Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Yesterday I shared an excellent article Katelyn Beaty wrote for the New York Times entitled A Christian Case Against the Pence Rule. And whenever the Pence Rule, which is associated with the Billy Graham Rule of not eating or meeting alone with a woman, is discussed on social media you can see its polarizing effect. It has regained traction as numerous Hollywood sex scandals are exposed. For example, Beaty quotes conservative radio host and blogger Erick Erikson, saying, “The very same left-wing activists and Hollywood stars now running away from Harvey Weinstein were assailing Mike Pence for having a rule of not dining alone or taking meetings alone with women,” insinuating that if everyone would just follow the Pence Rule none of this will happen. 
 
While Beaty gives a nod to the motives of many who promote and adhere to the Pence Rule in one form or another, she denies it’s effectiveness:  “The Pence rule is inadequate to stop Weinstein-ian behavior. In fact, it might be its sanctified cousin. It’s time for men in power to believe their female peers when they say that the rule hurts more than helps.” Abusers are always going to find ways to abuse, but Christians are called to something higher than these extra-biblical rules. We are called to uphold godly behavior and promotion of holiness with everyone we interact with. We are called to a holy communion with God that also overflows into a holy communion with one another. We do this as sexual beings, but our sexuality doesn’t merely express itself in the physical love making that a wedded couple exclusively shares. Our sexuality also expresses itself in brother and sisterhood as we relate to everyone.
 
So, imagine how reductive it is for a woman to see a Tweet from a popular pastor such as this one, with other popular pastors retweeting in approval:
 
 

 
What does this say about a woman such as myself? It insinuates that I’m such a threat to a man’s faithfulness and a pastor’s reputation that I’m barely worth the risk of a ride to the hospital. I am in need of some good Samaritans! This parable particularly comes to mind because the religious people in it didn’t want to get polluted by the dying man. Comments like this tweet insinuate this same kind of pollution in association with women. As pastor Sam Powell put it, such harsh boundaries pretend like “fornication is like the flu, and you accidently catch it if you happen to be close to a woman.”  Or maybe it is a Christian’s reputation that is polluted. (Sam also has a great article debunking the “appearance of evil” here.) Either way, Jesus calls us to be like the Samaritan, whom had nothing to lose because he was already considered polluted, or ceremonially defiled, so he was free to properly care for another human being in need. This is how Christ loved us. This is how we should love one another. Powell bids us, “Take up your cross with him; despise the shame. Make yourself of no reputation. ‘Let this mind be in you, that was also in Christ Jesus.’
 
“Perhaps it is time that we start thinking about love, rather than reputation.”   
 
Stealing Unearned Virtue
 
Some of the comments defending the Pence Rule under the link I shared are emotionally charged and hurtful, resorting to the conversation-closer of name-calling. This is what Alan Jacobs calls commitment to non-thinking. In them, Beaty is called brain dead and her article is referred to as a moronic idea, full of lies, which like the New York Times, should be ignored. Those who defend the Pence Rule imagine that those who critique it are either extremely naïve or don’t value faithfulness in marriage. I would like to suggest that those who viscerally defend the Pence Rule are falling under what Dietrich von Hildebrand, in his book In Defense of Purity, calls the spell of negative sexuality and are falling short of apprehending purity. After all, one can avoid having an affair and not truly embrace purity. While faithfulness in marriage is expected, it is not necessarily virtuous if it’s a response to a perceived self-importance, the result of an unsensuous temperament, or due to lack of opportunity. As von Hildebrand teaches, purity is a virtue as it treasures “free coopera[tion] in its production,” and as it “involves a habitual response to some value.” 
 
So the question to ask is what is your perception of value? Is it your career or ministry, therefore you must guard any appearance that may give people ammunition against your image? Is your value the perfect marriage, even at the expense of valuing others? (And what kind of marriage is it when you have to reduce all others of the opposite sex to value your spouse?) Or is your value to “live, so to speak, in the sight (in conspectu) of God’s purity, the fountainhead of all purity, and [to] respond to it with the permanent and habitual assent of his will” (43)? Because purity is supernatural. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).
 
Von Hildebrand insists on purity as a positive virtue that “always lives in an attitude of reverence for God and his creation, and therefore reveres sex, its profundity, and its sublime and divinely ordained meaning” (40). The sexual gift in marriage is therefore positively embraced and treasured so as not to be reduced to a base instinct. “The moment I treat physical sex as something complete in itself and take no account of its profoundest function, namely in wedded love, I falsify its ultimate significance and become blind to the mystery it contains” (7). This reverence for God and high view of sex also promotes a corresponding response to value others in their dignity as people made in the image of God. 
 
So the pure person does not behave prudishly in producing an “oppressive atmosphere” toward others, but “is distinguished by a limpid radiance of the soul” (41). Rejecting the negative value of impurity or sexual transgression should never lead to rejecting the value of another person. The virtue of purity rightly orients sensuality before God and others. Those who are oppressive to this beauty “miss the peculiar freedom of the pure; the unconfined spirituality, the transparence, the radiance which is theirs alone. On the contrary, they are in bondage, their spirit is opaque and transmits no clear light, and the hang about every hole and corner in which sexuality lurks unbeknown…Since they have never uprooted and overcome this attraction, nor even struggled against it in open combat, every other department of their life is infected and poisoned by this disposition” (24).
 
So while it may seem safe to impose rules that separate ordinary encounters with the opposite sex, it isn’t the virtue of purity. It is actually over-sexualization, or as Beaty calls it, the sanctified cousin of Weinstein-ian behavior. No, the virtue of purity perceives and responds to the holistic value in human beings.
 
We are called to Christian love and fellowship as brothers and sisters. That means we promote one another’s holiness. It also means that we take sin seriously as well as our own ability to fall into it. This doesn’t call us to “the false modesty of the prude” but to a “sincere humility” (42). Therefore, rather than extra-biblical rules, we are to do the hard work of rightly orienting our affections and exercising wisdom and discernment with others.  We don’t think of a bunch of reasons to be alone with the opposite sex, we don’t’ naively assume everyone is safe, and we don’t overestimate our own virtue. We live before God in every situation. And in this manner, we won’t scandalize ordinary acts of kindness and business such as serving someone by giving them a ride or coworkers sharing a meal in a public place.
 
Wikipedia defines pickpocketing as “a form of larceny that involves the stealing of money or other valuables from the person of a victim without them noticing the theft at the time. It may involve considerable dexterity and a knack for misdirection.” I see the Pence Rule as pickpocketing purity, stealing unearned virtue at the expense of another’s dignity. Although I think that many who uphold the Rule are the ones misdirected, wanting to exercise a virtue without noticing that positive work they need to put in.

 

Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
One thing that I really enjoyed about Alan Jacobs’ new book, How to Think, is the way he puts regular words together to make up a new term. Some he borrows from other writers, but it really was pure joy for me to ponder some familiar and new usages of word pairings.  There were some fascinating ones like “assignable curiosity,” “intimacy gradients,” and “intellectual sunk costs.” But I am led to think a little more on paper about his use of “Inner Ring,” “Repugnant Cultural Other (RCO),” and “mental purity.”
 
Jacobs spends a lot of time building on C.S. Lewis’ teaching about the Inner Ring, or “’moral matrix’ that becomes for a given person the narrative according to which everything and everyone else is judged,” reasoning that if we are so caught up in our own Inner Rings, we begin to look at outsiders to our Ring as Repugnant Cultural Others (55). Jacobs calls these Inner Ring zealots “true believers.” This kind of tribalism really doesn’t sharpen our thinking or properly love our neighbors. When this happens, we are not truly being loyal to our group or our belief systems that we hold dear because we bind one another to strict orthodoxy of the Inner Ring rather than to the truth and rather than freedom to learn more, love well, and be sharpened. Inner Ring tribalism also produces pretenders who never really grasp the truths we hold dear. Finding common ground with those who hold different convictions than us, even politically or religiously, does not necessarily weaken our own convictions. If they are in truth, they will be strengthened as we are stretched in our thinking.
 
How can we be healthier in our affiliations with one another? How can we have loving hearts and healthy minds? There are so many Inner Rings even in the Christian evangelical subculture. I know I have participated in Inner Ringmanship to my own regret. We also see polarizing Inner Rings with political affiliations, race, diets, social issues, and education. There are Inner Rings in church, at school, at work, and in our neighborhoods. Social media has become quite the Inner Ring facilitator. One of the toughest exercises in self-examination is to “distinguish between ‘genuine solidarity’ and participation in an Inner Ring.” (63) It’s the difference between true community and false belonging.
 
This was all going through my mind when I stumbled upon Jacobs’ use of the term “mental purity”:
 
You can know whether your social environment is healthy for thinking by its attitude toward ideas from the outgroup. If you quote some unapproved figure, or have the “wrong” website open on your browser, and someone turns up his nose and says, “I can’t believe you’re reading that crap”---generally, not a good sign. Even if what you’re reading is Mein Kampf, because there are actually good reasons to read Mein Kampf. The true believer is always concerned, both on her behalf and on that of the other members of her ingroup, for mental purity. (138)
 
Mental purity sounds like a really good thing, doesn’t it? And it definitely sounds like something that I want for my children. But we have another term for this, which exposes the negative effects: living in a bubble. It’s funny that Jesus didn’t separate the church from the rest of the world after his resurrection so that we wouldn’t be so exposed to corrupting ideas and teaching. It’s funny how he has made many unbelievers smarter and more gifted than his people, so that we will benefit from, learn from, and serve with them. It’s funny how the church has never had mental purity. But we do have Christ, who is both good and omniscient. And we have his word, which is living and active. God calls his people to discernment which requires critical thinking, not to mental purity.
 
Even so, it’s worth noting that sometimes you just have to say, “I can’t believe you’re reading that crap!” Sometimes crap is just crap. There are many books out there that will not engage us to be good thinkers and may actually make us dumber after having read them. You can’t engage much with fluff. And when it comes to something like 50 Shades of Grey, for example, we really don’t have any business reading it. It’s not only junk, and really bad writing, but it easily leads to sinful thoughts and actions. Discernment knows that there is such a thing as a junk pile. But this isn’t what Jacobs is talking about. He’s addressing this sense of tribalism that puts all outsider views in the junk pile and refuses to read those we even strongly disagree with for critical thinking. (I should also note, because I come across this quite often, absorbing everything you read is not critical thinking.)
 
While reading about mental purity, I couldn’t help but think about Inner Ring convictions on education. Within the church, homeschoolers, private schoolers, and public schoolers can encounter Inner Rings---especially among the parents. And our own convictions in these areas are often criticized as moral choices. I have friends whom I deeply care about in all three of these categories and I know that all three of these choices are susceptible to judgment as outsiders. As a parent who sends her kids to public school, I have felt the sting of RCO comments aimed at our education choices. And yet one reason my husband and I have made this choice is because of the mental purity fallacy. I struggle with balancing this all the time though. There is an important case to be made for stages of mental innocence in our children. They need to reach certain levels of maturity before they can even exercise discernment in separating truth from error and lies. And yet, as they grow, it is important for them to learn how to do this. 
 
Parents are responsible for what we teach our children. We need to make sure that the good stuff is being put in. And there are evils that they should not be exposed to. It’s tempting for me just to teach my kids what to think. It seems a lot safer anyway. But in order to learn how to think, they have to interact with worldviews, belief systems, and other convictions that are different from our own. The fear is corruption. And this is a real concern---very real. I don’t want to downplay it. Although, on the other hand, I also don’t want to shield my kids so much from the outside word that they begin to think sin is what’s “out there” only later in life to fall into despair when they realize sin is saturated in their very own hearts.
 
In public school my kids have to wrestle with Inner Rings all the time. And they can be the RCO to many of their unbelieving friends and sometimes teachers. Sometimes they take solid stand and others they fall into being a pretender to an Inner Ring in which they do not belong. But in this, they learn about themselves and others. They’re also learning how to learn from others even while holding strong differences in other areas. They are learning about finding common ground. They still have a long way to go---so do I---but they are exercising these very principles that Jacobs teaches on the art of thinking. 
 
I’m not against homeschooling or private schooling. And there are all sorts of other reasons one may choose that route, such as the methods used in educating, the curriculum, or the teaching itself. You can certainly teach the art of thinking at home and in private school as well. Each parent is responsible to make these decisions in humility. We should support one another in the church as we make these critical decisions, not divide over them. I love that my kids get to have good friends who are educated differently. Some of their homeschooled friends and private schooled friends share the most common ground with them, as they go to the same church. On Sunday, God calls all his people to his household to learn about him, to worship him, and to be blessed in him. This is sacred time and sacred space, as Michael Horton calls it. No one in God’s household is repugnant, “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” (2 Cor. 2:15). And Christ isn’t an Inner Ringer; he creates a genuine community---one that honestly and humbly engages with the world around it. He hasn’t given us mental purity, but he has given us the art of thinking.

 

Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
We all have some memories that burn into us like a branding. It may seem random, but some moments leave an impression that will always imprint our minds. One of those for me happened at a slumber party one of the girls on my cheerleading squad hosted for us in high school. She was a better kid than me, what we would think of as the Goody Two-Shoes of the squad. She pleased everyone, never got into trouble, and was always smiling---which was a total yawn for me at the time. But, you go to these team-bonding things, and there I was in the Two-Shoes household with the squad. 
 
We ventured off into the basement as all teenagers do. I recall nothing about what we did there. All I remember is this branding moment. For some reason, we went into the storage room in the basement and against the wall was one of those metal muscle racks filled with Playboy magazines from floor to ceiling. I can’t remember the reactions of the other girls but I asked the question that only Captain Obvious could answer, Whose are these? This was all so outside of my reality of what a father would do that I totally would have believed the We’re holding them for a friend excuse. But Goody very matter-of-factly said they were her dad’s. I never wanted to look at her dad again. I suddenly felt reduced as a young woman.
 
The title Playboy says it all. It’s not for men. This dad is no real man, I thought.
 
And this mom, Mrs. Two Shoes---how was she going along with all this? Where was her dignity, I wondered. This open display was a public humiliation of his wife and children. And me.
 
What a boy does when his wife sins:
 
And yet that collection of magazines has nothing on what many so easily access in secret on the internet these days. I remember all the talk with the rise of Internet porn about Playboy being outdated and whether or not Hugh Hefner’s empire will survive. So it all seems kind of cliché now as everyone is talking about his recent death and the legacy he left behind.
 
Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo nails it in her excellent Public Discourse article, The Playboy Lifestyle and the Death of Complementarity. She opens sharing Hefner’s history before Playboy. A picture of virtue, at 22* he married his longtime sweetheart as a virgin who had saved himself for matrimony. Only this virtue all came crashing down when he discovers that his wife cheated on him before marriage. He describes, “I had literally saved myself for my wife, but after we had sex she told me that she'd had an affair …  My wife was more sexually experienced than I was. After that, I always felt in a sense that the other guy was in bed with us, too."
 
This is the moment of integrity. Hefner did not get the reward he felt he deserved for his chastity. His reaction to this devastation of betrayal and unfaithfulness will reveal the man he really is. How does Hefner react when he doesn’t get what he wants? Well, we all know the answer: he becomes a coward who reduces women into soft bunnies, playthings that will be harmed by thousands of Lennies, only they already believe they are "living off the fatta' the lan'." All the Lennies buy into the dream; they can pet all the soft things they want with the right manners. And so a gentleman spin is put on vulgarity. In fact, Ben Domenech, writing for The Federalist, calls it "positively quaint" vulgarity, promoting a complementarity that the progressives of the sexual revolution deny.
 
This gentleman Playboy image that our culture likes to spin is all a mirage anyway, “the best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men.” Menchaca-Bagnulo gives us a snap shot of what many of us have already heard went on in the Playboy mansion:
 
According to Bunnies Carla and Melissa Howe, the mansion’s male visitors “were really pervy; all the girls were fighting to run away.” Hefner was no better than his visitors. Holly Madison claims life in the Playboy mansion was “a living hell,” where Hef forcefully offered her Quaaludes. Izabella St. James said that, while very few women actually wanted to have sex with Hefner, “in his eyes it was the only way we had of showing gratitude for all that he did for us.”
 
Perhaps most tellingly, Jennifer Saginor, whose father was Hugh Hefner’s doctor, recalls her experience of life at the Playboy Mansion through the eyes of a female child. At a Playboy Party at the age of six, she saw John Belushi and a Playboy Bunny having sex in a Jacuzzi, a kind of decadence that was commonplace at the mansion. “It was so bizarre. If I was not seeing other people having sex, I was seeing my father walking around naked. I would see naked girls around the pool and people openly having sex in the games room. There were just no boundaries.” Unsurprisingly, she drew seriously distorted lessons about masculinity and femininity from these experiences. “I started to identify more with the guys,” she says. “The men were always presented to me as the intelligent and powerful ones, so I wanted to be more like them.”
 
While some are championing a nostalgic so-called complementarity that Hefner promoted between the sexes, Menchaca-Bagnulo mortifies the spin:
 
In his Theology of the Body, St. John Paul II writes of the “mystery of complementarity” known most profoundly in the conjugal act, in which man and woman “become one flesh . . . to rediscover, so to speak, every time and in a special way the mystery of creation.” For John Paul II, sexual complementarity is a kind of union that draws the man out of himself, compelling him to leave behind his former life and to “cleave” to his wife as the principle of his new life. The man and the woman’s desire for each other leads to the conception of new life in the form of their children. According to John Paul II, man’s sexual discovery of woman is not one of use, but one of self-giving. This is precisely the kind of self-gift that devastated Hefner when his first wife was unfaithful to him—causing him the kind of pain that only a person, and not an object, can inflict on you.
 
The only alternative account of human sexuality, John Paul II claims, is one in which “one of the two persons exists only as the subject of the satisfaction of the sexual need, and the other becomes exclusively the object of this satisfaction.” This is the path that Hefner inevitably leads us down.
 
I just want to add that although Hefner did experience the pain of betrayal by the woman he loved, his chastity before marriage was never virtuous. His own description reveals this. He couldn’t take it that his wife was more sexually experienced than he was. He was supposed to be the one to dominate in the bedroom. But she was no bunny. And his reaction was to hyper-dominate with a sex empire of women at his beck and call. Playthings for boys. Because manhood wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. What does a man do when he discovers his wife’s sin?
 
How this Playboy image has affected the church:
 
So in the Two-Shoes home, full of smiles and Goody children, the father had a mass collection of Playboys in the basement that wasn’t difficult to discover. It wasn’t even a stash under the bed. I realized in that basement that all these Goody smiles were like Bunny ears. This is what they thought they were supposed to be: happy and docile with perfect report cards. 
 
Most churches would never endorse Hefner’s lifestyle. We are disgusted by the sexual revolution and the damage it has done. And yet, some echo this nostalgic brand of complementarity. Menchaca-Bagnulo turns to churches promoting the same view of complementarity as Hefner, which she calls an “intellectualization of domination and dehumanization.” I’ve seen this polished, Christianized version of complementarity with all its hyper-masculine teaching for men and “complementary” femininity taught as subordination. It’s all so one-dimensional and dangerous. 
 
Only the church is even more mannered than Hefner, so they produce more Georges than Lennies. Many Lennies in the church have been shot to protect its image, and yet they seem to resurrect again. The Georges share sermon after sermon, article after article, retelling the story of masculine bravado, encouraging men to step up into their authoritative position of so-called godly leadership. They are encouraged to play into this stereotypical role of what they call biblical manhood. Abuse is covered up because they believe these are exceptions that tarnish their image. Women are told to consider whether they are being submissive enough and whether they are fulfilling their husbands’ needs. These women have no voice. “They cannot speak, and so can make no demands or critiques, nor can they express their own desire.” And they call this hyper-masculinity “servant-leadership.” This is not biblical headship. This is not the filter that distinguishes manhood from womanhood. This is not complementarity. This is not leadership.
 
Menchaca-Bagnulo says that “many women run from churches screaming,” and I would add that they run from Christianity screaming too. They found the basement and they want nothing to do with it. 
 
Boys in their immaturity often exercise hyper-masculinity. Grown boys who never become men put manners on it. In the church we need to call it what it is. Hyper-authoritarianism and subordination is anti-complementarity, just as much as “the act of onanism carried out to mass-distributed pictures of reified women who are deprived of voice, action, and thought.” No one is authorized to look at women or treat them this way. No one is to submit to unbiblical teachings of sexuality.
 
And so Menchaca-Bagnulo concludes:
 
Though some on the right may view Hefner as a martini-drinking gentleman surrounded by beautiful women, it is better to think of him as a coward. Instead of viewing women as persons (who are capable of deeply hurting men), Hefner’s account of human sexuality made us symbols. Rather than dealing with the challenges of the vulnerability demanded by authentic eros, Hefner hides, and he teaches American men to hide. Without question, what he left in his magazine's pages is a history of cowardice that is irreconcilable with any healthy philosophical or theological position on sexual complementarity or masculine strength.
 
Let his death be an eye-opener to us all: it's time to clean out the basement.
 
*Correction from 27, which was the age of his first marriage stated in the Public Discourse article.
Posted on Monday, October 02, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian

Last Friday morning I shuddered to see Scott Swain wasting of his brilliance in a tweet thread. I’m sure it was beneficial for the many who saw it, but I wanted more. And I was hoping for a format that wouldn’t disappear in a newsfeed in less than 24 hours. So I asked him if he would turn it into an article for a guest post here at MoS, so we can at least get a week of cyberspace out of it and a better context for search engines and quoting. He kindly obliged and I’m happy to share it with you today:

 

"God gave us not a spirit of fear but of power and love and σωφρονισμοῦ” (2 Tim 1:7). What is “a spirit of … σωφρονισμοῦ”? Oliver O’Donovan argues that we should not follow the standard English translations of “self-control” or “sound judgment” and instead that we should translate σωφρονισμός according to its common usage in first-century Greek, i.e., “the teaching of prudence” (BDAG). According to this translation, the person endowed with the spiritual gift of σωφρονισμός is endowed with the gift of “a certain type of speech: instruction, warning, and correction, intended to make its hearers sôphrones, i.e., intelligent and discerning agents” (O’Donovan, Entering into Rest, p. 194).

 

This translation seems to fit the context well. In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul encourages Timothy to fulfill his pastoral vocation—in which speech is central (see 2 Tim 4:1-5)—by stirring up the gift that was given to him through the laying on of hands. This translation also opens up interesting horizons for thinking about the task of Christian teaching and communication. If σωφρονισμός refers to “the teaching of prudence,” then the ends of Christian teaching must include the cultivation of prudence in the minds of learners.

 

Prudence plays a primary role in Christian moral reasoning. Prudence refers to the capacity for testing and discerning the will of the Lord in a given setting (Rom 12:1-2), for approving what is the most excellent course of action in a given situation (Phil 1:8-10). Though prudence depends upon contemplative wisdom regarding God and his ways in order to orient itself before God in the world (Rom 11:33-36), prudence is a species of practical wisdom, aimed at human action. By discerning the will of the Lord, prudence illumines a path for Christian obedience, directing us to the “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10).

 

Paul further unpacks his understanding of σωφρονισμός in 2 Timothy 2:23-26, with specific reference to speech toward those who are outside of the Christian community: “Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” Christian teaching and communication, according to Paul, is “not … quarrelsome but kind.” Though it corrects its opponents, it does not pick fights. Christian teaching is gentle and patient. It waits on the Spirit to do his indispensable work of leading its opponents on the path of repentance into “a knowledge of the truth.” Christian communication is “able to teach.” It is skilled at imparting prudence to its hearers. In sum, Christian teaching aims at prudential ends (the cultivation of Christian moral reasoning) by pursuing prudential means (kindness, gentleness, patience).

 

If the spirit of Christian teaching is a spirit of σωφρονισμός, then responsible Christian communication will involve more than “rallying the troops” to a cause. Responsible Christian communication will have little if anything to learn from the political punditry of the right or the left that floods our screens and fills our earbuds. Responsible Christian communication will commit itself to the slow but fruitful work of evangelizing outsiders and of equipping the saints to act as responsible moral agents under the kingship of the triune God. In doing so, Christian communication will manifest its union with Christ, its participation in the anointing and eloquence of “the servant of the Lord” who does not “cry aloud” or “lift up his voice … in the street” (Isa 42:2-3) but who possesses an “ear to hear as those who are taught” and therefore knows “how to sustain with a word him who is weary” (Isa 50:4).

 

All of this is important to remember in a Christian culture where being loving in our speech is sometimes reduced to being courageous in our speech. Christian speech is courageous speech, to be sure, but its courage is moderated by love of God and neighbor and therefore guided by the desire to impart the mind of Christ, which is the mind of wisdom, to those who will listen. God has not given us a spirit of fear “but of power and love and the teaching of prudence” (2 Tim 1:7).

 

Dr. Scott Swain is President and James Woodrow Hassell Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS Orlando.

Posted on Friday, September 22, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
This is a guest post from my friend, Dana Tuttle. She has recently read Lysa TerKeurst’s Uninvited and Lydia Brownback’s Finding God in My Loneliness side by side. As we were discussing the differences, I asked her to write a review for Housewife Theologian comparing the two.
 
For most of my experience as a Christian, I have sat in church alone as a single woman, as a married woman, and even as a mother. I do not feel lonely as I go about my daily routine in any of these seasons in my life until that moment when I join my fellow believers in church. Don't get me wrong, I have been actively involved in several ministries and enjoy being apart of the weekly services, but the prick of loneliness is there, nonetheless. 
 
I look around and see several families sharing in the experience of worship together. I thought that would change when I got married, but it did not. I realize when I am there that I struggle with loneliness and that I long to share this with my own family. I see and talk to other women who share my same struggle and I know that I am not alone in my spiritual loneliness at church.
 
I asked Aimee Byrd if anyone has written about loneliness and if she could direct me to a book that would be helpful on this topic. She immediately recommended Finding God in Your Loneliness, by Lydia Brownback. However, during our talk, which also consisted of coffee, laugher, interruptions, and eclectic topics, I quickly forgot her recommendation.
 
Around the same time, my church was starting a book club, and they had chosen Uninvited, by Lysa TerKeurst to read. At first, I thought it was the book that Aimee had recommended since the book was about loneliness. I spoke with her again to refresh my memory on what she had recommended and Uninvited was not it. I didn't want to pass up an opportunity to get to know the ladies in my church, so I decided to read both at the same time and compare the two. 
 
I generally like to read several books on the same topic and was excited to take on the task of reading both books at the same time. TerKeurst is a popular female Christian author and president of Proverbs 31 ministries. As a New York Times #1 Bestseller, her book was easy to find, standing out on the bestseller shelf even at Target. Brownback is also a female Christian author and speaker, however her book was a little more difficult to find. With both books in my hand, I was eager to see what these two ladies had to say about the topic. For me, I was specifically looking for guidance with spiritual loneliness within my marriage and as I attend weekly church services. 
 
 
I don't feel uninvited, unloved, less than, or even left out, but I do feel lonely when it comes to attending church without my family. Going into TerKeurst's book, I was hopeful that it would touch on the situation I was facing. Within the 250 pages, I thought that there would be at least a chapter for me to glean from. 
 
The chapter titles were confusing as I searched for a straightforward statement that mentioned loneliness in marriage or church. Instead, I found chapters about "the lady at the gym who hates me" (the title of Chapter 3). TerKeurst points out that  "there are misalignments embedded in our soul" (3) and that we have a "broken identity" (12). I know enough basic doctrine to know that we are more than just misaligned and our identities aren't the only thing that is broken. I felt as though she was not treating her reading audience as mature thinking, Christian women. This concern was solidified on page 120 where she calls us "Jesus girls." Yes, she does get around to using the word sin, but she never gets around to discussing the deep issues in which people may feel lonely. TerKeurst keeps it safe and stays on the surface talking about the lady who ignored her or the lady who is thinner than she is. These were really the examples she was giving in every chapter. She shared an over emphasis on her poor body image and never mentions the body of Christ---the church, his bride. Instead, I was directed several times to her issue with cellulite. In Chapter 9, she discusses rejection and compares her experience to Hannah's barrenness. Only TerKeurst's struggle was about the lady who got the writing job instead of her, calling her "thigh gap girl."    
 
TerKeurst’s chapters and stories were cluttered and I had a difficult time navigating through her book. She has some false teaching as well when she encourages us to "be prepared to hear new things from the Lord" (112) and to "seek your own divine revelation" through prayer and journaling  (177). Just when I was about to give up hope she did share the gospel, point me to Christ and encouraged me to read God's word. For that I am thankful. I wish she would have invited her readers to believe the gospel and that sin plays a large part in why they are feeling "less than, left out and lonely."
 
 
In contrast, Brownback's book was clear and organized. Each chapter was important and led into the next one. Brownback starts right off with a true definition of why we are lonely in the introduction. "Loneliness is an indicator that something is missing, and that something is found only in Jesus Christ." Just 14 pages in and I have hope! I was able to go straight to the chapter titled "The Loneliness of Marriage," where she had great advice and application. She reminds us, "to view  [your husband] as a surrogate savior is to intensify our loneliness" (130). Instead, she encourages us to "lean into our heavenly Bridegroom" and "we will find what no earthly husband could ever give us" (131). 
 
In her carefully thought out chapters, Brownback addressed real issues that cause loneliness like relocating, singleness, and grief from a death or a divorce. I felt like she was writing to an audience of mature thinking Christians and I felt respected. Her book contained enriching vocabulary and intelligent thoughts. I was convicted and encouraged to repent as she touched on the sins that we may lean toward to fill in the gap of loneliness. I was pointed to Christ in every single chapter. Right from the beginning of the book, I was given hope and a remedy for my loneliness. She didn't wait until the final chapter to fill us up with the good news. Brownback used many examples of people in scripture as examples of those who struggled with loneliness, while spurring me on towards my heavenly Groom and his kingdom!  
 
I am not sure if Lydia Brownback has cellulite or a thigh gap, but I do know that Christ is the answer to her loneliness and being in the body of believers, even though it may feel lonely at times, is the remedy.
 
 
You can listen to an MoS interview with Lydia Brownback on her book here: Is One the Loneliest Number?
 
Dana Tuttle is a housewife theologian who is obsessed with headless queens. She is a wife and the mother of 11-year-old twin boys. She daydreams about owning a pub, but is happy with her role as the crazy theme mom and scrapbooking fool. Dana is an over-achiever in Book Review Club, and can often be found hiding in her closet reading books written by dead theologians while eating the latest leftover holiday candy.
Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Every Christian should be well acquainted with Psalm 110. I could give you way more than four reasons. As a matter of fact, Psalm 110 will help us in perseverance. Hebrews 10:23 exhorts us to persevere in the Christian faith telling us this: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” Doesn’t it seem strange that holding fast to a confession is key to perseverance? Building up to this verse, the writer to the Hebrews packs in a lot of theology. When studying this verse within its context of Hebrews for my book Theological Fitness, I discovered that new scholarship suggests Hebrews is a sermon letter based off of Psalm 110. I found that fascinating. Psalm 110 gives us the confession of our hope. It may be my favorite piece of Scripture. I want you to love it as much as I do, so here are some reasons why every Christian should study it.
 
Study Psalm 110…
 
 
If you want to hear God speak
 
The Christian bestsellers list shows us how badly we want to hear God speak. Isn’t that the success of Jesus Calling? We want to hear from God---today. And so Christian bookstores are full of bestselling books telling us about special words from our Lord to the authors, and how we can hear him too (or at least through them). This is what many well-intentioned believers think they need to persevere in the Christian life. But what we really need is to hold fast to our confession of hope.
 
Why don’t we let God tell us our confession of hope? This is not a mere message for one person today, but something that applies to every single one of us in every single situation. Psalm 110 begins with an amazing revelation, “The LORD said…” Here is our special word from the Lord. In his commentary on Psalm 110, Puritan Edward Reynolds elaborates, 
 
The "word of God" in Scriptures signifies his blessing, power, pleasure, ordination. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," Matt. iv. 4. That is, by that command which the creatures have received from God to nourish by, that benediction and sanctification which maketh every creature of God good unto us, 1 Tim. iv.5. God’s saying is ever doing something; his words are operative, and carry an unction and authority along with them. (An Explication of the Hundred and Tenth Psalm, 5.)
 
And so we see this blessing and ordination again in Scripture in Matt. 3:17,  “and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” None of us can speak with that kind of authority. Study Psalm 110 to hear what the Lord says.
 
 
If you want to know God’s will
 
What do you cling to when your faith is challenged? Your friends, your church attendance, your family, your quiet time, your emotions or psychological health? A prayer that you prayed? These are times in our lives when we really want to know God’s will. Psalm 110 delivers again. Here we see the covenant of redemption, God’s eternal plan, and the appointment of Christ to his office. In these poetic words we see Christ’s Kingdom, his church, his enemies, his humiliation, his exaltation, and triumph.  
 
And we see this seemingly insignificant word that is like an X-marks-the-spot on the map for us: Until→ You are here. 
 
We see where Christ is now and what he’s doing. That until can be hard to bear sometimes but in Psalm 110 we have the comfort of knowing, “He shall gather a church, and he shall confound his enemies, because for that end he hath finished and broken through all the sufferings with he was to drink of, and has lifted up his head again” (Explication, 4.).
 
 
If you want to know what all the NT writers were talking about
 
Psalm 110 is the most quoted Psalm in the New Testament. We have direct quotes in Matt. 22:44, Mk. 12:36, Luke 20: 42-43, Acts 2: 33-34, and Heb. 1:13. We have indirect references to it, saying “It is written,” in Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69; 1 Cor. 15:25; and Heb. 5:6, 7:17, 21. Compare. Mark 14:62; 16:19; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 5:6; 8:1; 10:12, 13; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22 to Psalm 110 and you will see how heavily the writers in Scripture relied on God’s words there and how he built upon them. And heck, maybe Hebrews really is a sermon-letter based on the text of Psalm 110.
 
Why? Don’t you think this must be an important Psalm worth our study?
 
 
If you want a creed as solid as David’s
 
“For this psalm is one of the clearest and most compendious prophesies of the prophecies and person and offices of Christ in the whole Old Testament, and so full of fundamental truth, that I shall not shun to call it David’s creed.” (Explication, 2.) 
 
There you have it. In seven verses, we have David’s creed, David’s confession of hope---one that we too can hold fast to. As a matter of fact, Reynolds pulls 14 confessions out of these 7 verses: the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the sufferings of Christ, Christ’s completed work and resurrection, ascension and intercession, a holy catholic church and communion of the saints, the last judgment and day of his wrath, the remission of sins, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
 
I was honored to teach a Sunday school class on those 14 confessions from David’s creed. You may ask, why would the writer to the Hebrews exhort us to persevere in the Christian life of faith and obedience by holding onto a confession? Christianity is a historical faith that has content. There are certain elements to our confession that would devastate our faith if they were not true. As Paul demonstrates in 1 Cor. 15, “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die’” (33). Hope is not the same as wishful thinking; it is built on truth. Jesus is Lord in his person and in his work. That is something that we can hold fast to. And he indeed holds fast to us as our anchor, interceding on our behalf as he is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 
Psalm 110:
 
The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand, 
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
 
The LORD sends forth from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your enemies!
Your people will offer themselves freely
on the day of your power, 
in holy garments;
from the womb of the morning,
the dew of your youth will be yours.
The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind
“You are a priest forever
in the order of Melchizedek.”
 
The LORD is at your right hand;
he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment among the nations,
filling them with corpses;
he will shatter chiefs
over the wide earth.
He will drink from the brook by the way;
therefore he will lift up his head.
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
I see that CBMW has a new document named the Nashville Statement, calling the church to faithful witness to God’s purposes for human sexuality. I share their concerns for speaking out against the damage and pain caused by the sexual revolution. I share their zeal for promoting holiness and to make known the good news of redemption in Christ available to all. But as I read the 14 articles, I had some serious questions still unanswered. The impact from the Trinity debate, of which CBMW was of central concern, and the teachings on masculinity and femininity that have been taught from their website, at their conferences, and by their most well-known leaders, still hasn’t been dealt with.
 
One year ago, Denny Burk became the new president of CBMW and wrote a post denying CBMW’s connection with the unorthodox teaching of ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son). He promoted a “big tent” complementarianism that included differing views of the Trinity. I wrote an article then, hoping to get actual retractions of the harmful CBMW teaching about the Trinity and troubling teaching on manhood and womanhood. It was called What Denny Burk Could Do. I ended with this:
 
I would love to see CBMW clean house and actually be the leaders they write about sometimes, I really would. But I am not going to accept a veneer of concern without real change. At this point it appears that all the proponents of ESS will still be people of influence there. No one from CBMW has made a statement retracting the teaching on ESS/ERAS/EFS, rather they continue even in Strachan's resignation announcement to promote his book that teaches it. They continue to assure us that it is orthodox. And none of Ware or Grudem's writings on it have been retracted either. They are all leaders there still. Nor has there been any explanation or apology for the Sanctified Testosterone teaching or Soap Bubble Submission (although that particular post has disappeared). Nothing. All of that teaching needs to be retracted, with apologies at this point, for CBMW to have any credit in my book. Denny Burk could lead the way in doing that.
 
Before that, I made a plea to CBMW, asking them to take a firm stance on the Trinity. Here we are a year later with a new statement from CBMW, signed by many of the proponents of ESS/ERAS/EFS, and those who formerly supported this teaching but have now backed away from it. Looking back a year later, I would have loved to see CBMW lead the way in retracting the unorthodox, harmful teaching from their own movement and leaders. I would have loved to see some apologies for leading people in such error and for calling some of us names who pointed it out. I would have loved to see men and women invited to sign off on orthodox teaching that doesn't reduce men and women to stereotypes. But this was not the case. And now we have this new statement, which makes me ask more questions:
 
What do they mean by “divinely ordained differences between male and female” in Article 4? I agree with the words themselves. But CBMW hasn’t retracted their teaching on eternal subordination of women by God’s design. Just last year, sessions from their conference “The Beauty of Complementarity” connected ESS/EFS to complementarianism in an ontological context of authority and submission. Just last year they promoted the release of Owen Strachen and Gavin Peacock’s book, The Grand Design, which taught this very connection (and is endorsed by others also signing the Nashville Statement). 
 
And if this is not the case, then I have to wonder why include CBMW proponents of ESS who used this teaching in conjunction with masculinity and femininity such as Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and Owen Strachen, as signatories?  I looks to me like this is still the accepted teaching. How else should I read it?
 
CBMW also hasn’t retracted any of the hyper-authoritarian, hyper-machismo teaching about manhood and their hyper-submissive and stereotypical teaching about womanhood. Instead, I have seen much more of the same by some of their popular leaders. So once again, I wonder if this is what applies to their “divinely ordained differences”?
 
Are these divinely ordained differences ultimately expressed in sex and marriage and authority and submission? The statement says nothing about friendship. God didn't design the two sexes only for marriage. What about how we were designed for the new heavens and the new earth? Where's the brother/sister language? This is an important part of our sexuality that carries over into our eternal bodies when we will not marry. The church needs to speak more into how we were created for communion with the Triune God and with one another in platonic---intimate but non-erotic---relationships. This too is a faithful witness against the sexual revolution and for promoting one another’s holiness. And a great hope for those who suffer with same sex attraction.
 
There are people whom I have much respect for who have signed this Nashville Statement. I am not trying to bash anyone or insinuate that everyone who signed or was involved in writing this has some sort of ESS agenda. But I am concerned that so much has been overlooked. CBMW wants to be our leading voice in what they call biblical manhood and womanhood. A year ago, I was hoping CBMW would lead the way and make things right. Now, I just see rebranding. You can’t pretend that there were no problems with your whole movement and then continue to try and lead the way with a new statement. If you continue to teach harmful stereotypes and promote unorthodox teachers that are not in line with Nicene Trinitarian doctrine, you can’t be a trusted name for me no matter how many good signatures you get. Thankfully, I belong to a confessional church that already has statements to which I subscribe.
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
 
Rahab is such a fascinating person in history. Her part in helping the Israelite spies scouting out Jericho was full of bravery, discernment, and faith. We later see Rahab’s name, we’re talking about a Gentile women---ex-prostitute---here, in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Sure, there’s a whole list of sinners saved by grace in that genealogy. But genealogies in ancient Mediterranean society were patrilineal, tracing the offspring through the fathers. Rahab isn’t the only woman listed in this genealogy. I’ve already written about how she represents God’s openness of his covenant community to the Gentiles---a Canaanite who openly professed her faith in the God of Israel, and was then welcome to become a member of God’s household. 
 
But there’s something in Rahab’s heroine story that was pivotal for the spies’ escape, the takeover of the land, and her own salvation---she lied. Her lie was a result of her faith in these men being from God, her belief that he was going to give them the land, and her own desire to be a part of that as well. Now, if we look at the genealogy of Jesus, we see that it is full of redeemed sinners. I mean, David was an adulterer and a murderer; surely Rahab can be forgiven for a lie that saved God’s people. But I always stub my toe on this lie because it is told as if it were part of her faithful act. At least we have David’s repentance recorded so beautifully for us in Scripture. But there’s no hint of sorrow over this lie. It’s practically celebrated. Clearly Rahab’s faith was strong enough to take this risk of hiding the spies and lying to authorities. So, why wasn’t it strong enough to tell the truth and trust God? I happen to think lying is pretty serious. I mean, Satan is called the father of lies. So what do we do with Rahab’s lie that led to the birth of our Savior and a foreshadowing of his blessing to all nations?
 
Over the summer, I was doing some research on ancient siblingship. The central relational priority in Patrilineal Kinship Groups (PKG) was sibling solidarity. Honesty within the family was a vital aspect of familial duty. But this also was an aspect that revealed allegiance when it came down to family honor and loyalty. Joseph Hellerman discusses this in his book The Ancient Church as Family:
 
The fascinating issue of truth and lying in PKG culture represents and expression of PKG solidarity that is quite foreign to most Westerners. Much evidence suggests that, as the family related to outsiders, preservation of honor was a value held in higher esteem than truth telling in situations in which one or the other had to be compromised…
 
…One may lie to outsiders, if necessary, in order to preserve family honor, but one must tell the truth to members of the PKG. (45-46)
 
This made me think of Rahab’s lie in a more virtuous way. The fact that she lied to fellow Canaanites to preserve Israelites reveals a change of allegiance. But it wasn’t merely another race that she was aligning with; it was a family. Her solidarity with the Israelites was in a sense a sibling solidarity. The lie itself made a statement about familial duty. What’s fascinating about this is that her status as a prostitute is also changed. Her whole identity is changed. In fact, she was living a lie before and she has finally found the truth! Much later, the early church builds on this idea of sibling solidarity in God's household. And there she is, listed in the gospels in the family of Jesus.
 
I still stub my toe over it some. But this sibling solidarity thing really helped shed light on Rahab’s lie.
Posted on Monday, July 03, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
Way back in my early twenties, I used to volunteer at CareNet Pregnancy Center. They trained some of us to give abstinence presentations to high school youth. There were many true and helpful points in these presentations and I felt good about helping teens understand spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences in their decisions. And as evangelical churches around me were also speaking out more to teens about abstinence, I was happy that the church was finally talking more about the consequences of sex. But now, almost 20 years later, I am rethinking how Christians teach abstinence as purity. 
 
Of course, it is not pure behavior to participate in premarital and extramarital sex. But we are missing out on learning the beauty of purity by reducing it to saying no to sexual activity outside of the bounds of marriage. And by reducing our teaching this way, I think that we have reduced our brothers and sisters in Christ to threats to our purity and have also inadvertently enticed lust by hedging their behavior with more and more laws to stay pure---sealed with with the ring that advertises it.
 
John doesn’t tell us to hold back our love, but to love our brothers and sisters with a holy love:
 
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:11—12)
 
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:18—19)
 
And we have this command from him: The one who loves God must also love his brother and sister. (1 John 4:21)
 
He tells us to look to our ultimate hope, which is to be transformed into the likeness of Christ, even though we can’t fully grasp what that will be. And this great hope is not merely wishful thinking---it is purifying:
 
See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason, the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on him purifies himself, just as he is pure. (1 John 3:1—3)
 
Because we are children of God, and our hope is in full glorification and Christlikeness, we are called to purify ourselves. What does that mean? We cannot do this ourselves. We need Christ, who is our purity. But what does that mean? Purity is too often thought of as something that we lose, and so it is thought of as something to guard through abstinence. But we don’t purify ourselves through abstinence. We purify ourselves by having our hope fixed on Jesus Christ; “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). In their book, God So Loved He Gave, Kelly Kapic and Justin Borger build off of this verse in discussing the paradox of how Christians live under God’s divine generosity as we belong to God:
 
God’s ownership is much more dynamic than we might expect. While we often associate the idea of “ownership” with locks and keys, safe deposit boxes, bank accounts, and home security systems, God’s ownership is fundamentally different. Unlike us, God doesn’t own by keeping, but by giving…
 
Since God did not create to satisfy an inadequacy or need of his own, but out of the fullness of his delight and love, this delight and love flow to the creatures as generosity and back to God as thanksgiving and praise. Creation reflects and therefore shares in---or “beholds”---God’s great glory. Our good has by his hand become a means of God’s ultimate glory, intrinsically connected (cf. Ezek. 36:22-27).
 
The nature of this connection is a key to a healthy view of God and ourselves. As God’s giving does not impoverish but enriches him, so we, as we offer back to God the gifts he has given and sanctified in us, are enriched in his glory and are satisfied in and through him. (24-25)
 
We can certainly apply this dynamic nature of God’s generosity to our purity. Our purity is from God. Think of all that purity entails. It is not merely abstinence from premarital sex. We must not reduce it to what we withhold. Purity involves our hearts, our thoughts, proper active love, integrity, and holiness. Purity is body, mind, and soul cleanliness, which is not mixed with sin in any of these areas. Can anyone uphold this in herself? Himself?  No! But God graciously gave us his Son. Jesus Christ’s full righteousness is imputed to every believer. So from him, we are given everything that purity entails. Everything! And it is through him that we remain pure. He didn’t just pay for our impurity and give us his purity; he has given us himself! Paul makes this argument when discussing purity:
 
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)
 
We have been given the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, tabernacling with us. Now that is holiness and purity! While affirming God’s ownership, he is telling us that God has given us himself. Talk about divine generosity! He then concludes that we are to glorify God in our bodies. So our purity is from God, through God, and we respond by offering it back to God. Purity isn’t merely abstaining from sexual activity; it is offering our whole selves back to the Giver.  This positive response of gratitude and worship is where we find our greatest satisfaction and joy. We will not find our ultimate satisfaction in sex. But that is the lie that many believe when they participate in entertaining lustful thoughts, inappropriate behaviors, and especially in carrying it all the way through to the act of premarital or extramarital sex. Temptations to sin in this way must be confessed and offered to God. That too is an act of faith in offering ourselves to the One who sustains us. 
 
This is also important for married people to understand. Often, abstinence teaching within the church gives a false promise that is still focused on a man-centered gratification that really has nothing to do with our purity. It goes something like this: If you maintain your virginity until marriage, you will be blessed with wonderful sex and a happily ever after relationship. Purity is treated as some sort of commodity for ultimate blessing. Don’t be fooled: this is the prosperity gospel. God’s holy standard exists only to reward you for your great victory in following the “name it claim it” formula. But even sex within marriage is not going to satisfy us. And it certainly isn’t our purity. 
 
Many disillusioned Christians who tried to “do it the right way” have fallen hard when they didn’t get the rapturous blessing they thought they had earned. Our purity is from God, through God, and to God. Understanding that the Lord has truly been victorious, that he can sustain us in our weaknesses and give us his own power to love him and to hate sin, that we can share in his love to his people with godly affection which is appropriate for our different relationships, and that all of our affections are going to be returned to him in fullness of glory is satisfying. He wants to give us true pleasure that is to be found in blessed communion with the Triune God and his people. When we know and experience this, we do not put false expectations on others, even our spouses. And we look at our brothers and sisters with the eyes of faith.
 
True love rightly orders it's affections. But please don't put that on a ring.
 
Posted on Monday, June 19, 2017 by Aimee Byrd on Housewife Theologian
I've received a handful of emails regarding the latest MoS episode on Maddi Runkles, the pregnant teenager who could not walk with her fellow graduates at Heritage Christian Academy. They were pretty much divided in half between those who agreed with the school's decision and those who did not. This thoughtful reply by a listener got to the heart of a matter about whether a school administration, even a Christian school, has the same authority that church government does in handling personal sin. I am posting it with permission of the the sender, Lori Seaman:
 
I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed the conversation about the Christian school shaming the pregnant teen. One thing it got me thinking about was the unique role of the church, and what happens when other institutions try to take on that role. Christian schools can and do play a very good, important role in the formation of Christian children, but they are not churches. I'm not sure, once they created a code of conduct that did not just address academic- or school-related issues, but personal sin. 
 
There are things that are not sin that schools can reasonably prohibit and punish. It is not inherently sinful for a boyfriend and girlfriend to kiss, but a school can have a policy against PDAs, and give a detention to students seen kissing in the hallway. A pastor, on the other hand, would be (as least as far as I can tell!) wildly out of line if he were to discipline a serious boyfriend and girlfriend for not waiting until their wedding day to have their first kiss. Failing a class is not a sin, but a school can deny graduation to a student who fails. Whereas, I'd say, a church can discipline a member for sex outside of marriage, but a school should not. 
 
A school, even a Christian school, has no real mechanism for dealing with sin, nor is it their role to do so. If they have a code of conduct with that includes both not having premarital sex and not plagiarizing, then they are in a bind. If a student plagiarizes or cheats, are they now bound to allow that student to walk at graduation if they repent? But if they won't allow that, then they are also in a position where extending grace to the pregnant teen but not the plagiarizer would seem unfair. A church can embrace and forgive and be again in full communion with both the repentant pregnant teen and the repentant plagiarizer, because dealing with sin is the job of the church. Dealing with sin is not the job of the school, and they cannot do it well.
 
Anyway, great show, and I think the school really could not have come up with a good answer once they decided that they should have student's private sexual behavior (behavior that did not take place on school grounds or at school events) in the code of conduct. It doesn't belong there, because even Christian schools are not there to discipline and forgive sinners. That's the church's job. I'm not sure, once they created a code of conduct that did not just address academic- or school-related issues, but personal sin, they could have responded well.