hey paul -- yeah, i know that i rarely comment -- have read many of your postings though and i am interested in what kinds of thoughts people add on this topic. i am not really trying to avoid the big topic of your entry [sex before marriage] but actually i want to make a comment about the believer/unbeliever issue. in general, i am tired of the wishy-washy-ness that many christians (including myself) have become. the "tolerance" we throw around, etc for many sins. the way we find a way to justify anything and everything to make our consciences clear (okay, so maybe i am on the sex issue a little) but -- this being yoked with an unbeliever -- (in my own pride) it always seemed lie a clear issue. "no." but, someone i am very close to is sort of dating a non-believer. specifically, i was convinced that i wasn't going to like this girl who he brought home. well, surprise, surprise, i love her. she is great. but he is torn. and i can see how it happens. BUT -- he knows that something deep in her doesn't understand him -- doesn't understand ALL of him and where his hope comes from. in the bible it says, "without vision, the people perish." ... and he has acknowledged that as great as she is -- as great as they seem together, they do not have the same vision -- and ultimately, they will perish without the same vision.

...i guess my point is that i am not exempt, we are not exempt. it is happening in my family. she has good values but doesn't have jesus.
... so i guess we pray. that's it. and as for the sex issue -- i am sure that someone other that me will be so kind to add some theological "stuff" that they have read, etc. but my thoughts on this issue are this: be in contact with your God. pray, pray, pray before it becomes an issue. be intimate with your God. go to Him. sounds simple, and i know it isn't that simple. but we are called to so many things that don't make sense in the world we live in. go figure this is one of those things.
...i can't think of one christian couple who did have sex before marriage that has told me, "Gosh, i am so glad that we didn't wait."
denial comes up a lot in the bible. deny yourself, deny yourself, deny yourself. take up your cross. perseverance produces patience...etc etc ... and in the end, God produces character.

so if you are dating a non-christian, ... how would you explain all of that?

... can't really explain it, i don't think. again, you have a different vision.
 

Paul, I loved the question about being with someone who is "holy" in everyway EXCEPT that they don't believe the same way...

Josh and I have been married almost 5 years now. Over these past five years we have each gone through SO many different phases. I've been a dozen different women with a dozen different dreams for my life, a dozen different takes on my world, a dozen different styles of dress, hair, even the core passions of my life have transformed many times. Yet in the midst of it, we are crazy about each other. We love each other deeper than ever.

I guess I don't think it's the faith thing that keeps people together. For us, maybe it's as simple as that we thoroughly LIKE each other. We like the way the other one thinks and processing and approaches life. So matter how much we change, we still stay Kari and Josh. And we knew from the day we met that we LIKED each other.

If you choose someone mainly because of their faith/lack of faith, you might find yourself sorely disappointed if, as people do, they change over the years. But if you pick someone that you adore as a PERSON, then I think you have a much better chance of making it through life with flying colors. =)

(By the way, I work with this great girl... just joking!)
 

Ok Paul, so your scenario was so engaging I couldn't just write a quick comment. Your post spawned a-whole-nother post on my blog in response to you.;-) Check it out.
Christin
 

Paul:
This is one of the hardest things in the world for me to read! Because I been there, and I gave in. i can't believe I just admitted that! But I was in this situtation, minus the fact that she wasn't a christian...Well she was but not strong...she convinced me through many different conversations and experineces that it would be alright! Now when you're a hormone driven man, whose been waiting his whole life for sex and a girl wants to have it, I'm not going to lie, those stupid cards I signed didn't help at all!!! So why would I tell anyone now that sex isn't good before marriage...It's been over a year and 3 months since this girl and I broke up and I still deal with the emotional scars from it. Sex is yes very physical, but the emotional seems to be more impacting. I'm missing a part of my heart, that I'm daily and slowly trying to give back to God, and I hope that one day I can give my wife a fully restored heart. Right now though my emotional heart, is still very much hurting and I've learned that Sex before marriage causes so much more damage that I was ever told it would! Physical yeah there are consequences big ones, but Emotionally it's a lot harder to get passed then the physical aspect!
 

umm....perhaps some people should not be as candid in the replies. A blog might not be the most appropriate place to engage in confession, regardless of how pure the motives may be. Just a thought.
 

I am going to be like a few others and not address your question exactly :) I just thought it was uncanny b/c I had formulated this whole frustrated blog entry in my head (still not fleshed out) about that whole "true love waits" campaign. Is it even true? DOES true love wait? If so... does that mean it is not true love if it does not wait? If that is the message being sent to teens (and engrained in our young adult generation) then what kind of shakles of shame and guilt and unhealth are we carrying? I do not believe that the choice to wait or not to wait is solely measured by the authenticity of love - and i cant imagine anyone disagreeing with that. So why is it that we teach youth that lie? I know I won't get it right in mentoring and discipleship of younger believers... and I should abound with grace for those who didnt get it right with me... but it just makes me sad. How do we teach grace and still have healthy boundaries for our kids? I dont have an answer. Ok... so if i could encourage a new slogan - True love fights for purity. Im sure there's a loop hole in that slogan too... but i like it better! :)
So maybe I am answering the question about having sex (minus the believer status) - teach warefare not abstinence. Teach the power of a loving God to save us from and fight for us through those dang raging hormones. Of course a balance is necessary... but i think there's an imbalance of feeling so much responsibility on us to win these battles while we are forgetting that we have the most powerful warrior on our side. I dunno... I've got miles to go in my understanding.. but this is where im at today.
 

Great topic, and I hope my two cents is worth at least that...

I happen to know quite a few people (mostly women) with spouses that do not follow them to church. I am not saying that these people have bad marriages; many of their marriages have survived better than those of couples in the church.

However, from a therapeutic standpoint, these marriages are lacking something. You see, if faith is a huge aspect of one spouse's life, and it has no bearing on the other's, then one spouse fails to share a deep, intimate aspect of the other's life. In this situation, intimacy is threatened. When two people of different faiths/spiritual values enter into a union, SOMETHING has to give: either one's faith, or intimacy, or even both (which happens frequently).

As it regards sex, you seemed to rebut the traditional argument by saying that sex is just the same as any other form of intimacy. Being married, I would strongly disagree; but for the sake of this argument, suppose it is. Even then, when you truly love someone and are sharing life with them, memories of past intimacy (physical or emotional) with another mate can be painful, and must be worked through. It can be dealt with, and given healing, but it can also be avoided.
 

Bek :: I appreciate your thoughts! The real-life stories and scenarios that you and others have posted here adds depth and reality to this discussion. Thanks so much. I resonate with you that first and foremost we as Christians are called to be faithful to God.

Kar :: First off, when are you going to start your own blog? Many of us are eagerly awaiting that day ;-) On this subject, your thoughts make me wonder if maybe there are at least two camps of people. There are those who would say that a couple cannot truly be unified (at least not to the depths of their being) unless they share in the bond of faith together. Then there are those who might say that faith is not the key ingredient; in fact personality, approach to life, or mutual “LIKE” might be more significant. Interesting distinction. What is it that determines what camp we find ourselves in? What our parents taught us? Personal experiences? Something from a respected/venerated source (i.e. Scripture, MTV, tradition, etc.)?

Tin :: Thanks for taking this discussion to another level by spinning off your own conversation at “Words on the Side”. I have no problem going with you on your premise that all people are NOT inherently good. We are broken people. And every marriage relationship is a union of two relatively broken people. How can two (broken people) become one (whole union)? [Is it something that only happens positionally but not in actuality?] I’d like to think that God has something to do with this whole process.

md :: Thanks for being candid. I know you know that this is an extremely PUBLIC forum; the growing counter totals make that quite clear. In light of that, I see you using your testimony, your story, as a potential warning/encouragement for others who might be reading this. WARNING: If you’re an unmarried person: for the love, don’t have sex before marriage. ENCOURAGEMENT: If you’re an unmarried person who is a virgin: great job; stick with it. It’s worth it. If you’re an unmarried person who has ‘tripped up’: it’s not the end of the world. Strive hard for restoration with God and others. Thanks Micah!

Sher :: I agree that we would be a lot better off at times if we communicated in positive terms rather than negative terms. Instead of “Don’t have sex”, we might stress the importance of striving for respect, self-control, and purity in relationships. Let’s re-frame the whole conversation. Help students to really picture the health and fulfillment in relationships of that nature rather than showing slideshows of the physical results of STD’s.

D & T :: My intent was neither to rebut nor support “the traditional argument . . . that sex is just the same as any other form of intimacy”. However my intent was to propose that “one could easily find themselves in a place where” they believed that. And my hope was that someone like you would chime in and give a supporting or dissenting view on that. THANKS for doing that! I tend to agree with you. There are many things in life I would have much rather avoided altogether instead of working through them later, you know?

Everyone :: Great things are being touched on in each of your responses. My driving question though is still this: “As a believer, why not have sex before marriage?” I’m primarily hearing so far that the emotional fallout from such an action is simply not worth it. Is there more to it than that? So will telling that to Joe or Jane Teenager in my youth group going to keep them from getting it on?
 

i didn't take the time to read all the posts. i'm kinda lazy. so, it may have been brought up. anyway, the natural equation of sex to marriage is the bond. i think that pre-marital sex is almost redundant. it would be like saying to a first century believer, "pre-baptism conversion." sex is the marriage act--and for this reason the one who rapes a woman in the wilderness must proceed to marry her--and always be married to her (deut. 28).
 

Just a side comment from a reader you don't know -

I think that a main part of your motivation for asking this pertinent question is your own desire to do your job better, to be able to have a frank and helpful conversation with kids about what is going on in their lives and how to make good decisions.

I've always derided abstinence-only education (at least outside of the home) because it is quite obviously insufficient - however, abstinence needs to be part of the discussion. I can clearly remember (though this occurred many years ago), feeling that something was wrong with me because I truly was not interested in sex in middle school or even high school. I had boyfriends and dated a bit, but I never felt a strong desire to have sex. Meanwhile, the media, adults trying to educate me, some friends were all communicating to me that my raging teenage hormones were something of a disability. I never felt like I was one of those people.

My point is this - there are a lot of active kids - who play sports and attend youth group or volunteer or stay active in band or clubs, trying to get into college, who really don't feel distracted by their hormones. Let's always make sure these kids know that they are normal, too.
 

WOW! This is really good stuff... Let me add a thought...

PK - in response to your question is "avoiding the emotional fallout" a good enough exuse to prevent premarital sex??? I would suggest - NO!

Here's where my thoughts drifted. I am convinced that perhaps the CORE issue here is really more about intimacy than it is about sex - and that true intimacy is only achieved through purity. Let me explain...

I understand intimacy to be the joy of knowing someone fully and being fully known by that person without any fear of rejection. Therefore, it makes sense that purity would pave the way to intimacy. Impurity on the other hand, erodes the capacity to experience intimacy - and diminishes the satisfaction of sex.

I don't think that any of us would disagree with the idea that sex is more than just physical - it's relational! So, if that's the case then what people are really seeking is intimacy not sex... Therefore, I seek to explain to girls/women that they really don't want sex - what they are really seeking is intimacy. They want to meet a guy and fall in love, know him fully and be known by him fully. They want to know that they can trust him completely with any and every part of themselves without any fear of betrayal or rejection... intimacy, not sex! For guys, they are concerned with meeting someone they are physically attracted to and then fall in love with her without ever losing that physical attraction. Often times, the guy is afraid that he might marry someone and then lose attraction for her... end up feeling "stuck". I suggest that the best way to never lose that "loving feeling" is to set your sights on intimacy rather than sex, because great sex is a by-product of maximum intimacy.

Just a thought...
 

Clint,

I agree with you wholeheartedly, you put it so well. What we really desire/need is intimacy and acceptance, and sexual union is part of that.

The problem is that this biological drive within us is hungry. It would be quite easy to take a position like the one you've presented and twist it to downplay the importance of sexual responsibility. Perhaps sexual union is much closer to a warmly given backrub then to the emotional closeness we all desire (as far as spiritual significance goes). We can express ourselves sexually here or there, knowing full well that it is not as meaningful as complete union and devotion to one person, but for the time being will have to do.

I don't really take that stance, but...

Another shot taken at Christians is this tremendous sense of guilt over mis-used sexuality. Often non-believers see this as quite unhealthy psychologically ("Dude, get over it. Sex is a release."), and point to many psychological studies and research done that 'proves' we are much 'healthier' beings when we're not beating ourselves up over 'ancient boundary markers', but living 'freely' (overuse of quotations, mine). But sometimes, these people really sound like they know what they're talking about.
 

I GOT IT!!! I want to answer your question directly now!!!!
As I read your last post Paul, I answered in my head "b/c it's wrong and the Bible says not to." And I felt so foolish in my inability to come up with anything that didn't taste of Sunday School ciriculum. Last night I was reading 1 Cor 6 and I found it! DUH!!! B/c Sex is an act of worship!! So for the believer sex is a gift FROM God to be a way to bring glory TO God! I'm so happy b/c now I feel like I can actually tell a Christian teenager (or a Chrisitan young adult or a Christian virigin period) why sex is the wrong choice without laying more junk for them to have to work through later. If we have sex outside of marriage we are missing the whole point - and therefore miss out on the joy and freedom and (i have no idea what im talking about so it's a bit weird to describe...) etc etc etc - that comes with the intimacy between a husband and wife.
How'd I do?
 

By the way - I realize if you check my sources out that 1 cor 6 sounds more like dont do it b/c your body is God's.... but that was my inspiration for my re-revelation! :)
 

Clint & Sherilyn are both onto something. For me, an old married guy, I paused to think why I chose not to have pre-marital sex. The opportunity was certainly there, as I attended a state university at the height of the "free sex" sexual revolution and before there was AIDS. I was a fairly new Christian. The Kinsey report, since then repudiated (e.g., www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html), had tremendous social influence. So why not? I think it was partly the scriptural principle that when you unite yourself sexually with someone, it is NOT just recreation, it is not casual, it has tremendous spiritual significance that cannot even be explained on the emotional level. You are linked to that person on far more than just a physical plane. And I believed that. The world may mock scripture and demand arguments that are based on other authorities. (But they do not accept any authorities outside themselves, really.) Fortunately, the Holy Spirit is present and working, convicting, illuminating. That is why scripture has power---more power than purely human arguments. Don't be afraid to use scripture.

Another reason I abstained was more sociological, I guess. The data suggested that those who engaged in pre-marital sex, even with the partner that they eventually married, were more likely to divorce than one who had waited until marriage. Maybe this goes along with the "intimacy" idea offered before. Just some thoughts.
 

Call me obsessive compulsive, but to me "you can't have that" translates into irrational fixation on the item. Dieting? Nothing sounds better than chocolate and chips, right?

I think that we Christians often miss the point. Jehovah is not a God of "no"s. He's a God of abundant provision. The Israelites had detailed rule-books to follow, but we post-Jesus people are supposed to be beyond that, right? We're supposed to *get* that the point is to "love the Lord your God with your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself". THIS is the answer to the "sex or no sex" question for me.

Do I think that sex before marriage is God's best design? No, not really. But I also don't think that sex is the end of the world. We make sex out to be this mammoth-sized THING and we obsess over it… but really, in the end, isn’t it just sex? It’s important. It’s meaningful. It is an act of worship, as one post-er mentioned. But really… isn’t loving God and respecting others the real issue here?

The ‘why’ or ‘why not’ to have sex for each of us will probably be different. The bottom line in this scenario for me is “because the community that I come from teaches that we don’t do this.” That’s the true reason why you haven't jumped her bones yet, isn't it?; because we were taught growing up not to do this stuff. "No sex" is one of the parameters that holds our community together. To sleep with her is, in a sense, causing the young man to forsake his community. I don't think he's ready to do that.

IF, infact, he does want to venture from community norms, I would propose the following:

*guard your heart, it’s the well-spring of life (ie – don’t go too fast)
*do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires (ie – don’t go too fast)
*love your neighbor as yourself (ie- you’ve got to make choices that will lead you to respect yourself in the end and are respectful to the other person)

What does all of this boil down to? :: I don’t think that sex is nearly as big a deal as we make it out to be. Most important is that you are seeking to passionately love God, respecting others, and based on all the self-help books I’ve read (and Keith Drury’s recent column on loosing and binding), I’d submit that deciding the HOW WE DO THIS is best done in community.
 

Time for the former abstinence educator to weigh in :) I've been reading the comments and pondering how I wanted to respond to the issues you raise, Paul. I am trying to pull together all that I’ve read and heard and my own thoughts to address your questions. Sorry it’s taken me so long.

Last year when I worked in abstinence education, I always liked talking to church groups rather than in the public schools because I could give them the full picture. Talking about sex without talking about God feels incomplete--He is the author of all good things and the creator of sex. I once heard someone say (can’t remember who or where, or exactly how they put it) that to them, the very existence of sex was proof of the existence of a good god. There are plenty of other ways we could reproduce the human race :)

The world today has given us skewed perspectives on sex and marriage because they’ve devalued both and distorted the meaning. We go to extremes, portraying sex either as something “dirty” and “unmentionable,” or as “free love, everyone’s doing it, what’s the big deal.” We devalue the meaning of commitment and marriage (high divorce rates, cohabitation, divorce is accepted and easy to get, “reality” TV shows mocking marriage, etc.). And we reject the place of sex within marriage, telling teens they can have sex if they ‘feel ready’ or are ‘in love’ (as if most 16-year-olds really even know what that means--not that SOME don’t, but I think MOST don’t--though of course you won’t get anywhere by telling them that :).

The reality is, as Christians we have something else more authoritative than subjective internal or community-based standards to look to for our values and standards: God’s Word. For us, the argument is incomplete if it’s just about avoiding sex before marriage to be safe from STDs or heartache (though those are real consequences).

I find it illuminating that this conversation has focused so much on what’s good or not good for us. When in reality, first of all, we as humans have a limited and often flawed perspective on what’s best for ourselves. And second of all, we are not called to live by what we think would be beneficial or not beneficial to us, but by what God asks us to do. So limiting the conversation on sex to emotional and physical consequences is a very man-centered perspective. (The beauty of God is that His laws make a lot of sense and are good for us from a practical standpoint anyway--but that’s not primarily why we follow them.)

So the question we have to ask first as Christians is, what does God have to say about sex? Regardless of your doubts about the meaning of "porneia," there are other places to look to find clues about God’s perspective of sex.

Proverbs 5:15-19 is a good place to start: "Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets...? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers..." The righteous man is to "rejoice in the wife of your youth" and to be "captivated by her love." Sexual intimacy within marriage is GOOD and blessed by God--a gift for bonding and pleasure--but for husband and wife alone. Throughout the Bible, most visibly in Ephesians 5, we see marriage highly valued--clearly it’s an important covenant relationship, not a technicality.

One of the above commenters made a good point in saying God wants life abundant for us, not a life lived by a list of rules and 'no's. Yet sometimes you can’t get away from the fact that living within boundaries is what ENABLES you to live abundantly. At Project Respect we used three analogies. To summarize: a sports game with no rules would be no fun--it would be chaos; a fire in a fireplace is wonderful, but a fire on your living room couch is not; a goldfish in a bowl may want to be "free," but if you take him out of the fishbowl, he’ll die.

Sex within the context God designed it for (marriage) is wonderful; sex outside that context is dangerous and has consequences. Hebrews 13:4 – “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Seems clear to me.

God didn’t set it up that way to "take away our fun" or "impose annoying rules on us"--He’s protecting us from the consequences of sin and setting us up for the ultimate blessing--the purity of a sexual relationship within marriage. All else is a counterfeit version of the beautiful and pure union between husband and wife that He intended. We set up our own rules and do things our way because we can’t stand to have someone else telling us what the boundaries should be--but God CREATED sex, don’t you think He knows what’s best? Yet we show through our actions that we don’t really trust Him--that we believe our way will be just as good or better.

Beyond emotional and physical consequences (which are important), the truth is, sin has spiritual consequences as well. When we exercise an act of our will that goes against the will of God, it interrupts our fellowship with Him. Of course we can repent and find grace--but of course grace is not a license to sin.

Additionally, abstinence is about so much more than "don’t have sex." It’s about preparing for marriage. It’s about developing the character qualities that are going to help you be a godly and faithful spouse. Do you think you can demand instant gratification, look only to your own needs/desires and not what’s best for others or what honors God, etc etc, and then suddenly turn around and be patient and selfless and all that in marriage? Not likely.

Abstinence helps cultivate several crucial character traits that will be invaluable for a lasting marriage: the maturity to set boundaries; self-control; patience; purity; respect for self and others, to name a few. And not only are you cultivating these qualities in yourself--you’re seeing real proof of whether your prospective mate has these qualities. I used to tell my students that I knew I could trust Steve to be faithful to me in marriage because he was proving it during our engagement by showing self-control, etc. Of course there are no 100 percent guarantees--but if he was able to resist the temptation to have sex with me, who he knew would soon be his wife, it gives me a lot of confidence that he’ll resist the temptation to be unfaithful.

The world dangles a bite-sized candy bar in front of teens/young adults and says, "this is so great, just go for it—why deprive yourself? Why not eat it now?" God holds the king-sized version and says, "If you can just wait a little while" (trust me, though it seems like forever in the moment, once you’re married and looking back, it won’t seem like such a long wait), "I have something so much better in store."

One of the above commenters said, "it’s just sex, what’s the big deal." This reminds me of something else I used to tell students. Only, interestingly enough, I talked about it in the context of a kiss--not sex--but anyway. You may say, "it’s ‘just’ a kiss/’just’ sex." Ok, you might be right. But you know what? I think that’s sad. To you, it’s "no big deal." To me, it’s incredibly special and powerful. Who’s really missing out?

And of course I could list other reasons to abstain. For one thing, based on my experience and others’ testimonies, I’ve seen that the more physical a relationship gets, the less communication happens. The best way to truly get to know a person on a deep level and evaluate marriage compatibility, etc. is not to spend all your time being physically intimate, but to communicate a lot (as well as to spend time with others, serve side by side, etc.). Once the physical intimacy goes up in intensity, it tends to be a big distraction from other aspects of life and the relationship.

So...my LONG answer to your question: With Joe and Jane Teenager, I’d spend time focusing not only on the negative ("Look what can happen if you have sex before marriage—you could get HPV or a broken heart!"), but also on the positive ("Saving sex for marriage means honoring God, having a high view of the value of sex and marriage, developing a strong relationship with a solid foundation of communication, preparing to be a godly spouse, and setting yourself up for God’s best!").

Sorry for such a long comment (I probably should have done my own post, as Christin did), but this is something I’m passionate about and something I have experience with. If you’re interested, I can send you the outline I have for church youth groups, which goes into talking about our God-given needs for intimacy and love, what is true love, and other important issues. Email me if you want that, or I might be able to help you out with other resources. Meanwhile, I hope my lengthy comments here are at least somewhat helpful. Thanks for bringing up an important discussion, Paul.
 

Hi Paul! I believe I went to school with you in fourth grade (barring the chance that you just have a doppelganger in Kentucky) and, as so often happens in the small world of the internet, happened to stumble upon your blog a bit ago. Nice to see you're doing well and that you've made such good use of your time on Earth. I envy your travels!

(You were "Tigger," right?)
 

Paul, I know this post is a little old--and you don't know me. I got here through one or another IWUian, & have been enjoying your thoughts here. Ordinarily the sex-before-marriage discussion would be old news to me... but I've been learning some things lately and think they'd apply here, and I don't think I'll be repeating what someone else has said. And what we teach kids/teens is SO important. So I'll just follow this train of thought--some things I'm sure you know--and see where it ends up.

I guess the first thing I'd ask about any ethical question is this: what IS central? Not in my personal life, but in the universe? The short answer to that is: God and God's glory. So many times in Scripture, Paul exhorts people to do things because, ultimately, they will glorify God. God says over and over again that He is doing things for the sake of His glory, His name, etc.

But, on our own, we can't glorify God. We can only glorify Him because he's started this new life inside us, and His Holy Spirit works in us to make us more like Christ. Salvation is by grace, we know that--but growth is by grace, too. Grace doesn't stop the minute we're saved. And it's a gradual growth; positionally, the way God sees us, we're covered with the righteousness of Christ. But day to day, in our actions, we're still growing, and God grows us one step at a time. It's not by our willpower that we do the "right" things; it's by the grace of God, changing us from the inside, causing us to do the right things because they are in our nature.

The SS teacher I've had for a year or so is the one who made this finally clear to me (Hey! God's not wagging his finger at me every time I sin! He's not mad that I didn't read the Bible this week!)--and there's such freedom, and such true motivation, in that: freedom to let God be God and grow me; motivation to serve Him exactly because He is doing the work and deserves the praise and honor.

This same teacher told us about a guy he knew who had just recently become a believer, and the teacher had been discipling him; this guy was so excited about learning stuff about God, reading the Bible, etc. etc.--and he was excited to share it with his girlfriend, who lived with him (!). He was a baby Christian, and God was growing him slowly; neither God, nor my teacher, expected him to suddenly stop sinning in every area of his life. And that's the way it should work: as a new Christian grows, more and more sins that seem obvious to us will become known to him and left behind, because he is becoming, in character, more like Christ, and righteousness will become more and more part of his nature. So for the new believer, who doesn't really understand the theology of sex, maybe it's not the most pressing issue. Maybe he or she first needs to understand what grace really means and how God grows us in that grace. Maybe next he needs to understand more about the character of God and the character of Christ as the Bible describes Them. Maybe then, at some point, as he begins to understand that part of the character of God is purity and holiness (set-asidedness) and that He asks us to be separated from sexual immorality, then his new Christ-like character will enable him to walk away from a pre-marriage sexual relationship.

What, then, for believers who've been believers for a long time and begin to question the sense of waiting? A lot of teens in the church are in that place--grew up in the church, a little jaded when it comes to rules and "religion." Before we have anything to say to them about behavior, we have to make sure we're teaching what grace really is first. Until they understand grace, nothing else is going to really, internally, make sense. Here's what I'd want them to know:

We're not central; God is central. But in His mercy, he has saved us and begun the process of making us more like Christ. The real reason not to have sex before marriage is not that God says so (a more old-covenant reason) but that sexual purity is part of who we are in Christ, growing in the character of Christ. The law was just a shadow of His great character. It's a whole lifestyle, to be open to the way God shapes us into people more like His Son. And it's not even necessarily the "hard choice." I like to quote Piper (and the Westminster Catechism) quite a bit: "The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." And, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." And He tells us over and over again to delight in him--that He is the most delightful Person, that our human relationships will never compare with the joy, the happiness, that are found in HAVING GOD. He Himself, His presence, is the ultimate and best reward.
So the choice to be sexually pure (not to mention emotionally/ imaginationally pure, which many teens & older folks struggle with even more) is not a choice to be unhappy. It's a way of identifying ourselves with Christ and taking joy in that relationship, and acting within the context of the new nature we've been given. It's letting the Holy Spirit make us more like Christ in our purity.
But if we stumble, it doesn't change where we are positionally: God still sees Christ's righteousness, and that's the wonderful, incomprehensible way of His grace. So there is hope, and more than hope, for all of us, who fail not just in purity but in every way imaginable. Our hope is in God, who doesn't love us because we do well, either before or after we became believers; he loves us by choice. To quote Piper again: "He loves you because He loves you!"

Okay. I ran out of words.
If you read this whole thing, thanks. :) This grace thing is the theme of my life right now, and I'm trying to spread the infection wherever I can.

Emily Millikan
 

I have considered why a person should resist sexual temptations such as fornication, and conclude that ultimately for the Christian, the issue is whether a person wants to pursue Christlikeness or selfish pleasure-seeking. So if "you still unreservedly believe that loving God and loving people are at the crux of how you want to live your life...." then you should refrain, because acting in purity (doing what you know will leave you unashamed before God and man) is acting in love to both God and your beloved.
An additional practical reason for resisting temptation is that it schools one to resist later temptations. I observe that those who feel they cannot bridle their passions and "have to" fornicate or keep their courtship to a few weeks tend later to divorce. An old pastor told me that he has heard far to many confessions of adultery, and generally they stem from one spouse temporarily being unable to accomodate the "need" of the other due to pregnancy or illness - apparently the "able" party determined their "need" was stronger than their wedding vows. I believe that if a young person can practice purity in the hormone-filled courtship period, that person has received valuable training for purity (and commitment) once married.
 

So... I wasn't gonna comment because it is a discussion from so long ago, but then I saw the two recent comments and decided that I at least wasn't the only one that was a little behind. So much good stuff has already been said and I do not need to repeat it, but here is the thing that I have wrestled with on this issue. My pastor wrote a book that I love in which he talks about our motivations in obeying God. He challenges the reader to think about that one thing that they would do if there weren't any consequences when it comes to things God asks us not to do. The thought being that somewhere along the way our motivation to follow the will of God has to be less about the consequences, be they physical, emotional, or spiritual, and more about the relationship we have with God and our desire to please Him and love Him well. I don't know if I am there yet in every area of my life, but my prayer is that God will help me to get to the point where my motivations to do what He asks me to do are based in my relationship with Him and not so much in my fear of consequences. To get specific, in the choice to not have sex before I am married. I don't want to just avoid it because I do not like the consequences that come with such a choice. I want to get to a point where I don't have sex before I am married because my desire is to love God well and He says if I love Him I will obey His commands. Not expressed well perhaps, but those are just my thoughts.
 

It is hard to give a really good argument against pre-marital sex with out a strong image of marriage. Luther did a great disservice to the world when he removed marriage as a sacrament.
 

I LOVED the pic's. Macy looks so gorgeous! We haven't seen her since July!
You have a great looking family!!!
 

Hey Paul--totally unrelated to your post, but I just ran across a blog that has a post I think you'd be interested in, movie buff that you are:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001704.html

Someone's opinion of the top 50 spiritually significant films, with dozens of comments with people disagreeing or adding their own suggestions. Enjoy! :)
 

One more comment...I say that soon you should post pic's of a visit to LA!!! You're LA friends would LOVE to see you!!!
 

PK - thanks for this... GREAT STUFF!!! I have really appreciated all the different thoughts and comments so far... helps to sharpen me!

For what its worth, I listened recently to a Rob Bell sermon (a part of their VISION series for their church called "Directions 2.0") where he suggests that the ultimate source of MISSION is found in doing good works. He reveals that the idea of "good works" is intimately tied to obeying the commands of God (Deut. 6) and that it also is the final "criteria" by which we are judged by God (see the pattern/theme: James 2, Rev. 2:2, 19; 3:1, 8, 14-16).

He concludes by suggesting that it is by actually LIVING out these "good deeds" (serving, loving, giving, helping etc.) that will lead even pagans to glorify/honor God (1 Pet. 2:11-12)...

Check it out for yourself: Oct. 2nd '05 "Directions 2.0 part IV" at http://www.mhbcmi.org/listen/index.php

This being the case, I consider it my role to at all times possible "spur people on toward LIVING/DOING the commands of God" - but this still leaves me with the question of whether or not people from other religions/backgrounds may encounter or please God when they too stumble upon or follow the "commands of God" without even recognizing them as being from God... does any of this make sense??? I don't know...
 

Been reading Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience". He believes Evangelicals (largely) have accepted a "cheap grace" - justification without sanctification. What you believe, not what you do. Faith, not works. He seeks to bring us back to the middle, holding both as equally important and complete. Reconciling man to man as well as man to God.

Read an article this morning: "What do we mean by 'Evangelism'?" from Word Made Flesh's advocacy journal, (http://www.wordmadeflesh.com/winter2003.pdf) in which David Chronic dicusses and considers what proclaiming the gospel looks like. He explains it four-fold: proclamation, presence, persuasion, and prevenience. Very good source and only a few pages long.
 

First, I agree with Adam. Thank you for spurring this discussion. I don't read blogs but my wife does and knew this would interest me. So I guess now I read blog. I dove right in to the verses and here's what I come away with. You will find pretty quickly that I hold to the Restrictive view.

Retrictivism-
_John 14:6 -Jesus claiming to be the way
_Acts 4:12- Peter claiming Jesus to be the way
_1 John 5:11-12 John claiming Jesus to be the way

Univ Opp before death -
_Daniel 2 discusses heaven but not salvation
_Acts 8 Philip preaches Jesus as the way to salvation

Inclusivism - *inclusivism works as long as the "little revelation they have" is that Jesus is the way to salvation
_John 12:32 Jesus says that he will draw men to him. And that is true, men will be drawn, I think that goes back to the tribes being prepared for the gospel. But remember that just because someone is drawn does not mean that they have chosed to respond to that drawing on their heart
_Acts 10:43 Peter preaching that all who believe in Him (Jesus) will be saved
_1 Timothy 4:10 I don't understand this one, so, no comment (hopefully someone else will jump in here)

Divine Perseverance -
_John 3:18 This is saying that someone who doesn't believe in Jesus has been judged
_1 Peter 3:18 Sounds like he is talking about those OT people that died up until Jesus came. If you look at verse 21 it claims that an appeal to God for a good conscience -through the ressurection of Jesus Christ- is what saves you (sounds like restrictivism)

Universalism -
_Romans 5:18 says that one act of righteousness resulted in justification of life to all men. Get this, we still have to accept that justification. Verse 19 tells us that through the obedience of One, the many will be made righteous. (not all, many) If we go on to read verse 21 it says that eternal life comes through Jesus Christ our Lord
_1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul is preaching the proof the Jesus did rise from the dead. The fact that Jesus came back is a hinge tenent of our faith, as Paul says in verse 32 if the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. There is more to life than this life. Yes, all will be made alive, after all, those who haven't believed must be judged. a corpse cannot stand before a judge.
_1 John 2:2 first, look at chapter 1 verse 7 . . the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. Verse 9, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Back to 2:2, yes, He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Jesus didn't die just for the nation of Israel. He didn't die just for the jews. He died for everybody. Let's not confuse who he died for with who gets saved. You still have to believe in him and accept him, thereby accepting his propitiation.
 

pk - i have enjoyed these discussions as well. i think about this kind of thing a lot. it seems to me that one of the main platforms of the jesus movement in the early church was relief from socio-economic oppression. in the economically opressive times of caesar - where the rich got richer and the poor got poorer - jesus was preaching a somewhat political message that offered an opportunity for the poor to literally be clothed, and fed, and housed, and treated as equals.
this seems to carry on into most of the early church. i would argue that relief of economic conditions was one of the largest proponents in drawing people to the jesus movement. when their needs were met, i believe they then continued organic community in which they encountered a true jesus, full of mercy and grace.
that said, i feel largely convicted that that is what we [the church] should be doing. jesus' message seemed quite practical and applicable to what was immediately needed. i think it speaks a lot into what holisitc ministy looks like and what the truly missional church can be. any thoughts? i would really love input as i strive to live this and do this all better.
 

I'm following and wonderfully enjoying this writing and the responses Paul... I might just quit teaching my classes and have my students read the blogs of past students--they might learn more!
 

just joined in the conversation, will be giving more of my one hour chunks of free library internet time to catching up - thank you thank you - thanks for boldness to ask the questions and strength to wrestle words into submission so that those questions are really well stated, structured, and ordered.

i'll bite the bullet and snag some nutella - the real deal. thanks for giving me permission.
 

I've really enjoyed all of the thoughts I have had a chance to read and thank everyone for being open and really asking questions that bug us as the 21st century church. To be honest, these questions are things I have had to wrestle with here living in a city where there are probably more Buddhists than Christians (Boulder, CO). The thing that has struck me is that so many people who aren't Christians here lead such great loving lives. They truly are the ones who feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those imprisoned, etc. There are certain teachings of Jesus (parable of the sheep and the goats, the good Samaritan, etc.) that point to love, love , love as the key to the Kingdom of Heaven. Truly this is our call as followers of Him Who taught this. But at the same time, Jesus was unashamedly, from what Ive seen in Scripture, all about the fact that everyone has sinned, deserves death, but that He came to bring the Kingdom of God through Himself. I know in Romans 1 and 2 Paul talks about everyone having a chance because of God's creation to know salvation but not much later on in the same book he states that those who believe in Jesus and have faith in Him are the ones who are credited righteousness.

I'll spare you my ramblings and just add one thought especially as far as evangelism and missiology is concerned. Is it possible that we have misinterpreted Jesus' meaning of "salvation"? He seems to talk more of the Kingdom of God at hand (or "near" in the NIV) than He does about where we go when we die. Surely that is extremely important but Jesus seems more intent on preaching a Kingdom of God that is invading the Earth now. That the things we long for in Heaven can start to have their "firstfruits" here now in His believers. So I guess as I've read through what everyone has said, I might say that maybe as far as whether we proclaim Christ with our mouths or live the lives of humble service seeking no reward in hope of earning a voice for Him, maybe its a both/and? I think maybe too often I can get caught up in one camp or another. I've been reading Willard's Divine Conspiracy and its really been making the Gospels make a lot more sense to me. Id love to hear what everyone else thinks.
 

An interesting thought:
In the OT, did God NEED the animal sacrifices to forgive the people? Most of us would say "no, the sacrifices were there to point the people to the character of God. The sacrifices paint a picture so the people understand the magnitude of God's forgivenss." God doesn't need the sacrifices, the people do so they can understand God more and get in line with his character.

So, in the NT, could the same be said of Jesus? Did God NEED Jesus to reconcile the world? Could Jesus be a picture to help us see that God himself is forgiving and gracious? Could Jesus point Christians to the truth about an already forgiving God?

If this is true, then could other faiths' ideas point people to this same picture of God? When Buddhism teaches people to be kind and generous, is it pointing people to God? When Hinduism teaches people about self-sacrifice, could it be pointing people to God? When Humanism teaches people about loving humanity and doing good, could be pointing people to God?

Could these be pointing DIRECTLY to God, not via our version of Him? Could all faiths different pictures/paths point people to God in a way that these people are able to hear?

Just a few thoughts to add to your discussion...
 

Kar-

YOU ASKED: "Could Jesus point Christians to the truth about an already forgiving God?"

Yes. But Jesus is doing more than pointing to God, Jesus is God.

I think this comes down to your Christology...

Yes, Jesus gives us a glimpse into the character of God, but he is more than a metaphor. Jesus is more than a metaphor or a moral exemplar, Jesus is the incarnation of God.

Mandy
 

Mandy -
GREAT distinction.

PK -
I said to GRACE I cling... I also hold tightly to that verse in Luke 12 (thanks for reminding me). I feel that too many times in history (and in my life) people "have God figured out" and limit his mystery and workings and even salvation. Therefore, I cannot not rule out divine election for those who have not heard of Jesus. And I cannot judge them either way. I simply know that I, middle-class American and Christian, have been entrusted with MUCH! Much is demanded of me. It's not up to me to say who's in and who's out - if there is even a possibility of people "being out", I need to tell them.

Now you get into missiology... I'm not advocating Cultural Christianity (like a Cultural Buddism, Islam, or Hinduism), but Christ alone. Then it is not a battle of my culture vs. yours or my God vs. yours. Contextualization... ok I'm done.
 

I'm with you on your conclusion. But aren't you ever troubled by the disjunct? Maybe I'm just going through major shift-thinking here, but so much zeal is diffused, the urgency of spreading the good news, not militantly, but sympathetically, seems to seep out through the theoretical part of your brain. How one answers this question is huge in shaping one's missiology...
 

I feel like part of our motivation for shifting from #1 to #2 or #3 is a desire to ease our consciences. We sleep better at night knowing that - given the right circumstances - the person who has never heard the name of Jesus is not automatically damned. "Whew. The God I grew up believing in isn't an ogre after all."

While I'm probably a #2+... I want the end result of this two-ness to be more than a logical faith that lets me sleep at night, but rather an urgent faith that won't let me sleep at night. If I believe that the fullness of truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ then I should be devoted to knowing that fullness with others... Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, etc.

It would be interesting to discuss what makes Christ's fullness the fullest. If God's truth is present in other religions, but complete in Christ - then what is it that comes together for the follower of 'Aslan' that can't come together for the servant of 'Tash'?
 

Interesting subject, one that I have been thinking and reading about for sometime. I am not for sure, to what extent you are involved with this subject (as if you are just interested in it, wrestling with it, etc.)… however, one resource (I highly recommend) that opened my mind and eased my soul to this pop-issue is a book called: Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions by Terrance L. Tiessen. If interested, you can check out an excerpt and other info. by clicking on this link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830827471/ref=sib_fs_top/002-2833004-0101610?%.
 

Here's why I'm a #1. I look back at Church history and see people much smarter than me and much closer in proximity to the original apostolic tradition spending immense amounts of time and resources hashing out what they deemed to be orthodoxy. For the Church Fathers, correct thinking (in regards to Jesus especially) mattered. It's not that the heretics they condemned were denying Jesus existed or even His divinity. They were not purporting a completely different religion like Islam, Buddhism, etc. But these heretics were slightly off in their thinking and that was enough to warrant censure from the larger Church.

Why does this matter? Because it shows me that if correct doctrine matters, then the religion in which that doctrine lies must matter as well. If the Church Fathers were willing to consider the possibility that an Arian who believed that Christ existed but was not co-eternal wouldn't make it to heaven, then a Muslim wouldn't have a chance. They preached what they knew on the basis of the Scripture they read. I feel I must do the same.

I find it interesting that members of the Early Church were willing to die for their beliefs in regards to this ostensibly dogmatic position. They didn't accept pagan beliefs hoping that there might be enough "truth" in those religions to warrant salvation. They didn't even buy into a pluralism in which they held onto Christ while still acknowledging Juno (which would have spared them from Roman wrath). Rather, they realized that any religion that mislabled or misidentified Jesus ultimately did an injustice to the honor of God.

Maybe this makes me a dogmatic fundamentalist. And I honestly hope God's grace is wide enough to for a Muslim to get into Heaven. But until I find compelling evidence of that in the Scripture, I will preach Christ crucified, Christ raised, and Christ coming again as if it's the only truth I know.
 

Yeah, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Hearty discussion encompassing viewpoints (1) to (3). The way I see it, there are some great questions coming to the surface, too:

“Could all faiths different pictures/paths point people to God in a way that these people are able to hear?”

“Aren't you ever troubled by the disjunct [between your practical and theoretical views]?”

“What makes Christ's fullness the fullest? What is it that comes together for the follower of 'Aslan' that can't come together for the servant of 'Tash'?”

I’ll go ahead and answer Dave’s since it was directed at me. Yes, the disjunct does trouble me. I think that’s part of why I felt led to kickstart this discussion ;-) But if you read Andrea’s comment, that’s what I’m striving for: an urgent faith, a useful faith. I want to grow in living a life of radical obedience to God and self-giving love for all people. Both of the Great Commandments require action; I want to be a man of action, rather than passivity.

The other questions are still on the table for you to pick up and run with.
 

Why are we asking these questions in the first place? Most Christians through out history have not given this much credit to the faiths of others.

My take - It is obvious that the we have undergone incredible shifts over the past hundred years. Because of technology, travel, movies, the mass migration of people, etc, we can finally see that the Buddhist is a really great person instead of demonizing him and turning him into a cartoon type of character that is very easy to condemn.

We live in a world now that knows racism and prejudice is wrong, and I believe that the church is now undergoing a self-assessment of their own "hidden prejudice" - the prejudice that judges and then condemns those of other faiths and holds to it's own way of thinking as the best and only way.

Can we see that the world changing has caused this shift? Can we see that cultural changes MUST influence our understanding of God? (There is no other way.)

Can we see that purhaps with out knowing it, by clinging to #1, we are holding onto one of the last great strongholds of prejudice? Could we call it "religious racism"?
 

A lot is being said about interpretation of scripture (e.g., Two Greatest Commandments, Luke 12), historical significance, and the like.
Where are our presuppositions and thoughts stemming from? Are we liberal relativists, universalists, fundamentalist evangelicals, foundationalists, or just good ol’ followers of Christ, ready to do his work ? How are we coming to these conclusions…by our upbringing, convictions, IWU, readings from modern philosophers and theologians, Oprah?
As much is being said ‘logically’, we must keep in mind that logic is modeled on the rationalities of several different fields: one’s own preference of jurisprudence, along with psychology, sociology, technology, or mathematics. As most of ‘our’ arguments for our claim to faith are based on logic, and especially on mathematics (systematic argument), it must be noted that even mathematics or logic cannot escape ‘context’. In a book that I am currently reading on a similar subject, they state that it is not true that in all times and places that seven plus nine equals sixteen…for computer programmers can correctly tell us that seven plus sixteen equals ten—in a base system. So, ‘context’ is being recognized more and more ‘broadly’. Thus, asking, what are our presuppositions, logical drive, and ‘context’? Ronald Nash states, “the degree of influence for control that a particular belief has within any given noetic structure will be person-relative”…affirming that different presuppositions will lead to different conclusion that one’s sayings or axioms determines one’s theorems.
Therefore, knowledge is ‘particular’ and ‘perspectival’, and as such is always contestable, thus concluding that it is not foundationalism (and the like) but testimony and witness, which allows us to commend and defend the faith to others.
How are we living out these Christian claims? Does our testimony and witness (not thoughts, rants, and raves) ‘really’ express our religious beliefs and/or claims…how did we get to these ‘truths’ and claims?
 

I look at it as basically two kinds of revelation about God that are sources of Truth. One is "special revelation" (scripture, testimonies from Christian believers, the Church, etc.). The other is "general revelation," which seems to be God's witness to Himself outside of the Church. This includes what can be understood of God from observing His creation ( . . . consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place---Psalm 8). Of special note here is mankind's moral conscience, as noted in Lewis' Mere Christianity. And doesn't general revelation also includes direct witness to hearts of people by the Holy Spirit?

I believe it is just possible for someone to be saved through general revelation. However, I believe that to be a set of special cases, not large numbers. Consequently, the Church cannot be complacent and let God go about saving the lost on His own if He wants to, as it seemed to be during the period before Wm Carey. His choice is to use men and women---the body of Christ---as His primary ambassadors of reconcilation to a lost and fallen world.

Are there elements that point to God, that point to Christ in cultures that have very little witness from the Church? Yes, absolutely. God has been there long before special revelation arrived. And He causes redemptive truth to appear in those cultures. Chuck Kraft (a Christian anthropologist) called these "steppingstones" to the Gospel. A terrific book/story on this is Richardson's "Eternity in their Hearts," which is about Irian Jaya.

It is not that non-Christian religions are helping to lead people in the direction of God. They do not. It is that God is working in those cultures and among those people in SPITE of the deception of the enemy and sin. So what truth is there is, of course, God's truth, but most are deceived by the smokescreens of all that is not true.
 

(speaking as a person who probably doesn't know what he's talking about...)

Some of the larger questions that stem from this one (or possibly lead to this one) are...
What happens when a person rejects Christianity because they are presented with a tainted version of it? For example, when in the post-Soviet countries, Christianity almost exclusively means the Orthodox Church. It is a Russian religion. The Russians oppressed us. Russians, oppression, Christianity... I believe it is our duty as Christians to come and correct the incorrect view they have of Christianity. But what to do with all those people who will 'slip through the cracks' before the correct view can be presented?

It might be helpful to point out that an inclusivist view (2) does not necessarily lead to a weakened Christology. It affirms that Christ was both God and man, that his life, death, and resurrection were the turning point in the God/human story, but asks how necessary it is for humans TO KNOW about the sacrifice to be included in the kingdom. Is it our knowledge about God or our faith/response to God that counts? The establishing and defending of doctrine IS VITALLY IMPORTANT (though Kevin's example raises some interesting questions about how to view early Germanic converts to Arianism who didn't know better).

But the downside (or upside) to (2) is that it takes a positive outlook on general revelation. If God's redemptive truth is found sprinkled throughout the world, perhaps there's some value in seeking it out (in other cultures, in movies, in nature, in music).


Here's an example of how (1) and (2) might play out practically...

Two missionaries, type (1) and (2), converse with a Muslim

Missionary: Hi, we're here to tell you a story, you see Jesus is God, and died to redeem the world (extremely shortened version of Gospel story).

Muslim: I don't believe that, but it makes me interested in spirituality. I think I'll start going to Mosque more regularly and pray that Allah would forgive my sins. Thanks!

Missionary (2): Ok, keep seeking out God, He'll reveal Himself to you. If you ever have questions about Christianity, just ask. (worried, doesn't want to push, but is glad that the man has moved from a position of apathy to one of seeking out God, even though his theology is way off. Wonders if God will hear his prayers and forgive him through the very Jesus he doesn't understand or believe...)

Missionary (1): That won't help because Islam is a lie and Allah is not the true God. Let's have a talk about absolute truth and the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ. (extremely worried because Islam could lead him further away from the truth about Jesus, therefore endangering his soul forever)

I've been in several experiences that were sort of like this one, and I realize that context is extremely important in knowing how to interact. I guess what I'm saying is an affirmation that question has practical implications.

Kerry,
I have heard several stories about different tribal groups were ripe for the Gospel message when the missionaries arrived. I've always been fascinated by this. In some of the stories, an entire people group became followers of Christ overnight! I don't doubt this was God's hand at work in the world.
But a common factor in the stories I heard was an absence of a well-developed religion. It is much more difficult to convince a people who have been involved with a major world religion for some time.

(please note that I am often guilty of not giving the Adversary enough credit. I often like to ignore the reality that he exists and is still working to bring deception. This affects my view, I wish it weren't so.)

If there is any redemptive value or wisdom to be found in other religions, how can this be found? Is it worth checking out?
 

Good comments and questions, Dave. Every tribal group that I have come across or heard of had a well-established world view and a well-developed religion. Traditional tribal beliefs may be less hostile to Christianity than Islam, but it is not because they are not as well developed. And just because they make an easier decision to convert does not mean that they more easily become fully devoted disciples of Christ. In the massacre of millions of Tutsi and Hutu people in Rwanda, most of the people doing the killing on both sides were men who belonged to churches thought of as evangelical, Bible-believing fellowships. Adopting the forms of Christianity or layering on a veneer of religion while not changing the basic world-view will not lead to Kingdom-like behavior.

Christian discipleship is not an assent to a set of beliefs, although belief is necessary. It is not a set of practices, although the lifestyle choices flow from the faith. It must include an inner transformation accomplished by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.

As to Islam specifically, Christians should know that God loves Muslims; He loves Ishmael. We should reach out to Muslims with love and compassion and patience. Many of my students were former Muslims who had been won to Christ. I would ask how they came to Christ. Always I heard a version of the same answer: they saw a true, selfless love in Christians toward one another and toward them.

Also, with Muslims, it is probably a mistake to witness by jumping straight to the New Testament. You practice "storying." Take your time---build a genuine friendship---and do a lot of listening, too. In storying, you tell the old, old story from the beginning in Genesis. You work your way through the Old Testament, finding many points of preparation for the Messiah, without exciting hostility. By the time you get to the NT, the groundwork that God intended has perhaps been laid well enough for ears to hear and faith to be aroused, if your love matches your words.

Islam as a whole deceives and shields people from faith in Christ. That does not mean there is nothing true in it---often the enemy's strategy is to mix truth with untruth. But the bits of truth in Islam are not redemptive in themselves. Redemption is only found in the One who turned away from everything else and gave Himself up for you.

Are you looking for a hermeneutic for redemption in religion? Our Lord is the ONLY hermeneutic.

When I met with a highly-placed Orthodox priest in the bishop's residence in Vladimir, I was trying to explain who the Wesleyans are, who were coming to his city. He questioned me carefully on "who Jesus is to me," to determine if I was a heretic. After sharing fully who Jesus was in the scriptures and who Jesus is in my life, I then asked him who Jesus is to Him. With tears in his eyes he rose to embrace me, saying, "The same." The belief and the teaching of the Orthodox Church on salvation is short of the mark. Nonetheless many of them appear to be fully devoted followers of Christ.

Blessings,
Kerry