Faithful Through Another Year

“Faithful Through Another Year”

This hymn was written by Henry Downton, an Anglican minister who for a time served as English chaplain in Geneva.

We sing it to a version of the tune, GOTT SIE DANK DURCH ALLE WELT, from Freylinghausen’s Geistreiches Gesangbuck, which you can hear by clicking the embedded video beneath the text of the hymn.

The second verse draws on the common thought of a fresh start of a new year, but connects it to Scripture.  Philippians 3 tells us to forget those things which are behind and press forward.  But the reason we can forget the things behind is not that a new year is started, but the work of our Saviour, the perfect Sacrifice for our sins.  When we trust in His cleansing and forgiveness, we truly can then forget and press forward, for God Himself has said He will remember our sins no more.

For Thy mercy and Thy grace,
Faithful through another year,
Hear our song of thankfulness;
Father and Redeemer, hear.

Lo! our sins on Thee we cast,
Thee, our perfect Sacrifice;
And, forgetting all the past,
Press towards our glorious prize.

Dark the future: let Thy light
Guide us, bright and morning Star:
Fierce our foes, and hard the fight;
Arm us, Saviour, for the war.

In our weakness and distress,
Rock of strength, be Thou our Stay;
In the pathless wilderness
Be our true and living Way.

Keep us faithful, keep us pure,
Keep us evermore Thine own;
Help, O help us to endure;
Fit us for the promised crown.

Henry Downton, 1818-1885
Music:  Freylinghausen’s Geistreiches Gesangbuck, 1704, alt.

Attacking the Church – It is Rarely Doctrinal

Pastor Jon Gleason does an excellent job in this post addressing the issue of church problems being based on doctrine. This is his second article and should be read by all discerning believers. I have chosen to highlight a few parts and added a couple of pictures.

Attacking the Church — It is Rarely Doctrinal

My last post said that church problems are always doctrinal.  It is never accurate to say that a church which is straying in some way is doctrinally sound.  Every church problem is based on an error in applied doctrine.

In this article, it may sound like I’m contradicting that article.  If every church problem is doctrinal, won’t attacks on the church always be doctrinal in nature?  Perhaps — but they rarely start with a doctrinal focus.

Paul and John, in their epistles to the churches, warned of false teachers, sometimes naming them.  Down through the centuries, whether Christianity was persecuted or state-sanctioned, there has always been heresy, there have always been those who tried to come into the church to spread their false doctrine.  Just as there has always been false teachers, there have always been those who would stand against the heresies — and always those who have fallen prey to the wolves.

wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-300x249

Today, false teaching is gaining traction in many churches.  One can walk into any number of “evangelical” churches and hear a false Gospel preached.  In recent high profile cases, some famous mega-church pastors endorsed a man who spreads false teaching on the Triune nature of our God, and a well-known British evangelical rejected the Biblical teaching on the atonement (and now, he rejects Biblical teaching in other areas as well).  Almost every area of Biblical doctrine is under attack in churches where the Bible was once faithfully taught, often where the stated doctrinal position of the church is still sound.

False teaching seems to be on the rise — but the attack on a church rarely begins with false teaching.  Sound pastors or teachers do not usually wake up one morning and say, “I think I’ll change the doctrine I teach going forward,” and begin to promote error.  Faithful church members do not usually say, “I think I’ll stop checking the Scriptures to see if what I’ve been taught is true.”  No one in a true Biblical church suddenly decides, “I think what our church needs is more false teaching.”

The first attack is usually spiritual, not doctrinal.  We have been told not to love the world, but we have accepted the world’s value system, its philosophies, its politics, its entertainment, and its loves.  Too many churches are full of people who love what the world loves and think the way the world thinks.

People don’t say, “Let’s let error come in,” whether it be error that is taught directly or (as I mentioned in yesterday’s article) error that is taught by practice.  But when churches are full of spiritual weaklings who have been drugged and poisoned by the world and the things the world loves, they don’t even see what is happening.

When we spend more time on entertainment and Internet discussion (which is often really just another form of entertainment, even if it is on Christian topics) than we do our Bibles, we become spiritually stunted.  Our minds are not being transformed and renewed, and we don’t even recognise the error when it comes.

The Scriptures warn repeatedly that false teachers will come, and keep coming, and we need to be ready.  The solution is not writing better doctrinal statements or owning more theology books.  That has already been done.  Those who had good doctrinal statements and owned (and even wrote) good theology books have gone into error.

They loved the world, or the praise of man, or their own intellectual or preaching prowess, or pleasure, or another person, or some other thing.  Their hearts grew distant from God as sins of pride or lust or ingratitude or anger took hold — and doctrinal error found fertile soil to produce its bitter harvest.

If our senses are tuned to truth, we’ll recognise when someone tries to give us something besides the truth, even if we don’t know exactly what it is.  If you love a cup of tea, you’ll know when someone gives you one containing a foreign substance.  There will be a taste there, a taste you don’t recognise.  You’ll say, “Hey, something is wrong here!”

Nice_Cup_of_TeaBut if you stop making yourself a cup of tea, you just don’t take the time to do it anymore, you’ll forget the exact taste.  If someone gives you a cup that seems a little off, well, you probably just forgot what it really tastes like, right?  You’ve gotten away from tea drinking these days.  I’m sure it’s fine.

But not only do our hearts grow distant from God, we take from the world and learn to love its loves.  Too easily, we spend Monday through Saturday drinking the spiritual equivalent of anti-freeze.  Our spiritual taste buds become a mess.  A false teacher could put anything in your spiritual cup of tea on Sunday morning, and you’ll never know the difference.  You’ve forgotten what truth tastes like, and learned to like poison.

Church problems may always be doctrinal — but the attacks on churches almost always start on a spiritual level (not a doctrinal one) in turning our love, ever so slightly, away from the Lord to other things.  It starts slowly, deceptively, insidiously growing, until we either don’t care or don’t notice when error shows up.  We’ve been drugged by false loves, the love of the world, and the enemy can do with us what he wishes — as long as he keeps supplying the drug.

When we get to that state, the adversary could easily get us to leave the church, but he’s in no hurry to do that.  He can use us to destroy from within.  We won’t recognise error any longer, or care about it.  There are things we want, now, things we love, and we’ll be in favour of anyone who provides them.  If we can get those things we want and love in the church, all the better — we’ll be able to drift along feeling good about ourselves spiritually as we pursue the loves we got from the world.  If anyone says anything, tries to warn us, we might even get angry — “It tastes good to me, and I like it!”

In fact, if the church only had teachers who said the things we love are ok, are Christian, are actually what the church SHOULD be doing, that would be best of all!  Give me my loves in a Christian flavour, please!

We’ll be ready allies for the false teachers when they show up.  One should be along any day now.

Colossians 3:1-4

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Church Problems?

We occasionally repost articles by permission from other writers. Pastor Jon Gleason does an excellent job in this post addressing the issue of church problems being based on doctrine. I have chosen to highlight a few parts and added a picture.

Church Problems — They Are Always Doctrinal

Most pastors have heard it many times, especially if they are active on the Internet — it hits their email inbox all the time.  “Something has gone wrong in my church.”  Sometimes it is from another pastor, sometimes a member of the congregation, often from someone he doesn’t even know, who gets in touch online.

There’s an additional statement that often comes with it:  “It’s not doctrinal.  The church still teaches sound doctrine.”  That addendum is wrong.  It is always doctrinal.  Problems always are.

The most common errors are probably in Bibliology, the doctrine of what the Scriptures are, their inspiration, authority, and sufficiency.  Close behind, if not even more common, are errors in ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ, what it is, its purpose, and its leadership.  But perhaps underlying almost every problem is a failure to truly carry out what it means when we say God is great, holy, loving, and true.  If we didn’t diminish who God is, it would probably be impossible to have problems in the church.

Is the problem that the church has a pastor who won’t lead, or one that is dictatorial?  Those are doctrinal problems.  Whatever may be said from the pulpit or in Bible studies, the practice of the church in teaching the role of church leadership is not according to sound doctrine.  The ecclesiology is in disarray.  If the pastor is dictatorial, the Bibliology of the church is also likely in trouble — instead of the Bible being the authority, the pastor begins to become the authority in the church.  If the pastor is the authority, then we diminish God.

Doctrine

Is the church adopting new and questionable practices in an attempt to bring more people into the church?  Whatever the words of the doctrinal statement may say, the practice of the church is based on a flawed doctrine of salvation.  The pneumatology (the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, including His work in regenerating lost souls) has also probably gone astray, as that is effectively set aside for the view that the new practices are the key to evangelism.  We’ve replaced the work of the Spirit with our own ideas — and diminished God by saying our ideas can do what the Spirit does.

Has the church become emotionalistic, giving the emotions of an individual or the entire group a central focus?  This is doctrinal error on many levels, skewing the ecclesiological doctrine of the church’s worship so that it becomes more about human emotions than about honouring God — we reduce God to a reason for me to get excited or emotional.  It is flawed Bibliology, for the Scripture emphasises truth — the facts of what God has done (not “how I feel”).  It is often errant anthropology (the doctrine of what Bible says man is) by exalting human feelings to the most important part of who we are.

Is the church unfriendly and cold?  The church’s doctrinal practice, whatever is taught in words, denies the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification which teach us to love.  It denies the ecclesiological truth that the church is a family of brothers and sisters, a body united together.

Is the time of teaching the Word decreasing?  If you decide that your church needs more time on other things and less on Scripture, you effectively deny the inspiration and sufficiency of the Scriptures.  Is a pastor’s preaching changing, so that he spends less time simply explaining the Scriptures, and more time telling stories?  Does he give the impression he is more concerned with a powerful or entertaining performance than with simply communicating truth?  It is the same problem — the pastor’s presentation has been exalted to the detriment of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Is someone grumbling and complaining?  That is a denial of the doctrine of last things (eschatology), our future hope.  It is also a denial of the doctrinal truths about sin — if we really believe our sin is as bad as God sees it, then we know that we deserve nothing but judgment, and we have nothing of which to complain.  If we complain because we think we deserve better, we deny the doctrinal truths of God’s grace.  In fact, grumbling is a denial of almost every doctrine in the Bible.

Is there gossip in the church?  That is a doctrinal error on the doctrine of sanctification (as Christians, part of the holy life we are to live is to speak the truth) and the doctrine of the church (we are to be one body, united, loving one another).

page38_picture0If your church has a problem (and which church doesn’t?), it can always be traced back to doctrine, either what is taught in word or what is taught in practice, or both.  Almost always, if doctrinal errors are practiced long enough, they begin to make their way into the verbal teaching of the church as well.

Note:  Of course, the problem just might be you.  You might be the one who is grumbling or gossiping.  The church’s problems may not be anywhere near as bad as you are making them out to be.  You may be the one who is in doctrinal error (in your practice, whatever you say you believe).

How can you tell?  And (the vital question) if the church is in trouble, how can you help?

A good place to start is to identify the doctrinal questions involved.  If there is a real problem, there is a doctrinal error.  Cut through the surface considerations to identify just exactly which doctrine is at stake.  There may be more than one, for many wrong behaviours violate more than one doctrine.

Once we’ve done this, we begin to see the problem Biblically.  When we see problems Biblically, then we not only understand them better, we are well on our way to finding Biblical solutions.

Furthermore, when we can identify the Scriptures and doctrines which are at stake, we are much better equipped to discuss the problems with others, if necessary.  This does not guarantee that any such discussions will go well, but using the Scriptures gives an authority which we could never have on our own.  Most importantly, we’re using God’s way of addressing problems.  The Scriptures are sufficient for the problems in our churches, if we will only use them.

Not every difference between people in a church is doctrinal, but if it isn’t doctrinal, then it isn’t a real problem.  If it is real, there certainly is doctrine at stake somewhere — someone (or the church as a whole) is denying true doctrine, in words, actions, or both, whether they recognise it or not.  If you sort out the doctrine (both stated and applied), you sort out the church.

Speak Softly, and….

Speak Softly, and….

Teddy Roosevelt, US President:
“Speak softly, and carry a big stick.”

Jesus of Nazareth
spoke softly, and carried a cross.

Isaiah 42:1-3

1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Curing “Oh My Goodness!”

We are appreciative to Pastor Jon Gleason for writing the following article which is a follow-on to a previous post on taking the Lord’s name in vain. May this be a profit to you in your life. Jon has graciously given us permission to use his articles here at Defending Contending and this one is certainly very timely.

***************

Curing “Oh My Goodness!”

Mark Escalera at Defending. Contending. ran (with permission) my post, “OMG” — and Other Ways Christians Take God’s Name in Vain (this continues to be, by far, my most shared post).  In the comments at DefCon someone said she has tried to break the habit of saying, “Oh my goodness!”

This also is something Christians might say from time to time that has no real profit, is often just a “sanctified swearing substitute,” and is highly dubious theologically as well:

Philippians 3:9

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So much for “my goodness” — that pretty much covers it, doesn’t it?  The only “goodness” we have is the goodness of God, so He is our goodness, our righteousness.  What exactly do the words “oh my goodness” mean, for a Christian?  If you say this, your words are not saying what you mean by them….

It seems this is another expression we really could do without.  It isn’t something I ever said a lot, but I became convinced a while ago that I would be best looking to stop.  As with most things we want to do to please our Lord, Scripture provides some help, and I thought I would take the time here to briefly expand on my answer over at DefCon.

Step 1.  Memorise the following verse, or at least the first half of it:

Isaiah 64:6

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

Step 2.  Whenever you slip into the habit and say, “Oh my goodness,” remind yourself your goodness is as filthy rags.

If that doesn’t do it, engage step 3.

Step 3. Tell people close to you (friends, family) you are trying to break the habit, and ask them, every time you say, “Oh my goodness,” to respond, “…is as filthy rags.” If nothing else, you’ll stop just because you get tired of hearing that response!

If they don’t know the Lord, so much the better.  You are giving them an important part of the Gospel in a way they will not be likely to ever forget, showing them your commitment to please the Lord in small things as well as big, and demonstrating a humble awareness of your own sinfulness and need of a Saviour.

In fact, maybe you should just jump straight to step 3!

As with so many other statements that we make unthinkingly, the Christian who says “Oh my goodness” almost certainly never means any disrespect to God, never means to exalt himself or be self-righteous.  It is almost always just a habit into which he has drifted without even thinking about it.

If our Lord has blessed you with a relationship which permits it, perhaps when you hear another Christian say it you can give a gentle reminder of how that expression matches up with Scripture.  Or, if he has a sense of humour, just be ready with a quick response:  “Oh my goodness”” — “…is as filthy rags!”

OMG – Please, not again!

“OMG” — and Other Ways Christians Take God’s Name in Vain

Exodus 20:7

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

I briefly mentioned, in yesterday’s post, one way in which Christians take the Lord’s name in vain.  Unfortunately, too many of us have become very casual about this commandment, and I thought I’d take the time to mention some things we should consider.

Taking God’s Name in Vain

“Vain” means useless, or empty.  This verse, one of the Ten Commandments, tells us to not use God’s name in an empty or useless way.  God is to be respected as high and holy.  This isn’t optional.

 “OMG”

I read an article a couple of weeks ago (unfortunately, I forgot to note who gave me the link) which I thought was excellent.  I know nothing about the author, but her article (What does the Bible say about OMG?) is excellent.  Too many Christians, in moments of excitement, dismay, etc., say, “Oh my God,” — and it isn’t a prayer.  Others, more “refined,” say, “Oh my gosh,” which is effectively the same watered down a little bit.  When we do this, we are saying God’s name without any real meaning to it — using it vainly.

Text-speak and Internet usage have made this far worse.  Blogs, Facebook, and Twitter too often encourage people to speak quickly and mindlessly, and it is so very easy to type in “OMG” without even thinking about it.  Is that consistent with reverence for our God?  If you see a Christian doing this, perhaps you could send a private note asking him to stop.  He’s probably not even thought about it.

No one ever says, “Oh my Satan,” or a watered-down “Oh my Santa.”  Or, for that matter, “Oh my spaghetti” or “Oh my desk.”  Why do unbelievers always use “Oh my God”?  We know why — the god of this world is influencing them to use words that diminish reverence for the Almighty God.  Why should Christians even mimic that with a watered-down “Oh my gosh”?

“In Jesus’ Name, Amen”

I am NOT saying people should not pray in Jesus’ name.  He told us to.  I wrote about this briefly yesterday (Proverbs 10:24).  The point of praying in Jesus’ name is to pray as Jesus’ representative, and that means praying as He would have us pray.  It is not a magic spell to make our wish list come true, or vain repetition stuck at the end of our prayers.

It is intended to cause us to think about whether we are praying for things that we can and should appropriately ask in His name.  It is to remind us of the glorious privilege given to us as His servants.

“I’ll Pray For You”

If you say you are going to pray for someone, you speak as a Christian who can speak directly to God.  You are promising to speak to Him.  If you don’t do it when you said you would, you took God’s name in vain.  You talked about communication with Him in an empty and meaningless way.

It is not wrong to tell people we will pray for them.  But if we say it, we must mean it and do it.  I have a friend who is careful about this.  I don’t think I have ever heard him say, “I’ll pray for you.”  He does say, “I just prayed for you,” or, “Let’s pray about this right now.”  Something to consider….

Un-Christian Behaviour

About a week ago, News for Christians linked to Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain.  It is worth reading.  The writer appropriately refers to Romans 2:24:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.

If you are called a “Christian”, you are called a follower of Christ.  You carry His name.  If your behaviour gives sinners excuses to blaspheme, you are taking His name in vain.  Those who bear His name must live by it.

T-Shirts, Bumper Stickers, Cute Sayings

I’m not going to get specific here, because those who want to nitpick can nitpick.  Rather, a suggestion:  read Isaiah 6, and see how Isaiah responded to his vision of the Almighty.  Look at Revelation 1, and see John’s response when he saw the Lord of glory.  Remember that even in these visions, not all of God’s glory and majesty was fully revealed, or these men would have died.  And ask yourself, does my bumper sticker, my t-shirt, my cute expression that I like to use, all these ways in which I speak of the Lord, do they really fit with who He is?

When I stand before Him (or rather, when I fall on my face before Him) will I be glad I used that bumper sticker and wore that t-shirt, or will I be horribly ashamed?  Am I altogether too casual and cutesy in how I speak of Him?

“God Told Me”

Many times, we hear Christians say that “God told me” to do something.  Unless it is written in God’s Word, God doesn’t tell me to believe your statement (even if you do believe it).  If there is no reason I should believe that God told you, there is no reason to say it.  The Bible doesn’t tell us to go around saying “God told me.”

If you make a statement the Bible didn’t tell you to make, and I should examine what you say (rather than take your word for it), then to claim God’s authority is to claim it vainly.  “God told me” in any context other than what the Scriptures have said is taking God’s name in vain — even if you personally believe He did tell you.  God doesn’t tell others to believe you when you say it, so it is an empty claim.  You shouldn’t say it.

“God Gave me Peace”

It’s amazing how many times God “gives peace” to people who are doing the exact opposite of what He said in Scripture.  Just because you feel comfortable about your decision doesn’t mean God has given you peace.  Perhaps all it means is that you’ve started to have better sleeping and eating habits so you physically feel better.  Perhaps it means you’ve seared your conscience so badly that it isn’t functioning anymore.

God does give peace, the Scriptures say so.  But the Scriptures never say we should make decisions by checking our “peace-meter” to see if it is measuring high enough.  “Peace-meters” are often inaccurate — God’s Word is not.  Many times, when people say “God gave me peace,” they are merely taking God’s name in vain, speaking it meaninglessly, claiming some kind of God-authority for decisions that He manifestly does not approve.

I am sure there are other ways in which we do not honour our Lord’s name as we should.  We, as Christians, need to take God’s holiness seriously, and give Him due reverence.  We should encourage and help one another to be alert to failings in this area, so that we can speak as He would have us speak.

Somewhat related later post:  Why is “Jesus Christ” used as “Blasphemous Profanity”?

And:  “God Told Me to Preach This”???

Emotional Pornography

The following article was written by Jon Gleason of Mind Renewers. He is originally from Oregon, but now resides in Scotland where he is the pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes. The article is reprinted here by permission from Pastor Jon.

Emotional Pornography

I’d been saying it for a long time. A couple of years ago, I noticed others began to say the same thing, or something similar: many modern romance novels (even “clean” ones) are emotional pornography, and may do as much damage as visual pornography.

I don’t normally link to Mormon sources, but I appreciated this article addressing the addictive nature of these books: Romance Novels Can Become Addictive.

Psychologist Julia Slattery: “There is a neurochemical element with men and visual porn, but an emotional element with women and these novels.”
….

Women are more stimulated by romance than sex, so they read romantic stories (and they don’t have to be explicit to work) they can experience the same addicting chemical release as men do.
….

Women may find their standard for intimacy begins to change over time because they may not be able to get as satisfied with their partners as they can reading a book.

Pornography addiction counselor Vickie Burress said reading romance novels or viewing pornography may eventually lead to an affair for some women.

Then, there is this article, written about the same time, by Russell Moore: Can Romance Novels Hurt Your Heart? (Though I can’t give Moore a blanket endorsement, either, he’s much more sound than a Mormon source! And this article is excellent.)

Pornography and romance novels aren’t (or at least aren’t always) morally equivalent, but they “work” the same way.

Both are based on an illusion. Pornography is based on the illusion of a perfectly willing, always aroused partner without the “work” of relational intimacy. Often romance novels or their film equivalents do the same thing for the emotional needs of women that pornography offers for the erotic urges of men.

….

In both artificial eros and artificial romance, there is the love of the self, not the mystery of the other.

Voyeurism is watching the private lives of others. Whether it is peering into a picture of a physical body that should have been private, or peering into the intimate emotions of others, it is still voyeurism — and it is inherently selfish.

It’s not surprising, actually. The god of this world will use every resource at his disposal to attack a gift from God as good as marriage. If he can draw the eyes of men to women other than their spouses, he certainly will do so, even if it is fictional images of women that they will never meet. If he can draw the emotional eyes of women to other men, he will do it, even if it is fictional portrayals of emotional responses to fictional men they will never meet. Why would we think our adversary would only attack husbands? For though women can be drawn into pornography and men can be drawn into emotional pornography, it is most often the emotional pornography that is used to attack wives.

Both the pornographer and the modern romance novelist want you to vicariously enjoy something, with someone else, that God intended for your spouse. An artificial “person” becomes the object of your attention. In the romance novel, you emotionally identify with a character, sharing in the feelings described in the book.

But of course, your spouse may not stir those feelings in the exact same way. “Others have a spouse who behaves in that way, and that way.” Even if it is only subliminal, the books create expectations of certain kinds of feelings. “It’s supposed to feel that way when I look at my husband or when he talks to me” can even become, “My husband doesn’t love me like that man in the book loved her, he doesn’t make me feel the way he made her feel” — with all the danger to a marriage which that kind of thinking brings.

Ultimately, as Moore said, both emotional pornography and visual pornography do the same thing — they stir up relational feelings and responses that are focused on some other person, when that “other” is not in a relationship with us at all, is not even real — and so, it simply becomes about my feelings.

“Oh, that’s silly, Jon. You’re blowing this out of proportion. It’s only some Mormon and some seminary professor who had too much time on his hands saying this.”

A response (I don’t recommend the link [language], but I give it for completeness) in the Guardian was quite interesting. “Romance novelists and readers have come together to defend their chosen genre….” (Wait. This is news? Is anyone surprised that novelists and their readers would defend their work? Ok, back to the post.)

What really caught my attention was the following quote from a defender of romance novels:

There is nothing wrong with you for exploring different worlds, different relationships, different emotions, different personal experiences through fiction, and if romances are your preferred way to be entertained, more power to you.

This is an advocate, not a critic (her website name includes “Trashy Books”). She says these books are a way to experience different relationships and emotions. Is that really what God wants? When we make our wedding vows, do we vow to be completely for our spouse? Should we involve ourselves in these kinds of emotional experiences?

As with many things in our corrupt culture, some people will read these books without taking any real harm. Not everyone reading a modern romance novel identifies vicariously with the characters (though that is what the authors usually seek to attain, even in many “Christian romance novels”). Not everyone becomes emotionally involved, and many do not become dissatisfied with their spouses. The subconscious effects may not be significant for many people.

But to the extent a viewer of pornography sets his/her desire on a picture or video, that person gives to a mirage the gift of intimacy and desire that should have been given to a spouse alone. And to the extent a romance novel reader identifies with the emotional attachment of one character to another, that person gives to a mirage the emotional gifts that should have been reserved for his/her spouse.

These “gifts” chip away at a marriage, especially when we receive (in exchange for these “gifts”) expectations of our spouse which God does not want us to have, and which our spouse may not (and perhaps should not) ever meet.