The Gospel and Same-Sex Relationships

Recently, one of the girls in my youth group shared a video with me titled “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships” (available here). She shared it with me because one of her Christian friends at school was circulating it, and she wanted my input.

First, let me say that I am thankful she is thinking through her faith and challenges to it and that she is willing to engage those challenges. My response will be to address Mr. Vines’ opening contention, followed by his exegesis, and finally to address how the gospel informs our understanding of sexuality.

I. Mr. Vine’s Opening Contention

Mr. Vines begins by informing us that “marriage equality is on the rise, but despite this trend, religious belief remains a major obstacle to acceptance.” This statement raises at least two questions: (1) What is the context in which this trend has arisen; and (2) What specific religious belief is hindering acceptance?

We must ask the first question, because no trend occurs in a vacuum. The context in which marriage equality is on the rise is increasingly secular-humanistic: people want liberty, individualism, and happiness, while rejecting belief in God as necessary to experience them. According to the website, individualism is the celebration of the emancipation of the individual “from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life” (emphasis supplied). In other words, the context in which marital equality increasingly accepted is one in which God and His Word, as the inspired moral standard of our Creator, is increasingly rejected.

Understanding the context in which marital equality is on the rise helps us answer the second question. Given our secular-humanistic context, it is unsurprising that the religious belief Mr. Vines claims is hampering acceptance is the conservative Christian church.

Mr. Vines tells us that he grew up in such a church with his parents. Both the church and his parents (initially) rejected such marital equality. However, when Mr. Vines realized he was gay, he determined to study the Scriptures “intensively” on the matter, the result of which study is contained in his video. It is important to recognize that the “conservative” church takes the historical church’s perspective on this issue: marriage is defined from the beginning of the Bible and then throughout as a loving, committed, monogamous relationship between one man and one woman, within which each has a specific role. Therefore, Mr. Vines’ conclusions from his personal study are contrary to 2000 years of church understanding. Furthermore, we might ask, were Mr. Vines’ studies more “intensive” than John Chrysostom’s, Augustine’s, and the other church fathers who share a unified voice on this issue? More basically: is the level of a study’s intensity directly proportional to the validity of its conclusions? It is also worth noting that Mr. Vines sees his project as a new Reformation of sorts, as indicated by his website:

II. Mr. Vines’ Exegesis

From his study, Mr. Vines concludes that there are six “relevant” passages: three from the Old Testament and New Testament each. His thesis is: though each passage speaks negatively of certain homosexual behavior, not one of them addresses committed, same-sex relationships. In fact, he believes “the Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage,” and therefore other Christians should feel free to support and affirm their practicing gay brothers and sisters.

The problem is the Bible addresses both issues, and there are more than six relevant passages. Furthermore, we might say that the paradigm of same-sex marriage does not appear in the Bible precisely because the Bible from the very beginning establishes marriage as a monogamous heterosexual relationship. However, Mr. Vines ignores Genesis 2:18-25, arguably the most relevant – and certainly the most foundational – passage to the discussion. In other words, his requirements for a biblically-endorsed marital relationship stop short of the first one revealed in Scripture: heterosexual. That he has ignored this passage indicates either he hasn’t researched the literature throughout church history on the subject, or that he has simply chosen to ignore it. Again, the church has consistently defined marriage heterosexually for 2000 years, and it has appealed to Genesis 2:18ff for this definition.

II.A. Old Testament Passages

II.A.1. Genesis 19

Let’s spend some time analyzing Mr. Vines’ exegesis of the “relevant” passages. First, he takes us to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). While he acknowledges the presence of homosexuality in these cities, he emphasizes “the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang-rape.” In other words, what Genesis 19 is condemning is lustful, violent same-sex behavior, not a loving, committed, monogamous same-sex relationship. Therefore, his conclusion is Genesis 19 is not actually relevant to the discussion.

Mr. Vines also argues from Ezekiel 16:49 that the main issue in Sodom and Gomorrah was not same-sex behavior (or desire), but “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, and [their inhabitants] did not aide the poor and needy.” Let me offer two responses. The first is from the book The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, written by Rosaria Butterfield. The second will be from the context of Ezekiel 16 itself.

Dr. Butterfield was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, where she also taught in the Center for Women’s Studies. Furthermore, she was an outspoken lesbian in a committed relationship. Now she is married to a conservative Reformed pastor, and they have several adopted children. In chapter 2 of her book, she asks, “What was the real sin of Sodom?” In reflecting on Ezekiel 16:49, she agrees with Mr. Vines: “Sodom was indicted for materialism and neglect of the poor and needy.” However, she adds: “[the passage revealed to me] that homosexuality was a symptom and extension of these other sins” (emphasis added). Furthermore, in observing that Ezekiel indicts pride first, she says: “Pride is the root of all sin. Pride puffs one up with a false sense of independence. Proud people always feel they can live independently from God and from other people. Proud people feel entitled to do what they want when they want to.” All of this sounds like the individualism celebrated by our secular-humanistic context. Dr. Butterfield continues: “This [reflection on pride as the root sin] shaped the way that I reflected on my whole life, in the context of the word of God. I realized that my sexuality had never been pure and my relationships never honored the other person or the Lord. My moral code encompassed serial monogamy, ‘safe’ sex, and sex only in the context of love. Love, grounded only in personal feelings as mine had been, changes without warning or logic. . . . My sexuality was sinful not because it was lesbian per se but because it wasn’t Christ-controlled.” So, it is true: homosexuality was not the only or even the main sin in Sodom (though, see Jude 7). However, notice that Dr. Butterfield believed in and was guided by the same essential moral code Mr. Vines suggests is required for a relationship to be biblically justified, while at the same time she argues that such a moral code was not Christ-controlled.

The context of Ezekiel 16 is significant to this discussion as well. In Ezekiel 16, the Lord is lamenting the idolatry of His people Israel. He describes this idolatry as adultery: His Bride prostituted herself to everyone who passed by. In fact, she was worse than a prostitute, because she actually paid her lovers! Certainly the Lord is using figurative language, but it is figurative language grounded in a heterosexual understanding of marriage! The Lord understands Himself to be the groom, and Israel (the Old Testament church) to be His Bride. God’s self-understanding here is consistent with the marital pattern He established in Genesis 2.

II.A.2. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

The next two passages Mr. Vines considers relevant are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, both of which describe the activity of one male lying sexually with another male, as with a woman, an “abomination.” More pointedly, 20:13 says both men are to be put to death. What is clear is the passages do not define the context of this behavior; in other words, it condemns it in any context (i.e. whether in a non-married, lustful context, or in committed, loving, monogamous context). Knowing this, Mr. Vines focuses on the word “abomination.” He then argues that Leviticus describes other activities, like a man having sexual relations with his wife during her period and dietary restrictions, as abominations. He assumes in his argument that anything described by the same moral indicator is held to the same moral standard and falls within the same code. To use his words, “this was part of the Old Testament law code.” However, his argument continues: the New Testament abolishes the entire Old Testament law code. He appeals to Romans 10:4 (“Christ is the end of the law”) and Hebrews 8:13 (“the old law is ‘obsolete’ and ‘aging’.”)

There are three problems with his argument. First, in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, there is a qualifying phrase: “as with a woman.” This phrase establishes the natural sexual relationship as heterosexual (“natural” meaning that which was established by God at creation). The surrounding passages define the boundaries of that heterosexual relationship.

Second, Mr. Vines is misusing Romans 10:4 and Hebrews 8:13. Romans 10:4 in its entirety reads: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Rather than supporting Mr. Vines’ view that Christ has abolished the entire Old Testament law code in general and for everyone, Paul says Christ is the end of the law for those who believe. Furthermore, Mr. Vines takes the word “end” in the sense of termination. What is clear from the context is, Paul means it in the sense of fulfillment. In 9:31-32, Paul says that “Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law . . . because they did not seek it by faith.” The point of 10:4 is that Christ did attain the righteousness of the law, because He fulfilled it. Therefore, what is terminated is the penalty for law-breaking for those who believe. More than that, those who believe in Christ are treated as those who have fulfilled the law just as Christ did. This understanding of Christ’s relationship to the law agrees with Christ’s self-understanding of His relationship to the law:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law of the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will be no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-19a

In his appeal to Hebrews 8:13, Mr. Vines ignores the distinction the book of Hebrews makes between the moral and ceremonial law. In fact, there are three aspects of the Old Testament law code: moral, ceremonial, and civil. The moral law is rooted in creation ordinances and therefore applies to all people everywhere forever. It is summarized in places like the Ten Commandments. The ceremonial and civil laws both arose with Israel and ceased when Christ came. In particular, the ceremonial law was tied to temple worship. In it, we find sacrificial regulations, priestly regulations, what defines a person as “clean” or “unclean” (and therefore able or unable to participate in temple worship), etc. Because the ceremonial law was designed to anticipate Christ through types and shadows, when Christ came and fulfilled the entire law, these anticipatory laws were no longer needed. This is why Paul writes: “Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance is Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). The civil law applied the moral law in specific cases within the lives of the nation of Israel while they were in the land of Canaan. They ceased when Israel ceased to be a functioning, independent nation. Nor would it make sense to continue to uphold each of these civil laws in their particulars, because we live in different circumstances. We would, however, apply the moral law to our particular circumstances. A classic example of this distinction goes like this: in Old Testament times, the Israelites were commanded to install a parapet on their roofs when they built new houses. The situation was, Israelites typically installed ladders or stairs leading to their roofs, where people would spend time. This was to uphold the sixth commandment: “you shall not murder”, which, in this specific case, involved doing what is necessary to preserve life. It would be pointless to install a parapet on the roofs of most of our houses. However, installing a fence around the pool in the backyard, especially when there are small children or others who can’t swim living in the house, is a good modern-day application of the moral law to our specific circumstances.

When we look at Hebrews 8:13 and the surrounding context, we see that the author is describing Christ as a better Mediator than Moses, of a better covenant than the Mosaic covenant. In other words, the author of Hebrews is demonstrating the failure in particular of the ceremonial law. This is why he refers to the levitical priesthood being unable to bring perfection (7:11). Furthermore, these levitical priests “offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of heavenly things” (8:4-5); “but now [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (8:6). It is clear that the author of Hebrews has the ceremonial law in mind, because in 9:8-10 he writes that the Holy Spirit was indicating that the first tabernacle (or section of the tabernacle) “was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him [the levitical priest] who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience – [that is, the service that was concerned] only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation [that is, when Christ came, as the next verse makes clear.]” Compare this passage from Hebrews 9 with the Colossians 2 passage listed above.

This distinction between the ceremonial law and moral law is obvious from other New Testament passages as well. For example, Jesus declares all foods to be clean in Mark 7:19. Christ declared that the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, who were considered “unclean” in the Old Testament, to be void (Acts 10:28); Paul tells us that Christ removed that distinction in His crucifixion (Ephesians 2:11-16). And yet, Jesus and the apostles continued to enforce the moral law’s applicability. For example, Paul says: “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Romans 13:8-9). Note that Paul is saying love is the summary and fulfillment of the law; love is not something that stands over against the law. In other words, you cannot truly love someone if you set aside the law, specifically the ten commandments.

We should also note that the punishment for same-sex behavior, regardless of the context in which it occurs, is vastly different than the punishment for the other “abominations” Mr. Vines lists. The former earned the death penalty. Those who violated the latter were simply declared unclean, and ceremonial washings, etc. were prescribed for them to become clean again.

The third problem with Mr. Vines’ argument respecting the Leviticus passages is, the same Hebrew word translated “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is found in none other than Ezekiel 16, which we have already examined above. (It is interesting to note that in the other cases of “abominations” to which Mr. Vines appeals, it is a different Hebrew word.) In Ezekiel 16, this word is used to describe Israel’s idolatry, pictured so graphically as adulterous prostitution. Would Mr. Vines say that idolatry, adultery, and prostitution are still wrong? In fact, he says at least adultery and prostitution are wrong, for both are lustful activities outside the bounds of a loving, committed, and faithful relationship. I would assume Mr. Vines considers idolatry to be wrong, since that is the New Testament perspective (see 1 Corinthians 10:14 and Galatians 5:20). Thus we see that not everything the Old Testament describes as an “abomination” is permitted in the New Testament, nor is it approved by Mr. Vines’ own standard.

II.B. New Testament Passages

II.B.1. Romans 1:26-27

As Mr. Vines turns to the “relevant” New Testament passages, he begins with Romans 1:26-27, focusing especially on Paul’s description of women and men exchanging “natural” heterosexual relations for “those contrary to nature” and instead “being consumed with passion for one another.” (Ironically, one of the cross-references for Romans 1:26-27 in the Bible he shows in the video is Leviticus 18:22.) His argument is that Paul was condemning cultural conventions, because (1) lustful and adulterous homosexual behavior was common in the Roman world, and (2) Paul also describes long hair on men as “unnatural” in 1 Corinthians 11:13, which condemnation he claims most Christians understand to be culture-driven, rather than grounded in an absolute standard.

In other words, (1) Mr. Vines is arguing that Paul’s condemnation of same-sex behavior in Romans 1 is a response to Roman excess and lust, and that Paul is not addressing committed, loving, and faithful same-sex relationships; after all, “the context he was writing in was world’s apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships.” (2) At the same time, though he joins Paul in his condemnation of lustful and excessive same-sex behavior in his first point, he inadvertently justifies the same behavior in his second point: the kind of behavior Paul describes as “contrary to nature” in Romans 1 is no more unnatural – or wrong – than men having long hair (and who would condemn a man for having long hair today?)

Here are two responses. First, Mr. Vines’ exegesis is inaccurate. He argues that Paul is condemning only same-sex behavior that is lustful and dishonoring to the participant’s bodies. However, the text suggests Paul understood all same-sex behavior to be lustful and dishonoring to the participant’s bodies. In verse 24, Paul makes a summary statement: “therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” He repeats this thought at the beginning of verse 26: “for this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions.” The rest of verse 26 and 27 explain what these lusts, impurities, and unnatural and dishonorable passions look like: same-sex behavior. In other words, Paul is saying that all same-sex behavior is lustful, impure, dishonorable, and unnatural. (Again, what makes something natural or unnatural is determined by what God establishes at creation.)

Second, the bigger issue people have with 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is with Paul’s teaching on male headship within marriage. Paul is describing the natural order of relationships within a marriage, and he is appealing to creation to establish that order as natural. Notice, as with Ezekiel 16, the context assumes a heterosexual marital relationship, which was also established at creation.

II.B.2. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

The last two verses Mr. Vines says are relevant are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. 1 Corinthians 6 lists a group of sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and 1 Timothy 1 lists lawless and insubordinate people. Both include homosexuals. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul uses the word arsenokoitai. It is a compound word, made from combining ‘man’ (arsen) and ‘bed’ (koite, from which we get our word ‘coitus.’) Koite refers especially to the ‘marriage bed’, and therefore is also used euphemistically for ‘sexual intercourse’ (see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker). For example, the author of Hebrews tells us to “let the marriage bed [koite] be undefiled” (13:4). The combination of arsen and koite give the image of a man sharing his marriage bed with another man.

1 Corinthians 6 uses both arsenkoitai and malakoi in its list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Malakoi refers to men who are effeminate and who allow themselves to be used sexually by other men.

Mr. Vines at least acknowledges that “many modern commentators translate these as referring to homosexuals.” However, he goes on to say: “But the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ didn’t even exist in the ancient world.” The question immediately arises, what does this mean? Does he mean that the ancient world didn’t think in terms of our modern sociological psychological constructs? Of course they didn’t. Does he mean that they didn’t use our exact language to describe homosexuality? Again, this is not surprising. What is clear, however, is the Scriptures condemn both unrepentant men who are effeminate and allow themselves to be used sexually by other men and unrepentant men who share marriage beds with each other. Mr. Vines simply has given us a nonsensical statement as a smokescreen to mask the weight these two words bear on the whole issue.

III. The Gospel and Sexuality

I want to look quickly now at Ephesians 5:22-33. This passage is part of a household instructions section in the letter. What is interesting to note is that, in any household instructions in the New Testament, the instructions are always addressed to husbands and wives. There are no instructions to homosexual couples. Furthermore, in Ephesians 5, Paul is telling us that the marital relationship between a husband and a wife is a picture of the gospel. For example, Paul says, “husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (v. 25). Furthermore, Paul grounds his understanding both of the relationship between Christ and the church and the relationship between husband and wife in Genesis 2:24.

Commenting on Genesis 2:21-25, Augustine wrote: “Even in the beginning, when woman was made from a rib in the side of the sleeping man, that had no less a purpose than to symbolize prophetically the union of Christ and His church. Adam’s sleep was a mystical foreshadowing of Christ’s death, and when His dead body hanging from the cross was pierced by the lance, it was from His side that there issued forth blood and water,” through which the church was made. And Quodvultdeus says: “It is evident that since Eve had been created from the side of the sleeping Adam, he has foreseen that from the side of Christ hanging on the cross the church . . . must be created.” (Both are from The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Genesis 1-11, pgs. 70-71.) It is the union of a husband and wife alone that prefigures Christ’s union with His Bride, the church. A homosexual union has no relationship to the gospel, because Christ still has a Bride.

The Ephesians 5 passage raises some practical issues. Marriage relationships involve headship and submission. This passage and others discussed earlier clearly teach man’s headship over the woman and the woman’s submission to her husband. (Certainly, this has been abused, but its abuse does not nullify its binding nature.) The question arises, therefore, which person in a same-sex relationship will retain the role natural to their gender, and which one will take on the role natural to the opposite gender? Which woman will be treated and act like a man, and which man will be treated and act like a woman?

Furthermore, in Genesis 1, God blessed the marriage of Adam and Eve by telling them to “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion” over all the creatures (1:28). While the Fall has resulted in the inability for some husbands and wives to conceive, what is clearly blessed is the heterosexual union, which, apart from the Fall, would have resulted consistently in fruitfulness. The point here is that blessing and fruitfulness – a union that in an unfallen situation would result in fruitfulness – belong together. Sadly, there can be no hope of blessing for a same-sex union, then.


Mr. Vines began with his autobiography. He grew up in a conservative Christian church and home, both of which were opposed to same-sex unions on biblical and historical grounds. However, when he realized he was gay, he embarked on his study, after which he was convinced he had a biblical justification for a loving, committed, monogamous, same-sex union. Sadly, he convinced his parents of this justification, along with several others.

Also sadly, Mr. Vines’ arguments have shown special pleading (a biased selection of “relevant” Bible passages), while ignoring the most critical and foundational passages – Genesis 2:18ff and Ephesians 5:22-33 (among other passages). Furthermore, his exegesis has shown a propensity to ignore one of the most important exegetical principles – paying attention to a passage’s context.

I say “sadly” to both of these issues, because Mr. Vines, and now his family and others, are persuaded that something the Bible and the church throughout her history condemns strongly is biblically justifiable.

Furthermore, it is sad that the church context in which this journey took place was neither able to convince him that Scripture in fact does speak to this issue – quite clearly and strongly – and that God’s grace is sufficient to transform all sinners. The church as a whole must embrace both of these realities firmly, not only with the sin of homosexuality, but with all other sins. We cannot ignore the sinfulness of sin, but we also must hope in the grace that is greater than all our sin!

What I hope comes through clearly in the paragraph above is, I am not writing from a homophobic position. I do not hate homosexuals. Nor do I think homosexuality is the only sin or the worst sin, though I certainly believe it is a sin, just as I certainly believe other things Scripture calls sin are sins. Furthermore, as a man married to a woman, I need transforming grace. I am a sinner, too!

Finally, I hope, if Mr. Vines ever comes across this post, he will trust my sympathy toward him in what must have been a very difficult time and process in his life. I hope he will see that he does not have the biblical support he believes he has and desires, and that to base his relationships on a trend in a society that is increasingly rejecting the God and Bible to which he appeals is a dangerous thing. I hope that he will see that whatever same-sex relationship he might be in is a counterfeit of the gospel, and at the same time I hope sees that Christ gives perfect love, faithfulness, and commitment to His Bride, to all who turn to Him in faith and repentance.

How Christians Make Decisions

A few years ago, my wife and I were discussing our potential future plans, and someone overhearing our conversation interjected, “I’ll just pray about it.” They were mocking us playfully. However, we must be honest: sometimes Christians have made some rather unwise decisions while boasting that they really felt like the Lord was leading them to do so. This is a potential danger of making prayer our only tool for making decisions. Furthermore, God has given us more tools than prayer alone to make decisions. So, what are these tools God has given us? Let me discuss five.


Notwithstanding unbeliever’s sometimes well-founded objections to our resorting to prayer when making decisions, this is the most obvious first step. In fact, the entire process of decision-making for Christians ought to be covered in prayer.

“Prayer,” according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism (you can find a link to a PDF version with Scripture proofs here), “is an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to His will.” The Catechism is acknowledging our natural tendency to worship ourselves – we want to do what we want, when we want, and often this is in opposition to what God wants or t0 His timing. Jesus, Who only did what His Father wanted Him to do and say when His Father wanted Him to do and say it, still models this submission to the Father in prayer for us: “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me. Nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).

Again, as we make decisions, we must be in constant prayer. Not only do we offer our desires to the Lord so that we make a decision that glorifies Him, we also ask Him to lead us throughout the process and as we use the other tools He has given us. We must then use the other tools He has given us, so that we avoid the pitfall of making a purely subjective decision based solely on prayer.


So, we have prayed and are continuing to pray. How do we know if something is agreeable to His will? He has given us His will in the Scriptures. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). Actually, I’ve heard this verse used to justify theological uncertainty when certainty in that clear theological area would require repentance and a change in thinking. The point here is that God revealed specific things to Moses to deliver to the people of Israel before they entered the land of Canaan. If they obeyed the words of the law, they would remain and prosper in the Promised Land; if they disobeyed, however, God would punish and ultimately exile them from the land. For us, God has revealed enough of His will that we may have confidence we are doing His will.

But, to what extend does Scripture help me make decisions? One day as a seminarian, I was talking with a Christian ministry leader, who said Scripture can’t be the final standard of all our life and faith; after all, it doesn’t tell us how to change the oil in our cars. I’ll admit I was taken aback at the time. Now, I would say that there are myriad of things that the Scriptures don’t address, nor did God intend to address them in the Scriptures. For example, they won’t say, “Mark shall not work at Walmart; Mark shall work at Target.” They will say, however, what my heart attitude ought to be as a Christian, whether I am working at Walmart or Target. “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord” (Colossians 3:23). After describing Christ’s humility, which He demonstrated by “becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8), Paul tells us to “do all things without grumbling or disputing” (2:14).

The big question Scripture helps us to answer is, “Is this option I am considering sinful?” If the answer is, “yes”, then there is nothing left to consider. If the answer is, “no”, Scripture then wants us to ask, “it is wise?” There is an entire genre of Scripture called Wisdom Literature. The most obvious collection is in the book of Proverbs, but we find some in the Psalms, and Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs fall into this category as well. I have personally, and I have seen others, only ask the first question about sin while neglecting this second question about the wisdom of their choice, and the results are not always pretty. Thank God for His grace in response to our foolishness!

The central “Subject” of Scripture is Christ. Actually, I find the question, “what would Jesus do” to be helpful, as long as we’re not attempting to replicate the things only He was able to do as the God-man. Yet, He was fully man, and Peter reminds us that Christ was “leaving you an example, that you might follow in His steps” (1 Peter 2:21b). Another way to put this is, the gospel is not merely God’s power to save us initially; it governs our entire lives as Christians. Should I do something that ultimately only serves myself? The thing I’m considering doing may not be sinful in-and-of-itself, but my use of it may well be antithetical to denying myself and bearing my cross daily (see Matthew 16:24). What about tithing? The Old Testament law is clear: I must give ten percent of the best of my crops to the Lord. In the New Testament, we see that people are selling property and giving the proceeds sacrificially, without measuring income percentages. The ultimate answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” is, He would die for sinners – for His enemies. Let our decisions be filtered through the cross.

Certainly Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is speaking to us through the Scriptures. Certainly we must filter everything we think, say, and do through the cross. But, there is one more aspect of Christ to consider:

Do we make decisions as if Christ were still in the tomb, or as if He is reigning right now over all things victoriously in heaven for the sake of His Church (see Ephesians 1:20-23), with the promise that He will never leave us or forsake us (see Matthew 28:20b)?

Scripture will not (always) give us the specifics of what we must or must not do in non-moral decisions. But it will tell us what kind of people we ought to be as we make whatever decision we end up making. Most importantly, they point us to Christ, as He reveals His will to us, dies for us, and reigns over all things while remaining with us in the Spirit.


One of the reasons non-Christians mock us for praying is because of an apparent lack of the use of our G0d-given reason with it. There are two things to say here. First, God has given us reason, and we are to use it. Second, at the same time, a Christian’s use of reason will lead him or her to very different conclusions than non-Christians on non-mathematical problems because we have very different presuppositions. Let me briefly elaborate on each.

Some Christians are opposed to the use of or developing their reasoning skill, as if it were unspiritual. If we use our reason, so the argument goes, we might become rationalists, relying on our own abilities rather than on the Holy Spirit. However, God commands us to use reason; even to reason with Him: “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will become like wool” (Isaiah 1:18). There are other places. Look through 2 Corinthians 5, for example, to see the different kinds of reasoning Paul describes there (for example, “persuading”). Anyone who has read Paul’s letters in the New Testament will see a mind well-trained in logic, and his speeches and sermons are organized rationally. (Ironically, if you were to try to persuade me that reason is unspiritual, you would have to use reason to do so, thus becoming “unspiritual” by your own definition.) God calls us to look at the facts and make deductions from them, in light of Scripture. Any decision we make is a conclusion drawn from other information. So, there’s a sense we cannot avoid using reason (even if the premises from which we draw our conclusions are, “I just really felt like I wanted to do ‘x’ instead of ‘y’). The real question is whether we will use our God-given reason intentionally, in a disciplined manner, and in a way governed by faith in the God of the Scriptures – that He is faithful to His promises, He is almighty, and He loves us tremendously.

On the other hand, simply because we’ve used our God-given reason to make a decision does not mean that our decision will agree with the non-believer. We may draw very different conclusions even with the same information. This is because we believe God exists, that He is a Personal being Who has revealed Himself to us so that we can know Him. Furthermore, we know that “He upholds the universe by the Word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3b). Not only so, but, as we saw above, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ, and He is reigning as absolute Sovereign in heaven over all things here on earth. Nor has He abandoned us, but He has sent us His Spirit to be with us forever, even as He commissions His church to make disciples of all the nations. Take this information for example. There is a group of tribes who live on an island and who are cannibalistic. One of their highest virtues is deceit. The member of the tribe who can deceive a member of another tribe into a false friendship with the purpose of murdering him once the other person grows comfortable and lets his guard down is the tribe’s hero. The non-Christian would think that moving your family to that island, setting up your new residence in an abandoned village, and working to bring the gospel to such people is absolute lunacy. From the Christian perspective, we might say: “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that Christ has died for all, therefore all have died; and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him Who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:13-15). You can read the real-life story of missionary Don Richardson working among cannibals in Papua New Guinea in his book, Peace Child: An Unforgettable Story of Primitive Jungle Treachery in the 20th Century.

Our goal in using reason is not to agree with those who deny God and Christ. It is to draw conclusions based on the realities given to us in Scripture about Who God is and how He acts. If we were honest, and if we strove to reason consistently with these Scriptural realities that I have listed above, I wonder how many of our lives – even as Christians – might be different than they are right now.


Proverbs 11:14 says, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (see also Proverbs 15:22 and 24:6). We have prayed and are continuing to do so. We have searched the Scriptures to see if what we are considering is sinful and/or foolish. We have thought seriously about the matter, looking at the facts in light of the greater realities given to us in Scripture. But any wise person will seek the counsel of others.

What kind of counsel should we seek? Another biblical Proverb says, “faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (27:6). This does not mean that your friends will never agree with you. I’m quoting it here to show you, however, that when we seek out counselors, we should not seek out only those who will agree with us. We can always find someone who can help us feel justified about any decision we make. Wisdom, however, seeks out godly, faithful people who would hesitate to agree, or would even disagree, with us. Wisdom would weigh their “contrarian” input seriously.

Here’s a word of caution when it comes to counselors. Be wary of those who are happy to offer their advice unsolicited. (This does not apply to best friends or, especially, to spouses. Husbands especially ought to hear their godly wives and disagree with them only on very solid evidence.) I think we all have people in our lives who are happy to share their advice with us. Rather, we should select specific people we trust, who live faithfully to the Lord, who make wise decisions themselves, who use their reason, who know their Bibles, and who are known to pray a lot. Once you have found them, you should seek their input and weigh it seriously, especially when it contradicts your desires.


Dr. Harry Reeder of Briarwood PCA in Birmingham, AL talks about finding mentors and models. The counselors I mentioned above would fall loosely under his category of “mentors”. Dr. Reeder talks about finding “models” as well, whom he says are people who have run the good race and fought the good fight. Actually, in the history of the church, there has always been an emphasis on those Christians that lived – and died – well. For some traditions, this includes venerating the saints. Regardless of your perspective on that particular issue, it is helpful to read biographies and stories of faithful (I didn’t say perfect) Christian men and women to help spur us on to live faithfully as well. Often, these are stories of “saints” that have given up everything – some have even given up their lives – for Christ and His kingdom. These types of people can give us a different perspective on our own lives and can help us to answer the bigger question: what is the purpose of my life? I could write an entire post on this one issue, that once we have narrowed down the purpose for our lives, some of decision-making we are wrestling through may basically fall into place.

The Lord has given us many resources to make godly decisions. In fact, we have more resources than the non-Christian has when it comes to making decisions, and the resources we have are far superior to anything the non-Christian has. Even our reason, for example, is being sanctified in Christ so we can begin to think God’s thoughts after Him. Throughout the decision-making process, we must be praying. We turn to the Scriptures to see where our decision stands in relationship to righteousness and wisdom. We seek a multitude of godly counselors. And finally, we look at the lives of those who have run the race well. As you do so, may the Lord lead you in a life pleasing to Him.