The Sin of Fornication

April 12, 2015 in Bible - NT - 1 Corinthians, Bible - OT - Song of Solomon, Easter, Meditations, Sexuality
1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Following Jesus’ resurrection, he appeared to the disciples over a period of 40 days and manifested Himself to them, convincing them of the reality of the resurrection and enlightening their minds to understand the things that had been written about him in the law and the prophets. This 40 day period has historically been called Eastertide, a time to celebrate the way the resurrection of Jesus has transformed the world. The entire cosmos has been changed, shaken at its very core. And because the world has been changed, we can be changed. Hope has arrived; forgiveness has been achieved; new life has entered into the world; consequently, we can have hope, we can receive forgiveness, and we can experience new life.
So this morning we begin examining the identities we used to have from which God in His power has delivered us as His people. Such were some of you, Paul writes – these works of darkness at one time defined us; but now God has claimed us as His own, He has forgiven us through the sacrifice of His Son, and He has sent His Spirit to empower us to change.
The first group of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God are fornicators. The word is pornos and is sometimes translated the sexually immoral. It is a broad term that refers to those who corrupt and defile God’s good gift of sexuality. Sex enjoyed within the context of a marriage covenant is good, holy, and right; the marriage bed is, Paul informs us in Hebrebs, undefiled. It is pleasing to God and can even be sung about as the Song of Songs reveals.
However, when we seize this good gift outside the marriage bed, we defile it and ourselves. The “fornicator” or “sexually immoral” person sins against his own body, tarnishing the image of God and incurring the wrath of God. The problem in the world is not unprotected sex – as many of our political and cultural pundits would declare – the problem is defiled sex. Any pursuit of sex outside the marriage bed – in pornography, prostitution, casual sex, masturbation, petting, sexual fantasies, etc. – defiles God’s gift of sexuality and incurs His wrath.
The man or woman who pursues sex outside the marriage bed is like a madman who decides that the fireplace is just too confining and so builds a fire in the midst of his house. He wants that orange glow in his bedroom or in the kitchen or in his entry way. But the soot and smoke will most certainly tarnish the house and the flames will most likely catch the whole thing on fire. Beware. Our sexuality is a gift from God; the sexually immoral person defiles it.
And such were some of you; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.God has given you a new identity. He has united you with Himself in the waters of baptism. So flee sexual immorality and pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Reminded that we often defile and distort the good gifts that God our Creator has given us, let us seek His forgiveness this morning and pray that by His transforming grace He would empower us to live new lives that honor and glorify Him. And as you are able, let us kneel as we confess our sins to the Lord.

Shouldn’t We All Just Get Along?

February 4, 2015 in Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, King Jesus, Mosaic Law, Politics, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

A couple weeks ago, the Coeur d’Alene Press ran an article I wrote in response to the “Add the words” campaign being pushed by the LGBT group. It generated a bit of controversy and I wanted to follow up on a few comments that were made. I have submitted this response to the editor of the paper but he decided not to print it.

It seems my recent My Turn piece has caused a bit of turmoil in some circles. How dare I condemn the LGBT community? How dare I create the acronym PIGLET to criticize their behavior? That’s so judgmental! Shouldn’t we all just get along? Shouldn’t we just be tolerant? So in the interests of genuine peace, permit me to respond.
Don’t I think we should all just be tolerant? Well, frankly, no. But then again neither do you. The person who asks the question doesn’t really mean it. No one wants absolute tolerance. We want limits; we demand limits. Which of you will say, when your home is burglarized, “Well, that’s OK. We’ve got to be tolerant and big hearted”? No – we don’t want such behavior tolerated. We want it prohibited. Why? Because we know that if we tolerate such behavior we’ll get more of it.
There’s an old adage – “You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you penalize.” Any teacher knows this. Start the school year as the permissive teacher and what happens come November? Pandemonium; frustration; chaos. In 1969 the state of California, that great bastion of societal wisdom, led the way in legislating no-fault divorce. “We’ve got to be tolerant.” And the result? Divorce has skyrocketed. So begin publicly tolerating perverse behavior and what’s going to happen? Well I think you can do the math.
Regarding the issue of tolerance there are two questions to ask; and both are deeply religious questions – sorry, but I’m a pastor, and it’s my duty to point out such things. Just because certain people want to deny that the Creator exists doesn’t mean that He doesn’t; anymore than my dislike of chicken means that chickens aren’t real.
So what are our two questions? First, what are the limits of tolerance? What types of things should be publicly tolerated and what should be prohibited? Some suggest that we should tolerate anything as long as it doesn’t harm others. But in the area of human behavior, how can we know what actually causes harm? Scientists can’t even agree which foods we ought to eat! Left to ourselves we simply cannot identify the proper limits of tolerance. The only One who truly knows what causes harm is the One who has created us, who knows how we’re intended to operate. And His moral law, revealed in the Bible, is the instruction manual and has been the framework within which our laws and rights have historically been applied. As President John Adams remarked, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” God’s moral law sets the limits of tolerance.
Second, how should we define tolerance? Many are confused here. I think that what many mean by “tolerance” is simply compassion. And I have profound compassion for those who are caught in degrading sexual sins – both heterosexual and homosexual. I trust you do to. I have counseled numerous men enslaved to pornography and, thanks be to God, some have been freed from its shackles. But let us be clear – they are shackles. And how compassionate is it to tolerate behavior that will enslave yet more people? Does the father of the drug-addict say, “It’s okay son; let me help you with that needle”? Is that compassion? Should that father really tolerate his son’s behavior? Or should he not, in true compassion, urge his son to change?

So let us indeed be compassionate as a people – let us publicly condemn all sexual perversion, let us rid it from our homes and object to it in our communities, while helping those ensnared by sexual sin to recognize what it truly means to be a man or a woman created in the very image and likeness of God.

False Prophets, Priests, and People

February 2, 2015 in Authority, Bible - OT - Jeremiah, Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Confession, Homosexuality, Judgment, Meditations, Sexuality, Ten Commandments, Word of God
Jeremiah 5:30–31 (NKJV)
30 “An astonishing and horrible thing Has been committed in the land: 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?
One of the reasons that it is critical for us to draw correct lines of parallel between the Old and New Testaments is that it equips us to understand the course of church history and our own moment in the story of redemption. In the history of the Church there are times of great blessing and growth – as in the days of King David and King Solomon – there are also times of judgment and shrinkage – as in the days of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah lived at a low point in Judah’s history. During his lifetime the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar besieged and destroyed Jerusalem including the temple. Jeremiah’s words today help illumine why God’s judgment was falling upon Judah: prophet, priest, and people had exchanged God’s Word for their own words; they had hardened themselves to the truth and embraced lies. Listen to Jeremiah: The prophets prophesy falsely – they speak not the words of God, not truth, but their own words, falsehood; the priests rule by their own power – not by God’s power but their own; and my people love to have it so – this is the sober finale, the people delighted in the deception practiced by prophet and priest. Leaders and people alike exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Consequently, God was judging Jerusalem.
We live in a day not unlike that of Jeremiah. Many of our prophets and priests – pastors and pastorettes in historically Christian churches – proclaim falsehoods and lies in the Name of God. They say that there are many ways to God; they say that Jesus was just a great man; they say that male and female are interchangeable; they say that God’s forgiveness makes holiness unnecessary; they say that homosexuality is acceptable to God; they say that we mustn’t judge unrighteousness or lawlessness. The prophets prophesy falsely, the priests rule by their own power, and my people love to have it so.
God’s assessment of this sin is found at the beginning of our text: An astonishing and horriblething has been committed in the land. Here we receive God’s twofold assessment of Judah’s sin. First, it is “astonishing” – hard to believe. After all, what can be more astonishing than to place one’s confidence in man rather than in God? God is eternal and unchangeable; His Word is sure and fixed, a solid and everlasting foundation. And man’s word? Fickle, unreliable, biased; subject to constant revision and change; influenced by the latte he had at breakfast and the paycheck coming next week. So it is astonishingto exchange God’s truth for man’s opinions.
But not only is it astonishing, it is also “horrible” – devastating in its results. In the end, what will all these lies profit? God sees infallibly the outcome of this sin: Jerusalem will be in ruins; many of the Israelites will die; and then they will stand before God to answer for their sin. Their exchange of the truth of God for a lie is not only astonishing but also horrible.
So here’s the challenge Jeremiah gives you: whose voice do you want to hear? Don’t be surprised that there are many voices, even among priest and prophets, articulating opinions contrary to God’s Word. This has happened before among our people. So don’t be surprised; but do be warned: God is calling you, in the midst of these unfaithful voices, to hear and obey His voice. Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as our fathers did. Determine to understand and submit to God’s Word, God’s wisdom. Have no problem texts; bow before the Lord and seek His grace and mercy to understand and to apply His Word aright.

Reminded of our sinful propensity as God’s people to reject God’s Word and replace it with our own; reminded that many in our day have done this very thing; let us confess our individual and corporate sin to the Lord and petition Him to have mercy upon us; and since we are confessing our sins, let us kneel in humility before our Lord.

Add More Words

January 23, 2015 in Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Politics, Sanctification, Sexuality

Here in Idaho the LGBT group is in the midst of an “add the words” campaign to cordon off their actions from public censure and force the citizens of Idaho to publicly sanction their behavior. I have submitted the following to our local paper in response – you can read it on the Coeur d’Alene Press site here.

Every time I read something supportive of the “Add the words” campaign I’m disappointed that the advocates are so timid. They are taking mere half-steps when what we really need is a bold and courageous sprint for the finish. I say let’s “add more words” not just “add the words.”

After all, if we’re giving public sanction and blessing to perverse sexual expression, then why stop with LGBT? Let’s “add more words”! Advocates say that LGBT folks just want respect; just want the same rights as everyone else. But advocates of other practices could say the same. Some media outlets have already begun their relentless campaign to destroy all sense of civility and honor by sanctioning polygamy and incest. The TV show Sister Wives has shown how hip polygamy can be. And incest? Well Bianco Santos, star of the new MTV show Happyland, declared in July, “Incest is hot, and we’re going to have fun!” So let’s “add more words”!

And since we’re wallowing in the mud anyway, why not rename “Bisexual” as “Either” and our new acronym could be much more effective: PIGLET (Polygamous, Incestuous, Gay, etc). For that gets to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? You see, the problem with the entire LGBT movement is that it is built on sand; it has no foundation. What are we as human beings? Why should we even care about respect? Are we unique creatures made in the very image and likeness of God to pursue honor and dignity and virtue? Or are we mere beasts who’ve evolved to root about in the muck and act like barbarians? Our civilization was built on the former conviction; currently we’re being pressured by those convinced of the latter. Are you convinced? Incest is hot? How about despicable? Vile? Offensive? An affront to God and to every thinking man, woman, and child? Just as are LGBT and polygamy.

Urge your state representative and senator to oppose this vile propaganda and to uphold the traditions that our fathers handed down to us. Thank Governor Otter for standing against the tyranny of our federal courts. And pray that God would lift His hand of judgment from us that we might not add any words to the unchanging moral laws which He has delivered to us in His Word (Deuteronomy 4:2).

And then there was Love

November 2, 2014 in Bible - NT - 1 Corinthians, Bible - NT - 2 Peter, Homosexuality, Love, Marriage, Meditations, Sanctification, Sexuality
2 Peter 1:5–9 (NKJV)
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
As we have made our way through Peter’s exhortation here in his second epistle, we have learned of the necessity of personal virtue and the way in which that virtue is to manifest itself in our treatment of others. Last week we considered Peter’s words to add to godliness brotherly kindness. Today we consider his command to add to brotherly kindness love.
Love is the culmination of Christian virtue. Unfortunately, as a result of Romanticism, it is often misunderstood. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, for example, defines love as “a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person.” But biblically love is not at bottom a feeling – that is not its proper genus. While love often shapes, governs, and informs our feelings, it is not itself a feeling. Far better the simple declaration of Hartley Coleridge, Is love a fancy or a feeling? No. No, love is not a fancy or a feeling; for feelings come and go but love remains constant, like immaculate Truth. It is a fixed reality, a covenant oath. As Shakespeare would have it, love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove: O no; it is an ever-fixed mark, That looks on tempests, and is never shaken…
Paul gives the most compelling description of love in the thirteenth chapter of his letter to the Corinthians:
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
Love, in other words, is not self-centered but other-centered, not primarily a feeling but a heart-centered commitment, longing to give joy and delight to another. Paul goes on:
[Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails…
Away with the absurd notion that love is merely a feeling. Today we are told to countenance all kinds of wickedness in the name of Merriam-Webster’s definition of love: we should embrace homosexual unions because they “love” one another; we should turn a blind eye to fornication because they “love” one another; we should sanction no-fault divorce because they just don’t “love” one another any more. But Merriam-Webster is wrong: love is not a fancy or a feeling.
So what of you: how have you been defining love? Do you truly love the brethren? Are you truly loving your spouse? Have you loved your children? For we are to add to brotherly kindness love.

Reminded of our calling to practice true love, to be committed to the true good of others and to labor unceasingly for that good, let us kneel and confess our sin to the Lord.

Pastors and Politics

June 20, 2014 in Bible - OT - 2 Kings, Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Ecclesiology, Homosexuality, Politics, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

Well it seems the editor of the Coeur d’Alene Press is upset that a number of local pastors have expressed “political” opinions and may very well have influenced the last election. There was an article in the press expressing Representative Ed Morse’s exasperation at his and others’ defeat in the recent election. In the article he is quoted as claiming that he is going to bring these actions to the attention of the IRS. More disturbing than Representative Morse’s exasperation was the editorial piece of the same day. Yikes!

I debated writing a letter in response but couldn’t get myself sufficiently motivated. Fortunately, a number of folks have written some excellent responses. Scott Grunsted offered a compelling critique of the editorial and corrected many of the misrepresentations of the Founding Fathers found therein. Unfortunately, the Editor missed Grunsted’s point and entitled his article, “Church, State are inseparable.” This is not the point Grunsted was making and very few Christians would defend it.

We must distinguish between the issue of church/state and relgion/state. Church and State are separate in Scripture – kings were not priests and priests were not kings. Consider that King Uzziah was struck with leprosy when he tried to assume priestly duties for himself. While Church and State are separate, religion and state are not. Every state, ancient and modern, is built upon some religious foundation. The reason is that states impose morality – they penalize certain behaviors and reward others. So how does a state decide which actions to penalize and which to reward? Religion. Historically the religious foundation animating our public policy has been Christian. We are now in the process of apostatizing and abandoning this foundation – and the ease with which this is being accomplished is due, in part, to the failure of our Founding Fathers to articulate in our founding documents the necessity of this Christian foundation. While they did make the point in their private correspondence and public letters and speeches, they did not make this explicit in our Constitutional documents and this was a tragic error. It seems unlikely that our great republic will be able to persist as a result. Hopefully, the next time such an experiment as America takes place, their founders will repudiate the heretical notion of the secular state and recognize that every state is built upon some religious foundation. And the religious foundation that provides for personal liberty, liberty of conscience, and constitutional limits on political power is the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Another excellent letter responding to the editorial was written today by Kim Cooper. She demonstrates the absurdity of the editorial’s attempt to compartmentalize portions of people’s lives. She gives a great example of worldview thinking! Excellent work.

Let us just note in passing the inconsistency of the editorial as well. The press has campaigned rather clearly for numerous moral principles lately. They’ve opposed bullying, advocated the homosexual agenda, and portrayed the transgendered agenda sympathetically – and on each of these issues prominently featured within the articles is the Human Rights Education Institute and Mr. Tony Stewart. Is bullying wrong? Let’s ask Mr. Stewart and find out. Should homosexuality have public sanction? Let’s ask Mr. Stewart, he’ll tell us. But has anyone cried foul? After all, I think that the HREI is a 501c3 entity. How dare they dabble in politics? Sheesh! Haven’t they read those regulations? But of course it’s ok for them to express opinions, teach at the local government schools, nurture our children in the evils of discrimination because – well, because they agree with us! But those pastors – shut them up! Wisdom is justified by her children.

Existentialism and the Transgendered Movement

June 10, 2014 in Bible - OT - Genesis, Church History, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Creation, Homosexuality, Politics, Quotations, Sanctification, Sexuality

Below are notes from my sermon on Sunday endeavoring to highlight the connection between Existentialism and the transgendered movement and the way in which this deviates from the special creation described in Genesis 1-2; we might also add how demeaning the transgendered movement is to folks caught in its snare. May God have mercy upon us.

In the 20th century there emerged an incredibly influential philosophical movement known as Existentialism. This movement is the driving force behind much of the political and moral disarray occurring today – though most people are unaware of these philosophical underpinnings. Existentialism grew out of the teachings of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre explains existentialism thus:
Atheistic existentialism, which I represent…states that if god does not exist, there is at least one being [man] in whom existence precedes essence… This means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.      Jean-Paul Sartre
And, Sartre would go on to declare, you can make of yourself whatever you want – the important thing is to do, to will, to make of yourself something, anything. You define; you decide; existence precedes essence. Existentialism! You popped on the scene and now you have to figure out who you are and what you are going to be.
Notice the way this philosophy drives our current cultural debates – even in our local government school system and the push to make the schools endorse transgenderedism: Are you born male? It matters not – you can choose to be female. Are you born female? It matters not – you can choose to be male. Choose. It’s all in the choosing. There is no god who defines us; no higher standard that bounds us. You exist – you were born this way. But that doesn’t define who you are. Your essence is something you choose – and all that matters is the choosing.
But let me suggest that this is the very thing symbolized by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sartre is the serpent of the 20thcentury. He has tempted us to be “like god” – to define good and evil for ourselves; to say what is and what is not good and noble and right; to live autonomously as a law unto ourselves. But in the end, this will lead to death – indeed it already has: the deaths of millions of children still in the womb.
You see, Sartre and Peter Singer (Utilitarian Philosopher at Princeton) are of a piece. “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself,” Sartre pronounces. Or as Singer would have it: “Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term “human” has been stripped away, we may continue to see normalmembers of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and so on, than members of any other species; but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be.” For they must be able to choose; they must be able to make something of themselves.
So what are we to think of a human being who cannot articulate that choice? What are we to think of those who are suffering from dementia or cerebral palsy or madness – or perhaps even religious mumbo-jumbo? After all the Soviets determined that religious belief was a mental abnormality that needed to be cured; and Richard Dawkins has said much the same. So what are we to think of such human beings? They are expendable – for they lack the features that we (the elite like Peter Singer) have determined are meaningful for life.
But this is absolutely foreign to the Word of God. God defines us. We enter into the world pre-defined. Essence precedes existence. We have some form of essentialism not existentialism! God defines you – you are a human being, made in God’s image, invested with dignity and honor not because of what you have done but because of what you are. God has made you and crafted you and breathed into you the breath of life.
If you are male, God made you male and gives you a distinct calling to be a man. If you are female, God made you female and gives you a distinct calling to be a woman. You cannot redefine these things. The definition has already been established. So receive who you are; receive it as a gift from God and rejoice in it. God made you a man; made you a woman. Rejoice, give thanks, and sing! You bear the very image of God, an image that cannot be taken away.

You can’t redefine but you can rebel like Adam and Eve. But the result of rebellion is death, destruction, judgment. There is no third option.

Is God anti-gay?

May 9, 2014 in Bible - NT - Mark, Book Reviews, Coeur d'Alene Issues, Homosexuality, Sexuality, Ten Commandments

I just finished reading Sam Allberry’s recent book Is God anti-gay? And other questions about homosexuality, the Bible and same-sex attraction. Allberry is a single pastor in the UK and has struggled against same-sex attraction throughout most of his life. The book is a store of biblical wisdom, compassionate counsel, and clear thinking.

He writes in the beginning that he refuses to identify himself as “gay” and instead emphasizes that he is someone who experiences same-sex attraction. “Describing myself like this is a way for me to recognize that the kind of sexual attractions I experience are not fundamental to my identity. They are part of what I feel but are not who I am in a fundamental sense. I am far more than my sexuality.” This is a crucial observation and one which all of us need to remember in our increasingly sex-saturated society. Christ defines us not our sexual drives.

Allberry does an excellent job explaining the meaning of repentance. “Repentance means turning around, to change course. The implication is pretty clear and a little uncomfortable: we’re not heading in the right direction.” He goes on to remind us that Jesus calls all of us to take up our cross and deny ourselves (Mk 8:34). And this has direct relevance for the title of his book, Is God anti-gay? Allberry answers: “No. But he is against who all of us are by nature, as those living apart from him and for ourselves. He’s anti that guy, whatever that guy looks like in each of our lives. But because he is bigger than us, better than us, and able to do these things in ways we would struggle to, God loves that guy too. Loves him enough to carry his burden, take his place, clean him up, make him whole, and unite him for ever to himself.”

Allberry surveys the biblical teaching on sexuality in general before discussing homosexuality in particular. He writes, “Sexuality is a little like a post-it note. The first time you use it, it sticks well. But when it is reapplied too many times, it loses its capacity to stick to anything. We are simply not designed for multiple sexual relationships.”

Thereafter he gives a helpful survey of various passages that address homosexuality directly, answers potential objections, and then goes on to discuss ways individual Christians and the Church can assist those tempted by same-sex attraction – both within and without the Christian community. I would highly recommend his book.


We are Humans not Animals

March 10, 2014 in Bible - OT - Exodus, Homosexuality, Human Condition, Law and Gospel, Meditations, Mosaic Law, Sexuality, Ten Commandments
Exodus 20:14 (NKJV)
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
The law of God repeatedly reminds us that we are not, as human beings, mere animals driven by our instincts and impulses. Though Darwinism insists that we are descendants of primates and not fundamentally different from other animals, the Word of God insists that we have been made in the image of God and are responsible for the choices we make, responsible for the actions we take.
Because this is the case, because we are humans and not animals, our actions can be classified as noble or ignoble; as good or evil; as praiseworthy or reprehensible. We are not controlled by our impulses but often choose to follow those impulses to our sorrow and shame.
Nowhere is this more true than in our sexuality. The sexual revolution has made full use of the Darwinian myth to justify sexual licentiousness. We are no more than animals; hence, there is no such thing as nobility or honor in the arena of sexuality; how dare you tell me what to do?
But God does tell us what to do. He created us, not we ourselves. Hence, he governs us, not we ourselves. And God commands us in the 7th commandment to govern our sexual impulses, powerful as they are. We are to govern our sexuality so that we not conduct ourselves shamefully, as mere beasts, but so that we conduct ourselves nobly as men.
So what does this mean? It means that we are to treat our sexuality as a gift that is intended to be enjoyed in the context of a marriage covenant. The physical union of husband and wife is a noble and glorious thing, a gift from God. Outside that marriage covenant, however, sexual fantasies and actions are shameful and ignoble; indeed, some of them are criminal.
So lusting in our hearts after another is shameful; viewing pornography is shameful; fornication is shameful; adultery is shameful; homosexuality is shameful; bestiality is shameful; incest is shameful; rape is shameful. There is a distinct reason that our consciences weigh us down when we practice such things; a reason that we experience feelings of shame – for these things are shameful in themselves. They degrade us as human beings and they dishonor our Creator.

As we come into the presence of God, therefore, the God who has made us and fashioned us as men and women not as beasts, who has fashioned us for nobility not dishonor, let us confess that we have often fallen short and acted dishonorably. Let us kneel as we confess our sin to the Lord.