I fail to see how any such sin sacrifice would pacify God. Does God delight in blood and vengeance? Is he not a merciful God?

Just now I’m finishing my catchup with the most recent “Discover the Word” broadcast, by RBC Ministries. They’re doing a fantastic series about misreading of Scripture, including Matthew 18: 19-20 ... offering the true context of this passage that I hadn’t seen before ...

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Apparently the shortest route to relevance in church ministry right now is for the pastor to talk about sex in garishly explicit terms during the Sunday morning service. If he can shock parishioners with crude words and sophomoric humor, so much the better.

[. . .]

Sermons about sex have suddenly become a bigger fad in the evangelical world than the prayer of Jabez ever was.

[. . .]

I would be the last to suggest that preachers should totally avoid the topic of sex. Scripture has quite a lot to say about the subject [. . .]

But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit.

[. . .]

That includes the Song of Solomon.

In fact, Solomon’s love-poem epitomizes the exact opposite approach. It is, of course, a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love—in language suitable for any audience.

But it has become popular in certain circles to employ extremely graphic descriptions of physical intimacy as a way of expounding on the euphemisms in Solomon’s poem. As this trend develops, each new speaker seems to find something more shocking in the metaphors than any of his predecessors ever imagined.

[. . .]

Such pronouncements are usually made amid raucous laughter, but evidently we are expected to take them seriously.

[. . .]

That approach is not exegesis; it is exploitation. It is contrary to the literary style of the book itself. It is spiritually tantamount to an act of rape. It tears the beautiful poetic dress off Song of Solomon, strips that portion of Scripture of its dignity, and holds it up to be laughed at and leered at in a carnal way.

I see what you and a few others have been saying wisewoman. But there is a great danger to that, even if you aren’t seeing it that way or intending it. Yes, the Great War has been won. But even you must know that it is not over yet. You have given me the impression (and I hope I am wrong on this) that we only need to worry about spiritual warfare when battle come.

• Studying the Scriptures,
  
  
• Opposing the false teachings of demons (1 Timothy 4:1),
  
  
• Seeking to become more like Christ,
  
  
• And sometimes, opposing demons directly and/or casting them out,
  
  
• All for the sake of working out our faith and seeking to let God work through us as part of His plan to save the lost.

Sarcastro, superhero-in-training who combats evil with “the razor-sharp sting of sarcasm”(from The Tick)

How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte.

Scripture: silent beyond ‘children, obey your parents’

I’d like to know what you think a biblical family should look like? What do you think the father/daughter relationship in particular should look like? [. . .] And what is the Biblical background/back-up for your belief?

Consider that “God is love,” as it says in 1 John 4:8, and that God is God, as it says in Isaiah 46:9: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.” The truth that God is God implies that God is who he is in all his glorious attributes and self-sufficiency. But that truth that God is love implies that all of this glory is moving our way for our everlasting enjoyment.

Now, those two truths unleash very different impulses through the Bible. And we will see that a balance is introduced here lest we make of Christianity an elitist affair, which it definitely is not.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of simplicity, and that God is God unleashes the impulse of complexity.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of accessibility, and that God is God unleashes the impulse of profundity.

That God is love unleashes the impulse of encourages a focus on the basics, and that God is God encourages a focus on comprehensiveness. One says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). The other says, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, RSV).

That God is love impels us to be sure that the truth gets to all people, and that God is God impels us to be sure that what gets to all people is the truth.

That God is love unleashes the impulse toward fellowship, and that God is God unleashes the impulse toward scholarship.

That God is love tends to create extroverts and evangelists, and that God is God tends to create introverts and mystics.

That God is love helps foster a folk ethos, and that God is God helps foster a fine ethos.

[. . .]

If any of you is saying to yourself, “I don't like this separation between God is love and God is God, between folk and fine, evangelists and mystics, fellowship and scholarship, accessibility and profundity, simplicity and complexity”--GOOD! Because, in my mind, every one of these things is precious, and both sides of all pairs are indispensable in the ministry and mission of Christ in the world. So my prayer is this. For believers, I pray that, seeing these different impulses in Christianity, you will embrace both of them. If you lean toward one side (as we all do), that you will be respectful and affirming to those on the other side. And that you will cherish the fuller manifestation of God in his church and in the world. And for those who may be reading this without love to Christ in your heart, my prayer is that what you have seen will help remove some caricatures or stereotypes of Christ in the Bible--and open the way for you to see all that God is for you in Christ, so that you freely believe on him.

-- Taste and See: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life, John Piper (Multnomah, 2005)

I've been accused of sheltering my children from the real world by not allowing them to watch movies like this [. . .]

I thought I said that, no, every single sourtship does not need to look like that. [. . .] I do not look at courship with reverant eyes, courtship and the Bible are at totally different totally totally different levels in my mind.

And I fully agree that “courtship is more the mindset then the actual action.” This leads, though, to some rather interesting realizations: what is tempting or hurtful to one person may not be the same to others. What will best serve the other person and glorify God to him or her, even in the manner of physical affections? It’s the same case with holiday celebration, or eating or drinking preferences, about which Paul was clear that Christians can have different standards because some struggle in some areas more than others do.

Most of your description two pages ago I have indeed heard before. The only thing new to me is your seeming recognition that Christians aren’t required in Scripture to follow this kind of model. That is unfortunately a view foreign to many other advocates of such courtship concepts.

However, I would take issue with the ideas that this is the “perfect situation,” Daughters. For example, a friend of mine just got married on Dec. 20, after what I thought was an unusual method of speed-courtship with his church’s help. For him, a few months of dating and friends-and-fellowship time was quicklyfollowedbyengagementandthenmarriage within two months!

Other friends, including NarniaWebbers, have adopted rock-solid Biblical “courtship” principles, including accountability and direction-drivenness, while not having a “chaperone” accompany them anytime they’re together. I myself am praising God for where He’s brought me in my own mostly-long-distance relationship with a certain young lady — a NarniaWebber! Who’s to say their/our method of mate-seeking isn’t “perfect” or God’s will, too?

What I would like to see more of in the stronger “courtship” advocates is a recognition that Christians are not all the same types of people — that is, homeschoolers, with Christian parents, living relatively close together, and with plenty of accountability available from Godly fathers and/or church leaders or mentors. To think otherwise is not just unrealistic or impractical, but bypassing the diversity of backgrounds in God’s people.

Even Josh Harris (often perceived as the “Love Doctor,” as he now sarcastically refers to himself!) had to get past some of his initial expectations: he married a non-homeschooled new Christian with a history of bad relationships and an absentee father, while more than a thousand miles from his own parents and any accountability to them!

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bad doctrine being taught in these movements. It is very often based on the desires to correct other bad doctrines — such as anti-marriage-roles feminism, anti-family attitudes, secular dating-just-for-fun-and-profit, or “lazy Christianity.” Those goals, then, can become the goal of many teachings, particularly if — as I’ve already pointed out — you’re operating from a wrong view of God’s Grace and the need to make Him our center.

In fact, I would recommend backing up and restarting this whole debate from there — the flawed presuppositions of patriarchalism, leading to the result of flawed courtship concepts.

Meanwhile, though, let me repeat and supplements everyone’s arguments again Arranged-marriage-esque (how about we call it AME?) type courtship in a more-organized way. However, I must give credit to Don Veinot, who similarly organized his book’s rebuttal to the Gothard-esque courtship concepts (at least, as they are purported to be The Scriptural Way of Doing It). My first point will be the longest.

Yes, boys and girls, it's that time again. And if you're grossed out by this kind of thing, you may want to adjust your browser settings now and navigate away. I myself am completely put out by such Mushy discussion. So I'm only starting this topic under enormous political pressure and the graciousness of my little moderator cyber-heart.

If you're not familiar with the incidental Spare Oom Mush Series, it's been going on since the first topic, I Kissed Dating Goodbye (crushes cont'd.), started by miss shortlegs on Jan. 16, 2006.

(Has it been that long? Wow.)

So NarniaWeb's relationship with the topic has been ongoing for almost three years. However, it's been an on-and-off relationship. The first topic lasted a little more than four months, then ended after 100 pages (by the old forum's count). NarniaWeb and Mush broke up and both went home crying.

Later, the handsome and dashing stardf29 asked the topic out again, and so began the whirlwind romance of Boy Meets Girl, which lasted from mid-May to mid-August of 2006. However, the hundred-page limit was again reached, and the relationship couldn't last. The Mush Series wept bitterly into its pillow for several evenings whilst stardf29, apparently not able to reconcile desires for companionship with dreams of academic achievement, went off to study the philosophies behind higher derivative calculus or something.

In September 2006, I was the shoulder for the Mush Series to cry on, and so began the third in the series, Wuv, Twue Wuv — and Mawwiage! Thus the romance began again, with all manner of discussions about dating, courtship, male/female and husband/wife roles, selfishness and unselfishness in relationships, appropriate behavior, and all kinds of topics that had likely been discussed before, but are always interesting anyway.

But the infatuation could only last so long, and I broke the subject's heart in March 2007.

Then came the handsome and dashing and spiritually swashbuckling The Black Glove, wooing and schmoozing, in late June 2007. “Wuv, Twue Wuv, and Mawwiage:” Episode IV lasted until March of last year, when the discussion had run its course after 100 pages.

Alas, The Black Glove, ever the cold-hearted Calvinist, forsook his love in favor of trivial things like college, real-life friends, and perhaps preparing to find some other love interest someday. Meanwhile, the Mush series, its poor heart breaking for what could have been, remained locked in its room for weeks, eating chocolates and swearing never to love again.

And now, here come I, the third suitor, with plenty of wooing words to court the conversation once more. Ah, but this is to be a relationship that involves friends and loved ones, those who care about us and want to help and participate. Want to come along?



“Mawwiage! Mawwiage is what bwings us togethahh today. Mawwiage! That bwessed awwangement, that dweam wifin a dweam ...

”And wuv, twue wuv, will fowwow you fowevahh ... So tweashah youw wuv ...

“Have you the wing?”