Grace Church
257 Kendall Street
Burlington, WI 53105

(262) 763-3021

The Devastating Cost of Redefining the Family Exodus 20:14 Sermon 10 September 28, 2008 This morning we’re going to do something I don’t believe we’ve ever done during a service. We’re going to play “Name that tune.” If you recognize the song, just put your hand up and you’ll win $100 grand if you guess right. You have three chances. 1. Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond. 2. Just Call Me Angel of the Morning by Juice Newton 3. Hotel California by the Eagles. All three songs have a message behind the song. Neil Diamond wrote Sweet Caroline about Caroline Kennedy. Just Call Me Angel of the Morning is about a one night stand and Hotel California is written about a house of prostitution. Many songs that are popular have strong messages behind the music. When the song gets in our minds, we are letting the song’s philosophy in our minds as well.  There’s one song though I won’t play this morning. The tune is so catchy that if you’ve heard it, you almost can’t help but have it playing in your head. The artist grew up in a Christian home, a pastor’s kid who grew up listening to Gospel music and singing in church. She released a Christian album in 2001 and was a rising star in the Contemporary Christian Music scene. But her recent Top 40 song is a perverse repudiation of her roots. It’s also a song that brainwashes a generation about the legitimacy of homosexuality. Her name, Katy Perry. The song, “I Kissed a Girl and I liked it”. Let me read you the lyrics: This was never the way I planned Not my intention I got so brave, drink in hand Lost my discretion It's not what, I'm used to Just wanna try you on I'm curious for you Caught my attention I kissed a girl and I liked it The taste of her cherry chap stick I kissed a girl just to try it I hope my boyfriend don't mind it It felt so wrong It felt so right Don't mean I'm in love tonight I kissed a girl and I liked it…I liked it No, I don't even know your name It doesn't matter, You're my experimental game Just human nature, It's not what, Good girls do Not how they should behave My head gets so confused Hard to obey Us girls we are so magical Soft skin, red lips, so kissable Hard to resist so touchable Too good to deny it Ain't no big deal, it's innocent.   Our culture has been brainwashed when it comes to sexuality. We’ve been told that as long it’s done in the privacy of your own home, as long as you’re comfortable with it, it’s okay…anything goes. While it may sound hopelessly old-fashioned, God’s Word says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). This command is the foundation for all the other prohibitions in Scripture against any other sexual relationship outside of marriage – a monogamous, heterosexual one. Anything else is a violation of Scripture.      We’re on the cusp of a cataclysmic cultural change, one from which there is no return. This morning we’re going to work through The Devastating Cost of Redefining the family. This is not just about homosexuality. It’s about a cultural tidal wave seeking to redefine the family. It’s going to affect your children and grandchildren. It will radically change our world. It will affect the church and will ultimately result in religious persecution. It already has in several countries. We can’t put our heads in the sand. Life as we know it is at stake. I’ll be honest, I’d rather not preach this message yet what’s at stake is too high to be ignored. Purity, what makes a marriage and a family used to be clear-cut issues that every Christian agreed on. We agreed on what was right and what was wrong. But this is an issue that’s dividing the church. Churches are ordaining and marrying practicing homosexuals. We live in a day of great moral confusion!   Just last week I had someone talk to me of a church where the church secretary and custodian are having an affair. They’re committing adultery. But this church believes in Gay Marriage. I had to point out to the individual sharing this with me, that this church has a dilemma…because if Gay Marriage is okay, then why shouldn’t adultery also be okay?   The price of this moral chaos is too high. There is a Devastating Cost of Redefining the family. If you’re taking notes… 1. Normal is being redefined. In our anything goes world normal is no longer normal. A man in Missouri wanted to marry his twenty-two year old mare named Pixel. He said, "She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her…Deep down, way down; I’d love to have children with her." Fortunately, the courts said no…for now.   How quickly the world changes. Homosexuality was once believed to be a form of mental illness, now it’s believed that those who oppose homosexuality are mentally ill or are homophobes. Now they say homosexuality is normal, while those who oppose it are abnormal.   Our children are being taught homosexual intimacy parallels heterosexual intimacy except for the minuscule difference of the gender of the sexual partners. The distortion being propagated is that homosexual couples are typical, if not above average people, both in appearance and in intelligence, who enjoy monogamous relationships with one another.   The clerical collar of the minister has been replaced by the white lab coat of the scientist as the source of authority in contemporary culture. In an expert-dominated society few professions have more prestige and influence than psychiatry. And this fact did not go unnoticed by the Gay Community.   This major transition from as recently as the early 1960’s, in response to the increasing prevalence of homosexuality, is illustrated by the New York Academy of Medicine who requested that its Committee on Public Health address the issue. The Committee on that occasion concluded homosexuality was an illness.  Just ten years later, without any new evidence or studies, the American Psychiatric Association redefined normal by voting to strike "homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses." In one major philosophical move, without any scientific evidence or transcendent moral authority, the APA redefined normal by official edict. Is it any wonder society is so terribly confused as to what is normal or abnormal?   So what do we mean by normal? Well, let me illustrate. The fact that 10 to 15% of Americans suffer from alcoholism doesn't dictate that we call alcoholism normal, meaning an acceptable, healthy or morally praiseworthy way of living. Even if 90% of Americans were alcoholics, we wouldn't declare alcoholism normal, meaning acceptable. But unfortunately, this way of understanding normalcy--statistically--has been used in attempts to explain homosexuality. Since God is Sovereign, He alone is the definer of normality. Normal is intrinsically limited to His design in His plan for man, the Image-Bearer. 2. God has a plan for marriage and the family. We don’t have to read very far in the Bible to discover how God intended the human race to function. The first chapter of the very first book contains information which is crucial for us to consider. Turn to Genesis 1:26-28 (p. 1). Four Facts stand out in these verses.   a) To be made in the image of God means to have an essential likeness or similarity to God. The underlying meaning is one of "correspondence." To be made in God's image means that man the created is to correspond somehow to God the Creator.   b) This image is shared by the whole human race. Every person born on this earth is made in God's image regardless of race, color, nationality, gender, age or physical condition. Everyone who hears my words is made in God's image. Everyone who lives in Burlington – black or white, young or old, male or female, gay or straight – everyone is made in God's image. It’s your birthright as a member of the human race. You are made in God's image and no one can take that away from you.   c) This image is to be found in man and woman, male and female. There is a sense in which God's image is seen in the relationship, the marital union of a man and a woman. To quote Don Williams: "Here we are at an essential point. God does not create man alone; neither does He create man/man or woman/woman. God creates man as male and female, and only in community together is the image of God seen upon earth." Did you catch that, “Only in community is the image of God fully seen on the earth.” Was Adam created in God's image? Yes. Was Eve created in God's image? Yes. Yet Genesis 1:27 clearly teaches that certain aspects of God's nature are uniquely reflected in the male-female relationship. d) One purpose of sexual differentiation is procreation. Man and woman are to "be fruitful and multiply." Part of God's image is reflected in the sexual coming together of man and woman. When a man and woman come together, they imitate God in their creative activity. In the bringing forth of new life, they’re doing what God did in the Garden of Eden.   Genesis 2 tells us that Adam is created by God but he’s lonely. None of the animals can satisfy his deep need for someone who is like him, yet different from him. So God says, "It is not good for man to be alone." (vs. 18) He needed a helper suitable for him. That helper was not another man but was a woman. The divine intention in creating Eve is clearly set forth in vs. 24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife; and they will become one flesh."   The mistake of the homosexual revisionist when it comes to Genesis is redefining these procreative words to be somehow merely descriptive, rather than prescriptive. God is not making a request of the first couple; He’s commanding. Reproduction is part of God's plan. Thus, the sexual act that accomplishes this is good. All of this is prior to the Fall. Part of the Divine edict for procreation means that humans are to use their bodies to serve God in the reproducing of children and the establishment of the family. The Creative Mandate is one of responsibility and the primary responsibility is familial. But while the Gay Community is anti-family or at least seeking to redefine the family, it must return to the very institution it’s so opposed to, the traditional family, for its own affirmation.   An interesting example of this confusion is the Academy Award winning film, Philadelphia. It’s the powerful story of a homosexual man, played by Tom Hanks, dying of AIDS whose employer unjustly fires him when his condition is discovered. In one key scene the hero and his male lover visit the hero's big family home in the country, where his half-dozen married siblings and his parents sit in a circle and without exception express support for the hero's lawsuit and (indirectly) his homosexuality. The mother even says, “I didn't raise my kids to sit in the back of the bus,” drawing an obvious parallel between her son's case and the civil rights movement. The rather heavy-handed moral here is that families should offer this kind of unanimous and unqualified support to their homosexual members. But what is very, very odd is that this kind of support must come from the hero's biological family (and such an Ozzie and Harriet collection at that!) rather than from the homosexual community.   Stay with me. If the message of homosexual liberation is that heterosexual fidelity, childbearing and family nurture are not necessary to human fulfillment, why does the hero need to go there of all places to find strength for the coming crisis? One comes away with the suspicion that this family is being used by a person whose lifestyle choices symbolize its negation.   The husband-wife union introduced in Genesis is the only model of sexual behavior consistently sanctioned and praised in both Old and New Testaments. The traditional family unit structure (father, mother, children) is also the only model sanctioned and praised in both Old and New Testaments. While other forms of behavior (polygamy and the utilizing of concubines) are allowed in Scripture, a monogamous, familial relationship between husband and wife is the standard continually upheld as the ideal.   The Creation account is perfectly clear that heterosexual marriage is God's design for the human race. Full humanity includes both male and female. Marriage between a man and woman is thus good and pure and holy. Sexual relations within marriage are thus sanctified. Any other sexual relationship then must be seen as something outside of God's design for the human race. It represents a denial of the two-fold nature of man as male and female. It’s a deviation in the truest sense of the word.   The importance of Genesis 1-2 can’t be overemphasized. It’s the foundation upon which the entire Bible rests. Our estimate of man and woman, of male and female, of human sexuality, and of homosexuality, must be in accord with what these passages reveal, that is one man with one woman becoming one flesh. Homosexuals can’t become one flesh, can’t be fruitful and multiply, can’t adequately reflect the fullness of the image of God and can’t satisfy their sexual drives in a manner consistent with God's Word. In summary, homosexuality is completely outside God's original design for humanity.   If God had intended for homosexuality to be the norm, He’d have created Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve. While that sounds like a throw-away line, it actually catches the essence of my argument. God created a man called Adam and a woman called Eve precisely because that was to be the pattern for the human race. To substitute a man with a man, or a woman with a woman is to distort God's original design.   Many have overlooked the importance of Genesis 1-2 in the discussion of homosexuality. It’s a fundamental mistake because the various prohibitions against homosexual behavior can be fully understood only in light of God's original design. Discussing homosexuality without referring to Genesis is like trying to fix a car without reading the owner's manual.   3. Any sexual relationship outside of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is prohibited by God. Someone wrote this tongue in cheek parody of the City Clerk’s office in San Francisco:   "Next!" "Good morning! We want to apply for a marriage license." “Names?" "Timand Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same-gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest? No, we’re not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. After all, we're brothers. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you’re not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute! A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight, doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us, just because we are not gay?" "Alright, alright! I'll give you your license. Next!" "Hi. We’re here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert. Jane loves me and June. June loves Robert and Jane. And Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more, the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "Alright, alright! Next!" "Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says, I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income tax return." "That does it! I quit! You people are making a mockery of marriage!" Sadly, that’s not all that far from the logical end of where our culture is heading.   As you know, the Ten Commandments are the comprehensive summary of God’s will for His redeemed people. The Ten Commandments are also still operative in the New Testament, as we see clearly indicated by Jesus' exposition of the moral law in the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, any deviation from a heterosexual, monogamous marriage is a violation of the 7th Commandment. The marriage relationship and covenant is God's Thesis; all and any other sexual relations outside the marriage covenant are an Anti-Thesis and a violation of God's Law. Marriage is God's place of safety, enjoyment and fulfillment for Image-Bearers. Sexual intimacy is wonderful as long as it is in the safe confines of God's design in marriage.   Any violation of the Seventh Commandment is just as morally reprehensible as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not kill." Just as human life is sacred and is not to be violated by murder, so marriage is equally sacred and is not to be violated by infidelity.   The Hebrew word for adultery (nã'ap) applies to both men and women. Expansion of this idea prohibits not only the act of adultery, but any sexual relationship of any kind whether in act, word or thought. This commandment was designed by God to protect the sanctity and the harmony of the home. Marriage and the family are the cornerstone of society. Sexual activity outside of marriage assaults the very foundation of God's plan for His creation and even natural man is knowledgeable of this. A recent Federal Program for Abstinence Education stated, “a monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human activity…sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful affects.”   Leviticus 18-20 contains Hebrew Case Law further developing the Decalogue. Sexual relations with one's mother, aunt, sister, father's wife, father's daughter, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, adultery, bestiality or same sex partners (18:22) are expressly forbidden.   This prohibition is repeated in the New Testament: Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. The basis of Moral Law in the New Testament, as it relates to sexual activity, is the Ten Commandments.  Jesus makes that distinction at the beginning of His ministry in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:27-30), and then He gives a further development of the Seventh Commandment. Not only is physical adultery sin, but so is mental adultery. Under the Ten Words sexual intimacy was prohibited every place but in the marital bed, Christ now adds to the Moral Law by prohibiting sexual activity in the head. But if the Bible, with these clear prohibitions, can somehow be distorted to justify sexual relations outside of marriage, then all of God's Moral Law could be eradicated because it has neither substance nor meaning. 4. If sexual deviations are genetic, then one cannot be held responsible for their actions. Towards the end of the last presidential debate in 2004 between John Kerry and George Bush, there was a vital cultural question. The moderator asked “Homosexuality, is it a choice?” One of the candidates answered with a very strong religious statement. It wasn’t George Bush because he answered, “I don’t know.” It was Senator Kerry who said, “We’re all God’s children. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was. She’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice."   This is a critical question. If homosexuality or any sexual deviation is NOT a choice, then it is morally wrong for God to prohibit that which He has designed. In other words the accusation is that God has set a group of people up. They’re commanded to be heterosexual and monogamous, but they’ve been designed where that’s an impossibility. And who would want to deny to homosexuals any civil right including marriage if they’re created by God to be homosexual, if they’re born that way. If homosexuality is genetic, then homosexuals are no more responsible for their sexual orientation than for eye color or height. This claim also has political ramifications. If there is a biological basis for homosexuality, then they should be granted minority-rights status. Civil rights status that would protect them from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.   But the evidence just isn’t there. All studies thus far have been flawed or have been done with prejudicial preconceptions. In fact, much more thorough, longer and more comprehensive studies have been completed over the years to attempt to discover a genetic link to alcoholism or other mental disorders, and again the evidence never surfaces.   What’s ironic is that many, if not all, proposing the genetic theory are also evolutionists. A gay gene and evolution are mutually exclusive theories. In evolutionary terms such genes just don't make sense. Natural selection favors traits that enhance reproduction or at least don't interfere with it—certainly not traits that preempt it. The Achilles ‘ heel of this theory is every former homosexual who has left the lifestyle to have a normal heterosexual marriage. If homosexuality is genetic, a former homosexual living a normal heterosexual life would be a genetic impossibility.   They also have another quandary. Those who believe homosexuality is genetic are also pro-choice. If a gay gene could be tested for pre-birth, shouldn’t parents have the right to abort their child so he doesn’t become a homosexual? Wouldn’t homosexuality be something that most parents would want to destroy prior to birth so that the child could have a quality life and not be a burden?   Now we’re not denying that there are inheritable traits that might lead to a predisposition to certain types of behavior. No one denies that height and body length among many African-Americans may give them a predisposition to excel at athletics, but it doesn’t make them athletes. Just because one is tall, he/she is not necessarily a genetic victim of "basketball-itis." To excel or not excel in a given sport is, for the most part, volitional. Sexual deviation is not genetic, it’s volitional. 5. We in the Church are contributing to this marital confusion. To quote Pogo, the long-gone sage cartoon figure: "We have met the enemy and they is us." How are we in the Church the enemy? How are we contributing to the moral mess that we find ourselves in today?   a) Most Christians have a casual view of divorce. God’s Word takes a dim view of divorce. In Malachi 2:16 God says, “I hate divorce.” Pop singer, Olivia Newton-John, got married much later in life. When she was asked why she hadn't gotten married earlier, she shared how when she was ten years old, her parents went through a devastating divorce. She said, "You know, it's hard to believe a relationship can last when you've never seen one."  75% of the teenagers in our country said, "It's too easy to get a divorce in the United States." Of those from divorce situations, 74% said that their own parents did not try hard enough.   If marriage is so easily thrown away by even those in the Church, is it any wonder that our kids think so little of virginity and waiting until marriage? Or, that they are so casual about living together or any kind of sexual relationship? If God’s plan of marital commitment is not valued by His people, should we really be surprised when our children have such a casual view of sexual relationships? b) Most Christians have a cultural view of cohabitation. Grandma warned about "living in sin." Ladies in her day had to be delicate about such matters. With a voice full of foreboding she'd offer these words to the wise: "He's never going to buy the cow if he can get the milk for free." The cow, of course, was the one-carat rock, the white picket fence, the happily ever after. But Grandma now has support from an unlikely source – academia. Studies show that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience a host of domestic problems, including, if they finally get married, divorce. Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose clear and present dangers for women and children.   There are more than 4 million unmarried heterosexual couples in the U.S. today. Though living together has become accepted and conventional, studies show that these unions, in comparison to marriages, tend to have more episodes of domestic violence to women as well as physical and sexual abuse of children. Annual rates of depression among unmarried couples are more than three times those of married couples. "The longer you cohabit, the more tolerant you are of divorce," says Sociologist David Popenoe, "You're used to living in a low-commitment relationship, and it's hard to shift that kind of mental pattern."   Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” I have to wonder what will get some Christians to draw the line with their kids. Their kids shack up and they welcome them home, letting them sleep together in their home. I wonder if their adult child was in a homosexual relationship if they would let them do the same thing. Or, what if their adult child was into bestiality? Remember that saying, “Get a room…but not in my home!”   c) Most Christians have a complacent view of their own marriage. Marriage is to be happy, exciting and fulfilling. Yet for too many believers, it’s status quo at best. It’s not happy but it’s not bad enough to get divorced. Marriage is meant to be a fulfilling and satisfying. Don’t believe me? Read Song of Solomon.   If tomorrow you discovered a lump where there shouldn’t be one, you’d immediately run to the doctor. If you’re continually bickering, if there are other people you’d rather spend time with other than your mate, if you’d rather go to work than go home – you have a lump in your marriage! And you need to see someone – like now! Husbands, Wives…your kids are watching. If you’re not willing to work on making your marriage healthy, you’re sending them a powerful message about the validity of marriage.   d) Most Christians have a caustic view of homosexuality. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sexual sin. The men and women who are practicing homosexuals are made in God's image just as much as we are. And we’re sinners just like they are and we need God's grace just as much as they do. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Jesus died for them just as He died for us. Actually, there really isn't any "them" and "us." We're all just people. We're all made from the same clay.   We must live what we say we believe. If the gospel really is the power of God unto salvation, if it really does change lives, then we must offer it to all men and all women, without exception and without restriction. Can homosexuals attend Grace Church? Absolutely! Will they be welcomed here? Yes. Can they find friendship here? Yes. Can they find Jesus Christ here? Yes. Will we open our doors to the gay community? Yes. Will we continue to teach what the Bible says? Yes, the local church must hold the line both ways, that homosexual behavior is always wrong yet complete deliverance is available in Jesus Christ.   And I’m going to shock some of you. Not only are homosexuals welcome at Grace but so are bi-sexuals, transsexuals, transgendered and even pedophiles. Obviously, we’re not going put a pedophile in a children’s ministry but the last time I checked my Bible, Jesus died for them…just like He died for the worst sinner that I personally know, Scott Carson. Conclusion: One of the popular Christian fads was the W.W.J.D fad, alluding to the question: "What Would Jesus Do?" When it comes to a solution for the Church on how to Biblically deal with those who have succumbed to their passions, an appropriate question is: "What Did Jesus Do?" The Church is to seek to incarnate our living Savior. What better opportunity to be Christ-like and to apply the Redemptive Mandate than with a sexually confused world corporately and its victims individually.   2000 years later our mission hasn’t changed, and the spiritual or moral condition of the recipients is inconsequential. Obviously, the early church was not nearly as stigmatized by homosexual conversion as we are today. After all Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:11 "And that is what some of you were…” It seems the Church today hovers between two extremes: Revulsion or Revision but God's plan is Redemption.   Though we are morally and, more importantly, Biblically opposed to aberrant sexual behaviors, by God's grace we must seek to demonstrate Christ's love for those who are caught up in those lifestyles, just as we would those who are guilty of other violations of God's Law. As sinners seeking to win other sinners, we must express our disapproval of these practices in the context of our own sexual fallenness. Unless we acknowledge that we are all in need of God's grace and healing in every part of our being, not only can we not know Christ as Savior; we have nothing to offer to a lost world.   One of the homosexual accusations of the Church is that the Church hates them. Sometimes they confuse a believer's repugnance at sin with rejection of the sinner. Tragically, the charge also has some merit. Too often the Church opposes homosexual behavior, as it should, but with no substantial offer of spiritual change. This is nothing less than a failure to take the Gospel to "all the world." Homosexuality is a violation of God's Creative Mandate and Marriage Covenant but it’s a sin that Christ came to die for and atone. While it’s imperative that we obey God's Law, it’s equally imperative that we demonstrate God's Love to a lost and dying world whatever their sexual orientation!