Please follow his slides here: Modern Idols Sex
Here is an outline of the talk:
Is Sex an idol? Preoccupation, Saviour & Lord.
-Some cultural analysis of England
The Big Idea: Jesus is the God of Sex
1) Sin has no place in Jesus' kingdom
-All sin is excluded, including sexual sin.
-Answering objections such as, 'isn't this culturally irrelevant now? Isn't this too restrictive? Isn't my sexuality just the way I am?'
2) Your whole life belongs to God
-Jesus' resurrection has redeemed all of our lives, including our online lives.
-5 practical steps to dealing with sin:
1. Hate it - 2. Flee from it - 3. Repent and pray - 4. Confess in community - 5. Replace with truth.
My Next Steps:
Conclusion: this is really about union with Jesus himself. Our desire for 'sex' is really an expression of our deeper desire for connection & acceptance at the very deepest level; an acceptance & connection we can only truly find in Jesus.
For further reading:
'Captured by a Better Vision: Living Porn-Free' by Tim Chester
'The Next Story: Life and Faith after the Digital Explosion' by Tim Challies
'God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation' by Andreas Kostenberger
'Married for God: Making your Marriage the Best it Can Be' by Christopher Ash
'Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave' by Ed Welch
'A Celebration of Sex: A Guide to Enjoying God's Gift of Sexual Intimacy', by Douglas Rosenau
Here is an extended quote from 'Blame it on the Brain? Distinguishing Chemical Imbalances, Brain Disorders, and Disobedience' by Ed Welch:
'Perhaps the best known study on the biology of homosexuality appeared in the periodical Science. The lead researcher, Simon LeVay, conducted post-mortem examinations on the brains of nineteen homosexual men who died from AIDS and sixteen presumed heterosexual men, six of whom died of AIDS. His results suggested that the brains of the heterosexual men consistently had more brain cells in a specific area of the brain (INAH 3) that is allegedly implicated in sexual behaviour. When viewed with a homosexuality-as-biologically-determined bias, the data show that homosexuality is located in the brain.
'…Christians and non-Christians have often noted that this study in no way establishes a causal link between brain activity and homosexual activity. Even LeVay concedes the limitations of his study, suggesting that it is little more than an invitation to further research. He knows that his observations are very tentative until corroborated by other researchers, and this corroboration has not yet been forthcoming. He recognises that AIDS may have confounded the results, that the sample size was too small to draw any conclusions, and that his measurements could be prone to error. Furthermore, the brains of three homosexual men in the study were indistinguishable from the analogous brain areas in heterosexual men. Even his assumption that there is a relationship between INAH 3 and sexual behaviour has never been clearly established.
'…let's take the most extreme possibility…imagine that someone were able to demonstrate that INAH 3 is indeed a factor in sexual desire, and that INAH 3 is smaller from birth in people who eventually become homosexuals. In other words, the neuronal patterns in the brain do not result from homosexual experience; the smaller INAH 3 precedes homosexual activity.
'…If such research existed, Christians (and many non-Christians) could make at least the following observations: First, there would always be exceptions to the rule. Some heterosexuals would have a smaller INAH 3, and some homosexuals would have a larger INAH 3. Second, even the secular writers would insist, as they do now, that biology is not destiny. Human sexual response is too complex to be reduced to a neuron deficit in the brain. Third, Christians would remain firm in their stance that biology can't make us sin. At most, biology is analogous to a friend who tempts us into sin. Such a friend might be bothersome, but he can be rebuked and resisted.
'…Another approach to studying the biological basis of homosexuality is to observe the incidence of homosexuality in families and twins. A favourite example is the research done by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. This study reported that of fifty-six homosexual men who were identical twins, 52 % (twenty-nine) had a twin brother who was also homosexual. Among nonidentical twins the rate was 22 %; among nontwin brothers the rate was 9 %, and among adopted siblings the rate was 11 %. The research group also found comparable statistics with females. This is what you would expect if there were a genetic component to homosexuality: the closer the genetic relationship, the higher the rate of shared homosexuality.
'…However, this study, like LeVay's, produces no firm conclusions. Even if you ignore the sampling biases (they recruited through homosexual publications) and the fact that no other researchers outside this team have found such high percentages among identical twins, the study is inconsequential. That is because identical twins typically have a profound influence on each other. If one twin is introduced to something new, it is likely that he will introduce the other twin to that activity. Moreover, why did genetically unrelated, adopted brothers of homosexuals have such an allegedly high rate of homosexuality? Their 11 % incidence rate was five times what you would expect (the incidence of activity homosexuality is generally believed to be about 2 % in the general population). The study would be better used to support the influence of peers in the development of homosexuality.
'…The researchers realize that all they have proved is that homosexuality is not caused solely by genetics. If genetics were the only cause, the concordance rate in identical twins would be 100 %. If one twin were homosexual, the other twin – having identical genes – would always be homosexual. Since the statistic is much lower than that, homosexuality cannot be a straightforward genetic trait. Apart from this conclusion, the study is not able to prove anything…
'…imagine, again, that this research were supported by better studies that were consistently replicated. What if research found that identical twins more frequently share homosexuality even when they have no contact with each other? If this research were to emerge, it would still illustrate Biblical truth. First, there will never be a 100 % concordance rate. Second, a principle of Scripture Is that the context for our lives is the physical body, and we should expect that the physical body (the brain in this case) would have some way to represent biologically the intents of the heart. For example, people who have a habit of sinful anger demonstrate different patterns of brain activity than do those who are very peaceful because of faith in Christ. Such an observation does not mean that the brain makes us angry. It simply means that the brain can display the physical etchings of the heart.'
 Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991): 1034-37.
 J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-97.
 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 217-24
 John O. Billy et al., "The Sexual Behaviour of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives 25 (1993): 52-61.