bodily union (i.e., head to body) is tied intimately to the sexual relationship. For Paul, sex establishes and creates the bodily union upon which true marriage is based.[2] Thus Paul’s statement that marriage is a type of Christ’s relationship to the church is at the same time a statement that sexual union is a type of Christ’s spiritual union with the church (again see 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 for this close parallel).

    And of course this makes sense when we consider the relational dynamics of sex. Sex, when understood from a Christocentric framework, is the mutual self-giving and joyful receiving of the husband and wife. When a man pursues a woman sexually he is seeking her surrender, the complete yielding of herself to him. But what he desires in her surrender (even if he does not realize it) is not simply the surrendering of her body as a material object, but rather her openness to receive him as gift. In sex the man offers himself to the woman; he seeks to place himself within her—both his physical body and his seed, his life. In this offering of his seed, he offers himself. He offers himself to her as gift, and he finds his joy in her opening herself to receive him as the gift he offers of himself.  And she, for her part, finds her joy in yielding herself to another before whom she is vulnerable, who is greater in power, but who uses this power and sovereignty not to seek his own ends, but to seek her joy in the giving of himself. And in this way she too is gift to him, for she gives herself as gift to him in that she opens within herself a place for him to dwell; she makes a home for him within herself and joyfully receives him. It is in this “room making” within herself whereby she welcomes him as gift, and thus gives herself as gift to him. In sum, the man gives himself as gift to the woman in the giving of himself, and she gives herself as gift to him in the joyful receiving within herself of him as gift to her. And it is this mutual self-giving and joyful receiving that constitutes the martial union.[3]

    All of this finds its deepest meaning in Christ’s relationship with the church. We give ourselves as gift to Christ in the free surrender of ourselves to him, that we might joyfully receive him as gift. He himself is the gift of grace that we receive, and we ourselves are the gift that we give to Christ. We find our joy in opening to him and making room for him to dwell within us, and he finds his joy in placing himself—and thus his life via his Holy Spirit—inside of us, and being joyfully received by us. Thus Paul frames up for us a view of sex and marriage whereby they are not ends in themselves, but rather are types of something higher, pointing to the deeper reality of the believer’s union with Christ. Just as the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament foreshadowed Christ’s atoning sacrifice in the New, so too the mutual self-giving and joyful receiving of spousal love “refers to Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:29).[4]

    Even without considering the explicit imperatives in the New Testament, Paul’s Christocentric reading of sex provides us with a theological framework for thinking about the whole of sexual ethics. In as much as sexual union functions as a living witness of the spiritual oneness between Christ and the church, our sexual conduct should be patterned after the way in which Christ and the church relate spiritually. The prohibitions against homosexuality, polygamy, incest, prostitution, fornication, bestiality—indeed all forms of πορνεία—find their ultimate explanation against the backdrop of this reality.[5]

    And most significantly, it is within this Christocentric framework that we can begin to think constructively about premarital sexual activity. In as much as God has ordained sex as a means of foreshadowing the one-spirit relationship between Christ and the church, we misuse our sexuality when we express it outside the context of the marriage relationship. Most fundamentally, our sexuality has not been given to us simply for our own use and pleasure. We are not self-referential. As eikons made in the image of God, all of our humanity—not least our sexuality—exists as a means of representing the One in whose image we have been made. Premarital sexual activity therefore, must be assessed in light of this fundamental context of meaning. Given the theological and typological import of sexual relations, it is difficult (if not impossible) to justify any amount of sexual activity outside the context of the marriage relationship, even if that sexual activity stops short of intercourse. The man who uses his sexuality in a premarital relationship fails to use his sexuality in a way consistent with the ordained intent of sex. God calls us to reserve our sexuality for the marriage relationship, because it is only in the marriage relationship that the image of Christ’s relationship to the church can be lived out.

    [1] The church has traditionally understood the marriage relationship through a typological framework.  So 2 Clement, “Now I do not suppose that you are ignorant of the fact that the living church is the body of Christ, for the Scripture says, ‘God created humankind male and female.’ The male is Christ; the female is the church,” 2 Clement 14:2.  Also Augustine, “It is of Christ and the Church that this is most truly understood, ‘the twain shall be one flesh,’” On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, I.60.  And of course Catholic theology views the marriage relationship in a sacramental (and thus typological) sense. See Thomas, Summa III.42.1, and John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, (Boston, Mass.: Pauline Books and Media, 2006), cat. 87-102. The Reformers—given Reformation polemics—were less sanguine about highlighting the typological nature of the marriage relationship. But Calvin nonetheless states, “Christ has appointed the same relation to exist between a husband and a wife, as between himself and his church,” Commentary on Ephesians. So too Luther, while denying that types are inherently sacramental, still affirms, “Christ and the church are…a great and secret thing which can and ought to be represented in terms of marriage as a kind of outward allegory,” The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Edwards, who did not share the Reformer’s reservations, stated explicitly, “[Christ is] united to you by a spiritual union, so close as to be fitly represented by the union of the wife to the husband,” The Excellency of Christ (1758). Barth also follows this pattern in his extended comments on the relationship between men and women. See his Church Dogmatics, III.2, 285-324. Many modern evangelical commentators embrace this typological interpretation as well. See Obrien’s, The Letter to the Ephesians, (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1999), 428-36; Ray Ortlund, Jr., God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1996) 152-59; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians: Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas, Tx.: Word Books, 1990), 352-53; and John Stott, The Message of the Ephesians, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1979), 230-31.

    [2] In the ancient world—far more than today—sex was viewed as the means by which a marriage was constituted. However, even in the ancient world there was more to marriage than sex (e.g., see John 4:18 and the woman at the well). Marriage in the ancient world began at betrothal—generally a formal agree­ment between the families of the bride and groom. For more on marriage in the ancient world, see Ken M. Campbell, ed., Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003).

    [3] I am indebted to John Paul II’s work on marital love as the gift of self for this way of framing sexual relations. See his Man and Woman.

    [4] This typological reading of sex can be found throughout the church’s history. Among the Fathers, Origen is noteworthy; see his Commentary and Homilies on the Song of Songs. Medieval exegetes likewise read spousal love in this way. See especially St John of the Cross’, Spiritual Canticle, and Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermons on the Song of Songs. For recent interpretations, see John Paul II’s, Man and Woman, especially pp. 500-03, and Peter Leithart, “The Poetry of Sex,” published online at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/01/the-poetry-of-sex, accessed Jan 17, 2012.

    [5] In brief, homosexuality fails to denote the union of the masculine and the feminine (i.e., the strong and the vulnerable); prostitution, divorce and adultery fail to denote Christ’s single-minded fidelity to his bride; incest fails to portray the union of dissimilar natures (i.e., the divine and human). See Gerald Hiestand, Raising Purity, Helping Parents Understand the Bible’s Perspective on Sex, Dating and Relationship, Third Edition (Rolling Meadows, Ill.: Iustificare Press, 2010), 156.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | sexuality

    0 Comments

  • January 28, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Being a “Righteous” Man…

    Matthew 1:19, “And her husband Joseph, being a just (δίκαιος) man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (ESV).

    Somehow I always had in the back of my mind–vague, to be sure–that Joseph’s righteousness was evident in his unwillingness to marry an adulterous woman. But the point of this verse, when read more carefully, is that Joseph’s righteousness was evident in his not wanting to expose Mary to public shame.

    Which is to say, mercy is as a native part of righteousness.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand

    0 Comments

  • January 27, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Sex, Dating, and Relationships, Part 1: An Introduction to the Problem

    One of the more vexing issues facing pastors today is the question of premarital sexual ethics. Simply put, we pastors are not quite certain how to counsel singles and teens regarding appropriate sexual boundaries. Of course, we clearly teach that sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage. But beyond this, there is no consensus among evangelical clergy about where the boundaries should be drawn. Instead we tend to push the burden of this question back onto singles. One pastor typifies the counsel regularly given by evangelical clergy:

    “You may want me to tell you, in much more detail, exactly what’s right for you when it comes to secular boundaries [in dating relationships]. But in the end, you have to stand before God. That’s why you must set your own boundaries according to His direction for your life. . . . I want you to build your own list of sexual standards” ( Clark, I Gave Dating a Chance, 108-09).

    But do we really mean to say that Christian singles should “build their own list of sexual standards?” Certainly this can’t be right. Is oral sex permissible? Fondling? Mutual masturbation? Passionate kissing? No one seems to really know. Certainly Christian singles don’t know. And the confusion here is no small matter. There is every reason to suspect that our lack of clear direction regarding premarital boundaries is putting singles in a precarious position. The September/October 2011 edition of Relevant Magazine includes a remarkable update regarding evangelical sexual ethics. In the article, “(Almost) Everyone’s Doing It” author Tyler Charles, drawing upon data gathered by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy, informs us that forty-two percent of evangelicals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine are currently in a sexual relationship, twenty-two percent have had sex in the past year, and an additional ten percent have had sex at least once. Assuming the accuracy of Charles’ data, this means only twenty-percent of young evangelicals have remained abstinent.

    Even if the survey’s data were wrong by half (see DeYoung’s comments), the numbers would still be concerning. And as a pastor, I am indeed concerned. In my own experience, I see a significant amount of confusion and compromise among Christian teens and singles, particularly as it relates to premarital sexual ethics. Sometimes Christians flounder because the Church fails to address crucial issues; sometimes they flounder because the leaders of the church address crucial issues wrongly. Both the former and the latter, I believe, are at work here. On the one hand, evangelical scholars and theologians have devoted a paucity of attention (if any) to the issue of premarital sexual ethics; we’ve left it to popular-level books to plumb the Scriptures teaching on this matter. And when pastors do speak explicitly to this issue, we send a confusing and mixed message. We’ve told Christian singles that it’s fine (or at least might be fine, or at least we can’t say it’s not fine) to prepare the meal, set the table, put the food in their mouth, and chew—just as long as they don’t swallow. We’ve left the door open to sexual foreplay, while insisting that singles refrain from consummating that foreplay. In essence, we’re telling Christians singles that it is (or might be) permissible to start having sex, just as long as they don’t finish. It is little wonder then, that many Christian singles—while largely agreeing that intercourse should be reserved for marriage —find themselves unable to live out their own ideal.

    Does the Bible really have nothing definitive to say about premarital sexual ethics, beyond a narrow prohibition against sexual intercourse? Can we construct a theology of sexual relations that informs the question of premarital sexual boundaries?  What implications would a more objective view of premarital sexual ethics have for contemporary dating relationships?

    Answering the above questions is the aim of my new book, written along with my friend Jay Thomas, Sex, Dating, and Relationships: A Fresh Approach (Crossway, 2012). The book comes out at the end of February and is written at a popular level, targeting Christian singles between the ages of 18-35. (I thought about doing a provocative book trailer, but decided against it. I can see it now… Did Ghandi believe in dating? Really?). Anyway, while the book won’t be as controversial as Bell’s book on Hell, it will, I’m certain, generate some discussion among those who read it. Jay and I worked hard to offer a biblical, objective premarital sexual ethic that is consistent with a larger theological understanding of sexuality. The conclusion we reach is pretty counter-cultural even within our evangelical sub-culture. By way of teaser, let me give the punchline: making out between unmarried men and women is a sin, and represents the first stages of sexual immorality.

    I’ll be using the next few posts to lay out the basic argument of the book, in anticipation of the book’s release. Stay tuned.

    Categories: Book Reviews | General | Gerald Hiestand | SAET Fellow Publications | sexuality

    2 Comments

  • January 3, 2012 by Gerald Hiestand

    Plodding Toward Consummation

    This from my sermon this past Sunday, preached on John 5:39, where Christ tells us that the most fundamental point of Scripture is that they “bear witness” to Christ.

    Relating to Christ through the Scriptures is not at all unlike relating to your spouse in marriage. Just as not every moment in a healthy, loving marriage will involve passion and romance, so too not every moment in Scripture will be attended with spiritual goose bumps. The bulk of both relationships are lived in the day to day—without fanfare or fireworks. But it is precisely our fidelity in the day to day experiences that makes the moments of marital and spiritual consummation precisely that—consummation. Consummation is the summing up of the whole. It is the celebration and bringing together of everything that makes a thing the thing that it is.

    In respect to marriage, bodily union is the consummation of the whole shared life of marriage—the mundane, the exciting, the beautiful, the difficult, the grievous, the joyful. And in respect to the Bible, Christ is the consummation of the entire biblical narrative. Without fidelity to the whole of the biblical narrative—plodding, as it were, through Numbers and Leviticus and the Minor Prophets—there is no narrative to consummate. But if we are patient, faithful attention to the whole story of Scripture will yield consummating, Christological moments. And indeed, such moments will be all the richer because we’ve steadily plodded through the entirety of the narrative.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | Scripture

    0 Comments

  • December 31, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

    Scripture as Sacrament?

    Augustine famously defines a sacrament as “a visible word” — a visible sign of an invisible grace.   Lombard and the Scholastics take this farther (or “clarify”, if you’re Catholic), and assert that the sign not only signifies Christ and his work, but also dispenses the grace that it signifies. Thus Thomas defines a sacrament as, “The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men” (Summa III.60.2).

    I’m preaching a sermon this Sunday on the Christian’s motivation for reading the Bible… And it’s struck me that most low-church evangelicals adopt an essentially sacramental view of Scripture, in this later Thomistic sense. We see the Bible as a holy book (i.e., an external sign) about Christ that uniquely mediates the grace of Christ to those who read it through the eyes of faith.

    Of course, there’s nothing unique about this view of Scripture reading — it’s consistent with the way Christians have always read the Bible, at lease since Origen. But there’s a certain irony here in that we low-church protestants view the Scriptures in a sacramental sense, but don’t view the sacraments in a sacramental sense.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | Scripture | sacraments

    9 Comments

  • December 29, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

    The Christology of John (And George Beasely-Murray)

    Following up on this post, here’s George R. Beasley-Murray’s comments on John 4:46-5:47:

    The evangelist reveals to us a Christ who on one hand can neither utter a word nor perform an act without the Father’s direction, and enabling. On the other hand, by virtue of that direction and enabling, preforms the works of God, including the ultimate works of raising humanity for life in the perfected kingdom of God and for judgment. The properties of the concept of Jesus as the Son of the Father are seen here with clarity. As the Son he owes his Father total obedience, but as the Son he is one with the Father. The paradox runs through the gospel and appears most starkly expressed in the utterances of 14:28 and 10:30: “The Father is greater than I”; “I and the Father are one” (Word Biblical Commentary, 79).

    I’ve no idea where Beasley-Murray lands on the gender debates, but the framework he offers here is consistent with the way complementarians approach Christology.

    Categories: Christology | General | Gerald Hiestand

    0 Comments

  • December 21, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

    Christology, Gender, and the Fathers

    Many complementarians believe that 1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches a kind of functional (not ontological) subordination of Christ to God. While the Father and the Son are equal in essence (pertaining to ontology), the Son voluntarily submits his will to that of the Father (i.e., the Son freely chooses to make himself  functionally subordinate to the Father). This functional subordination between Father and Son is then seen as the anti-type of the functional (not ontological) subordination of the wife to her husband. Or to state it again, the voluntary submission of the wife to the husband is seen as an expression/image/type of the intra-Trinitarian relationship (a typology basically identical to the Christ/Church relationship in Ephesians 5). Of course, the whole complementarian position in this regard hangs on the idea that Christ is indeed functionally subordinate to God. Egalitarians (naturally) don’t agree, and have accused complementarians of espousing a neo-Arian Christology. Consequently, both sides have sought to recruit the church Fathers to their side. Did the church Fathers recognize a functional subordination between the members of the Godhead (Christ to God, and the Holy Spirit to both God and Christ)? Or is any form of subordination beyond the pale of Trinitarian orthodoxy?

    Ad Fontes!
    It seemed to me that a profitable way of determining the Church Father’s position on this subject  was to examine the ways in which the Fathers handled the key texts of the current debate, most notably 1 Corinthians 11:3, John 14:6, 1 Corinthians 15:28-29, and the various passages which speak about the Father sending the Son. Key to this whole discussion is the extent to which the Son as God submits to the Father. Everyone (I think) generally agrees that the Son voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father during his brief sojourn on earth. But egalitarians insists that this subordination was a mere thirty-three year ordeal, and that upon Christ’s ascension he returned to “equal footing” with the Father, so to speak. What do the Fathers say? We may here profitably consult the Trinitarian writings of Augustine, Athanasius, Gregory of Nanzianus, and Gregory of Nyssa—arguably the four most important early Church Fathers regarding Trinitarian theology. Generally speaking, here’s how they handled the passages noted above. . .

    When the Scriptures speak of Christ submitting to the Father, we should understand this to be a submission of Christ’s humanity. Gregory of Nazianzus writes:

    What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that nature in him which is superior to suffering and incorporeal: but all that is lowly to the composite condition of him who for your sakes made himself of no reputation and was incarnate—yes, for it is no worse thing to say—was made man, and afterwards was also exalted (Theological Orations, 18).

    And Augustine agrees,

    But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men, many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation, and is eternal (De Trinitate, 1.7).

    Likewise Athanasius, in describing the root error of Arian exegesis,

    “They…expound of Christ’s divinity that which belongs to his manhood” (First Discourse Against the Arians, 13.55)

    Thus, according to patristic exegesis, whenever Scripture speaks about Christ being somehow “less” than the Father, we are to understand this as a reference to Christ’s humanity. Thus, the Son does not submit to the Father qua Son, but rather submits to the Father as the incarnate God-man—the theanthropos. This interpretive framework is seen pretty clearly in the way the Augustine handles 1 Corinthians 15:28-29. In this passage, Paul states that Christ will subject himself to God in order that God may be all in all (the time frame of this passage is clearly eschatological). Augustine interprets this to mean that Christ as theanthropos submits himself as anthropos—and thus all of humanity with him—to God the Father (of whom the Son as theos is an equal).

    A Synthesis
    At first pass, this reading of the Fathers seems to support the egalitarian position. The Son doesn’t submit to the Father qua Son, but only as man. But hold on. In as much as the incarnation is an eternal reality, a perpetual inequality of nature is present in the relationship between God the Father and Christ’s human nature. While the Son remains homousia with the Father in his divinity (he is eternally God of very God, begotten not made, etc.), the Son as theanthropos—in as much as he is now also fully human—is also ontologically inferior to the Father in his humanity. In short, the Son is ontologically equal to God in his divine nature, and ontologically inferior to God in his human nature. Which is to say that the Son is both equal to, and less then, himself!

    While its true the Fathers don’t like to ascribe any kind of subjection (functional or otherwise) to Christ’s divinity, they are quite ready to acknowledge that Christ’s human nature is inferior to God’s nature. And here’s where egalitarian Christology stumbles a bit. The egalitarian position fails to reckon with a perpetual incarnation; the incarnation was not a mere thirty-three year sojourn. Christ remains eternally theanthropos. Thus even if the Son as Son does not subordinate himself to the Father, the Son as theanthropos does voluntarily submit himself to the Father—and even now continues to do so. The Son is now and forever theanthropos, and thus in some fashion his human nature is in perpetual subjection to the Father (and indeed to the Son’s own divine nature). Christ, as the everlasting theanthropos, shows us eternally what true human obedience to the Father looks like.

    Thus, in as much as the man/woman relationship of 1 Corinthians 11:3  runs parallel with the God/Christ relationship, it does in this sense does appropriately entail both love and respect, as a reflection of the love and respect inherent within the God/Christ relationship.  Pragmatically speaking, this way of framing things gives us the same result as the standard complementarian typology—deference and authority are viewed as everlasting elements of the Godhead, and as beautiful aspects of creation. And going this route grounds the complementarian typology more adequately in the Fathers.

    A Few Loose Ends
    It should be pointed out that the Fathers were battling against Arianism, and thus were very hesitant in any way to suggest that the Son was subordinate to the Father. One wonders if they would have been more favorable to complementarian exegesis under less polemical circumstances. One gets this sense in at least two areas where the Fathers affirm at least some form of priority to God the Father. In the first instance, the sending of the Son by the Father speaks of  the Father’s superior position within the Godhead. God the Father sends God the Son qua Son, not merely as theanthropos. It was fitting, Augustine says, that the Father would send the Son and not the Son send the Father. (Augustine seems to be working from the assumption that the greater sends the lesser. His explanation in all of this gets pretty convoluted, and frankly, I’m not sure I follow his logic.)  Additionally, the Fathers interpret John 14:6 as a reference to the Father’s generation of the Son as Son; the Father is “greater” than the Son in as much as the Father generates the Son and not vice versa (Athanasius, First Discourse Against the Arians, 13.58).

    In all of this, though, I’m wondering how to think about person-hood. It seems to me that obedience/submission is rendered by a person, not by a nature. In as much as Christ’s person is divine, in what way does that factor into his submission to his heavenly Father? In what sense can the Son submit his “nature” to the Father without submitting his person? And if if he is submitting his person, than isn’t that one divine person submitting to another divine person?

    Categories: Gender | General | Gerald Hiestand | Trinity

    2 Comments
« Previous Entries