Rob Bell: "I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man"

Biblical Sexual Ethics in Light of God’s Institution of Marriage
by
Pastor Mike Harding (B.A., M.A, M.Div., Th.M.)

Definition of Marriage:

Marriage is the exclusive God ordained institution between one man (husband) and one woman (wife) in a mutually consented “one-flesh” relationship, consisting of mutually supportive companionship and physical union (Gen 1:27; 2:24; 1 Cor 7:1-6; Rom 1:26-27). As such marriage is a life-long, monogamous, heterosexual, covenant relationship between the man and the woman, publicly entered into before God as witness and enforcer (Prov 2:17; Mal 2:16; Matt 19:6) and recognized by God’s institution of human government (Deut 22:13-17; Gen 29:25-26; Rom 13:1; Matt 22:21). The marriage covenant is authoritatively based on divine law and normally recognized by civil law.

The marital covenant with God as witness and enforcer involves certain obligatory responsibilities on the side of both husband and wife: (1) marital love including conjugal relations (Gen 2:23-24), (2) living together as a single household (Gen 2:24), (3) faithfulness to the marriage bed (Ex 20:14), (4) provision for the wife by the husband (Gen 30:30; Deut 22:13-29), (5) submission to the husband by the wife (Gen 3:16), (6) and the proper raising of any children born to the union (Ezra 9-10; Mal 2; Eph 5-6). Thus, marriage is not a matter of mere social convention, but rather is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, defined by God alone, instituted by God and entered into before God.

Biblical Theology of Sexual Ethics:

Sexual relations do not alone constitute a genuine marriage (John 4:17-18) due to the fact that sexual activity and relations outside the marriage bond as defined above are always considered to be sinful (Hebrews 13:4; Matt 9:9). It is absolutely necessary in a militantly pagan culture to submit our sexual practice as believers to the Lordship of Christ which will result in God’s glory and our good. Natural sexual desire is a gift of God and is to be placed in the service of God exclusively through marriage. God affirms the beauty of the one-flesh relationship exclusively within the confines of God-ordained marriage (Gen 2:24-26; Song of Solomon; Prov 5:15-19; Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 7:1-6).

The initial purpose for the one-flesh relationship is procreational as the natural result of sexual union and fulfilling the dominion mandate (Gen 1:28; cf. Gen 9:1). The second purpose of the one-flesh relationship is relational (Gen 2:18, 21-23), thereby alleviating man’s aloneness. The third purpose of the one-flesh relationship is social. Unrestrained sexual license greatly contributes to an undisciplined and disorderly society producing family breakdown, divorce, illegitimacy, disease, the welfare state, abuse, criminal behavior, bitterness, and slavery to sin (Matt 5:8; 5:28; Job 31:1; Ps 119:9; Gen 2:25; cf. Ps 51:10; Rom 1:18-32). Without accepted norms based on biblical prescription there will not be sufficient public restraint to control acts of sexual impropriety and immodesty in society (Ezek 16:36; 23:18; Rom 13:1-6). The final purpose of the one-flesh relationship in monogamous, heterosexual marriage is recreational. Sexual pleasure is God’s gracious gift for his image bearers to be enjoyed exclusively in marriage without fear, shame, or guilt as the ultimate expression of marital love (Song of Solomon; Prov 5:15-19; Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 7).

All other forms of sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage are forbidden in Scripture, including fornication (“any sexual activity outside of marriage” 1 Cor 7:2; 1 Thess 4:3), adultery (“with someone other than one’s own spouse” Ex 20:14; Matt 5:28), palingamy (“remarriage to a formerly divorced spouse after an intervening marriage” Deut 24:1-4), homosexuality (“any same-sex sexual activity” Gen 19:5-7; Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7), incest (“sexual activity with family members or relatives” Lev 20:11-21; 1 Cor 5:1), obscenity (Eph 5:3-4), pornography (Matt 5:28; Mark 7:21-22; Gal 5:26; 1 Thess 4:5; Rev 18:9), prostitution (Prov 5:1-23; 7:4-27; 1 Cor 6:18), transvestitism (Deut 22:5; 1 Cor 11), criminal sexual behavior (rape, molestation, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, pederasty, etc. Rom 13:1-6; Lev 18-22), and impurity (“moral filth in one’s heart and thoughts” (James 1:21; Rev 22:11; Rom 1:24; 2 Pet 2:10).

Sexual activity is not to be worshiped or idolized as is so commonly done in modern society. All people, including Christians in particular, are obligated by their creaturely existence to enjoy God’s gracious gifts while gratefully acknowledging the Creator’s purposes and parameters for those gifts, particularly the gift of sexuality (Rom 1:18-32). All sexual sin is ultimately a violation of the covenantal relationship God has established with the first man and woman as representatives of the human race to whom God directly gave the gift of human sexuality within the exclusive confines of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Those who violate God’s design for sexual activity and marriage do so at their own peril and ultimately dehumanize and degrade a person into sinful bondage and sexual slavery (Job 36:14).

Biblical View of Homosexuality:

Homosexuality consists of both same-sex erotic attraction and sexual activity. A homosexual is one who nurtures an on-going erotic, romantic desire for a person of the same gender culminating in sexual involvement. Homosexuality, then, is the result of a sinful cultivation and conditioning in contrast to a natural, biological orientation. Homosexuality is not a civil right protected in the US Constitution. This equates a desired act with a constitutional right and assumes that homosexuality is an inherent part of one’s biological nature. Such reasoning would eventually be used to justify other unlawful desires such as pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia or molestation.

Homosexuality is a clear violation of the created order of God. It violates the heterosexual nature of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:24), the complementarian nature of marriage where the woman is the exclusively suitable answer to man’s aloneness in marital love and physical union (Gen 2:18-20; 3:16-19; Eph 5:22-33; 1 Pet 3:1-7), and homosexuality violates the fulfillment of the dominion mandate necessitating procreation (Gen 1:28).

The first instance of homosexual behavior in the Bible is answered by severe judgment (Gen 19:4-11). The term “know” in this context clearly refers to sexual activity between members of the same sex (Gen 19:5, 8; cf. Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26). Jude 6-8 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 clarify that those particular cities were characterized by unnatural sexual desires. Judges 19:22-25 parallels the situation in Sodom where the men are aggressively seeking same-sex involvement. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 label homosexual behavior as an abomination along with other sexual sins. These sins violate the created order, the holy attributes of God’s nature and character, and are repeatedly mentioned again in the NT as sinful, abominable, and contrary to the will of God. Homosexuality particularly was a constant threat to the holiness of Israel from the surrounding Canaanite nations (Gen 9:20-27; Deut 23:17-18; Judges 19:22-25; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kings 22:46; 23:7; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; 33:26).

Homosexuality is repeatedly condemned by God in the NT. Romans 1:26-32 condemns the practice of homosexuality by men or women and further condemns the condoning of such sinful activity (vv. 31-32). 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns both partners in the homosexual encounter. “Effeminate” (malakoi) and “homosexuals” (‘arsenoikoitoi) refer to the passive and active sides of the homosexual relationship respectively. The “effeminate” are those who willingly allow themselves to be sodomized; whereas the “homosexuals” are those who actively engage in sodomizing the effeminate. 1 Timothy 1:10 mentions the violation of the seventh commandment to include both “immoral men and homosexuals,” citing the same Greek term used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the Greek translation (LXX) of the Hebrew term in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Finally, 2 Peter 2:6 and Judges 7 reference the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah for indulging in gross immorality and going after strange flesh–that is men with men.

God’s Will for Sinners:

It is the clear will of God for all human beings made in the image of God to abstain from immorality. This is especially true for professing believers in Christ (1 Thess 4:1-8). His image-bearers must abstain from immorality and refrain from approving immoral behavior (Rom 1:31-32). Those who practice these sins and give approval of such will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Eph 5:3-5; cf. Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6).

Thankfully, God in His grace offers His gospel to all sinners. All human beings are sinners (Romans 3:23). He promises to wash, sanctify, and justify any sinner who comes to Him with repentant faith in the Person and Cross-work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Though sexual sin carries severe consequences in this life and eternal judgment in the life to come, all sin, including sexual sin, can be forgiven via the grace of God available on account of Christ’s infinite atonement for sin applied to those who repent of their sin and place their unreserved trust in Jesus Christ alone for their eternal salvation (1 Cor 6:9-11; Acts 17:30; 1 John 1:9; Romans 6:1-7). Because of human depravity, it is possible for any man to commit any sin at any time. Therefore, we must humbly take every opportunity to help others by introducing them to Jesus Christ, the only Savior of man from sin. In addition, we must help any professing Christian who is battling with sexual sin. We do so by accurately calling sin what it is and second by encouraging genuine repentance in order to restore fellowship with Christ and the joy of one’s salvation (Ps 51). Christ did not die to save us from an orientation; He died to save us from our sin. Jesus Christ is love incarnate (1 John 4:8) and therefore by “reason of his much love” sacrificed his life on the cross in order save us, regenerate us, justify us, and sanctify us. In this way we bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:1-6).

http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-public-apology-and-discussion-double-standards-for-blogging-vs-talking

In a new book, Rob Bell and A New American Christianity (Abingdon Press, 2012), James Wellman, Jr., Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Washington, probes Bell’s life and examines how he can serve as a lens for understanding the shifting boundaries of the American religious landscape.

New Books Network interviews the author, James Wellman Jr.

can help us realize is that we need a consistent biblical approach to all and any form of sexual sin. Every church has men and women who are lusting by means of their eyes, yet never following through with an actual act of adultery or fornication. Yet, our Lord views either one as being in a sense equally sinful. Is this type of sin being confronted when found, preached and taught on otherwise? For a young single to engage in physical sexual acts outside of marriage (with either of the genders) is fornication. For those married to engage in physical sexual acts (with either gender) outside of their marriage is adultery. If the physical sins are known in the church among professed believers, all the requisite work of discipleship needs to be done so as to uphold Christ’s glory in the church and to accomplish sanctification in the professed believer. Is our handling of these matters consistent with biblical teaching whether we are dealing with same-gender or different-gender sins? I will leave it at these high levels of description—I understand the need for greater detail and nuance.

Even when espousing views which were in line with orthodoxy, Bell, like other people involved with/influenced by the emergent-thingie tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He seems to have done so in response to what he saw as extremes within mainstream evangelicalism and fundamentalism. His clear revulsion made him, I think, swing wide—wider than Scripture. In the earlier days he expressed questions and doubts on the adiaphora, but more recently he has shown his hand and essentially wants a thoroughly renovated Christianity. Perhaps he held these views for a long time before now.

Of the people I meet here who are drawn to him, many see his views as being more loving and thus more Christlike. Most of them have phenomenally amorphous views of what the church is, what the Scriptures are, of whom Christ is, and thus of whom God and His salvation is. I am unsure of whether they held those views before their encounter with Bell, or after. Some seem to hold these views because they said that something drastic had happened to them or theirs in a local church context, and now they were done with church—they “simply wanted to follow Christ.” In trying to follow him, they found Bell, and his teachings resonated with them. There are others who do not cite some church-trauma in their background, yet hold poorly delineated Christian views, for whatever reason. Perhaps they were poorly taught in some fundy, CE, or otherwise evangelical church, whatever. Perhaps it was due to no fault whatsoever on a local church’s part. They found Bell and clicked with him.

This coming out on the same-gender sex issue is in a sense no surprise. I will wait to see if and how he further defines what he means by his initial words. But, as we continue to turn the microscope on Bell as a false teacher, there must needs be a looking at ourselves in the mirror, and determining if we are being consistent with Christ’s teachings or are we responding due to tradition from the past. God helping us, we will treat all types of sexual sin with an evenhandedness in love and truth which will edify and build up the church.

There are no redeeming values in apostasy!!!!

Michael Brown has written a very informative column about this:

…………..

Remarkably, on Sunday, “When the Very Rev. Jane Shaw attempted to get Bell to take a firm position as to whether Christians ‘know’ the truth in some ultimate sense, Bell veered in a different direction.”

But that is the very heart of the problem. Bell’s celebration of ambiguity has become a dogmatism of uncertainty, and it is because of his lack of spiritual absolutes that he has wandered off the path, leading a generation in his wake.

The truth is that 100 years from now, either in this world or the world to come, history will record that those who conformed their beliefs to the culture were nothing more than a passing curiosity, while those who refused to compromise truth will be regarded as the spiritual heroes and torchbearers.

In the words of Charles Spurgeon, “Character is always lost when a high ideal is sacrificed on the altar of conformity and popularity.”

Trying to pin down Rob Bell on any significant theological stand is probably like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall (and probably just as productive). He’s a theological jellyfish.

He’s actually a perfect illustration of 1 John:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

Hi Mike,

Mike, what I do mean in this, and apparently I am unclear: the lost and Christians are flocking to Bell, et. al. because of real or perceived wrongs or extremes done to them by evangelicals. I would mean then instead of throwing out biblical theology & praxis when we see ministerial extremes, we must seek biblical balance. I would see this as a warning to our younger men. Our own traditions can be sometimes be so unbiblical as to be as damaging to people as Bell’s departures are. Our own responses or lack of responses to ministerial extremes can be as dangerous to people as Bell’s departures are. I would see this as speaking to me and older men who might be holding onto traditions or who take a blind eye to ministerial errors/extremes.

Bell himself in this—his teachings, then have no value to me, but the fact that his teachings are so sought after, makes me realize that it is possible, just possible that I might be doing things which are unbiblical and hurting people, and I need to rebuke myself, or be rebuked to swallow my pride and change.

Has anybody here read or reviewed Love Wins? I skimmed through it at a bookstore a while back. I got that he believes a “just” God would never allow eternal damnation and that everybody will eventually be saved. He is the poster child for the “emerging church,” along with Brian MacLaren.

Is this “emerging church” movement still gaining traction? Bell doesn’t even have a church anymore, after all. Is this more media hype without any real substance? Has the emerging church concept faded away at all recently?

As someone that has lived in Grand Rapids even before Rob Bell started Mars Hill Bible, I think I may understand what Sam is getting at. For years, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville was like a giant hospital to ex-fundamentalists, ex-moral majority evangelicals, and ex-strict confessional reformed folks. If I had a nickel for every person from Mars Hill that I met that had stories of abuse from these type of churches, I’d probably be able to use them to take my wife out for a nice dinner………

And because these folks experienced love and grace at Mars Hill, they were more inclined to be suspicious of those that attacked Rob’s theology. They likened the spiritual abuse they experienced from their past churches with abuse that they felt was being unfairly heaped on Rob.

So the question is, how do you have conversations with people with such an emotional connection with Rob because of their pasts? The best way to influence them was to aggressively question his ideas and how he comes up with his ideas rather than attack him as a person. I remember having a conversation with some friends about what Rob Bell had to say about the gospel and resurrection. They were eating up Rob’s assertion that all the pagans during the 1st century at that time believed in some sort of resurrection from the God’s that they believed in so really Christ’s physical resurrection really didn’t mean much. (Because everyone had a God that was resurrected) He then talked about social justice issues as living life as resurrection as the main point of the resurrection. That’s what got everyone’s attention in the first century as it should now. I had to debunk his anachronistic historical tendencies that led him to this conclusion, which was based on sloppy liberal scholarship that hardly anyone had believed (except for die-hard liberals) for the past 50 years. After doing this several times on several other topics (such as Love Wins), some of them realized that maybe Rob Bell’s preaching/teaching couldn’t be trusted, which then broke the emotional connection that they had with him. Basically rather than initially calling him apostate, I had to take them through several steps to show that his teachings were either on their way to apostasy or apostate already.

Interestingly enough, in the inner-city of Grand Rapids, I hardly ever find anyone that takes Rob Bell seriously or they don’t even know who he is. Several Christians in the hood’ would ask, Rob Who? T.J. Jakes is another story……..

Is this “emerging church” movement still gaining traction? Bell doesn’t even have a church anymore, after all. Is this more media hype without any real substance? Has the emerging church concept faded away at all recently?

The emergent church has been proved to be a small blip on the radar within the evangelical spectrum. Somehow, through some ingenious marketing from emergents such as Doug Paggit and Tony Jones, they were able to get some 50 books into publications from known Christian publishers. Yet according to Bolger and Gibbs (wrote Emerging Churches) only 150 emergent churches exist in the United States and many of them no longer exist today. So yeah. And many within the emergent movement have bemoaned that the movement really wasn’t a movement to begin with. By the way, as long as I can remember, Rob Bell always tried to distance himself from the emergent church, which frustrated Paggit and Jones.

As for Rob Bell’s Love Wins, the best review in my opinion was a book by Dr. Michael Wittmer called Christ Alone. Trevin Wax did a review of Christ Alone, which is a critical response to love wins. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2011/05/04/christ-alone-mike-wittmers-response-to-love-wins/

[TylerR]

Has anybody here read or reviewed Love Wins? I skimmed through it at a bookstore a while back. I got that he believes a “just” God would never allow eternal damnation and that everybody will eventually be saved. He is the poster child for the “emerging church,” along with Brian MacLaren.

Is this “emerging church” movement still gaining traction? Bell doesn’t even have a church anymore, after all. Is this more media hype without any real substance? Has the emerging church concept faded away at all recently?

Hey Tyler-

There’s quite a few threads (more than I was expecting!) on Rob Bell on SharperIron, and there’s one thread in particular that discusses his book - jimfrank wrote a brief review of it.

Just as an FYI - if you click on the ‘tag’ names at the top of a thread (the tags for this thread are ‘Rob Bell’ and ‘Same Sex Marriage’), you can quickly search on all the things that the site has done on that specific topic. It’s a pretty handy feature that I think most people don’t know about.

-edit-

As for the emerging movement - well, I think it kind of just imploded when people realized that there was no real substance to it other than “God loves and accepts everyone as they are” (which is blatantly untrue). PyroManiacs covered that topic fairly well…the two tags they used “emerg*” and “emergent” should give you an idea of what they said.

No, I didn’t think to search the tags …!

as a “movement” (they would never want to say it was that—think Occupy movement…)is apparently in disarray, disorder, dis________. But, the zeitgeist is certainly amenable to what they were selling, and just in my area. To hear Doug Wilson and others tell it, when it comes to postmodernism and academia, the bloom is off the rose. And I think he is right, but, the mushy soupiness of it has softened the brains of a lot of people in our society—and in Christendom. As long as that is true, countering sin in our culture and specifically in the church will have to include a willingness and ability to meet Bell, et.al’s ideas head on—as Joel commented; asking questions meant to shake the pillars of presuppositions that people are standing on, and pointing them to glorify Christ.