WARNING! If you’re uncomfortable reading frank discussions on topics related to human sexuality, please skip this post.

Next Sunday I’m preaching a sermon on the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14). Lord’s Day 41 of the Heidelberg Catechism makes it abundantly clear that this is only a summary of God’s will for how we deal with our sexuality both as married folks and as singles. Since our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, how do we live lives that are morally pure, chaste, and holy?

I can’t get too explicit in the sermon because little ears are listening. So I thought I’d use this blog to address those in the congregation who would like some straightforward answers on sexual morality, especially from a reformed biblical point of view. If you as a non-West Ender care to tune in as well, feel free. And if you have further questions, send them in and I’ll gladly answer those as well—reserving the right, of course, to give the honest answer I proffer most often: “I don’t know.”

So here are the most commonly asked questions parishioners have asked me in my 33 years of ministry experience. Not everyone will agree with my answers, I’m sure. But we can discuss that.

Q.        Is it wrong for married persons to have sex with people other than their spouse even if their spouse doesn’t mind?

A.        Yes.

Q.        Is exotic sex okay (e.g. oral, anal, toys, etc.)?

A.        Sure, as long as you’re married, you do it in private, and it doesn’t gross or guilt out you or your partner.

Q.        Does my spouse have the right to demand sex?

A.        No. Paul does urge married Christians not to withhold themselves from each other (1 Cor. 7:1-6). But forcing oneself on a spouse is rape. To fulfill Paul’s call to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph.5:21), when to have sex and how often, needs to be negotiated. Crucial for a healthy married sex life is open communication in a loving relationship. If married couples aren’t having intimacy ever, it may be a good indicator that they need to get to work on their overall relationship. Get counseling by a qualified counselor sooner rather than later. However, there may also be deep-rooted physical or psychological reasons why couples can’t have sex. In that case they need to rest assured that they are as fully and truly married as any couple who can still enjoy an active sex life.

Q.        Is it okay to have sex with animals?

A.        No.

Q.        Is it okay to have sex within a committed homosexual relationship?

A.        The Christian Reformed Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual practice is.

Q.        Is it okay to view pornography?

A.        No.

Q.        What determines what’s pornographic? Context is a very important factor in determining what constitutes pornography. If the intent and overall effect is to turn people on sexually, then it’s a violation of God’s will that we live modest and holy lives. Does that mean that any material that shows the “naughty bits” or describes sexual scenes is pornographic? Reformed Christians are not agreed on that, or on where or how to draw the line. Maybe the best answer is the one given by the supreme court: “You know it when you see it.”

Q.        Is masturbation morally wrong?

A.        No, unless it becomes compulsive. However, the ideation that goes along with the physical act could be. God cares about what we think about as well as what we do. But general wisdom among counselors I’ve consulted is that it’s healthy, it’s fun, and you don’t bother anyone else with it. J

Q.        Is it morally wrong for married people to do so?

A.        No, unless it interferes with their shared sexual activity.

Q.        Is premarital sexual intercourse wrong?

A.        Yes. God wants us to build our relationships right. That means that we treat each other rightly from the start. As the relationship matures, so does physical intimacy. But sexual intercourse should wait until there’s a marital covenant that has been sealed and celebrated.

Q.        My partner and I have been living together and we’re not married. We want to do the right thing. What is it?

A.        Biblically speaking you’re already married—“they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24)—you just didn’t let the rest of us in on it. The right thing to do would be to make that full lifelong and legal commitment to each other and let your family and friends in on that by getting hitched. Some churches require you to live apart for awhile before doing that. Personally I don’t think that’s wise. When you live away from God’s norms, get back to those norms a.s.a.p. Of course, if your relationship is very bad and not at all promising, then you need to do the opposite—seek each other’s forgiveness and get out of the relationship now. Get out of an uncommitted relationship for your own sake as well as the other person’s sake.

Q.        Is sexual sin worse than other sins?

A.        No.

Q.        If I’ve sinned sexually, then am I “tainted goods” forever?

A.        No. God gives us as much grace in this area of life as any other. You can’t recover your virginity once you’ve lost it. But through God’s Spirit you can certainly recover holiness also in this area of life. How? By rededicating your life to walk in God’s ways. Even when we mistreat his

Rev. Leonard Vander Zee wrote an article in the April Banner in which he wondered if modern farming methods were treating animals in a way that our Creator would not approve of. We’ve received lots of responses from surprised and irritated farmers suggesting that Pastor Len ought to stick to what he knows and that agriculture isn’t it.

The reason I’m pleased with this discussion is that Len knows his Bible and the farmers know agriculture, and raising this topic might lead to a fruitful discussion of how we might be able to honor God’s will in this very important area of life that affects us all whether we’re city slickers or not–we all eat.

An important point in all of this, it seems to me, is whether animals on the modern farm participate in God’s blessing upon all creation. Do they share in the sabbath rest that God proclaimed for all creatures? Is that only true for free range chickens or also true for those that spend their days in a well-kept, though highly populated, cage?

I’m a city slicker who received some very valuable education when I served in a rural church. What I didn’t learn there (and probably should have) is how a farmer can tell if an animal is stressed or content, and, if its pig-brain were capable of self-reflection, would actually consider itself blessed.

Help me here. I really want to know.

In order to do some “search and destroy” I read through this entire blog. Thanks for all your comments. Some very good insights, some well-written pieces, some healthy airing of strongly-felt views.

What I don’t see much of is humor. That’s a necessary part of living in God’s Kingdom, isn’t it? If God made fun of Dagon (1 Samuel 5) and Isaiah poked fun at idolators (Isaiah 44) then shouldn’t we have some fun too? Jesus seems to think so (Matthew 9:14-17)? He was good at it too: straining out gnats but letting through camels–that’s funny! And when a Gentile woman outwits him he not only concedes graciously, but feeds 4000 of her fellow Gentiles besides healing her daughter. Seems Jesus has a real weak spot for a good line.

So how about it. Tell us what your most embarassing experience in church was–EVER! C’mon . . . pullleeeeze?

Just this last week alone I’ve had to turn down a number of requests to highlight one or another good cause from the pulpit. Not that those causes weren’t worthy. They were. But where to draw the line? If you highlight ten such causes, you actually highlight none of them–and you take a lot of worship time to do it.

If folks would only read their bulletins and church newsletters and Banners! But in this ad-saturated era we overlook almost everything that’s not explicitly pointed out to us. So there’s the dilemma.

I hate being the bad guy to say no to such legitimate requests. And how am I supposed to decide which ones are more worthy of some pulpit time than others? Usually I have no good rationale other than to whine that we just get too many requests and that we just can’t go there yada, yada, yada.

Any good ideas of better ways to promote all the worthy ministries and causes that deserve and compete for our attention? I’d love to hear some. And if you could give me some better excuses to use to turn down such requests, that would really be a bonus.

I just finished doing my taxes. I can’t believe how little I have to pay in the way of provincial tax. That’s because I live in Alberta, which is awash in oil, natural gas, and coal. It seems my $$$ aren’t really needed, especially since our newly re-elected Premier has promised to keep “resource development” going full-bore.

So I personally benefit from enterprises like oil sands exploitation that is doing a real number on the environment at both ends of the production/delivery process.

Makes me want to go take a shower. But then I’d just be increasing my carbon footprint even more. Maybe I could take an “ethical sponge-bath” at least by diverting some of my tax rebate towards insulating my home better and making it more energy efficient.

Hawaii may need to wait yet another year.

After a time of illness our Lord has taken the Rev. Jacob D. Eppinga to himself. For Jake it’s a promotion into glory, I know. But I’m deeply saddened by the loss. For the better part of four decades Jake has written “Cabbages and Kings” a column that still graces the last inside page of every Banner, and will continue to do so for a few more months.

For all those years Jake spoke to Banner readers like no other columnist. His pastoral heart, his faith in the Lord, and his love for the CRC always came through loud and clear. He never failed to delight us with his wisdom and his wit.

Jake was a gift from God. He was a conservative columnist whose gentle humor always spoke to Banner readers of every stripe. One didn’t have to agree with Jake in order to be enlightened and blessed by him. He was old but he spoke to and was read by every generation. We know that because our marketing surveys always showed his column to be the favorite of young and old alike. Jake was a long-term “Grand Rapidian” but his yarns played as well in Western Canada as they did in Hudsonville.

In case you didn’t know, the Jake we knew from “Cabbages” is just the way he was in person. He will be sorely missed.

This would be a great time and place for you to add a comment on ways in which Jake, either in person or in his writing, has blessed you personally.

Thank you, God. For your servant Jake.

For the last few years the April issue of The Banner carried a nonsense piece designed to be a harmless April Fool’s joke on our readers. They included clues that would allow careful readers to catch on. And many sharp-witted readers enjoyed letting us know we were busted.

This year we’re giving that a rest. We received too many angry responses, ranging from annoyance to concerns that these articles would undermine our credibility as a denominational mag.

 I’m disappointed. We could use more harmless fun in church, I think. It wouldn’t hurt much. It might actually help.

Sigh!

I enjoy working on The Banner. But one of the few flies in the ointment is the many submissions which staff has to turn down because we have so little editorial space in a (now) monthly mag. Most writers understand and accept their disappointment with a certain measure of charity. Others are infuriated and pin our editorial ears back. They take it so personally.

Articles aren’t turned down just because they are bad. In fact, most articles we receive are very good. But we receive many more than we can publish. A number of would-be authors accuse Banner staff of bias, accusing us of favoring “liberals” over “conservatives,” Canadians over Americans, clergy over non-ordained readers, and whatnot.

I’m not so naive as to believe that Banner staff don’t have their biases. But we try very hard to place articles in The Banner that allow for honest, open, and helpful discussion regardless of whether we personally agree with them or not. We try hard not to select articles on the basis of our own pet opinions. Our vision for the mag is that it’s the kitchen table where we can mull over all sides of an issue and let folks speak their piece as long as they keep a civil tongue in their head (which some don’t).

What I really like about this blog is that I haven’t had to cull out any responses. Print is expensive, electrons are cheap. Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate hearing from you. I’ll keep at this as long as you do too. Don’t be discouraged from commenting because you don’t see your contribution immediately. They’re uploaded once a week, usually on Fridays.

So keep in touch!

I have no suggested answers, just questions on the subject of whether Calvin College (Grand Rapids, Mich., owned by the Christian Reformed Church) should have a policy that requires tenure-track profs to be members of Christian Reformed congregations. The Banner received a lot of response to a brief news story we carried about a professor who did not wish to join a CRC and therefore was not put on tenure track. Presumably, she will no longer teach at Calvin once her temporary contract runs out. I gather that Calvin’s reason for this policy is to ensure that Calvin does not depart from its confessional basis as so many other institutions of higher learning have done. But does that noble intent justify this requirement? Are there better ways of ensuring confessional integrity? Might an educational creed or some other foundational document keep Calvin on course while allowing greater freedom for profs in choosing a church home? 

Some who responded stated that they didn’t think a denomination should be owning and/or running an institution of higher learning at all.

What’s your take?

Elections are in the air all over the place. The U.S. primaries are fun to watch. Harper’s minority government in Canada is headed for a fall sooner or later and that will send Canadians back to the polls as well. Here in Alberta there will soon be a provincial election as well.

As much as I strongly value the right to vote, when dollars come to donuts, I find it a very difficult privilege/obligation to exercise. I’ve been taught, as we all have, to look behind the rhetoric at the actual vision, principles, and platforms that candidates hide so cleverly in all those words. I’ve been taught, as we all have, not to be one-issue voters but to look at the overall package that is proposed. But there’s the rub.

I may like what a given politician says but I may not trust her/him to carry it forward. Where does character come into play? I may like what a given politician says but, due to the way he or she is presented by the media, I may lack confidence or just plain dislike them. And what role should a candidate’s personal religious beliefs play in the way I choose? And should I choose only between those I think have a chance of success or do I toss my vote to someone I agree with but who doesn’t have a prayer of getting elected?

It’s all a bit of a mystery to me. Any advice?