Volume 6: Issue 6 | Dec 2023
The Gospel and Marriage
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
– I Corinthians 7:1-16
Remember last week’s sermon, “The Gospel and the Body.” Paul's focus was the sexual immorality being condoned by some in the Corinthian Church. How does he rebuke their sexual immorality? He does it in a profound way. He attacks the incorrect view of the human body asserted by some in Corinth: that the body means nothing, so we can use it however we like, even going to prostitutes for pleasure. However, the body is not ours but the Lord’s, “and the Lord for the body.” God raised up the Lord in his body, and by his power will also raise us up in our bodies. When we are united to Jesus Christ by faith through the power of the Spirit, we are united to him not just as souls. We are united to him as human beings, body and soul. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” he asks.
Thus, at the end of I Corinthians 6, we have this high view of the body that stands in direct opposition to the prevailing Greco-Roman notion at the time that only one’s soul matters. Bodies? We're just, you know, we're walking around in these bodies for a short period of time. We'll die. We'll be rid of them. And that's that. Against that attitude, Paul gives us this wonderfully high view of the body. It is for the Lord! He will raise it up, just as the Father raised up the human body of his Son. We are members of Christ, body and soul. Therefore, it is imperative that we do what Paul says: "Flee sexual immorality."
But you know about the pendulum effect. If you have one error, what do people often do? They reject that error and swing to its opposite, which often has the same roots as the first error. We see that pendulum effect in the church in Corinth. One group visits prostitutes and says that is okay. The other group says to reject even sexual relations between husband and wife. Both groups devalue the human body: one says the body doesn’t matter so you can do what you want with it; the other says the body doesn’t matter, so do nothing with it. Both agree that only the soul matters.
Now, read I Corinthians, chapter 7, and you may wonder half a dozen times, “What is Paul actually teaching about marriage and sex?” This is a difficult passage and it stays difficult all the way to verse 40. You can even find scholarly articles asserting things like this: “Paul is this dodgy old bachelor who just has a superior attitude, that his singleness is so much better than marriage, and boy, he wishes everyone wasn't so spiritually weak so they could be like him, since singleness is far better spiritually than marriage.” So let’s look at chapter 7 carefully.
Paul begins, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me." Leaving things that he had heard about the church in Corinth in chapters 1-6, Paul turns to questions that they had sent to him, beginning in chapter 7. What was their first question? It comes at the end of verse 1. It is about what some in Corinth were saying: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." There were Christians in Corinth – we'll call them the “super-spirituals” – who said the body is not important. The body is lesser than the spirit. We are above all of this, so we will have nothing to do with sexual relations at all, ever, with anyone. Maybe they remember what Jesus said about marriage in glory, after the resurrection, when there will be no more marriage and we will be like the angels. So they were saying, “Let’s pursue that ideal now: no marriage. 'It is not good for a man to touch a woman.' Sex is not for Christians.” This hyper-pseudo-spirituality had infiltrated the Corinthian church and caused damage. It harms marriages, and it burdens consciences.
Both to refute the error and to reverse its harm, Paul addresses four separate groups in the church, beginning with married couples. What does this super-spiritual slogan, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” mean for them? It means stop all sex. In the present day the Roman Catholic Church has a category called the “Josephite Marriage,” where they try to live that way. You can look it up.
What does the Spirit of God speaking through Paul actually say to married couples? It is the opposite of the super-spiritual slogan, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The advice is that sexual intimacy should be a regular aspect of a Christian marriage. Abstinence from sexual relations, if it happens, must only be temporary, and for the specific purpose of fasting and prayer, for a limited period of time, with both husband and wife agreeing. In verse 6, Paul writes that such abstinence is only a concession, not a commandment. Married Christians never have to abstain at all, and neither husband nor wife should impose abstinence on the other, lest Satan find an opening to tempt one or both of them.
What about a second group, formerly married people, widowers and widows? The “super-spirituals” were telling them never to marry again! What does Paul write? Of course you can remarry.
I have to stop here and deal with a translation issue. Literally, Paul wrote “unmarried” rather than “widower,” and that is how our translation leaves it. In ancient Greek, there's a specific word for widows, so if you wanted to refer to widowers you said “unmarried” because all respectable free men married. So Paul writes to widowers – “unmarried” in the Greek, remember – and widows, and he writes, “Of course you can remarry.” Of course they can also remain single, but if they are not exercising self-control, they should remarry. “Remarry if you are not exercising self-control in that state; better to marry than for sin to abound.”
What about separated couples, our third group? The “super-spirituals” were saying, “If you can’t refrain from sex while you live together, then separate.” What does the Spirit say through Paul about that advice? Don't even think about it! “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”
If a wife disobeys and leaves her man, let her remain unmarried lest she commit adultery, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. How to abstain from sexual relations is a made-up problem by the terrible theology of the “super-spirituals,” which Paul remedies here by the command of the Lord: a husband and a wife are not to divorce, except in the case of adultery.
There's a fourth group that Paul addresses in verses 12 through 16. What happens if someone comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the spouse does not? Should they divorce? Is the relationship rendered illegitimate because one is now a believer and the other isn't? The “super-spirituals” said, “Divorce.” Paul speaking from his apostolic authority says that should never be. If any brother has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her let her not divorce him. The marriage is not illegitimate because one person comes to the Lord and the other does not.
Of course, Paul is not giving a justification for a believer to marry an unbeliever. Later on, in this same chapter, Paul commands that if a widow wishes to remarry it must be “in the Lord,” that is, to a fellow believer. But if a believer is already married to an unbeliever, he should not divorce the unbeliever.
The “super-spiritual” thought that an unbelieving spouse would defile a believer. No, Paul writes, it is the opposite. The believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving one. Listen to verse 14. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." That does not mean that there is guaranteed salvation for one spouse in a marriage if the other is a believer, but it means that things are different when one person believes. So, believer, do not initiate a divorce. “Who knows, maybe you will see your unbelieving spouse saved.”
We have looked at the four groups in Corinth that were hearing the “super-spirituals” say, “No sex, ever, with anyone. Be like the angels now.” The groups were married people, widowers and widows, separated marriages, and Christians married to unbelievers. Now I want to look more at two questions raised in what Paul writes here in chapter 7:1-16. The first one is, “What does Christian chastity look like in the context of marriage? What is healthy sexual intimacy in marriage?” The chaste Christian marriage looks like a husband and a wife mutually giving one to the other, with joy in that sexual intimacy known as a gift from the Creator. The “super-spirituals” could not be more wrong about sex in marriage.
What makes for healthy sexual relations within marriage? Paul’s overwhelming emphasis, not just in verses one through seven, but in this entire passage, is a radical mutuality of husband and wife. There has often been the idea that sex is mainly for the man. Not so. It is for both man and woman. Each is to delight in the other. What Paul wrote in verses 3-4 would have been unheard of in the ancient world. The Greeks and Romans saw the man as having ownership over his wife’s body, but not the other way round. But what does Paul say? "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her." His language is that of indebtedness. "And likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does and the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." That is the Word of God given through the Apostle Paul.
Today, right, it's all selfishness. People approach human sexuality according to what they want out of it. But for Paul it's not what I get but what I can give. It’s a command given to both parties. Both give. Both get. We give up our bodies when we marry. Therefore, sex in marriage should never be a tool, to give or withhold for shame or manipulation or punishment or coercion. There's an ancient Greek comedy titled Lysistrata, about women withholding sex from their husbands in order to force them to do what the women want and end the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Paul is saying to these new Christian Greeks and Romans, "None of that! None of that in Christian marriage. There has to be full, open, mutual self-giving."
Now, the second issue in this passage that we still have to talk about is Christians who are married to unbelievers. Of course, Paul does not ever justify entering into a marriage with an unbeliever, with the idea that, well, maybe they'll be saved after we get married. He gives the stringent command later in the chapter: a widow can marry but only in the Lord. Instead, it is an encouragement of heart for the believer who finds himself or herself married to an unbeliever. They are not defiled by that marriage with an unbeliever! Instead, their spouse is sanctified and set apart because this household now has someone united to the Lord Jesus. That is why we joyfully baptize infants of believers where only one of the two parents is a believer.
What should the unbelieving spouse think about his, or her, salvation? None should ever think, “Well, I have a Christian wife or I have a Christian husband, so I don't have to believe. I’m safe.” No, there's an implicit call in these verses that if you are yet an unbeliever, but you have a Christian wife or a Christian husband, hasten to the throne of grace to repent and to believe.
Likewise for the believing spouse! When Paul writes that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, it is not an encouragement to laziness but to action. Pray. Be a good husband or wife. Here, again, Paul is totally opposed to the super-spirituals, who would say, “Well, if you're married to an unbeliever, you need to pull away lest you be defiled,” just as they were saying to married people, “No more sex,” and to widows and widowers, “Don’t marry again.” Instead Paul says here, lean in to your marriages. Don't love your unbelieving spouse less because of his, or her, unbelief; if anything, press in all the more to love and to respect that unbelieving spouse. As Paul writes, “For how do you know, oh wife, whether you will save your husband or how do you know, oh husband whether you will save your wife?”
Finally, I do want to note those in our midst who are single because Paul will come round in due time to you, here in I Corinthians 7, and directly address your situation. The Gospel speaks both to married people and to unmarried people. But we will get to what the Word says to unmarried people in the coming weeks. For now, remember this: marriage is God’s gift to us. Let's pray.
– Alex Tabaka
A Particular Sin: Porneia
What sin does the Apostle Paul emphasize often in his letters? Read the following excerpts and see what you think. Certain passages are presented in bold, so you will immediately know what this writer thinks. Read them all.
ROMANS
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. (1:22-29)”
I CORINTHIANS
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. (6:9-11a)”
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (6:18-20)”
II CORINTHIANS
“For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced. (12:20-21)”
GALATIANS
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (5:19-21)”
EPHESIANS
“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love ... But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (5:1-5)”
COLOSSIANS
“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another. (3:5-9a)”
I THESSALONIANS
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (4:3-8)”
I TIMOTHY
“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1:8-10)”
What do other New Testament authors write?
MATTHEW (quoting Jesus)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. (5:27-29)”
MARK (quoting Jesus)
“And he [Jesus] said, ‘What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. (7:20-23)”
I PETER
“For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. (4:3)”
JUDE
“... [J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (7-8)”
REVELATION
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (21:8)”
COMMENTARY
God’s sexual ethic revealed in the Scriptures is easy to understand. Within marriage sexual relations are good and right, God’s way for humanity to “be fruitful and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28).” The writer to the Hebrews declares, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous (13:4).” Outside of marriage, sexual relations break God’s Law and therefore defy God.
Unsurprisingly, some criticize the Apostle Paul for harping on the evil of sex outside of marriage. For example, the early 1800s English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously proposed that the morality of any action depends on whether it promotes the greatest happiness – by which he mostly meant pleasure – for the greatest number. Bentham criticized Paul as outrageously lacking in promoting sexual pleasure, especially of the homosexual sort (Patrick Gray, Paul as a Problem in History and Culture, 2016, p. 67). In keeping with the American habit of looking for psychological reasons to explain why other people say things they dislike, Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong “explained” in a 1991 book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, that Paul’s rejection of same-sex sex springs from his own hidden desires. He wrote, “I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial…(Gray, op. cit., p. 100).
Why did the Apostle Paul repeatedly and forcefully warn believers against all sexual sin? Why were such repeated warnings necessary? Because the Roman world was full of sexual sin!
The Greek word porneia appears often in the New Testament. It includes all sexual sins in a single umbrella term. Modern versions translate it as “sexual immorality,” or sometimes “unchastity.” (Following the Latin Vulgate, the KJV misleadingly translated it as “fornication.”) Porneia more or less includes the sins listed in Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 139, “What sins are forbidden in the seventh commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage, having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.”
The Greek word “porneia” comes into English in the word “pornography,” which means the vivid and explicit portrayal, in word or pictures (static or moving), of sins covered by the word “porneia.” It is what the WLC Q. 139 names “lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays.” The Greco-Roman world – awash in all sorts of sexual sin – was awash also in pornography: “…titillation crooned in pictures on walls and dinnerware, in prostitutes on the street, in jokes and songs and public religious observances (Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People, 2010, p 19).” Rooms in cities buried by ash in 79 A.D. from the volcano Vesuvius are only now being made available to the public. “Ancient Romans certainly had a more open attitude toward sex, as is evidenced by the fact that these erotic scenes are found not only in brothels and public thermal baths in Pompeii and Herculaneum, but also in private homes (“The Erotic Art of Pompeii and Herculaneum,” Travel Past 50, September 18, 2023).”
What sexual sin has exploded in American life in the past two decades? Online pornography! It matches the standards of Roman “erotic art” for depravity. How widely has pornography penetrated American society? “A 2019 study concluded that 4% of web sites offer porn, 13% of web searches are for porn, and 20% of mobile searches are for porn. The same article found that 87% of American men and 28.5% of American women view pornography weekly (https://www.statista.com/chart/16959/share-of-the-internet-that-is-porn/). Other studies find similar numbers. Wow! Such research studies, of course, often have research design issues, for example, the problem of self-reporting. But even if these numbers are double what people are actually doing, they portray a society devoted to sexual sin, just like ancient Rome. In Rome, one could say, “Everyone is this way,” and thus excuse oneself. One could say that today. To counter the temptation to excuse sin with the “everyone does it” excuse, the Bible over and over calls sexual sin what it is: SIN!
Some still argue whether viewing porn is “harmful,” but sin always harms the sinner and often those around him. Where is the harm in viewing pornography? 1) It easily becomes a habit. 2) It can undermine relationships, within marriage and beyond. 3) It can fuel abuse and even violence. 4) It can make sex less satisfying within marriage and prepare someone ready to enter marriage to be dissatisfied. 5) It can rearrange one’s brain because it is a supernormal stimulus. 6) It can make violent sex seem normal. 7) It feeds loneliness, anxiety, and depression. 8) It exploits its “actors.” 9) It leads often to what is now called “sex trafficking” to fuel the pornography industry. 10) It substitutes itself for real sex between a husband and wife that builds a marriage up and can produce children.
Governments around the industrialized world are awake to the rapidly declining marriage and birth rates of their peoples. What’s going on? The usual explanations are economic ones, but free childcare and financial help to people with children have so far made little difference where they have been offered. Why? The problem is spiritual. One aspect of the spiritual problem (there are more) is the pornography mindset: sex is for fun and nothing more.
What should the church do? Imitate Paul. Include more than a one-time warning from the pulpit against sexual sin. That kind of preaching would be so old-fashioned that it would be novel!
What should parents do? Do not give your children free rein with computers. Do not let them have smart phones until well on into their teens, and then monitor their usage. Teach children what God says about marriage, sex, and children. Warn them about pornography just as much as you warn them about drugs and getting into cars with strangers.
What should users of pornography do? Repent and stop it. If unmarried, almost certainly aim to marry. As Paul bluntly states, “For it is better to marry than to burn (I Corinthians 7:9).” The Christian Church should encourage marriage for all who need to marry, not just for those who “want to get married.” Who needs to marry? Most of us!
What should governments do? A first step towards sanity and away from immorality is being taken by some states. Rather than allowing porn sites to merely ask, “Are you over eighteen?” they are requiring users to show ID verification of age. Most adults do not want to do that, thanks to remnants of a sense of shame about such things. As a result Pornhub has cut off Arkansas, Virginia, Utah, and Mississippi from accessing their wares. “Privacy advocates,” of course, protest this new requirement (Washington Examiner, 8/2/2023). All states should do the same.
Is the issue of pornography really important enough to merit such opposition? Yes it is. Paul and other NT writers, following both Moses and Jesus, urgently taught, “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Ephesians 5:5).” Believers need to take that teaching to heart individually. So do churches and parents. So does the government. Pornography as a form of porneia is evil and harmful. “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (I Corinthians 6:18-20).”
– Bill Edgar
Mugged by a Baby
A Review of Mary Harrington's Feminism Against Progress, 2023
Having lived a sexually amoral life, with a deep faith that herein was progress, a baby mugged Mary Harrington. She had a daughter in her late thirties. Truth hit her: only women can have babies. Second truth: women and men are different. Third truth: men and women need each other. Fourth truth: mothers love their own babies. She does not like “professional” child-care centers and the harm she thinks they unwittingly do. After getting mugged by her baby, Harrington spent the next ten years rebuilding her life while starting to raise her daughter.
Harrington writes about feminism from the late 1700s until today. The roots of feminism, she argues, are not reactions to age-old patriarchal oppression of women. Instead, feminism stems from two places: the ideal of individual autonomy as exalted by the Frenchman Jean Jacque Rousseau, and the Industrial Revolution that began in England at the same time, that steadily removed production of goods from the household to the factory.
What were women to do when they no longer had their age-old household tasks like making soap and weaving cloth? Harrington follows two strands of feminism: 1) women as the walled off protectors of home and morals, with the myth of Great Romance, i.e., marriage to The One Perfect Mate whom his wife pampers (think “tradwife” videos on Tik Tok); and 2) the alternative myth that men and women are interchangeable humans who should be equal in every single way. Harrington asks, “Who has ever seen a human?” All one ever sees are men or women. The two feminisms Harrington describes have been competing with each other now for a long time. Today, the Internet and the growth of the Knowledge Economy have changed the economic world once again, with further immense implications for men and women now that muscle power counts for less and less.
Where do things stand now? Both men and women are unhappy and angry, families are unstable, mother-child poverty grows, marriages happen less and less often, and births plummet. Meanwhile, the autonomous freedom version of feminism has advanced to its inevitable end: the transgender myth that expensive and profitable medical technology can turn men and women into each other. She calls this the Meat Lego Gnosticism view of humanity, with its attempt to create a Cyborg Age. Just take chunks of men and women and interchange them!
Who is pushing this unsatisfactory world today? Harrington blames a small elite of highly educated women whom she calls the High Priestesses of Cyborg Theocracy. She finds them everywhere, in universities, corporate HR departments, print and social media. She also fingers huge Pharma companies, hospitals, and psychologists who benefit from confused and unhappy “transgender” people who will need their expensive services until they come to their senses. Everywhere this elite theocracy demands that all people bow down to the transgender god whose gospel is that men and women are identical – except for a few interchangeable parts.
What is to be done? People can begin by “settling” for less than The One, and then being absolutely loyal in a covenant-for-life marriage where a couple builds something together, starting with children. Women should throw away the Pill – forever. The Pill pollutes the environment (did you know that?), and it makes sex boring. Sex without the Pill is an exciting adventure: you might end up with a child!
Harrington is not a Christian, and is certainly no relation to Harold Harrington, former Broomall pastor. Nor is she a conventional conservative, who in matters of men and women often want to return to the romantic 1800s version of the feminist woman-the-moral-heart-of-the home response to the Industrial Revolution. She refuses, however, to play “let’s pretend” with the world God made – even though she does not yet understand that God made it.
There is much, much more in this book than this short review can include, for example, the dynamic of capitalist exploitation of every new feminist impulse, including the new transgender fantasies. Harrington’s is the best book that I have read so far this year. Buy and read it!
– Bill Edgar
Movie Review: Jesus Revolution
Jesus Revolution presents a fallacious typical “prison of two ideas.” First: a weak, legalistic, unwelcoming, Godless, “conventional” church. And second: hordes of truth-seeking, God-loving hippies. This split ignores the reality of truth-loving, extremely welcoming, diverse congregations in which the truth of scripture is not compromised in order to increase the number of people attending. It ignores the reality that most rebels are not seeking for God. I know, I was among them; I hated the hypocrisy in the church. And I hated God too and ignored the hypocrisy in my own heart until God changed my heart. Not once in Jesus Revolution is Messiah’s miraculous resurrection from death mentioned. Baptism is shown as a theatrical spectacle performed by a man, not as a reminder of Messiah’s resurrection and His power to deliver us from death. Miraculous healings and gatherings of hundreds of people are just more theater and spectacle.
The “Jesus freaks” and Vineyard folk that I knew in the 70’s loved God’s word, worshiped Him by singing His words – the Psalms that He gave us for worship, not the silly man-made songs that were sung in the movie. Jesus Revolution, as is normal for Hollywood, shows Christ and Christians as weak, stupid, self-centered, hypocritical, ineffectual and meaningless. It fails to show the resurrected Christ’s power to transform lives and unite diverse groups of people. Christ has before, during, and after the “Jesus Movement” always gathered folk from all tribes and nations (sometimes with and usually without theatrical spectacle). This movie, sadly, tends to glorify the men involved rather than to honor Christ.
The songs played in the film were weak. Lacking. Boring. And were unlike the powerful, encouraging, worshipful singing of God’s word that historically has been sung in church and was sung by some “Jesus people.” The “Jesus people” I knew sang Psalms and other verses from scripture put to music, as did Vineyard folk that I knew.
The overall message of the film seems to be that Christians of any sort are weak, boring, and ineffectual, except for some wonderful, “special,” gifted, heroic leaders who advance Christ’s kingdom with their theatrical miracles.
– Carl Ermentrout
The First Commandment: Stop the Phone Worship
You shall have no other gods before me. – Exodus 20:3
In the Ten Commandments, each prohibition implies a requirement. Therefore, if we are to have no other God besides the Lord, then we are to have a God, and that God must be the true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
What does it mean to have a God?
Psalm 50:14-15 answers, “Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving (as opposed to bulls and goats, vs 8-13) and perform your vows to the Most High, and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” In other words, thank God publicly, keep your vows, call on him in trouble, and glorify him when he answers.
I want to discuss one contemporary way in which we are tempted not to have a God, that is, a way we are tempted not to call on him when we are in trouble. Silicon Valley's very smart people have worked to develop addictive products. See Nir Eyal, Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. The addictive products they have in mind are things like smartphone apps and social media sites. If you want to learn how to build that type of addictive product, just read Eyal. There are, of course, other kinds of addictive products, like marijuana (now engineered by a legal industry to be much more addictive than before) or slot machines.
Eyal says that the best, most addictive apps are the painkillers. He is not referring to opioids, but to using the smartphone as a painkiller. Addictive apps become the way we dull the pain of anxiety, unresolved arguments, boredom, or any unhappy mental state. Feel bad? Reach for the phone and get a dopamine hit from the likes on your feed or the bells on the video game. In other words, in your day of trouble, scroll through Instagram.
There are numerous problems with being an ad-watching serf of Silicon Valley, but the two I want to highlight are, first, apps work via distraction. You go to them to avoid your problems. Avoidance rarely solves problems. You are better off facing your problems and working on solutions.
Second, the apps become a low-key, quiet substitute for God. In my distress, I seek the phone, and it answers me. It leads me past green screens and along pictures of cool waters. I do not even think to pray, because distraction is so much easier, and my repeated use of the app has programmed me to reach for the phone without even consciously deciding to do so.
If you think I exaggerate the dangers of apps and smartphones, I suggest you either watch yourself for the next twenty-four hours, or see a documentary called The Social Dilemma.
We have a better God, the living and true God. Praying is harder than reaching for the phone, but having a real God is worth it. In his mercy and compassion, he has commanded us to have him, and no other god. So, have him. Go to him in the day of trouble, and seek his aid in your anxiety, your depression, and your troubled relationships.
– John D. Edgar
The Power of “NO!”
The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood,
but the mouth of the upright delivers them. – Proverbs 12:6
Like ice cream, troublesome students come in two main flavors, vanilla and chocolate. Vanilla whispers to Chocolate, “Kick George.” Chocolate kicks George, and both Chocolate and George suffer. Bland Vanilla appears harmless, but his words cause violence. With friendly words, Vanilla supplies drugs to Chocolate. Chocolate becomes addicted and may lose his life. The words of the wicked truly lie in wait for blood.
An untrue proverb I grew up with went, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Solomon knew better. Words can kill. Wicked people skilled with words use them to incite mob violence: throwing stones and looting, fighting and lynching. Mob violence in every country begins with words, spoken in street corners, in mosques, in churches, or spread through the Internet. Speakers hide behind the “innocence” of mere words, but the wise know that the hearts of such Vanilla orators harbor anger, hatred, and deceit. Their goal is bloodshed.
On the other hand, the mouth of the upright delivers him. Wicked men tried to trap Jesus with words, starting with flattery. They came and said, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God.” Then they sprang their trap. “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” Jesus asked for a coin, and they handed him one. He asked, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's (Mark 12:13-17).” With words, Jesus escaped their trap, and they were amazed.
Often the mouth of the upright delivers them not with cleverness, but with the single word, “No.” The first word many children learn to use is the power word “No.” Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug slogan, “Just say no,” mocked by some, was excellent empowering advice to youngsters. Use that word, stick to it, and escape addictive drugs, murderous cigarettes, heart-breaking illicit sex, brain-rotting porn, wasteful gambling, foolish drunkenness, and whatever other bloody things the wicked suggest. The upright man knows when to wield the word “No:” when the wicked man urges breaking God’s Law, or any other law the upright should obey.
A famous one-word version of “No” occurred when Philip of Macedon, conqueror of all Greece except Sparta, came to its borders and demanded submission. He sent a message: “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.” The Spartans replied with a single word: “If.” Philip never invaded. The words of the upright may be many or few, but they protect him. The words of the wicked aim at blood.
– Bill Edgar
Questions Recently Asked
1. Why shouldn’t I commit suicide?
The phrase “commit suicide” softens the question. It means, “Why shouldn’t I kill myself?” or, even more clearly, “Why shouldn’t I murder myself?” Here are four reasons not to murder oneself.
1) God commands, “You shall not murder.” You shall not murder someone else. You shall not kill yourself. In each case you attack the image of God in man and thus you attack God himself. You are not your own, answerable to no one but yourself. You are God’s creation.
2) Killing oneself says even to those who love you, “I hate you. I hate you all so much that I have killed myself to escape. There, take that!” Relatives and friends of a self-murdered person feel terrible. They may feel guilt: “I could have done this. I should have said that.” Self-murder attempts revenge on a world that has not measured up to one’s hopes. It is an unspeakably selfish act.
3) If you last long enough after starting to kill yourself, you will suddenly realize, “Wait! I don’t really want to do this!” That is the testimony of people who jump off bridges or take pills and survive. “Wait. I don’t want to die. What was I thinking?!”
4) You don’t know the future. What tomorrow will bring is hidden from you. As hopeless as you tell yourself things are, happier times could lie ahead. Job lost all of his children and all of his wealth. His wife told him, “Curse God and die.” His health was ruined. His friends said he surely deserved his suffering. But in the end life was good for Job. Things always turn out well in the end for those who trust God, if not in this life, then in the next.
One who feels tempted to commit self-murder hears the voice of Satan, not God. The devil is a liar and a murderer from the beginning and always will be.
2. I hear people sometimes talk about the Textus Receptus. What is that?
The very short and unhelpful answer is that it is Latin for “Received Text.” But to explain why the Latin term sometimes gets thrown around, and to evaluate what it means, we have to delve into a fair amount of history that begins with the 1500s, dips into earlier centuries, and ends up in the present. So here goes.
The Catholic priest Erasmus of Rotterdam published the first printed “critical text” of the New Testament in 1516. A critical text is the result of comparing different hand-written manuscripts and making the choices that seem to get the text closest to its original content. Jewish Masoretic scholars did a similar thing with the Hebrew Old Testament centuries before Erasmus, publishing their work in handwritten manuscripts. Translators ever since have used their work as the basis for translations of the Old Testament.
Erasmus used seven handwritten manuscripts from Byzantium dating from the 12th Century A.D. (5 of them) and the 15th Century A.D. (2 of them). None had the last verses of Revelation, so Erasmus had to back translate those verses from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Erasmus published his Greek critical text alongside his revisions to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, the Greek serving to show that Erasmus’ changes to the Vulgate were correct. The first printing of Erasmus’ work was full of typographical and other errors. Later printings corrected these errors, and later scholars used more texts from Byzantium to refine Erasmus’ critical New Testament text. All of the early English NT translations, such as Tyndale’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV, were done using ever more improved versions of Erasmus’ work. Erasmus did not call his critical text the “Textus Receptus.” The Elzevir Brothers first used the term “Textus Receptus” in their 1633 printing of Erasmus’ work with many later improvements. By “textus receptus” they meant simply, “the text we have received and use.”
In time, more ancient texts than the ones Erasmus knew were discovered. For instance, Constantin von Tischendorf discovered what is now known as Codex Sinaiticus in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai Peninsula in 1844. It includes the entire New Testament.
In 1881 two men, Westcott and Hort, published a new critical text. They did not just continue the process of refining Erasmus’ pioneering work, but using the Codex Sinaiticus and a host of other old manuscripts, they began from the beginning again, just as Erasmus had done, but with far more and far older ancient manuscripts.
In 1898 Nestle published another new critical text, revised in 1952 by Aland and today called the Nestle-Aland text. As new manuscripts are discovered and work is done from ancient biblical quotations, the Nestle-Aland text undergoes regular revisions, with footnotes indicating all of the variants for each verse and where each comes from.
Simplifying the ancient textual situation, there appear to be three ancient text traditions: the Byzantine known to Erasmus, the Alexandrian represented by Codex Sinaiticus and others, and the Western, which predominates in the Old Latin and Syriac translations and also in the writings of Cyprian, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. The Byzantine text is also sometimes called the Majority Text since more NT manuscripts of this tradition have survived than of the Alexandrian and Western traditions. That is because Germanic tribes like the Vandals invaded the western Roman Empire in the 400s, and people named Vandal destroy things. Alexandria was overrun by Arab Muslim invaders in the 600s, which did not help preserve Alexandrian texts. But the Byzantine Empire lasted until the capital city of Constantinople fell in 1453. Thanks to this history, there are more old Greek copies of the NT in the Byzantine text tradition than in the others.
Some argue that the Byzantine, or Majority, Text – a critical version of which is presented in what the Elzevir Brothers cleverly called the “Textus Receptus” – should be favored over the Alexandrian and Western text traditions. Bible translators today, however, use critical texts based on all three ancient text traditions taken together.
Modern English translations differ from the 1611 KJV in three significant passages, because these passages do not appear in many of the very old texts. They omit the so-called long ending of Mark, chapter 16:9-20; the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11; and I John 5:7-8 about the Trinity. Inclusion of these passages, or their exclusion, does NOT change the teaching of the Bible on Jesus’ resurrection, forgiveness of sin, or the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the vast majority of textual variations in ancient manuscripts make no difference in the meaning of the verses where they occur.
Getting exercised over the issue of the “Textus Receptus” is misguided. When considering first the Revised Standard Version and later the Today’s English Version, the Synod of the RPCNA ruled decisively that our church has no authorized version and forbids no English version. In the last half-century, different Reformed Presbyterian congregations have placed the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New International Version (NIV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV) in their pews. Some still use the 1611 KJV. They are all the Word of God.
– Bill Edgar
What You Sing Is Strange
You all sing pretty well, as good as the choir in my last church. Do you have to know how to sing parts to be a member here? And your hymnal is new to me, The Book of Psalms for Worship. I never knew people sang the Psalms. Some of them are pretty strange.
No, you don’t have to be a trained musician to be part of the church here. But most of the people sing every day at home in family worship, and of course they sing at church, so they learn how to sing. We still have some pretty weak singers, but God says to “make a joyful noise.”
Ha, ha. But tell me why you sing the Psalms.
Open your Bible to the middle. You find the Psalms. They are the church’s oldest and only universal hymnal. They were so important to the early church that one of the worst early heretics, a man named Marcion, wrote his own hymns to replace the Psalter. A later famous heretic, Arius, also used hymns to spread his false teaching about Christ. We sing the Psalms because God commanded it. Paul wrote to both the Ephesian and Colossian churches to sing “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”
Now I have a lot of questions. Lets start with, “So why don’t you have hymns and spiritual songs in your Psalter?”
Oh, they are there all right. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, some of the one hundred fifty Psalms are called “Psalms,” others are called “hymns,” and yet others are called “songs.” We read the word “hymn” and think of songs like what the Methodist Charles Wesley wrote, but in the Bible it is a label for certain of the Psalms. The same is true for the word “song.”
One thing about the Psalter is that God inspired every word. When we sing the Psalter, we sing what Jesus and his disciples sang. Furthermore, we sing about Jesus in the Psalms. He said the Psalms speak of him (Luke 24:44). Since the Psalms include all of the teaching of the Bible, we don’t need anything more. Hymns, in fact, often teach falsehood.
That’s all well and good, but there were some things I didn’t understand in the Psalms we sang today, stuff about sacrifice, nations I never heard of, and upsetting things like God’s hatred of the wicked.
True. You can learn about what sacrifice meant. It’s in the Old Testament and important for understanding what Jesus’ death on the cross means. If something in God’s Word upsets you, what should be changed, the way you think or God’s Word? In the Psalms we sing about all of life: joy and sorrow, life and death, loyalty and betrayal, creation and judgment, health and sickness, sin and forgiveness, wealth and poverty, faith and unbelief, good and evil, light and darkness, family and loneliness, marriage and children, and God’s coming judgment. No book of hymns comes close to the Psalms in teaching the whole of God’s truth refracted through the prism of human experience.
And don’t forget you sing about Jesus – not his name, of course – but Jesus nonetheless when you sing the Psalms. Psalm 22 prophesies his crucifixion. Psalm 18 speaks of his Resurrection. We could go on and on since the New Testament quotes from the Psalms more often than from any other book in the Old Testament, 68 times. (Isaiah is second at 55.)
But they feel so Jewish!
Of course! Jews wrote every one of them, King David more Psalms than anyone else. And now they belong to the Church. Jesus re-founded Israel. His twelve apostles match the twelve tribes. The growth of the Church over all the world is building up David’s Kingdom, as it was prophesied would happen (Acts 15:16). Christians, both Jews and non-Jews, make up this renovated Israel, so that God’s Word given to Israel is part of the Christian Bible. The Old Testament is every bit as much God’s Word as the New Testament.
When we sing the Psalms we certainly feel their Jewishness. That is good. We need to be reminded who we are, the Israel of God. They also remind us of the universality of the Good News about Jesus because the Psalms often command all nations to praise the God of Israel. And Psalm-singing should remind Christians not to hate Jews, as professing Christians have sometimes done. Instead, we love them and pray for them.
One more question about your singing: what in the world is a Precentor?
It is an old word that comes from a time when many people could not read. In those days the Singer (Cantor) would sing a line of a Psalm before (Pre) the congregation sang it. So he was a “Pre-cantor,” a “Precentor.” Singing in those days went back and forth between the Pre-Cantor and the congregation. When everyone learned how to read and could afford a Psalter and children learned how to sing in family worship, the Precentor’s job changed but not his name. He starts a Psalm on the right pitch, not too high and not too low, and he beats time with his hand to keep the congregation singing together.
– Bill Edgar
You Really Ought to Give Iowa a Try
This life-long White Lake Camper left his beaten track and attended Iowa RP Family Camp from July 31 to August 3. I divided my time between my son's track meet and IRPFC, and now give my favorable report to you on the East Coast.
The Mennonite-owned Crooked Creek Christian Camp sits on a surprisingly hilly section of south-eastern Iowa, a few miles from the little town of Washington. The camp proper occupies several clear sections on the flat tops of hills, and the property also includes steep, wooded sections that drop down to a creek and its flood-plain. Attractive walking trails have been cut through the woods. The facilities are quite nice for a camp: it is certainly camping, insofar as many of us slept on bunk beds in cabins, walked to a central building for the bathroom, and ate at picnic tables under a big tree. But the cabins had air conditioning and carpet, the talks were held at a modern conference center, and there were dorm rooms in that center for those willing to pay for the comfort. The facilities in themselves were a plus; the minus was that the distance between buildings was enough that most people drove from one to the other, coating their cars in white dust. The facility lacked a central square comparable to the quad at White Lake Covenanter Camp, but did have multiple pianos in the main buildings providing opportunity for entertainment.
Pastor Brad Johnston, formerly of Walton RPC, gave well-prepared talks on the topic of heaven. He did an excellent job of keeping the children engaged while also encouraging the adults to consider a neglected topic. He ably laid out our two-part future, in keeping with universal Christian doctrine, and kept speculations to a reasonable minimum. His talks were a strong point for the week.
I missed certain highlights, such as Skit and Talent night, but did enjoy being sent to the nursery and given crayons for Opposite Night. It is a little late in my athletic career to take up Gaga ball, so my stay in that tournament was remarkably brief. But I enjoyed a steady diet of volleyball – how very nostalgic – and appreciated the missionary presentation we heard. Church camps should remember the lost.
Mental comparisons with White Lake were constant, of course. There seemed to be more boys than girls, unlike White Lake. May I suggest some future mixers? Maybe half-way in between, every four years or so.... oh wait, someone already scheduled them. See https://rpiconference.org.
At White Lake, for many years, noisy throngs have been quieted when a man named Bob has stood up and roared, “Hi, White Lake!” At which point everyone roars, “Hi, Bob!” and then quiets down just enough for loud announcements to be heard.
At Iowa Family Camp, noisy throngs are quieted when a man named Rob stands up, holds up his hand silently, and waits for everyone else to raise a hand. At this point they quiet down and he gives announcements at the same volume as a man speaking to his aunt at the nursing home.
At both camps, there is a campfire late in the evening, featuring some of the same silly songs, then psalms, then a talk. Iowa is missing a verse from “When I'm at Crooked Creek,” but otherwise seemed squared away.
At both camps, there is a water slide, but that is where the comparison ends. It is, oddly, White Lake that provides a gentle slide, with the ability to ratchet the experience up (by running and diving headlong), or down (by sitting down carefully and having a little one placed in Daddy's lap). Crooked Creek's slide comes in one flavor: wild. Massive uncontrollable acceleration hurtles you down a bumpy tarp through the woods, as you desperately try to keep your mat beneath you. Bruises and scrapes help you remember the fun you had.
The people are gentle and welcoming, of course, and so pleasant was the time that I had almost decided I enjoyed the week at Iowa RPC more than the time I spent the next week at White Lake. Almost. But then, back at White Lake, Alice and Kathryn Paar got up to sing The Twelve Days of White Lake. Then I remembered what our camp has: a dining hall in which we sing. Sometimes skillfully, and often badly; at times raucously, and at times, piously. Eating outside under the tree in Iowa was nice but did not provide the right atmosphere for group song.
So White Lake is still the best, but needs to watch its back. Should you be heading out west in future summers, you really ought to give Iowa a try.
– John D. Edgar
A Little Help?
The Editors do not sell individual subscriptions to A Little Strength. Our goal is to publish with as little labor and financial overhead as possible. Yet mailing paper copies to Atlantic Presbytery churches and maintaining a website aren't free. If you have found A Little Strength to be interesting and profitable,
would you consider sending a contribution?
Make your check out to Elkins Park RPC, designated for A Little Strength,
and send it to the treasurer, at the church's address:
901 Cypress Ave, Elkins Park, PA 19027.
Authors in this issue
Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia) and the author of 7 Big Questions Your Life Depends On.
John D. Edgar, the pastor of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia) recently completed his Doctoral of Ministry degree at RPTS.
Carl Ermentrout is a member of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia).
Alex Tabaka preached the included sermon as pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia). He has very recently accepted a call to Los Angeles RPC.