>> We are ready to go. So we are going to talk tonight about abuse. We are going to talk about spanking. We are going to talk about homosexuality and close the class out with those issues. So let's bow for prayer, okay? Gracious Father, we are grateful for the opportunity to be able to study marriage and the family.

It's been a wonderful time that we've spent together as a class going over a variety of issues from scripture. And I pray that this evening will be no different. We'll have this opportunity to be able to dig into some substantive topics when we, especially, we deal with issues of abuse and later on the issue of spanking and then later on close out with the issue of homosexuality in the family and how it affects it.

We pray that you'll give us biblical insight into these things, that the Spirit of God will help us, even though we'll be dealing with some tough issues, to believe the Word of God and the Word of God's answers. I'm grateful for the semester, for each one of our students that are here present in the class, as well as those who are even watching via the DVD.

And we ask that you'll continue to use this material to be an asset in their lives for the sake of your glory and honor, for the sake of the church where they are, and for the sake of your kingdom. This we pray in Christ's name, amen. All right, we want to deal this evening with the issue of abuse in blended families.

And this is applicable not just to blended families, but it's also applicable to families who are intact biological families and where there is abuse. So I think, though, however, it's natural for us to talk about this issue at the end of the blended family section. And that's the reason why we call it part three of this suffering abuse.

And this is the part where, say, I must protect my children in the blended family situation. I must protect my children. Now, I fully realize that in the short amount of time that we have, there's no way in the world that we're going to be able to sufficiently cover every particular issue in counseling that is usually defined as abuse.

In fact, I remember several years ago, I had an opportunity to attend a conference that had to do with abuse. And this conference literally went on for days on just the issue of abuse. And so there's no way in the short time we have in front of us, we're going to be able to cover everything that's there.

But what I hope to do is to give you a basic biblical framework for you to think about the problem. And what I want to be able to give you is the type of a framework that is applicable in a variety of different circumstances of abuse that is usable for you in your own counseling ministry.

So let's see if we can take a look at this. And I want to share with you one other little caveat or kind of disclaimer, if you will. And that is, I don't pretend this to be the final word on it. All right? This, usually when we're dealing with the issue of abuse, we're dealing with a highly charged emotional topic.

And I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I have the final word on this, but I am attempting to deal with it from a biblical perspective. And hopefully you can appreciate it from that standpoint. So let's talk about abuse in terms of defining it in the home.

And in order to do this, we have to set some parameters. And we have to ask the question, what is abuse? And I realize that there are many different ways to define abuse. But for our purposes, what I want to do is define it as physical abuse that may involve things like sexual abuse.

It may involve that. But especially the extreme forms of abuse that is potentially life-threatening or potentially harmful to a member of the family. One member of the family is being abusive to another member of the family. Here are the type of abuse situations that I've counseled in the past.

So you know I'm not talking from a standpoint of theory here. I've counseled situations where obviously husbands have been physically abusing wives on a repeated basis. I've counseled repeated situations where it is the wife who has been physically abusive to her husband. I've counseled situations where older children have been physically abusive still living in the home with their elderly parents, where older children have, in a sense, are threatening their parents.

Now when dad was younger and in his prime, he could take the son. But not anymore. Now son's big. He's strong. He's tough. And he takes dad. And he'll take dad down. So I've counseled those kind of situations. I've counseled situations of sexual abuse more times than I would like to or would want to, that has occurred in homes and in step family or blended family type of homes.

So I just want you to understand that. And I want you to understand it's not because of all these different situations that I've counseled that necessarily is going to make this authoritative. The only thing that's going to make it authoritative is the word of God. But I do want you to understand I'm not coming at this from an abstract theoretical standpoint.

I'm talking about this from a standpoint of this is what helps me in dealing with these homes biblically. This is what helps me. So now I also have to deal with the issue. There are a lot of people who talk in our culture about verbal abuse. All right. Maybe you've heard that.

Verbal abuse. And this, of course, the Bible talks about this. Words cut. They make lasting impressions. Proverbs chapter 12 and verse 18 talks about this. Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. The world says sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

But the Bible says words do hurt. But when I'm dealing with abuse here, I'm not going to talk about, quote unquote, verbal abuse so much or emotional abuse. Sometimes those become catchwords by impressionistic child psychology. And, you know, one time I had a wife that came in and she said, "My husband's been abusing me." And, of course, all kinds of horrible things start swirling in your mind as a counselor when that kind of thing happens.

But when I started to probe her as to exactly what was going on, what was really happening was that her husband didn't have the same opinion about different things that she had. And to her, that constituted verbal and emotional abuse. My husband does not agree with me. That equals abuse.

All right? I'm sorry, but in my book, that doesn't equal abuse. All right? And that was very hard for her to understand. If my husband really loved me, then he'd agree with me. She actually made those statements. If he really loved me, he'd agree with me. And I would say to her, "Because he disagrees with you, he loves you." All right?

Based upon what? Well, we've studied this in the Proverbs and Counseling class before, but the issue of Proverbs 27, verses 5 and 6, "Better is hope and rebuke than love that is concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." If your husband doesn't love you, then he's going to kiss up to you and agree with everything you say.

If he doesn't love you. And that's what Proverbs 27, verse 6 is saying. But she kind of interpreted this emotional, verbal abuse as being abuse. And I'm not talking about that. Even though I realize that people who are verbally abusive-- and now, when you get into emotional abuse, that is really touchy-feely.

And it's hard to nail exactly what people mean by that because a variety of people mean a whole variety of different things on it. It's trying to nail jello to the wall and trying to define that for them. And I realize that verbal abuse can lead to more harmful physical abuse.

I understand that. Well, verbal abuse can also provoke physical abuse, too. But primarily, I'm not going to be talking about that. Verbal and emotional abuse rarely is really a life-threatening issue. It does make life miserable. It causes turmoil. It causes strife. Proverbs is full of people or warnings about people who are contentious and quarrelsome, who cause difficulty and strife among people.

And if we had more time than what is afforded us, we'd spend more time with this. But let me hasten to say this. As a good biblical counselor that's practicing insight into this issue, you've got to really develop some good biblical discernment on this issue, on the presentation problem of abuse.

There are a lot of counselees that have been so psychologized that any difficulty from their mate constitutes unbearable abuse. And they'll expect you to accept their conclusions, and they'll want you to agree that they need immediate relief and escape. And usually the assumption behind that is, "God doesn't want me to endure any hardship or difficulty in my life.

I'm one of his children after all." And that may be a very loose, theologically Arminian or charismatic view of things. That is not a biblical view. All you have to do is look at Hebrews 12 and verse 7, or 1 Peter 2 and verse 23, both of which were written and addressed to Christians, and you'll find out that God does take us through hardship.

In fact, hardship is a tool that he uses in order to develop godly character in our life. Who is abused? Who are we addressing? There's another question. You can see there on the screen. There are many different types of people who experience abuse. Women, children, the elderly, men do.

Again, there's no way in the brief time that we have to speak adequately to all these different types of situation of abuse. But I'm going to be dealing primarily with the most common, and that is husband and wife violence that sometimes bleeds over into parenting. But the principles that we draw from scripture are really mostly applicable to all these other kind of abuses anyhow.

Now, let me hasten to say this at this point. You've got to get to know your counselee. What is that one of the eight I's? That involvement thing is really key here. In abuse situations, if you don't gain involvement with your counselee, you're going to lose this case early.

Gain involvement. You need to collect as much data as you can from this counselee. Don't assume you know the situation and dump on your counselee some kind of prepackaged answers and Bible lessons. God has answers, but it takes a counselor with wisdom and skill in his word to bring the right answers to bear upon the particular and unique situation that your counselee is going to be presenting to you.

I've supervised too many counselors in training who are ready to show their counselee how much they know about the Bible without really carefully collecting all the data and gaining involvement with that counselee. When that happens, unintentionally, they communicate disinterest in their counselee and the situation, and that's not what this abused person wants or needs.

They don't need someone coming along expressing disinterest by just dumping on them another Bible lesson. Remember that the Apostle Paul worked personally with the Ephesian Christians for night and day for three years, even to the point of shedding of tears, Acts 20, 31. So your involvement and your careful listening to the problem communicates genuine hope to people who feel that they have no hope.

On one extreme, don't be quick to label your counselee like a victim or as a victim like a psychiatrist would do or a psychologist. There's no hope in that. On the other extreme, don't expect your counselee to get everything that they need to meet their problem from some kind of prepackaged Bible lesson or just from a preaching service in a church.

There's no specific hope in either of those. Paul taught the Ephesians publicly, but he also ministered the word one-on-one from house to house, Acts 20 and verse 20. It's preaching that brings the word to people, and it's counseling that brings people to the word. So the combination of good counseling involvement with good preaching in a church will bring hope to that counselee during times of abuse and hardship.

Now, who are the ones who are abused? There are different examples of this in Exodus 20 and verse 13, Matthew 5, 21 through 22, Galatians 5, 19 through 20, Ephesians 4, 21, Colossians 3, 8, et cetera. We don't have time to go into all those passages, but all of those passages assumed that people are wronging people.

That's going to happen. It's going to happen in the blended family. In fact, the blended family is really set up for this kind of thing to happen naturally. But this brings us to a little foundational matrix that we've got here that should help us answer the question, "Who is the Christian?" Who is the Christian?

This is a critical question to the biblical counselor because it determines the direction and the scriptural procedures that you're going to take in dealing with the abused. Secular models of counseling domestic violence is silent in discerning this difference. To them, this absolutely makes--it's irrelevant question to ask. To us, it's everything.

Who's the Christian? When we ascribe the word "Christian" to a situation, to a husband or a wife in a home situation, we are assuming this. If you want a good discussion of this, get a hold of Wayne Mack's book, "Life in the Father's House." He has a good discussion of this.

And he does some quotations from the early-- or from the Reformation fathers, from Luther, from Calvin, from Zwingli, about if God is our father, the church is our mother, about church membership. Down through church history, for a person to claim to be a Christian and not be an active part of the visible local church as an active member was inconceivable.

Today in our world, we have these kind of--I don't know how to describe them-- individualistic Lone Ranger Christians. Some of you probably are not old enough to remember the old television program, "The Lone Ranger," all right? And "The Lone Ranger" and "Tonto." What's that? And "Silver," the horse. That's right.

"Silver," the horse. "Lone Ranger." Well, there's a lot of Lone Ranger Christians out there who think that they kind of exist in their own little personal Christian bubble, totally divorced from anybody else in the world and the church. I don't believe that's the case. When we're describing the word "Christian" to a husband or wife, we're ascribing to them, we're assuming they're a member of the church.

And churches without a strong membership policy will never be able to discipline people properly, and this is going to be critical in dealing with abuse. Church discipline is a gift of God's grace to the church that is concerned about holiness. It's a powerful tool for righteousness when used properly in an abuse situation.

So what we're saying is this. It's not the person who claims to be the Christian that you should consider to be a Christian. It is the person who's willing to live like a Christian who you should treat as a Christian, all right? And by that I mean they're an active part of the local church.

They can come in and claim to be a Christian until they're absolutely blue in the face. They may even be able to spout back to you the gospel, but I'm not going to treat them like a Christian until they're an active part and/or member of a local church. Then I'm going to start treating them like a Christian because they're acting like a Christian.

John? >> When you bring up Hebrews 13, 7 as far as being under the authority of an elder. >> Yes, yeah, Hebrews 13, 7, and a little bit later on, verse 17, you know, because they have to give an answer for your soul. They oversee your souls. Yes, and being underneath their leadership, that's a good thing to be able to bring up there.

But it was inconceivable in the early church for a person to call himself a Christian and not be an active part of the church. That was just inconceivable. In fact, you know, what's bizarre in the second century church, you had to go through catechism and complete it successfully before they considered you a real Christian, all right?

And that catechism involved memorizing the entire book of Mark. They wouldn't even look at you as being a Christian until you had the entire book of Mark memorized. Well, if we did that today, it would empty half of our people in our churches. It was bizarre, but they wouldn't consider you really being serious about your Christian faith until you could quote the book of Mark.

So who is the Christian? I want to say you have to look at it like this. It's not the person who says they're a Christian. It's the person who backs it up by being active membership in a local church. That's the Christian. Now, let's set up this little matrix.

If you've got a Christian husband, all right, you can see Christian and unbeliever down left side over the top, husband and wife. You've got a Christian husband, then the Christian husband is answerable to church and civil authorities in that order. Okay? Church and civil authorities. If you have a Christian wife, she as well is answerable to the church and civil authorities.

If you have an unbelieving husband, then they're answerable to civil authorities. If you have an unbelieving wife, then she's answerable to civil authorities as well. Whoever those civil authorities may be, whatever country you're in, whatever state you're in. Okay? So even the unbeliever has an authority system they're responsible for.

And Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 tells us that that's ordained by God in order to maintain peace in an otherwise world that would be characterized by chaos and sin. Now, you get these kind of things that can happen, and I'm going to stand up here and take a look.

I want you to take a look at this chart on the board here. You can get these cross things that happen where you've got a Christian husband married to an unbelieving wife. You've got a Christian wife married to an unbelieving husband. Or you can have a Christian husband married to a Christian wife and an unbelieving husband married to an unbelieving wife.

So you've got several different scenarios that can actually take place here in the home. The most likely scenario of abuse is the Christian wife married to the unbelieving husband. That's the most likely scenario of abuse. However, there are examples of abusive Christian wives in relationship to or unbelieving wives in relationship to Christian husbands.

And there are scenarios where you've got genuine Christian husbands who are abusive to Christian wives and genuine Christian wives who have been abusive to Christian husbands. They're not acting Christ-like, obviously, when they're doing that kind of thing. On occasion, you'll even have Christian wives who are actively a part of a member of a local church who have an unbelieving husband and they're abusive to their husbands.

I've had that. All right. And of course, a Christian husband who married to an unbelieving wife who is abusive to a wife or vice versa here. So there's all kinds of scenarios that can come out of this matrix. And we're going to talk about them briefly because they set up some interesting things for us, interesting problems that can come up in dealing with this.

If you're dealing with the Christian husband, Christian wife, then the main passage that comes to bear on this, obviously, is going to be Matthew 18, 15 through 17, which has to do with church discipline. Because they're part of your church, they're involved in your church, church discipline becomes the key thing.

If you have Christian husband, unbelieving wife, then you've got a 1 Peter 3, 7 issue. Because 1 Peter 3, 7 was written to Christian husbands with unbelieving wives. All right. And I want you to turn over there for a moment and see this. 1 Peter 3, 7. Notice the phraseology that's used here.

He says, "You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman, and grant her honor." We talked about this verse earlier. "As a fellow heir of the grace of life." In other words, by the way that this is structured, in terms of Peter's response to the Christians, there were some Christian husbands who were probably saying, "Well, she's not a Christian, so I don't have to treat her as nice." "No," Peter says, "you need to treat her as a fellow heir of the grace of life." In other words, you treat her no different than you would if she was a Christian wife.

That's the idea. "So that your prayers may not be hindered." Then you've got the unbelieving husband with the Christian wife, and there you've got 1 Peter 3, 1 through 6. And we're going to come back to that, and we're going to take that apart a little bit later on.

And then, of course, the unbelieving husband, unbelieving wife, and then we've got Genesis 3.16. And let's go back to Genesis 3.16 and take a look at that. This is the cause of a lot of strife. And actually, if we really believe what Genesis 3.16 says, we shouldn't wonder why abuse takes place in the home.

We should be surprised it doesn't happen more often. I mean, if you really believe Genesis 3.16, then in wedding ceremonies, we ought to pass out boxing gloves. And if you really believe what Genesis 3.16 says. He says, "To the woman," he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.

In pain you shall bring forth children." We already talked about that, but then he says, "Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Now, what is that, "your desire will be for your husband"? There's been a lot of different commentary comments on this down through history.

There's only one other time where that Hebrew word "desire" is actually used in the book of Genesis, and that is in chapter 4 and verse 7. In chapter 4 and verse 7, it says, God says to Cain, "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? But if you do not do well, sin is crouching at your door, and its desire is for you, but you must master it." There's our word "desire." Its desire is for you.

Well, what did sin want to do in Cain's life? Sin is anthropomorphized as, characterized as a wild animal outside of Cain's door. And if Cain walks through the door, continues his anger and stuff, then sin's going to pounce on him and dominate him. That was sin's desire. I believe that's exactly what's going on.

This makes perfect sense here in Genesis 3.16, where God says to Eve, "Your desire," the implication is, "your desire will be to control and manipulate your husband." That's going to be your desire. That's going to be a result of the fall. That's going to be a part of your nature.

Your desire will be to control and manipulate your husband. I mean, you listen to women talk about, "Oh, I know if I marry him, he'll change." You listen. They talk about that. They may not say it in that exact words, but that's the essence of their meaning. "I know if I marry him, he'll change." And that's where that old adage comes from.

Women marry men hoping they'll change, and men marry women hoping they won't. And they both get disappointed. "Well, your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Her desire will be to control and manipulate her husband, God says. And his desire, the word "rule" here has the idea, his desire will be to rule like a despot over her.

So now, as a result of the fall, marriage becomes a game of king of the hill. Marriage becomes the battleground of the sexes. That's what marriage becomes. So in marriage, there becomes this natural conflict. She has her ideas about the way things should go. He has his ideas about the way things should go.

She wants to control and manipulate him to turn out to be a certain way, and he wants to dominate her. And isn't it great, as a result of the gospel, and the radical change that the gospel brings in the life of that husband and wife, that by means of the Holy Spirit, God takes the sting of the curse away in her heart, and now she willingly submits herself to the leadership of her husband, and he willingly surrenders his dominant role in order to serve her and her needs as a godly leader.

That's where the sting of that curse is taken away, in the Christian home. But, Eve wants to control, Adam wants to dominate. And now, marriage becomes this game of king of the hill. So there, in raw form, is the unbelieving husband, unbelieving wife problem. Even though, in our own sinful natures, as believers, we carry those tendencies into marriage.

We carry that into marriage. And you can see this because it's the Christian husband, Christian wife that's the most promising. It's the unbelieving husband, unbelieving wife that's the least promising in counseling. But, in counseling, it's the Christian husband, Christian wife that is the least common, even though it's the most promising.

It's the unbelieving husband, unbelieving wife that's the least promising, but most common. Okay? So, these scenarios begin to unfold, as you can see it. Now, what we need to do now is take these apart piece by piece. The abuser in the Christian home. Sometimes you have an abusive husband, father or stepfather.

An abusive Christian husband usually centers around one or more central issues that the biblical counselor has to explore. Worldly view of the husband's leadership in the home. In other words, they think that the husband is the dominator, the dictator. They forget the description of Matthew chapter 20, where Jesus said, "Leadership was defined not as lording it over dominating people, but leadership was defined as being that of a servant.

For the Son of Man didn't come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many." So, there's usually a worldly view of a husband's role in the home that's brought into that Christian home. There's habits, sometimes that are a part of his past, of overt anger and a willing to express that, his anger physically in relationship to his wife.

Maybe there's been adverse life circumstances that have caused that anger. Maybe there's been severe financial setbacks or lack of achievement on the job or advancement that he believes he rightly deserves and he brings that frustration home and he takes it out on someone who is less threatening, either the wife or the children.

Or he has some kind of sexual problems or poor health. Something is fueling that anger in his heart that is stimulated by these outside circumstances. Or there's a harboring of bitterness towards family members, towards his wife or the children over something that has happened in the past. All of that can be there that you've got to explore in order to find out.

Or in the Christian home there could be an abusive wife or mother or stepmother. It may surprise you that that happens. But unhappy women who express their unhappiness physically. They may not hit their husbands, maybe they do, but they may throw things like butcher knives. Do women do that?

Oh, they certainly do. Or big frying pans, or they throw hot grease on their husband. Or they put something in his food to make him sick as a way of vengeance. Why do women like this become angry and they're Christians? Why do they become violent? Sometimes there is general unhappiness over their marriage.

They just haven't been unhappy for a long time. They'll often define their husbands as the chief reason for their unhappiness. It's their husband. Or sometimes there's bitterness over past wrongs. Maybe their husband had had an affair. Maybe there had been financial failures as well. Or there's dissatisfaction with their husband or his own job performance.

Or they see him as lazy or sloppy or uncaring in regards to her. Or there's anger over years of neglect of her emotional needs have not been met. It's interesting, many of these women in Christian homes who become physically violent with their husbands, at least of the ones that I have counseled, have had some form of psychotherapeutic self-help input.

And they usually have been well-trained in self-esteem principles or had some kind of psychotherapeutic assertiveness training class. In order for them, it's taught them basically to demand and insist upon their rights. You're violating my rights. Therefore, I have a right to be abusive to you. That's what it sums up as.

Now, when a man is being physically abused, seldom is he going to come for counseling. Rarely is that ever going to happen. Call it male pride or that he's not as fearful of his life as a wife may be of her husband. But whatever the case, it is the angry woman who comes for counseling.

And when you begin to question her, you finally find out that she struck her husband in anger or she's beat on him or thrown something at him. And in some of the more violent cases, like the infamous John and Lorena Bobbitt incident, she may literally seek to do permanent physical harm to him with a butcher knife.

The number of dead husbands are growing every year. And you don't hear as much about them because they don't have national advocacy groups like some of the women groups do. But it's a reality. It's a part of life out there. I had a situation in my church where I had a very faithful man.

His wife claimed to be a Christian, but she rarely ever attended church. He was there all the time. And from everything I could tell, he really loved the Lord. He came in for counseling one day, and he said to me one night--and he was a big guy. One night, he woke up, and his wife was on top of him and beating him with her fists so much that it caused a bloody nose.

And she looked at him, and she stuck her finger in his face and said, "Someday you're going to wake up with a butcher knife in the middle of your chest." That's what she said to him. She was so angry about him. And what's interesting about this woman is that she worked in a support group for women who had marriage problems.

And what this support group did was they got together every week, and they basically ran down their husbands. And I think this support group just basically built her anger. It just added fuel to the fire is what it did. And she just grew. And honestly, if you were to meet her husband, he was one of the gracious--he was a big guy, but he was a big teddy bear.

He was one of the most gracious men you'd ever want to meet and still is to this day. One of the last times I went back to that church, he came up to me, and he said, "You know what happened?" I asked him, "How's it going?" "Well, my wife hasn't really become a Christian yet," he told me, "but her father was dying.

He was passing away. And she came to me and wanted me to go to the hospital and share Christ with him." And I said, "Well, what did you do?" And he told me, he says, "Well, I asked her, I said, 'Well, why don't you come with me?' 'Oh, no, no,' she said, 'I don't want to go, but I want you to go and share Christ.'" And he was just beaming from ear to ear.

He was just so excited that at that point he knew that she understood where he was at. And I can remember asking him in counseling, "If you die, are you still willing to be her husband? If you die at her hands?" And he said, "Yes. If it means me winning her to Christ, I am willing." How about that?

Now, the world would call that, would label him mentally ill as a codependent. That's what the world would say. He's not mentally ill at all. Here is a guy who views his primary mission field as his wife, even to the point where if she gets so angry one day and kills him, shoots him, stabs him, poisons him, whatever she decides to do, performs a Lorena Bobbitt on him, he is willing with eyes open to do that.

All right? He's willing to do that. So this does happen. Then there is the abuser in the mixed home. This is where you have a Christian husband, unbelieving wife, and you have an abusive husband, father, or stepfather. Now, this is a very rare occasion of happening, but it does happen.

Let me make a comment about that before we go to the next one. As a biblical counselor, you're going to seldom have this opportunity to work with it because the husbands who are often reluctant to come for counseling because an unbelieving wife is abusing them. But if the husband is willing to come for counseling and acknowledge his sin in sometimes provoking that abuse, then there's real great hope for change here.

And you can teach him just a boatload of things using 1 Peter 3:7 as the basis. Plus, you could try Ephesians 5, 25 through 33, or Matthew 5, verses 43 through 48, which deals with loving your enemies and how do you love someone who genuinely considers you the enemy.

All right? So that's with the abusive husband. Or we have a Christian husband, unbelieving wife, and the wife is abusive. We have an abusive wife, mother, or stepmother. Husbands whose wives are not believers, those wives can become violent. In some cases, the husband could lose his life. And it's really interesting.

I had a case back several years ago now where the husband and wife had a really pretty good marriage until the husband became a Christian. And she became so angry at him for becoming a Christian that she became physically violent with him. She realized that Christ introduced a disharmony in their relationship.

And no longer was she his idol, now God was his God. And she didn't like to be dethroned. She didn't like that at all. So that can happen here. And it's vital that you as a counselor teach the husband in this situation. 1 Peter 3, 7 again. Matthew 5, 43-48.

Luke 6, 27-36. Romans 12, 17-21. Overcoming evil with good. So, Matthew 5 there, verse 29, "Whoever hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." That becomes a key thing here. Alright, unbelieving husband, Christian wife. An abusive, unbelieving husband. Much more common now. Angry, unbelieving, often drunk husband is taking out his frustrations on his Christian wife and sometimes even the children.

And sometimes the very fact that she is a Christian is enough to ignite his short fuse. So her life is a source of conviction in his life. And we'll talk about how to deal with that. And then we've got the unbelieving husband, Christian wife. Where you've got an abusive Christian wife, mother or stepmother.

Again, this is a rare situation, not because it doesn't exist. But most unbelieving husbands are not going to put up with the violence very long. Either they will return the violence or they'll divorce their wife without much reconciliation or any effort at it. Of course, this wife you need to teach 1 Peter 3, 1-6.

And Proverbs 11, 16 that talks about a kind-hearted woman gains respect and her husband is not going to love her until she respects him or until he respects her. And so through kindness, she can gain that. That's something that she really doesn't understand. And of course, she refuses to follow the Matthew 18 becomes key here.

Then you've got the abuser in the unbelieving home and you've got the abusive husband. And this is the most common type of situation. At this point, biblical counselors agree with the feminist movement because Bible teaches that this will be a factor in secular society. We shouldn't act like we're surprised that this happens.

We should act, why doesn't this happen more often? According to Genesis 3, 16. Or you've got the abusive wife. This is becoming more and more common too. So, there's no hope for real changes in this kind of a marriage or home without eventually they trusting Christ as Lord and Savior.

All counseling is pre-counseling until they come to Christ. And so the issue here, the main thing is the gospel. Now, you may want to help them. They're still under civil authorities. So if there's unusual physical abuse where somebody's life is threatened, you know, you may want to involve quickly civil authorities, but there's no church authority in this situation.

It's just your responsibility to involve civil authorities. Christ is the only answer ultimately for this non-Christian marriage. All right, then, distress and the goal of counseling abuse. What are psychologists and integrationists saying is the goal here? Well, understand that I'm not questioning the motives of the people who work with abuse victims, whether they're Christian or non-Christian.

I believe that a lot of them who work with these kind of people are very genuine in their desire to help them, so I'm not questioning their motives. But I question the counsel that's often given. Obviously, it's coming from a non-biblical perspective. Their goal primarily is to stop the hurt.

That's their goal. How? Well, they teach assertiveness rights, and this is kind of ironic. I smile every time I think of this, but they do. They teach assertiveness rights, which I believe--and you even have Christian counselors. I have quotations here from Christian counselors, integrationists, who do this. They talk about confronting your mate and putting your mate on notice, you know, setting boundaries.

You're no longer going to accept that behavior. You demand your rights, this type of thing. I want to suggest to you that if you teach your counselees to do that kind of thing, you're actually going to set them up for further problems. All right? An assertive person becomes offensive and demanding.

This is what Proverbs calls a person of strife, and a person of strife can expect abuse. Jesus said in Matthew 5:5, "The meek will inherit the earth, not the person who demands their rights." So they teach assertiveness rights. They also teach tough love. But for them, tough love is 180 degrees the opposite of what the Bible says tough love is.

Tough love says if you really love your husband, you're going to draw boundaries around yourself, make threats, follow through with those threats with retaliation. If those boundaries are breached, you'll make sure your rights are protected at all costs. That's tough love. But 1 Peter 2 says that tough love is being willing, and I'll fasten your seatbelts and put your crash helmets on here, being willing to suffer for righteousness sake.

That's tough love. That's what 1 Peter 2 says. Take your Bible and go over 1 Peter 2. Just prior to getting into 1 Peter 3, which deals with the husband and wife, Peter sets this up in 1 Peter 2 and says, well, verse 18. Let's start there. "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable." And that one word unreasonable means harsh or abusive.

Wow. Really? "For this finds favor," the next verse says, "if for the sake of conscience towards God a man bears up into the sorrows when suffering unjustly." Founds favor with God? "For what credit is there if you sin and are harshly treated and you endure it with patience?" It's not to your credit.

"But if when you do what is right and you suffer for it patiently and endure it, this finds favor with God." Boy, you're not going to get that in your typical abuse counseling. "For," verse 21. Put your flak vest on for this one. "For you have been called for this purpose." Who is he talking to?

Christians. What kind of Christians? Who are undergoing suffering. You've been called? "Since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps." What? That's my calling? I think you've heard me say before that sometimes I have undergraduate students that come in and they'll say, "Oh, Dr.

Street, I'm really struggling with my calling in life." I say, "Oh, I know exactly what it is." Grab your Bible. Let's go over to 1 Peter chapter 2 and look at verse 21. We'll take a look at your calling. So they turn excitedly in their Bible and they get to verse 21.

And they say, "For you have been called for this purpose. Christ suffered for you." "Oh, I wasn't talking about that." "Oh, well, the Bible's clear that that's the Christian's calling." "Well, I was talking about whether or not I should go into missions or be a pastor." I said, "Well, if you're planning on going into either one of those, this is going to be your calling." All right?

Verse 22, "Who committed no sin, nor any deceit was found in his mouth." In other words, all the suffering that Jesus suffered was unjust. The point of his argument at this point in the context is, some of us suffer and we deserve our suffering because we've done bad things.

But all the suffering that Jesus suffered was unjust. Therefore, since all of it was unjust, every bit of it, he absolutely did no sin, he's the perfect model to follow when dealing with unjust suffering, right? Perfect model. What did he do? Fasten your seatbelts. Verse 23, "He went to assertiveness training classes, and he learned to insist on his rights." Oh, no, no.

That's not what it says. "And while being reviled, he," what? He what? He did not revile. "In return, while suffering, he drew boundaries around himself, and he told people if they crossed those boundaries, they were going to get it." Oh, no, no. That's not what it says. "While suffering, he uttered," what?

No threats. No threats. "But kept entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He believed in the final analysis that God was going to wash all of this out and deal justly, and that God was in his corner, even though he may go through temporary suffering." I know what you're thinking.

Then you skip down to chapter 3 and verse 1. "In the same way you wives," in what way? In the same way that Jesus Christ dealt with unjust suffering. What? In the same way that Jesus dealt with unjust suffering, "you wives, be submissive to your own husbands, so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives." In other words, the way you win your husband over is not by putting repent in the bottom of his beer can.

The way you win him over is without a word. All right? When they what? Verse 2, "Observe your chaste and respectful behavior." That's the way you win him over. That's the reason why Proverbs 11, 16 says, "It's kindness in the heart of a woman that gains the respect of others, and especially her husband." It's not by certainness training.

It's not by demanding rights. This is so contrary. This is right against the grain of worldly thinking. This just runs the opposite direction. You've heard me say this before. You don't have to know a whole lot about the Bible. Just identify what the world says about a problem. Think about what the exact opposite of that is.

You'll be really close to what God says. All right? And here's another one of those occasions where that's the case. Now, what does the Bible say is the goal? The goal in biblical counseling is to be God's kind of person even in the midst of your trials. That's the goal.

To be God's kind of person even in the midst of your trials. What does that mean? Well, Proverbs 11, 16, "Kind-hearted woman gains respect." Proverbs 10, 19, "When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise." Proverbs 15, 1, "A gentle answer turns away wrath." Proverbs 25, 15, "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded and a gentle tongue can break a bone." In other words, a gentle tongue is very powerful, Proverbs says.

Not a demanding tongue. Not an assertive tongue. That's not it. The goal in counseling here biblically has to do with being God's kind of person. Yes, ma'am. All right, I'll give it to you real quick. I was doing it, and I was hoping someone wouldn't bring it up, but...

All right. On B, teach principles of tough love. C, take control of your life. You got C in there? Take control of your life. Number two, their goal is to stop the harm. That's their goal, to stop the harm. A, to escape to a shelter. And by the way, those shelters show graphic films of severe abuse to wives and children, literally scaring them to death to ever go back to that man.

They scare them to death. They show them very graphic, graphic films. And they raise their panic level to almost sheer, sheer terror. They get them to think in those terms. B, their goal is to separate from your spouse. They want to get them to separate from their spouse. C, their goal is to divorce their spouse.

Thirdly, their goal in counseling recognizes no difference between the different types of home, whether it's a Christian home, Christian husband, Christian wife, Christian husband, unbelieving wife, Christian wife, unbelieving husband. There's no differentiation. And then fourthly, their goal in counseling is only the health of the abused. That's their goal.

Now, I'm not saying that we as counselors aren't attentive to the health. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that's their main goal. And I want to suggest to you, if that's our main goal, is always to preserve the health and the life of people, that's our main goal, then we are going to have to draw all missionaries home from countries where their life is on the line every day.

But let's say, for instance, a Christian wants to go back into that home and live for Christ, even in an abusive potential situation, in order to win their abusive spouse over for the sake of righteousness. Is that a codependent person? No, it's not. That's a person that's trying to win their husband or their wife over for righteousness, even if, potentially, it could cost them their life.

What does the Bible say is the goal? Betsy, yes. What if it involves children? Yeah, no, no. We don't put children's lives--I mean, a husband or wife has a choice there. The children don't have a choice. We don't put them in danger. We bring civil authorities into that situation as quickly as possible if the church isn't going to be effective.

I'm going to talk about this as we move on, but you asked a good question. What does the Bible say is the goal? The goal of biblical counseling is to be God's kind of person, even in the midst of your trials. Psalm 119, verse 67 says, "Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I obey your word." Even in the midst of suffering, we can view that suffering as a means that God can use even in our own life for betterment.

Luke 22, 31, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. But Jesus said to him, 'I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, you'll strengthen your brothers.'" In other words, Jesus didn't pray that Satan would be removed from Simon.

Jesus was going to allow Simon to go through that trial. Genesis 50, 20, "Joseph said to his brothers, 'You intended all this for evil, but God intended it for good.'" Just because a person will take a person through trials doesn't mean that pain itself and self-denial and self-inflicted misery is godly.

No, that's extremism. It's not godly. Secondly, the goal of biblical counseling is to seek to glorify God and win the abuser over for righteousness sake. To win the abuser over for righteousness sake. Suffering is not an ends in and of itself. If a person is going to suffer, it's got to be for the sake of the gospel and for the sake of righteousness.

To win the abuser over for righteousness sake. Thirdly, the goal of biblical counseling recognizes an important difference between a home that is a Christian and one that is not a Christian. Or one that has none. Both secular and integrational counseling lacks discernment between these kind of homes. So there's got to be a difference.

Fourthly, the goal of biblical counseling recognizes an important difference between a home that has a Christian or Christians and one that has none. There's fourth. The goal is the focus of glorifying God to the good of both the abused and the abuser. Glorifying God. 1 Peter 2 is really God's strategy for suffering abuse at the hands of others.

Now, how do you deliver hope to someone like that and help? Where is God in the midst of this? Well, God will defend the cause of the oppressed. Isaiah 11, 16. Psalm 10, 17 through 18. Actually, better than Isaiah 11, 16 is Jeremiah 22, 16. I've since changed my notes.

Jeremiah 22, 16. Psalm 10, verse 17 and 18. "You hear, O Lord, the desires of the afflicted. You encourage them, you listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man who is of the earth may terrify no longer." Psalm 82, 3 and 4. "Defend the cause of the weak and the fatherless.

Maintain the rights of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy. Deliver them from the hand of the wicked." There's the point, Betsy, where I wanted to talk about the fact that we have a responsibility to rescue the weak and the needy. So, God hears the cry of the afflicted.

He defends their cause so that the wicked will not terrify anymore. God is even sovereign over the unjust judges of Israel. They had a civil obligation to defend and rescue and deliver the afflicted, just like we do as counselors as well. God will not exempt us from trouble, however.

He didn't exempt Job from trouble. He didn't exempt Simon from trouble, or Peter from trouble. God will not exempt us from trouble. God will supply all we need during the time of trouble, however. You know that a person who's being abused, you know that their attitude is failing them when they begin to give up.

When their attitude says, "I give up," or, "I can't take it anymore," or, "I'll teach that person a lesson," or just sit around and sulk and cry and feel sorry for themselves, or make threats, or quarrel or become bitter, or your actions slander the other person with your friends, or threaten the other person, or decided to divorce or separate from the other person, you know you're giving in, you're failing when those kind of things happen.

And your goal is to win them over for righteousness' sake. What does God want? Six things I want to highlight here. He wants you to trust Him. 1 Peter 2, 19 through 23, especially verse 23. That's what Jesus did. He kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly. He wants you to rely on His providential protection.

1 Peter 2, 23, and 3, 5, and 13, 15. 1 Peter 5, 10 says, "After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish you." He wants you to practice aggressive submission. 1 Peter 3, 6.

In order to win that husband over, not with words, but by the behavior of your life. Treat the unbelieving wife as an heir with you of the gracious gift of life, until they fear the Lord. And then He wants you to seek godly counsel and support. He wants you to seek godly counsel and support.

This is where the church really comes in, where pastors, elders, the church to oversee the flock, provide a place to help the needy, to rescue the weak, provide support and counsel and even physical protection if needed. We had in our church houses of refuge, like cities of refuge in the Old Testament, where I knew that if someone came in and they were being physically abused, I could put them in a home and nobody else would know where those people are at, except for me in the home that they were in.

He wants you to learn how to overcome evil with good. 1 Peter 4, 19. Very practical thing. Romans 12, 17-21. Overcoming evil with good. That's key. And He wants you to be wise in your actions and reactions to life. Wise in your actions and reactions to life. That's why 1 Peter 3, 1 says, "Without words, without becoming angry, nagging, pointed comments." There was a study that was done by the University of Washington a few years ago.

And it was amazing. Women who were physically abused, you kind of expect to be milquetoast type of women. But that wasn't the case. They were able to demonstrate in their study these women were usually very assertive verbally. They were the ones who were very verbal with their husbands. And they were the ones who were physically abused.

Alright. They were not a milquetoast flower type of woman who kind of sat back and just, "Oh my goodness." You know, they were not that kind. They were usually aggressive verbally. They were the ones who were primarily abused. I know that doesn't happen 100% of the cases. But the majority of the cases seem to point that.

And that's exactly what 1 Peter 3, 1 is talking about. So there are usually triggering things and actions in that wife's life that will bring out those kind of reactions in their husband's life. So he wants you to be wise in your actions and reactions to circumstances in life.

Like Proverbs 9, verses 7 and 8 talks about whoever corrects a mocker invites insults. So if you've got a husband who's a mocker and you're trying to correct him, it goes on and says whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. That's about abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you.

Rebuke a wise man and he will love you. So you've got to learn how to make biblical appeals to your husband. Proverbs 16, 21, pleasant words promote instruction. Esther 8, 5, Esther says to king Xerxes if the king pleases, Esther knew how to make a godly appeal even to a king who could take her life in a moment.

So what has God provided for protection? Remember that Psalms 41, verses 1 through 3, God blesses those who assist the helpless. Remember that. God blesses those who assist the helpless. I know I'm hurrying through this rather quickly, but verse 1 said, "How blessed is he who considers the helpless.

The Lord will deliver him in the day of trouble. The Lord will protect him and keep him alive and shall be called blessed upon the earth. Do not give him over to the desires of his enemies. The Lord will sustain him upon his sickbed. In his illness thou dost restore him to health." So we have a responsibility as biblical counselors to help and assist the helpless.

I don't want to minimize that at all. But some of the assistance that we're going to bring to some people are going to be the opposite of what the world does. Our primary goal is to glorify God, not necessarily just protect everybody from every potential harmful situation that could come down the pike.

He does this. God has provided two safety nets. One is the church. Often with the cooperation and the help of the abused spouse's family, assuming they are Christians who are walking this family and doing things God's way, the church should be a refuge of protection. A church where the parents can help pay for a cell phone or a pager for protection or set up a family for refuge in a church or keep the leadership apprised of the danger when this happens.

A church that practices then church discipline is the best friend of an abused person can have in a Christian home. And of course then the church that practices that is the key. So if an abusive spouse refuses to repent and is disciplined by the church and excommunicated, then the abusive spouse is treated as a pagan.

And now the marriage is viewed as a mixed marriage. And 1 Peter 3, 1 through 6 becomes the marching orders for the wife. 1 Peter 3, 7 becomes the marching order of the Christian husband. So the church is the first safety net for the victim of abuse. In fact, several years ago, I counseled a woman who was a Lebanese woman who her husband had left her but wanted her to go with him back to their home country.

And she was a Christian woman now. Since they had been married, she had become a Christian. And she had said to me, "If I go back to my home country as a Christian, my husband by law can put me to death." That's a tough counseling situation, isn't it? "My husband by law can put me to death or even have me put to death." Pretty tough situation.

So the institution of the church is a protection. Then the institution--what's the matter? Well, in this particular situation, if she knew she was going in, this becomes that Proverbs 22, 3 situation where you know this is going to happen because he was Muslim. And Proverbs 22, 3 says this that--let me get to it real quickly and make sure I read it right.

"The prudent sees evil and hides himself, but the naive go on and are punished for it." Proverbs 27, 12 says similar. And I believe she, by virtue of the law of that country, she was a helpless person. So her place was to stay in the church. That's what I was using as an illustration for that.

Civil authorities. Then is the second safety net. "If the abused Christian believes that their life is threatened, praise God we live in a society"--here in America, that is-- "that will step in and be a protection for that person. Teach her to use the civil government as a fallback plan." There are many world governments who do not view abuse as a punishable crime.

Yet we do. 1 Peter 2, 13 and 14, Peter says, "These government leaders are sent to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right." Within that same chapter, he's talking, remember, to servants who have physically abusive masters. But he also reminds them that there's civil government that's sent to punish those who do wrong.

Romans 13, 4, "The police officer is God's servant as an agent of wrath to bring punishment on wrongdoers." So I think it's vitally important that you're familiar with your state laws. See your state laws and be familiar with those, especially on domestic abuse. I think that's vitally important. Which brings us, really, to one other issue here when it comes to counseling.

And that is, what about spanking? Because a lot of people view spanking as abuse. Few parenting topics inflame emotions the way spanking does. Parents who do it argue that occasional spanking is an important disciplinary tool. Parents who don't say hitting a child teaches that violence is okay. Now that is in the more recent issue of Time Magazine, May 2006.

Whole article on spanking. Is spanking okay? And I'm surprised by the article. Time Magazine is not known as a conservative periodical. But in the article, they don't necessarily say that spanking is bad. They say a misuse of spanking is, which I was surprised to read in Time Magazine. ABC News poll back in 2004 on spanking.

65% of Americans approve of spanking children. 31% do not approve. 26% of Americans believe it should be permitted in the school. 72% do not approve of it, spanking in the school. The same poll said there is a big regional difference in spanking. Among Southerners, 62% of parents spank their children.

That drops to 41% in the rest of the country. Similarly, 73% of Southerners approve of spanking children compared to 60% elsewhere. Even in the South, though, just 35% think spanking should be allowed in the schools. Support for spanking in schools is about the same, 31% in the Midwest. Falling to 19% in the West and 13% in the East.

The law on spanking, corporate or corporal punishment of children in school, is illegal in many Western countries. It remains legal in roughly half of the U.S. states, although it is commonly practiced only in the South. In each of these states, it is up to each school district to determine whether corporal punishment will be used and what situations will it be applied in the manner in which it is given, typically by a paddle.

There are cases where school officials have lost their jobs for spanking students. In the United Kingdom, the smacking of children, that's what they call it, smacking of children, by teachers was made illegal in state schools in 1986 and extended to all schools in 1998. An amendment to the Children Act of 2004 to ban smacking of children was defeated by 424 votes to 75 in the House of Commons.

However, an amendment to ban parents from smacking their children hard enough to leave a mark was accepted by 284 votes to 208 and came into force in January 2005. In January 2006, the UK's four child commissioners called for a full ban on smacking, but this has been rejected by Tony Blair's government.

Tony Blair has admitted spanking his own children. I knew I liked that guy. Spanking of children within families is illegal in some countries. For example, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, Croatia, Israel, and Latvia. It's illegal to spank your children. Is it illegal in Russia, Timothy?

Alex? It's not. Similar initiatives in the U.S. have repeatedly failed. Parental rights groups have formed since 1990 to prevent spanking from being criminalized. Canada has tightened its laws as early as 2004, and the laws now say that no infant or teen may be spanked in Canada. Trying to update you on stuff here.

What do you mean by infant? Infant in a cradle, probably. I love this little cartoon. The doctor said I needed good spanking. What's a spanking, Mom? That's true. What is a spanking? If you're going to spank, psychologists say, going back to the Time Magazine article, never spank in anger.

I want to say, if that's true, then you'll never spank. Because every time I spank, my children spunk. Every time I spank my child, I was angry. The issue, biblically, is uncontrolled anger. Spank ages appropriately under two, are too young, over seven, use reasoning and withdraw privileges. Never spank a child who is medically challenged or disabled in any way, like ADHD children.

That's considered children. Always warn, always explain. In order for children to learn consequences, use an open hand, never a fist. It's important to gauge how hard you're smacking a child, which is impossible using a paddle, belt, or other object. I don't believe that's the case at all. I think you can gauge it very well, and sometimes better, if you use a proper kind of paddle.

Spank rarely. Keep the goal in mind. What's the goal? To phase out of spanking altogether. That's the goal. You spank with the goal to phase out of spanking. If you have background of abuse, avoid spanking entirely. Now, what they mean by that, even if you were abused, a background of abuse, they don't just say, "If you did abusing." If you have any kind of background of abuse, even if you're abused, the chances of you being a violent child, I don't think that's the case.

I don't think that follows through. But if you have problems being an abuser, that would follow through, biblically. What are the appropriate steps in spanking? Let me share this. Always remember, play much, pray much, and praise much with kids. Step one, make sure you have given clear expectations to the children when you spank.

That's vitally important. Step two, once understood, stop giving warnings. Don't say, "All right, on the count of three, I want you to stop that." Stop giving warnings. Step three, ask, "What were you expected to do?" So they know. You never spank a child for childish things. You only spank a child when you know they knew what they were doing.

It was for open rebellion. That's what you would spank the child for. Not for childish things, but for open rebellion. Ask, "What were you expected to do?" Step four, never discipline an uncontrolled anger. Ask, "What in your heart made you do it?" And then ask, "What does the Bible say I must do as a parent?" And the Bible says, "You've got to spank me." That's right.

Even here in the state of California, if you spank a child and you leave a mark, the police will take you in. So use just a real big flat paddle right on the fattest part of their anatomy, their cheeks that are built on the bottom. Like we said, apply the board of education to the seat of understanding.

That's where you apply it. And I'll tell you, when our kids were younger, I think one of the best little paddles in the world is a ping-pong paddle. Ping-pong paddles make great paddles. Wonderful, wonderful thing. They're big, flat areas for the big, cheeky surfaces, and they're really good. And if they have little knobs on them, they sting just a little bit.

And you won't have to hit hard if you remove the diaper and the pants. You won't have to hit hard. All you need is for it to sting. All right, points of practical wisdom. Number one, do not discipline a child -- wait a minute here. Let me fix this real quick.

What has gone wrong here? Can't see the numbers. There we go. Now we can see the numbers. Okay. >> Dr. Street, do you teach your children to turn the other cheek? >> Turn the other cheek. Yes, sir, in spanking we do. So do not discipline a child in a public setting.

Why? Because the child's going to be thinking about all those people watching, not thinking about what they need to learn about their own heart. They will not repent properly in public. Number two, be sure your child sees your own grief over his or her sin. You're grieved over it as much as they are.

Number three, remind your child that when you cannot see, God can. As a parent, when you can't see, God can. And number four, try to use a neutral object to punish. The hand can be seen as an instrument of hurt. Now the world says use the hand, because they think that you can't gauge how hard you're hitting someone.

I think your hand can become, in that child's mind, the object of hurt. And so when you reach out in love for your child, they'll recoil backwards. No, if you have to stop and think and control your anger to go get a paddle, that's better than lashing out with your hand, much better.

The Bible talks about not using the hand but a rod. Darlene. I think you have to use a lot of wisdom in disciplining children with mental disabilities. There are some children that I think who, while they were still young, they should have been disciplined more. And when they got older and like adult age and they're still acting like a child, they have no self-control.

And they should have been disciplined. But I realize that you have to use an awful lot of caution and wisdom. I think it's appropriate under some circumstances with a child. We have at Grace two families. One family that disciplined their child when--or disciplined their boy when he was young, even though he had a pretty severe mental disability.

Another family that didn't. Now both these boys are teenagers. The one is just a handful. You can barely control him. The other kid is very self-disciplined. And you can tell the difference between the two. But I realize that a lot of wisdom has got to go into it. All right.

We will take a break right there. Only it's got to be a short break of about seven minutes. And we'll come back and hit our last section. Okay. One of the last issues we need to deal with in Marriage of the Family class has to do with the problem that homosexuality brings to the Christian home.

And we want to talk about it, counseling those with homosexual tendencies in the family in this last section. Let me read to you a letter, a situation I had to deal with several years ago. This comes from a pastor. And I'm going to omit some of the details of this particular letter, but this particular pastor gave up everything in order to follow this lifestyle of homosexuality.

Listen to what he says to his family. This is an open letter to his family and friends. He says, "This letter comes with a desire to break the silence of the last couple of years. A few of you have been attempting to contact me and I have not responded for a variety of reasons.

Nevertheless, the time has come to answer a few things and to clear the air over some obvious changes in my life and the lives of my loved ones. You may feel that you never really knew me. That is an accurate statement indeed. The fact is that my life was devoted to one major goal of the last 25 years, that of escaping my sexual orientation.

This required a great amount of duplicity since I was never able or willing to disclose that to any of you. By the time I was 16, I promised God I would do everything I could to find healing and avoid disappointing my family. For me, as a naive young man, this meant college, seminary, marriage, and ministry.

Through the years, it came to mean countless hours in Christian counseling, support groups, books, and seminars. I went through severe depression for weeks and months, despairing to the point of suicide. Day after day, year after year, I studied, cried, prayed, memorized large portions of scriptures. Many of you feel I haven't tried.

To you, I say, God only knows the lengths to which I have gone to make myself thoroughly heterosexual. I reached the limit in June of this particular year with an emotional breakdown, resignation from the ministry, and a huge shift in my personal life. Most of you know my wife and I are in mediation.

I'm working right now at this particular job that he mentions. He talks about living with his partner and mentions his name. I'm sure that you have been incredulous over this. Many of you have prayed for me. A few have written. Some of you have called. I'm truly sorry for the hurt that I've caused, but that sorrow can never change who I am.

My family continues to make adjustments. Your concerns for them have been greatly appreciated. Perhaps I will see some of you at the funeral, which was coming up in relationship to his mother. If so, I would hope, out of respect for my mother, that you will find that neither the time nor the place to confront these issues.

We have been through a great deal over the last two years, and all of us are spiritually and emotionally drained. I know you will practice separatist principles. Some of you will never speak again. I understand that. I don't ask you to agree with me or accept me. Fundamental churches have no place for people like me.

That is clear. Just know the facts that I am here. I have many dear folk who have stood with me in these difficult times. I appreciate the memories that many of us share. Please know that I care about you and miss you." And he signs his name. That's a really sad situation.

Here's a guy who, formerly in the ministry, was willing to give up his wife, his children, his ministry, everything, and go off into a homosexual lifestyle. The Bible is very clear about this, 1 Corinthians 6. I don't say this with any relish at all, that that man is not a believer.

And he never was from the beginning. You can't actively practice homosexuality or even harbor it as a desire ultimately in your heart and kind of live superficially, externally, and hope to be a Christian. That doesn't mean that there aren't genuine Christians who have homosexual weaknesses. There are. There are genuine Christians that have lesbian and homosexual weaknesses that need to be helped biblically.

And they can be helped through it. So this is a complex subject. By way of introduction, it's really interesting. Back several years ago, you may remember the Kinsey Report that produced this statistic that 10% of Americans are homosexual. In reality, it was very poor research that was done. In fact, it was done on prisoners.

That's like interviewing people coming out of church about religion. Here you're interviewing prisoners locked in a cell with same sex for many, many years, interviewing them about homosexuality. Their conclusion was that 10% of them are homosexual, and that was representative of the American condition. If the truth were known, more reliable research suggests that less than 1.1% of Americans are homosexual.

Less than 1.1%. In fact, very few people talk about this, but there are more former gays in America than there are active gays today. There are more former gays in America than there are active gays. Now, how do you deal with this when it impacts the family? How do you deal with this?

Well, there are a lot of contemporary myths that are hindrances to faith in Jesus Christ. The first one has to do with the myth that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Mental barrier number one. For me to confess that my homosexuality is sin would be the same thing as denying myself, because it is who I am.

Like he said in his letter, I read that verbatim for you. This is just the way I am, he says. It is part of my genetic makeup, he's saying. I am who I am, and I can't change that. It's like willfully changing the color of your skin or willfully changing the color of your eyes or willfully changing whatever it is that's a part of your genetic makeup.

That's the idea there. Now, where does that come from? That really comes from scientific studies that have been done or apparent reports in scientific studies that have been done. For instance, there's a chromosome study by Dean Hammer who was a molecular biologist entitled The Search for a Gay Gene.

In this particular chromosome study, just a second, I'll talk about that before I go to hypothalamus study, research was done on 76 gay men and their families. It was found that the families of these 76 gay men had much higher occurrence of homosexual male relatives than the general population.

The frequency was found to occur more often on the mother's side of the family tree. The research team focused on the examination of the X chromosome and found that 33 out of the 40 pairs of brothers who were both gay and had similar genetic structure in the XQ28 area of the X chromosome.

So consequently, they concluded that homosexuality is not a moral issue, it's a biological issue. If a person is genetically predisposed to be a homosexual, how can anyone twist this into a right or wrong, ethical or sin kind of problem? The second type of study was the hypothalamus study by Simon LeVay.

It was done in August 1991 and/or written up in the issue of Science Magazine. The study purposes that there is a discernible or proposes that there is a discernible difference in the hypothalamus, which is the organ below the brain that controls the body temperature, of homosexuals which suggests a physiological cause for homosexuality.

LeVay noted differences in the neuron group INAH3 in homosexuals. He reportedly discovered from 41 autopsies that 19 subjects were homosexual, including one bisexual, having died from complications due to AIDS. 16 were presumed heterosexual men and 6 were presumed heterosexual women. Dr. LeVay claimed the neuron group, this INAH3, was smaller in the homosexuals than in the heterosexuals.

The third primary thing that you'll hear appealed to quite frequently is the identical twins study by Pillard and Bailey. Pillard is a psychiatrist and Bailey is a psychologist and gay rights activist. They recruited subjects for their study for homosexual publications, which should tell you a little bit about using randomized non-biased selection.

So they found that of the brothers who responded, 52% of identical twins, 22% of fraternal twins, 11% of adopted twins, 9% of non-twin brothers were homosexual. They theorized that the reason there was such a high percentage of homosexuality among identical twins was because their genetic makeup determined their homosexuality.

Now, so how do you deal with this? How do you work with this particular issue? Now, the only Christian acceptance of this theory of genetic causality seemed to come from liberal Protestant Pentecostal denominations who long ago discounted the reliability of the scriptural text. In fact, any time you go into any major city, sometimes you'll see a listing for a metropolitan community church that's usually a gay church.

You notice how they describe themselves here. It is a Christian church founded by gays and lesbians for all people. We have a special ministry of welcoming and affirming gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Special ministry. Hmm. It's interesting that one of the men, one of the pastors, has an article written that says, "Save marriage, it's too late." And the thesis of the article is that marriage was an invention by man to resolve reproductive problems that women had.

And now with the pill, that problem is resolved without marriage, so it's okay for two men or two women to be married once that problem was resolved. That's the idea. Well, they tend, obviously, to view homosexuals as victims, then, of a bigoted society. That's the major problem that they see.

So how do you deal with this? This really speaks to an issue of apologetics for Christian families and counseling Christian families. How do you deal with this from an apologetic standpoint? First of all, I think it's important to note this. Whoops. To remember that scientific argumentation never saves a person.

Only the gospel combined with the quickening power of the Holy Spirit can do that. But scientific argumentation is never going to do that. All the inductive science in the world will never bring a person to Christ. It's very similar to evidential apologetics. Evidential apologetics is really Roman Catholic apologetics.

It's built upon Thomas Aquinas. And it comes out of Thomas Aquinas. You're trying to talk someone who is already biasly against the gospel into accepting the gospel on the basis of evidences. Scientific argumentation is never going to save anybody. It will never do it. Well, there's problems, however, with the chromosome study.

There's problems also with the hypothalamus study, and there's problems with the identical twin study. With the chromosome study, to link specific behavior with a specific gene is generally considered highly unlikely by geneticists. Dr. Joseph Nikolosky, who is the director of Thomas Aquinas' Psychological Clinic, comments homosexuality is much more complex than mere behavior and includes many complex dimensions, including thoughts, feelings, fantasies, specific intentions, and identity.

One of the main problems with the well-publicized study of science of this particular study, the chromosome study, Robert Knight observes, is the small sample size. The researchers bias that homosexuality is a naturally occurring variation of sexuality. The fact that no heterosexual control group was used and the large number of exceptions that were recorded.

Knight goes on to say that 14 out of the 80 who allegedly were homosexual didn't have the marker, and Hammer offers no explanation for that. That alone is sufficient to suggest that other factors are at work. And there are a number of studies that are critical of biological and genetic predeterminism.

Simple cause and effect genetic relationship is a subject of intense debate, even among leading scientists. Many believe a combination of several factors are at work, including family history, relationship to parents and siblings, health, early morals, learned attitudes and behaviors. Dr. Paul Cameron, who is an expert on genetic causality, says, "A correlation for specific genetic markers does not imply a gene or genes caused the brother's homosexuality that is in the Hammer study.

The results could be pointing to another tacit or another trait shared by these subjects and disproportionately common in gays, such as promiscuity or exhibitionism or other personality characteristics known to be associated with male homosexuality." Now, the fact that many ministers and psychologists have successfully counseled homosexuals to abandon this lifestyle and now have a satisfying heterosexual relationship makes that genetic theory suspect.

So, Dr. Charles Sokardes, who is the president of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, agrees and questions the legitimacy of genetic causality. It's interesting that the 1993 study is under investigation for alleged fraud by the Office of Research Integrity. It's also interesting that part of the study, a colleague of Hammer accused him of selectively reporting the evidence, the data that was involved, in order to advance his thesis.

Hammer himself is a homosexual activist. He was reassigned to other research areas, smoking and cancer, after ethical questions arose about his work. And a second study released in October of 1995, published in Nature Genetics, not as well researched as the first, still had the supposed gay gene markers in 22% of the heterosexuals.

That should have been homosexual, but they weren't. Then there's problems with the hypothalamus study. One of the main problems of this study is the science of the study itself. George Grant and Mark Horn conclude, "To say that this experiment is exceedingly dubious is a gross understatement. LeVay is attempting to tell us that he has found a difference between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals when he actually has no idea if there are really any heterosexuals in his group." Even homosexuals were critical of the hypothalamus study by LeVay.

The Bay Area Reporter, that is a pro-homosexual paper in San Francisco, accused LeVay of having a sloppy control group and engaging in circular reasoning. Other scientists were critical of his research of the study. Dr. Cameron wrote, "Three out of the 19 homosexuals have larger INAH3 than the mean size for heterosexuals.

The second largest INAH3 group belong to a gay, and three of the 16 heterosexuals had smaller INAH3 than the mean size for homosexuals." According to LeVay's theory, three of the heterosexuals should have been homosexual, and three of the homosexuals should have been heterosexual. When you completely misclassify six out of 35, you don't have much of a theory.

Furthermore, there's no science that has ever proven that that particular region of the brain, or the hypothalamus, causes sexual orientation. LeVay even admits in his study that AIDS may have confounded the results of his study. Now, what about the identical twins study? It's interesting here that half of the identical twins were not homosexual, which clearly illustrates there are several factors at work in the genetics.

Richard Cohen, in the book "Perpetuating Homosexual Myths," writes, "If a homosexual orientation is genetic, then 100% of all identical twins should have been homosexual. But, only half were, 52%. Therefore, it's easy to conclude that environmental factors, not genes, cause homosexuality." There was considerable research bias here. Pillard and Bailey have a cause to defend.

Pillard, a homosexual, Bailey, a gay rights activist. The prestigious British Medical Journal, in 1993, criticized their study as having a small sample, unresolved questions resulting in uninterpretable data. So, there's problems with all three of the studies. So, we have to throw in a caution. Even if a homosexual accepts, the probability that his homosexuality is not genetic, based upon a lack of scientific support, it does not mean he is ready to acknowledge his sinfulness and trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Accepting Jesus as the only alternative left, is not the same thing as trusting him as Lord and Savior. Never was. When you rebuttal their studies, with other scientific stuff, usually they'll make statements like this, "Well, even animals are homosexual." Well, that is true. We could demonstrate that there are some kind of animals that practice homosexuality, but animals also eat their young.

Does that mean we need to start practicing that as well? I don't think so. So, animal behavior is an extremely poor gauge for human behavior. Well then, secondly, then we want to say this, that the myth that homosexuality is a mental illness. This is the second barrier that's there.

Being a homosexual is not a sin, but it's a sickness, they say. I need to be inwardly healed. It's a result of my past and how others have so poorly treated me. I may be able to stop the practice, but I cannot help the condition. Now, this is an interesting statement, because advocates of this particular view have a psychological view of homosexuality in contrast to the earlier physiological view.

The American Psychiatric Association, the APA, early editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders listed homosexuality as, listen to this, I'm quoting them, as a psychopathic personality disturbance. That's unbelievable. In the DSM-II, that was written in 1952, the first DSM, the first volume of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 1952, called it a psychopathic personality disturbance.

In 1968, the DSM-II described it as a sexual deviation, personality disorder, and certain other non-psychotic mental disorders. So between 1952 and 1968, they started equivocating on the terminology. That's between volume one and volume two. However, in 1973, now this is five years later after the DSM-II came out, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category of mental illness.

Up to that time, it was considered an abnormal psychological condition that required special psychiatric treatment in order to achieve a cure. This sudden change was not a result of any findings, but was a direct result of the pressure tactics of the homosexual lobby. The change only occurred when tactics of the homosexual lobby switched from demonstration to confrontation and disruption.

Only one quarter of the proposed members of the APA voted on the proposed change. In 1973, a landmark decision of the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was, in large part, the product of militant intimidation by homosexuals, not to mention spurious and pseudoscientific reasoning. That's according to the Journal of Psychohistory, Winter, 1992, pages 308 to 329.

That's huge. Many psychiatrists and psychotherapists still believe it's a mental illness. Robert Isay, medical doctor and clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College and chair of the APA's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues says that there is a continuing conviction among most, although not all, dynamically oriented psychiatrists in general and psychotherapists in particular that homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality.

Wow. We don't often hear that. It's interesting that as recently as 1961, every state in the nation outlawed homosexuality. By 1980, 21 states had decriminalized sodomy. By 1994, 27 states had done so. Now, it's interesting. In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism of reorientation therapy with homosexuals.

He said, "It is considered unethical." That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. And second, if the client wants to change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research. In other words, he's siding with the fact that it's okay for a psychiatrist to be able to therapeutically help a person change from being a homosexual to a heterosexual.

Well, Christian ministries and support groups to gays, like Exodus International, most of these ministries to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals still hold to a fundamental idea that homosexuality is a psychological illness that oftentimes is environmentally determined. They say stress reparative therapy to "cure" the homosexual of this abnormality, a learned abnormal behavior.

Those are their words. Hal Schell, an ex-gay who had a ministry to homosexuals, says homosexuality, or sees it, as a complicated compulsive behavioral disorder binding individuals to a sinful lifestyle. Al Mettinger, president of Exodus International, former president, I should say, made this statement, "The practice is sinful, the condition is not." Interesting.

The practice is sinful, but the condition is not. The practice requires repentance and change, he says. The condition requires healing. And it's interesting that the same thing is said by James Dobson. The Christian psychologists still hold to the beliefs in terms of their secular counterparts. The denominational groups do the same.

Individual church ministries do the same. Christian counselors and psychologists still do the same thing. They still hold to the same view that it's a mental illness. How do you respond to that from a Christian apologetical point of view? Well, there's problems with the APA. You may see strange, but Bible-believing Christians should be in agreement with the homosexual agenda to no longer list it as a mental illness, because it's not.

We ought to agree with them. All the protesters, it's not a mental illness. The original reason for listing homosexuality as a mental illness was not because of research, and it didn't change because of any research. It didn't stem from biblical convictions, but because society considered it to be unacceptable.

So the APA pretends to be scientific when in reality, their beliefs and conviction are constantly changing based upon the political climate. That's interesting. Homosexuality is no longer a psychological disorder, but those who now consider homosexuality as sinful are now the ones who have a psychological disorder. They have homophobia.

That's a 180-degree turn in less than 25 years. I like what Adam says. I think I put it in your notes. Every book on psychology or counseling that seriously struggles with the question of normality or abnormality ultimately concludes that it is impossible to set any absolute norms by which to make a judgment that any given belief or behavior is normal or abnormal.

Yet the authors of these books persist on using these terms anyhow, and they go so far as to declare various behaviors normal or abnormal. Usually this is done on the basis of sociological theories in which norms are set according to averages obtained in various, often highly biased ways by survey and tests.

Thus, if enough persons at a given period in a particular place declare their homosexuality preferences, homosexuality presumably must be declared normal. In Sodom, it is possible that the sociologists would have declared heterosexuality abnormal if they would have had a whack at it. We must not set norms by counting noses on sinful men.

That's a great statement. We must not set norms by counting noses on sinful men. If nose counting were valid, then lying would be acceptable. That's true. Lying would be normal. Telling the truth would not. Who lies? We'd all have to raise our hands. Then that's normal. On the other hand, Bible-believing Christians are in agreement with most psychiatrists who believe that homosexuals can and should be changed to heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is a sinful disorientation of what God intended to be norm for human sexuality. God intended monogamous heterosexual relationship for the purpose of companionship and procreation. So homosexuality is no longer a psychological behavior. Now it has turned 180 degrees. Now homophobia is. Politics runs the psychological establishment. Yeah, psychological establishment.

It's not science that ultimately runs it. So there's problems with support groups to gays as well. They send out a mixed message that the behavior is wrong, but the condition is not. It's a gender identity abnormality. A psychological disorder binds the homosexual to a sinful condition, and often the answer is some form of regression therapy called inner healing in order to try to get that person out of homosexuality.

I have never met a person that's come out of homosexuality as a result of that therapy. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I have never met them. In fact, I think this leaves, when you have Christian groups saying the practice is sinful, but the condition is not, that really leaves an extraordinary dilemma in the mind of a homosexual.

It's a compulsive behavioral disorder that implies a mental illness, yet the disorder binds the homosexual to sin, suggesting he doesn't have control over his own actions because he's bound by the disorder. On the one hand, the homosexual is told he's responsible. On the other hand, he's told he can't help himself.

It's a condition. That's a mixed message. All right. How do you communicate the gospel to them? Of course, your attitude towards homosexuality. A homosexual is created in the image of God just like you. Many Christians have to remind themselves that except for God's grace, they stand under the same judgment of God as a homosexual.

The fact that they're not or never were a homosexual, it doesn't make them any better than a homosexual. Both are created in the image of God and possess a fallen nature. Furthermore, we're all sexual creatures. That's basic to our creatureliness and humanness. Each of us have a particular sexual orientation.

The desire for sex is not wrong. It's the orientation and the context that becomes a moral issue. For God has designed sex for a particular orientation. That's heterosexuality. And a particular context, that's monogamous marriage. That's the way God designed it. For a particular orientation, heterosexuality, context, monogamous marriage. Secondly, the homosexual is a sinner just like you.

We're all totally depraved, whether heterosexual or homosexual. That means that every part of our being has been infected with sin. That includes our sexuality. One professor made this statement. He said, "In God's view, I suspect we are all sexual deviants. I doubt if there is anyone who has not had a lustful thought that deviated from God's perfect ideal of sexuality." That's true.

However, there are some sins that become so life-dominating that a person who practices the sin becomes labeled by it. Homosexuality, according to 1 Corinthians 6, 9 through 11, is one of those kinds of sins. Like sexual immorality, or idolatry, or adultery, or prostitution, or stealing, or greed, or drunkenness, or slandering, or robbing.

All those are part of the list. And when we say life-dominating, we mean that one particular sin has fashioned every aspect of their life across the board. Every attitude, every relationship, every thought, every motive, every deed, even the way they talk, even the way they walk, even the way they dress is different.

That's why homosexual needs cleansing across the board. I think it's important for the counselor to collect good data about their life because not only does our sinfulness cause us to act sinfully, but also to react sinfully when sinned against. For example, many homosexuals have considerable parental irresponsibility in their background, and molestation, and either a lack of religious upbringing or a very harsh legalistic upbringing.

That's a part of their past that comes out. Thirdly, the homosexual needs hope just like you. The change that is needed has to be radical and comprehensive. Jesus Christ does not offer to change our behavior. He wants to also change our heart condition. Dr. Adams comments on the hope that is seen in 1 Corinthians 6.

He says, "Often homosexuals, drunkards, and others will ask counselors if there's any hope of changing." Reading this passage is a powerful response. Paul makes it clear such things as drunkenness and homosexuality are not genetic problems or psychological problems, as some aver, but rather are sinful lifestyles. Lifestyles due to genetics do not require forgiveness, but it's also true they cannot be changed by it either.

All lifestyles mentioned here are sin engendered. The hope lies in this--Jesus died for sins, not for genetic problems. Call it what the Bible labels it--sin. And you'll restore hope to many who have been led astray by modern propaganda, often disseminated by avant-garde elements in the church itself. Fourthly, the homosexual needs life-transforming power of God's Spirit just like you.

A homosexual will never believe that Jesus can really transform them into a new person unless you, the evangelist, believes it. 1 Corinthians 6:11, Paul says, "They were washed, they were sanctified," meaning they had a total across-the-board change in their life. Once they were homosexuals, now they're Christians. Those who teach homosexuals that at salvation the behavior changes but the condition persists don't understand salvation.

First and foremost, the condition of the heart must change. God instills new desires and new motives for life, and then the behaviors change. Old thinking may require put-off over a period of time, but the person is no longer a homosexuality. There's no such thing as a homosexual Christian. That's an oxymoron.

Paul Trips makes the statement, "God's call to sexual purity is as absolute for me to achieve without His help, or is as," I should say, "is as impossible for me to achieve without His help as it would have been for me to save myself." So, the Apostle Paul clearly states they won't inherit the Kingdom of God.

So, what do you do? Your counsel in the Gospel plea, Colossians 4:6, there confess it's not just their behavior but that their condition is sin. Repentance, then, that involves a change of mind so complete that there is a change of life. There must be a renunciation of their sinful lifestyle.

That's important. There must be a renunciation of their sinful lifestyle. Has to be there. For God to change not just their practice but their condition. That's important. Thirdly, a total transfer of trust from oneself to Jesus Christ as Savior who died for all sins, not just homosexuality. And fourth, an acknowledgement that it is by the sovereign grace of God that they're saved, not because they intend to make changes in their life.

That's an interesting statement. Not because they intend to make changes. That's the Gospel plea with the homosexual. But how do you deal with the Christian who is struggling with homosexual tendencies? How do you deal with that kind of an individual? This is the sanctification part. Number one, salvation of a homosexual brings the change of heart while sanctification changes the lifestyle.

In other words, what we're saying here is that the condition has got to change first before the practice changes. The condition, that is, of their heart has got to change first before the practice changes. This is where Proverbs chapter 5 verses 21 through 23 focuses on self-discipline. They think they can't change but the Bible defines them, especially in verse 23, is they can make a lot more changes sexually than they think they can.

Proverbs chapter 5 verses 21 through 23. Then, in addition to that, the homosexual must be counseled for total life restructuring. Well, let's stop there just for a second. There's a little excerpt that we have from Adam's commentary. He says, "When a man, as a man, a whole person, can be labeled fairly as a drunkard, homosexual, or drug addict, he is a life-dominating problem.

He is no longer merely a man, but the Bible speaks of him as a certain kind of man, drunkard, liar, double-minded, etc. A man characterized or dominated by the particular problem that gives them his name. The Bible labels those with life-dominating sins. Since all of life is affected by and affects the problem, the man with a life-dominating problem finds that all of his life must come under the review in counseling.

All of his life will need alteration. Whenever a person's problem turns out to be one large life-dominating sin like homosexuality, erroneously he may think that he has only one problem to solve. He even may become impatient with a counselor who attempts to look at other aspects of his life.

"Why don't you get to the problem? Why all this extraneous concern about family relationships, work, and health?" he may ask. But in such circumstances, the problem cannot help but affect every other aspect of his life. It affects doubtless have bled over into social life, married life, work, physical, financial matters.

Whenever he has problems at work, he seeks out his homosexual companions for some immediate gratification. When he resorts to his homosexual sin, the guilt adversely affects his work. The problem and problems of every area tend to feed one another. That's true. So that's the reason why there has to be total life restructuring.

Then the person with homosexual habituations should be counseled to systematically put aside the old ways of life and adopt new ways that are fashioned after Jesus Christ, addressing the inner and the outer man. The inner and the outer man. Ephesians 4, verses 20 through 24. Colossians 3, 5 through 10.

Become really critical in helping a person like with this. So what is this going to involve? Well, this brings us to the fourth. The person with homosexual habituations need to be taught the fruits appropriate to repentance. What is that? Total forsaking of homosexual acts and companions. 1 Corinthians 15, 33.

Radical changes in scheduling. Of everything that that person does in life needs to come under review and counseling. Thirdly, radical changes in all of life's thoughts and activities. There has to be a put off and put on in terms of their thought, their desires, their expectations about life. Usually a person who's dominated with this, their whole life and all their thoughts in life are saturated with thoughts about sexual things.

And then fourthly, learning to take the idol of sex down as a god in life and replace it with mind engaging thoughts of the god of glory. Merely teaching a homosexual how to have proper sexual relationships with his wife is not going to help him deal with the over domination of sex in his life as an idol.

It may simply substitute one sexual idol for another. So just getting the guy married is not going to work. You've got to address the desires of his heart. Fifth, then teach them that it is sufficient to be content as faithful and obedient servants to Christ. And the reason why we close with this is because, listen, too many Christians who struggle with homosexual tendencies seek quick victory instead of obedience.

Can I say it again? They seek quick victory instead of obedience. Instead of seeking victory, which means, what they really mean by that is, I want God to just liberate me from this temptation forever. They should seek obedience in life every step of the way instead of quick victory.

We are 45 seconds past our time of quitting, and we are now done with our notes. I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted. I have thoroughly enjoyed having you in class this semester. Thank you for being a wonderful class. I've loved your papers. I've still got a group of papers I'll be turning back to you, graded.

I'll be finishing those next week. I didn't get them done. Everything is going on this week. Yes, John. Just a quick question. I have a lesbian cousin who is going to have a ceremony to commit her life. It's not a wedding, but it's a ceremony. Just from your counsel, anyone of us that might face a situation where we have family members that are going to do that, do we not go?

Yes. I think in going, you're condoning it. But I think I'd write a really nice letter or card or something and send it and say, "I'd like to be able to celebrate this as a Christian. I can't with you. When you have a proper kind of relationship, I'd love to be able to help you and encourage you in this.

I can't do that. But I want you to know that I'm not the type of person who's going to treat you in a mean fashion or anything like that. I do pray for you, concerned about you, and concerned about your understanding of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in your life.

That's far more important than this issue. Thank you for being a great class. God bless you. Have a wonderful summer. You're welcome.