Marriage and the Bible - Part 50 - Final Thoughts

This series started with a series of questions and a simple idea to go through the Bible and find out what is actually said about marriage.  With 50 posts it stands as probably the most lengthy thing I have done to date and I am sure some of those questions weer answered, but not always in the way one would have thought.  

1. Is there a difference between being married and being husband and wife?

I would say yes.  At least there is a great deal of difference between a couple that seeks to have a spiritual covenant and those who engage in a cultural contract type of obligation.  It seems that God has always desired man and woman to have what the original couple had before the fall of man.  A triune relationship with Him, man and woman together.  Sin entered the world and over time culture and law began to seek to define marriage as forms of obligation and give it in many ways a mechanical and practical view away from the idea of 'one flesh', naked and unashamed.

In our world Christians find themselves where the ultimate desire for their married lives is to return to this covenant relationship but still there are cultural and legal obligations that define marriage.  God seems to let mankind define this but presses each couple 'back to the garden'  as it were.  Mankind can indeed present difficulties in this as sometimes marriage contracts are not written with this in mind.  In some forms cultural contract marriage is actually a deterrent to achieving spiritual covenant.  The spiritual covenant marriage is about God; the cultural contract is about man.  God seems to respect or at least allow both, but His desire is to bring mankind back to the garden at least in spirit.

2. Does the Bible give a actual moment of marriage that is definable?

This greatly depends on what you are talking about.  When it comes to culture and law, marriage is definable when all requirements are met and agreed on.  Those requirements are different for each culture and nation so it is difficult to say anything other than God honors that man makes some choices here.  Even here, because of the nature of humanity, this can be a clear as mud.  In a spiritual covenants I see that is this union is only possible with one man, one woman and God at a moment when all three parties come together in spirit, mind, heart and for the couple flesh. 

I think it is very possible to have one without the other but often what happens is a conjunction of both.  Some marriages start out as covenants without cultural obligations such as Adam and Eve's being husband and wife.  Others start off as a cultural and legal obligation and can change into a spiritual covenant.  The best marriages in our fallen world try to live up to both with an understanding that, if push comes to shove, what God desires in a spiritual covenant takes precedent over the cultural contract.

3. Are other types marriage bonds acceptable?

What can be said about this is that the Bible allows for the fact that humans are going to be humans and we are going to enter into less than perfect relationships because of it.  The Bible presents many forms of marriage in its contract form: polygamy and concubinage for the most part with marriages that are purely procreative or pleasure oriented.  God accepts that human being will want to control sexual expression to maintain certain cultural and legal obligations.

What the Bible takes the dimmest view on is anything that involves sin in the relationship or a mixing of faith (believers with unbelievers).  In our modern context, that means open marriages and homosexual marriages are out, but polygamy and even group marriage (minus homosexual and open elements) are real possibilities.  The problem with all of these though is that outside the simplest arrangement for marriage (one man, one woman for life) there becomes a diminished capacity to live up to or even attain a marriage that is a true spiritual covenant. 

4. Can a marriage end?

The unfortunate answer is yes.

The real truth is that spiritual covenants require a great deal of effort to both attain and maintain and this means that there are a lot of opportunities for it to become the lesser form of marriage -- the cultural contract. 

In the cultural contract form, marriage can be broken and ended when one side or the other decides the obligations are not being kept.  Christians probably should take note that Jesus defines adultery as the only thing that should end any marriage but allowance is also made for mixed marriages by Paul and the fact Jesus even seems to indicate that 'hardness of heart' can still cause a marriage end, it just may not justify it.

The other unfortunate end to marriage is death and this in effect ends both kinds of marriage.  This can make the end of a spiritual covenant marriage particularly difficult when a couple is truly one flesh.

In the end marriage is both an action involving both God and man and thus it gets complicated even in the Bible as it greatly is affected by what what a person or culture is seeking to produce with marriage.  Marriage involves a lot of choices but God's desire remains the same.  That desire being to see a man and woman one flesh, naked and unashamed working for His purposes.

Finis

Previous: Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure? 

Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage.  In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around.  Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin.  Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'.  This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear.  Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is.  The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever.  The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins.  In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death.  This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight.  This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'.  No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful.  I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality.  On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either.  It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted?  The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant.  By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has  a possibility of achieving such a union.  In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible.  The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one.  In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse. 

The other place where  a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it.  The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans,  Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality.  Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage.  You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal.  That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage.  Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens.  The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 46 - Modern Challenges: Open Marriage

Open marriage is defined as a marriage where both spouses agree that they may each engage in extramarital sexual relationships without those relationships being regarded as infidelity.  In short both sides say that cheating isn't cheating.  Looking above at a copy from a page from a book advocating open marriage you can see the general perspective as one that allows freedom of the individual and a value on honesty and truth in a relationship.  Or so it is stated and believed by those who practice and promote open marriage.  Historically, in the United States open marriage has been popular at two times: the 1970s during the sexual revolution and right now.  From a biblical point of view is this an allowable form of marriage?  Is the swinger cry of: "It ain't adultery if my spouse says its OK." true? 

There are some Biblical passages to consider here.  The most direct teaching is 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it is stated plainly that a wife does not have power over her own body, but her husband does and visa versa.  So if a man wilfully says to his wife that it is OK for her to go out and engage in extramarital sexual activity is he in a sense exercising this power?  Another thing to consider is at certain points in polygamist relationships the marriage is partially open.  If a man is married to a wife and seeking a second, some behaviours could be seen as extramarital activity until the second woman agrees to marriage.  If this is OK why would the idea of open marriage be not OK?

Firstly, I would like to say that open marriage must be classified as purely a cultural contract marriage.  Covenant marriage requires wilful sexual faithfulness and so once a couple is talking open marriage they are dickering about the terms of the marriage contract.  In particular the line that says: "Forsaking all others, keep you only unto her/him".  That stated, is such a contract allowable by the Bible?

The Bible in cultural context is trying to protect a few things with its view of marriage and one of them is children.  When a child is born, the main protection of the child knowing who its parents are is that no one else has been with mommy but daddy.  Modern proponents of open marriage however argue that with modern birth control this could be curbed.

The other thing the Biblical views of marriage try to protect is health.  If the Biblical pattern for marriage were followed worldwide, even including the various forms of polygamy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would disappear in a couple generations.  Once again Open marriage advocates argue that condoms could stop this too.

The problem with both things is that no birth control is perfect and no condom is fail safe.  Human gadgets are always prone to error and defect.  No matter what happens this is true because both also require that humans use them correctly.  Sorry, this is simply true to the point that even the manufacturers of said instruments say "99.9% effective if used correctly" to save against lawsuits.

These objections however do not deal with the biblical issue, I simply want to state for the record that this seems culturally OK, but it has its practical problems that could become huge monsters. 

The biblical problem is 1 Corinthians 7:4 does not directly say that the giving of the power of your spouses body for sexual gratification of another is wrong.  Paul in the same book; however, has a very dim view of fornication and that is where open marriage fails biblically.  Fornication would still be taking place from a biblical point of view as any sex outside any type of marriage contract is considered fornication.  Fornication is declared to be a sin so the extra martial sexual encounters become a biblical no-no.

Next: Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage
Previous: Women's Equality in Marriage  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 41 - The Bible and Divorce

While it is difficult to get an opinion from God as to his like or dislike of polygamy (see my previous post), it is not difficult to get his opinion about divorce.  He hates it.  It is this hatred of divorce by God that should set the theme for our discussion of divorce.  If I am a Christian, I should hate what God hates and God hates divorce. 

Despite the hatred by God of divorce, it is still biblically allowed.  Divorce is allowed by the law of Moses very early on and it remains a constant force in the Bible from then on.  Ultimately, this seems to be an allowance by God because of sin and the nature of marriage in its cultural contract form.  Doesn't stop Him from hating it, but it does indicate God understands the why of it.

There are basically three biblical reasons God would allow a divorce:

1. Sexual Infidelity: As much as God hates divorce, he hates unfaithfulness even more.  Jesus himself gives this as a reason for it.  This reason ultimately points to something deeper and that is that sex is not simply about fun or procreation.  Sex is the ultimate expression of the spiritual covenant of marriage and to engage in adultery in any form shows a lack of understanding of this idea.  This why not only should sex not be engaged in before marriage; it also should be kept in the confines of marriage.

2. Mixed Faith Marriage:  The Bible has nothing really positive to say about a marriage between an unbeliever and a believer and that goes throughout the entire Bible.  In one case after the exile, Israelite men are forced to divorce their wives for this reason or give up their inheritance in Israel.  When we get to the New Testament there is a change though and that is that the believer should stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wants out.  Paul in 1st Corinthians is not defying Jesus so much as he is considering a further implication of Jesus' teaching.  That of the impossibility for such a marriage to achieve covenant without both parties understanding the true nature of love and self-sacrifice, which are found only in genuine faith in God.  The believer should treat their marriage as a covenant and strive for the ideal, but if the unbeliever wants out, the believer can depart free of obligation.

3. Hardness of Heart: I simply do not see that Jesus Teaching in Matthew 19 and other places nullifies this idea.  The divorce law of Moses still stands because Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets.  The fact is God still allows for hardness of heart, because hardness of heart is still going to happen.  People are still going to fail in how they view marriage, act in selfishness to the point that even the cultural and contractual sides of their marriage are not being kept, violate their marriage vows and thus become hardened of heart.  It is still an out, but I would say God doesn't like it very much given Jesus' words.  This reason should be avoided at all costs but it still is there in case it happens.  One thing though we can say about divorce is that it never is considered a sin that is unforgivable by God.

That said, we need to be reminded that God still hates divorce.  It means then the Christian should make every effort to save their marriage and to strive to see that they view it as a spiritual covenant above the cultural contract.  Ultimately this is about shifting out understanding of marriage from the selfishness of the contract and moving it to the self-sacrifice of the covenant.  For the Christian it becomes very important to understand the difference between the two and strive for the covenant.

Next: God and the Cultural Contract.
Previous: The Bible and Polygamy
First Post in Series  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 36 - Hebrews and Peter

In the remaining epistles only two sections of scripture really address issues regarding marriage: Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

The single verse of Hebrews addresses several issues but the chief among them is that the writer states that marriage is an honorable thing. He also states that the marriage bed is not defiled in any way. Once again the image is to promote the idea that sexual activity in the confines of a marriage is not sinful or dishonorable but pure and undefiled. The verse goes on to say that other forms of sexual activity outside of marriage - God will judge them. There is definitely a upholding of the idea that marriage is a protective thing from the wrath of God but also a promotion of marital sexual activity, as it is not evil if it is in a marriage bed.

Peter's view of marriage is a little different than Paul's. Paul uses marriage as a living breathing example of Christ and his church. Peter is more practical but echos the idea of submission from the the woman. However, he does not invoke and Christ church image but one of Sarah and Abraham. Peter's message to women is six verses long and includes that submission has the following practical qualities: 1) it may lead to the salvation of their husband 2) Internal spiritual modesty is more valuable than vanity and 3) it reflects what holy women of old did.

Peter also addresses husbands to be understanding with the motivation that if they do their prayers will be unhindered.

One thing you can say for this, at this point what marriage is takes a back seat to what marriage should be in practical terms. It is almost as if the other issues are already understood.

Next: The Marriage of the Lamb
Previous: Paul - Divorce, Sex and Polygamy
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 23 - Solomon's Marriage Wisdom

The funny thing is that the Proverbs 31 wife is not actually Solomon's idea but King Lamuel's. Solomon gets the credit for compiling the proverbs so that is perhaps why he gets credit for her. Interestingly enough I find more modern women that hate this lady, she is too perfect and that may be Lamuel's point. She is a figment of desire but does not actually exist.

The thing with all of Solomon's wisdom is this, you need to remember it is coming from a guy that is married to multiple women. On the one hand, if your looking for advice that will steer you toward a closer relationship with your spouse in faithful monogamy, he is probably not the guy. On the other hand his is experience in marriage and that experience shows some wisdom.

In Song of Solomon, the wisdom is pretty straightforward. Be intimate and passionately attracted to each other. The fact is there is not a lot of marriage advice here mostly a poem about having a passionate love life.

Proverbs has many lines involving marriage:
1. Proverbs 5:18-19 reminds men to rejoice in the wife of your youth and let her breasts satisfy you at all times. If there is a more direct reference to foreplay in Scripture, I do not know where it is. As for the wife of your youth thing, which one Solomon?
2. Proverbs 6 is a really clear picture that adultery is bad, very bad. Keep sex and passion in marriage and avoid the temptress.
3. There are several proverbs about finding a good wife and the differences between a good wife and a bad one. Given that Solomon had a lot of time on the new wife lot, both finding and acquiring new wives, I think we can trust his advice.
4. Solomon does not like nagging wives and says it is better to live on a house roof in the corner, than in the house with the nagging wife. Once again, given his experience, we can believe him. On the flip side, he praises the virtuous wife and Lamuel's chapter sums up what that virtuous wife is like.

I know I am being a little light hearted with this but I do get a little chuckle when a guy, who's view of marriage is contract followed by contract with maybe one woman he was close to at all, gives marriage advice. But the truth is because he was a polygamist, Solomon would have possessed a good solid knowledge about women and what made a good wife and marriage relationship in a variety of circumstances. His first hand knowledge makes him an expert. You just can't help wondering why he did not follow his own advice at times.

Next: Solomon's Marriage Downfall.

'Duty' - Not a Four Letter Word

I have been trying to shake it out of my mind but my last post and some of the responses to it have left some concern about the definition of 'duty'. The way some talk about 'duty' you might think it is a four letter word used deride or diminish. Nothing could be further from the truth as all things of value find that value in duty.

Webster - Duty: obligatory tasks, conduct, service or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or a group); a moral and legal obligation and the force of those obligations.

Duty is a term that conveys a moral commitment to someone or something. It is not passive but active, it involves a choice to place the interests of others above one's own interest. Duty then is an expression of self-denial that results from one's commitments to others.

In my post on Christians, Intimacy and Sex, I pointed out that intimacy and sex are a duty in marriage. When you are married there is the obligation to one another to engage in self-sacrifice to meet each other's needs and wants. It is part of the process of becoming one flesh to give up what I feel I should do and instead do the right thing to become more intimate and one-flesh in nature. The point of it is that it is not my duty to point out my wife's duty to me, but to fulfill my own to her. Part of that should involve communication to her and my needs and wants (in a sense this is part of my duty as well, as my wife can't fulfill her duties to me if she does not know my needs and wants) but it is on my wife and her sense of duty to fulfil them once she knows them. Duty does not involve selfishness in this case but self-sacrifice. The very essence of what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:3 and 4 is fulfilling duty in one direction but giving authority in the opposite one. The husband must fulfill the duty to his wife but gives up authority over his own body to her. The reverse is also true. Mutual surrender of self and mutual obligation are what is expected in marriage as part of a covenant relationship and it is duty that ultimately is the driving force of that covenant.

Another great illustration involves military service. Men and women when they choose to serve, give up their rights as citizens to protect citizens of a country. Duty compels them to serve something greater than themselves above their own interests and safety.

Duty then becomes a significant cornerstone of things like: devotion, honor, love and faithfulness. Feelings will come and go, but a sense of duty transcends feelings and causes a person to sacrifice self interest for the sake of something bigger or higher.

Christians, Intimacy and Sex

In an effort to clarify my own thoughts as I prepare to preach on this topic this coming Sunday, I thought I would write about some current trends on the subject of sex and intimacy.

Now there is one thing that we humans do very well - have a lot of sex. Good thing too because it keeps us at least following one command of God - 'be fruitful and multiply'. The real clash usually always comes as to in what place sex has within Christianity.

You do not have to look to far and you will find some anti-Christian or atheist blaming Christians for all the anti-sex stuff out there or that we were the ones responsible for making sex boring.

Truth be told there are and have been a lot well meaning Christians who have spoiled sex at different times. Notable among them are St. Augustine and Holiness Groups.

When we all get to heaven we need to go up to St. Augustine (if he is there) and kick him right between the legs. If he hadn't been such a dog in his life before his conversion, he probably wouldn't have had such a negative attitude about sex afterwards. The guy loved sex and connected it to HIS sin so much that after he converted he pretty much said all sex was bad except for procreation (and then you better not lust after your spouse) and that if your intention wasn't to have children then you should abstain. His exaltation of celibacy was received too well and that is why priests in the Catholic church are required to be celibate today. This despite Paul saying several times that overseers (church leaders) should be married (1st Timothy and Titus).

The Holiness Movement of our own country does not really say sex is bad but they insinuate it so much that it creates the impression that it is bad even after marriage. What I mean is when I was growing up in church, the remaining holiness influence had this message about sex: "Don't do it until you married - it's bad." Now this created some interesting tests of faith. I remember overhearing a father of a recently married woman relating a story about how his daughter had confronted him: "The way you acted about sex dad, I thought it was something I had to endure, but you know I found out it is pretty fun." The father wondered where she got the idea that sex was bad.

I can tell you - 'more is caught than taught' when it comes to the intimacy / sex question in marriage and your children. How intimate were you and your wife while they were growing up? If you never touched one another, kissed or 'sported' in front of your kids, they might have gotten the impression that that stuff was dirty for married people. Not good, because it creates the impression that when your a Christian you are not going to have any fun while your married. Is it any wonder some kids bail on Christianity, it is perceived as a drag or sexually unfulfilling. This will become particularly pronounced if also do not talk about sex beyond the: 'don't till your married' line. It is OK to tell you kids sex is fun. It is also OK to tell them that outside of marriage sex will not be as fulfilling as inside a marriage.

Notice, I did not say the Puritans. While it is true that the Puritans did put on an outward show of righteousness and piety, inside the bedroom of a married Puritan couple it could get quite steamy. We know this from several letters that were sent between husbands and wives that were recovered. Simply put, they are both erotic and at times pornographic. No, the Puritans get a lot of unnecessary grief on this. They simply felt the sex was the playground for the married.

So Biblically what is intimacy. 1) It means to be one-flesh -- the two made one. Intimacy is both the state and process of two people becoming one entity. 2) It is to be naked and possess a total openness to one another that is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical. I simply do not understand people who think they can be intimate with someone and not have intimacy on all these levels. Settling for anything else is simply second best and less than ideal. 3) It means to be unashamed. You know I find it very odd when Christian married couples blush about the fact they are intimate. Is that not the way it is holy and good (Hebrews 13:4)? If something is holy and good there is no need to blush over it. It needs to be celebrated.

So then sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy between a couple. It is as much a spiritual act as it is a physical one. It is the joining of two people to produce life. Spiritual life for themselves as a couple and it has the added possibility of creating another human life under the right conditions. The reality is that the spiritual will take place far more than the physical, because most of the time sex is simply about the pleasure of being one flesh.

Given the fact that the second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, you would think that Christians could trumpet the simple fact that intimacy and sex are the greatest defense against it. Instead we usually say: 'don't be unfaithful'. Do you ever notice how negative our message always is about this? Paul's response to infidelity and sexual sin in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 was far different: 1) Be Married, 2) Fulfil your duty to each other - in short make love and make love often even if you do not necessarily feel like it -- he uses the word 'duty' for a reason, 3) Give you body to your spouse - it belongs to them, not you. 4) Do not deprive each other from sex unless you both agree to it as a time of fasting and prayer, 5) It is better to be married and do this than burn with lust. Paul's message is ultimately positive. Married people should be engaged in intimacy and sex as often a possible as one defense against infidelity and lust.

This of course brings up the challenge of intimacy and sex. That of making love and having sex in fresh and exciting ways.

For men there needs to be a recognition of where true sexual fulfilment comes from. I have never understood the guy who thinks he has great sexual prowess because he can have sex with a bunch of women. It does not impress me. The real challenge of intimacy and sex for a man is to truly be intimate with one woman and satisfy her on all levels for life. That is far harder to achieve than to learn a few tricks that allow you to play the field. It is simply much harder to reach a woman both emotionally and physically for her whole life.

For women, the challenge is even greater in some respects. Men are driven spiritually by their need for sex and women are not always in the mood for it while the man usually always is. There is the additional problem for many Christian women I encounter; in that, they play the morally superior card when it comes to their need for emotional intimacy over a man's need for sex. Truth is neither one is better or worse than the other. A man's need for sex is no worse morally than a woman's need for emotional intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin and both need to be fulfilled. The real issue for women is to remember that as a man is denied fulfillment in the area of sex, he gets hungry and the more hungry he gets the weaker he gets about it. As a man's spouse, a wife is supposed to be his satisfaction for this hunger. The more a wife delays in this though, the more a man will be tempted to fulfil this hunger in a way outside of her. There are other factors of course but this is the basic problem men have. Their sex drive does not shut off, it is always in standby mode at the very least.

When intimacy and sex are both fulfilling in a couple, the one great thing that happens is that both are more confident and happy about their lives. Ed Young was onto something when he suggested 7 days of sex to his married couples. The results is a couple that are both healthier and happier in their marriage.

Right now, the main thing Christians need to do is to speak positively about sex in the confines of marriage. Even more importantly, they need to live a life of intimacy and sexual fulfillment as an example to others. No good talking about a good thing if your not benefiting from it yourself. That would just make you a hypocrite.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 21 - King David, His Wives and Concubines

Now David was a man after God's own heart right? Did that also include that we know for sure the guy was married to eight wives and had ten concubines as well. In addition there are other wives and concubines hinted at but unnamed. It is good to be King. The great thing about this is that it illustrates so many of the concepts we have been talking about up to this point.

Michal was David's first wife, she was the daughter of Saul and is given to David because he slew Goliath. At first this seems to be a couple very much formed in covenant style even though it is an arranged marriage. She helps David escape from her father. After that the relationship goes down hill. Saul gives her to another man and David after Saul's death has to get her back. I think once she discovered that she was not the only wife at that time, things got a little strained. Then there is the famous dancing before the ark incident where she makes fun of David's naked worship. She never bears David a child because of it.

While in Hebron, on the run and ruling over Judah, David marries six women: Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah. Abigail is the most noteworthy as she saves her former husband from death only to have him die from the hand of God so she is free to marry David. Each of these women provides David with a son: Absolom and Amnon notable names among them. After they get to Jerusalem, he gets other sons and daughters through them as well. Talk about spreading out your gene pool.

Wife eight is Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David's sin is chronicled well in the Bible but on thing of note is after Bathsheba is indeed David's wife, they have many sons including Solomon and their relationship seems close at the time. This closeness does not seem to last though, as in the end David and Bathsheba sleep in different rooms and she has to bow down before him to get her son Solomon the throne.

Perhaps the reason David does lose this close relationship to Bathsheba is the fact that he also takes on ten concubines. In this case, there does not seem to be procreation as the goal. David already has many descendants. There is only one word that this is about -- SEX. The reason he makes them concubines is if a pregnancy does result from his party time, they are covered by a marriage contract. This however introduces the concept of marriage as a pleasure contract not necessarily for procreation. A way to make your personal house of ill repute not to have ill repute. Nothing like a legal brothel so when you head to bed you know there is a warm willing female waiting. David feels something for these ladies though, as after they are defiled by Absolom, he makes sure they are taken care of for the rest of their life but he never touches them again.

Now there is some debate about the fact David took all of King Saul's former wives (Saulie-boy was a polygamist as well). It was common practice among kings to take the wives of other kings they had conquered. David does this, but was this a event where he made them his own wives and had sex with them or did he just assume responsibility for them because of Johnathan. Were they his wives or just his responsibility? The Bible does not say but the idea behind it would be they became his wives and that means sealing the contract with sexual intercourse. David getting more tail and getting to be a man after God's own heart in the bargain - Damn.

The sad thing about all these wives is that David never seems to have a one flesh/covenant type relationship with one of them exclusively. It seems that way briefly with Michal, Abigail and Bathsheba, but no one keeps David's full attention. When it came to his wives and concubines, David seems to be content with contract relationships for the purpose of creating descendants or pleasure, but he seems to have no interest in becoming one flesh with a single woman exclusively. David seems to be a man who simply had a large sexual appetite and had the ability to fulfill it because he was both prosperous and had power. He also had the rational that becasue he was king, he had to insure he had a son to take throne after his death.

Next: Solomon: Extreme Polygamist

Curve Addiction - It Just Got Harder to Be a Man.

In a recent scientific study at the Georgia Gwinnett College a team of scientists discovered that in the male brain, when men looked at women who are curvy, that it stimulated the same place in the brain as the place that was discovered to be stimulated by recreational drugs. In short, men get the same pleasure centers in brain stimulated if they are smoking a joint or looking at a curvy woman.

Maybe that explains the popularity of art like the Venus de Milo above or on the opposite side -- pornography. Although the study concluded that the stimulation occurred regardless of whether or not the woman was clothed. Men are addicted to curves. As addictions go though this one seems to so common and natural that a perfectly good man can have it. Perhaps all men have it to one degree or another.

I also note that this curve addiction may extend to other things with curves - cars for example. The male brain simply likes the aesthetic properties of curves so much it sets of the pleasure centers of the brain. In addition to the normal challenges of being a man now we will have to guard against this new addiction - but then again it is not really new. Just another way God hardwired the male of the species so attraction would take place.

So ladies, when you catch you husband or significant other looking at another woman's curves. Just remember he may not be able to help it - he might be a curve addict. I have made many observations that this was so in the past but now I have science to back me up.

Curves - If you are a man, you may be addicted.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Facebook vs. Breastfeeding Mothers -- What's The Biblical Response?

I don't know how many people are aware of it but right now there is a heated battle going on between breastfeeding mothers and Facebook. Now, I have written on the topic of what nakedness is at length and this is one of those practical issues involving the subject. Back then I came to understanding of Biblical reality that basically said that nakedness is spiritual and that if Christians were going to try to make a Biblical case against a woman exposing her breasts in public from Scripture they would find it nearly impossible to do. There is no verse of Scripture that says that women's breasts are in and of themselves either sexual or a temptation to sin. Quite the opposite exists where women's breasts are either praised for their motherly role in nurturing children or for their beauty (Song of Solomon). Biblically there is no case to be made. In fact, you might say that the Bible is very positive about the use of the female breast to feed children and blesses it.

So what to do about mothers who want to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children? Biblically, there is no case against this and oddly enough maybe a case for saying this is good and wholesome. Church culture will of course disagree thinking that the morality they have created outside the Bible is still right.

Facebook has however done some stupid things on this. Above is a photo of a breastfeeding mother that was banned. At the same time here is a photo they cleared:

Now could someone tell me which of these two photos is more sensual? Shows more breast?
Another thing is that whoever is deleting these photos must be just pushing buttons at random sometimes. Another banned photo:

Even More Funny is this one:

So now great art work is to be banned because it has a breast in it and even female pigs are subject to being banned for showing their breasts?

Why do I mention this? Because this may be the issue that brings this whole thing national. If these women succeed in their petition and possible court cases as getting this defined as sexist and discriminatory that will of course pave the way for women should have the right to go topless, or topfree if you prefer, for the purpose of nurturing children or otherwise, simply because you cannot make a legal discrimination between the nipple of a man and a woman.

Organizations like TERA the Topfree Equal Rights Association make it crystal clear that to them this is not about religion but about equality under the law. There is also a statement that they do not believe the Bible says a woman should not expose their breasts -- they are right.

This fight is going to get ugly but in the end I believe that the law and the Bible may be on their side. IMHO

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 2 -- Were Adam and Eve Married?

It is an interesting question because we have certain notions of what it means when people get married but in the story of Creation none of those notions really exist: No ceremony, no vows, no license with a civil authority, etc.

What we do have is a statement by Adam -- "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man." Not exactly classic vows are they? And Eve says nothing. What follows are verses 24-25 which are commentary by Moses in a way -- "For this reason..." tells us that this story guided Moses' understanding about the significance of this action. He gives three things that seem to constitute a couple becoming husband and wife:
1. The man leaves his mother and father -- there must be a desire by the man to form his own household. He desires to take authority and start a family.
2. The man is joined to his wife -- now 'joined' could have multiple meanings but to put it in basic terms the couple forms their own household together and has sexual intercourse which makes them....
3. They become one flesh -- What God took apart is put back together and made one.
4. From then on they are naked and unashamed -- their relationship is open with no fear.

Notice that all that really matters is the formation of a household that is separate, sex and openness with no shame toward each other. Not a whole lot of romance in this story but then again if Eve asked Adam -- "Do you love me?" his response is -- "Who else?" There is also not a lot of cultural garbage attached to this either. No vows indicates Adam and his wife simply understood what it meant for them to be together. No ceremony meant they didn't real pronounce to any community other than the two of themselves and God that they were married. No licence indicates there were no obligations to law. They only had spiritual obligations to each other and God.

Husband and wife -- yes. Married -- by our cultural and religious standards -- No. Just a couple who just starts being together intimately in all senses right out of the gate. Maybe by God's standards, but the question of marriage isn't answered here. Marriage may be all the vows and crap, but being husband and wife is far more a constant thing and that is the nature of the question.

Next: Lamech and his two wives.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 21 -- Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting journey. My effort was to apply conservative methods to a subject that the 'conservative' tradition proclaims to have already figured out. Using one of the most conservative and methodical Bible study methods, I began to take apart the issue of nakedness and the Bible.

I began by observing what the Bible actually says about the subject. My initial inquiries were to get a definition of nakedness and to see if the there was a difference in what the Bible considers nakedness and what Christian culture considers nakedness. I had one particular issue in mind because of current cultural debate -- are women's breasts considered naked by the Bible. Going from the beginning to the end of Scripture I looked at every time I could find and think of where nakedness, breasts, women, etc. were mentioned to see if those passages would shed some light on the subject.

The interpretations and conclusions I was forced to draw based on what I was seeing were definitely different. I had to conclude that the Bible's definition of nakedness was far different and deeper than what contemporary conservative tradition has. Nakedness is the spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that is caused by sin and a human being is made of aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God. Conservative tradition focuses on the externals of nakedness, but the Biblical definition doesn't to focus on this at all but on the spiritual loss of innocence due to sin. The fact was that on the issue of physical nakedness the bible is back and forth. Adam and Eve are covered by God but Isaiah is told by God to strip naked and David dances naked before the ark and both are vindicated because of obedience. Physical nakedness is only shameful if accompanied by spiritual nakedness due to sin. When it came to the specific issue of women's breasts -- I could find no verse of Scripture that directly connected exposing them to being naked. If anything I found many verses singing their praises.

Applying this to real life became a challenge in the light of traditional conservative thinking. But one verse, a quote from Christ, kept going through my head. "Do not judge after the outward appearance, but judge righteous judgment." When it comes to this issue the church as a whole has the issue backwards. The average Christian is constantly making judgments about people's spirituality based on outward appearance when it comes to exposure of physical skin, but Biblically, in more ways than one, this is unsupportable. No one that I can see is judging things based on spiritual state. Nakedness of spirit is rarely dealt with effectively. I have seen many who were lost in sin fully clothed in body they were naked before God but the church ignores such people in favor of what going after what they can see. This changed my perspective on many issues including art, porn, public nudity, spiritual life and ministry in this world when nakedness is more and more common. I also had to conclude that the public perspective that a women exposing her breasts is nakedness is cultural not Biblical. It is no more nakedness for a woman than exposing her legs or face, but culturally this seems to be a last frontier of a culture war.

To contextualize all this became issues of living faith, liberty and the nature of sin and temptation for the believer. In the end i had to conclude that change the definition from physical to spiritual changes a lot mostly though it is about where the battle is really fought with lust -- in our hearts. It ultimately means that physical nakedness has no power unless the believer because of their own sin allows it to do so through spiritual nakedness. What makes a painting of a naked figure art or porn may greatly depend on the perspective. Is it viewed through the eyes of sin or innocence.

My largest final thought is how a person with a Biblical perspective is going to deal in our world and culture. This issue is both about the church culture as well as the world's

The great irony is that the greater difficulty is going to come from the church culture. Those of us focused on spiritual nakedness are going to look like we are not truly 'conservative' in our outlook. In truth, we are facing an issue of Christian liberty verses not making our weaker brother or sister stumble. We are going to have to think about how to walk a line between effective ministry where the strategy is about being in the world and not of it; and the other side where the strategy that is traditionally employed is legal action and isolation. This second strategy is going to ultimately fail and we must begin to exercise influence to a more Biblical way of doing things -- applying grace and truth to the true nakedness of this world -- the shame and exposure of sin.

To the world, we simply have to suspend our self-righteous opinions and oddly enough I think most people in the world would consider this a breath of fresh air compared to what we normally do. To actually rub shoulders with people who may be unacceptable to Christian culture but then effectively minister the grace and truth of Christ is the ultimate goal. To be able to go to places and be in situations where nudity is present but unaffected by it; to be able to look past the fashion and clothing issues to see real nakedness of spirit would be a more effective strategy than what is currently employed. It would also reflect more fully the ministry that Paul did in his world in the book of Acts.

I only have a couple of negative thoughts on these possibilities 1) nakedness being spiritual is going to be more nebulous -- it is much easier for people to define things by sight even though this is not truly accurate. 2) The church at present very likely lacks the spiritual maturity to reexamine themselves in the light of these Biblical understandings. I just think that the church culture is easier to accept than true Biblical definition. The later actually requires us to think.

For myself, I simply wait , pray and change my own attitude -- it is all I really can do. One thing is for sure though -- the nature of nakedness is changed in my mind and as much as possible, given those around me, I will walk in the liberty and truth of it.

Finis

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 20 -- Other Things to Consiider -- Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith

Now I want people to understand that I am not picking on Islamic people here. The issue is religion vs. faith in the context of nakedness and you can find dress codes all over the place for am multitude of reasons. Substitute any faith for 'Islamic' and you have the idea.

There is nothing more worthy of contempt that a person whose faith is only outward and has no living nature to it. Religiousness does this.

Jesus had no love for religious practice without heart. The Pharisees often were his favorite target. Why? Because to everyone else they were both righteous and religious, to Jesus they were whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. They controlled people's outward behavior -- what they ate, what they did on the Sabbath, what they wore, etc. They had no living relationship with God.

When I look at how the church views nakedness, I see more and more how this issue has become about the control of behavior. There are those in the church who want to define modest and nakedness for others and then tell them how to dress. They may be well meaning but in the end they tell other people what nakedness is (whether it is Biblical or not is not the issue) and then condemn those who do not live to their code. Probably the most heinous example of this is how men in the church tell women what to wear so they will not be tempted to lust. I love it when men, or women put up to it by men, start telling Christian women that if they do not dress a certain way they are acting like prostitutes or being sensual. They are inciting men to lust by how they dress. The real aim is control. I am going to also level the accusation that such men are actually guilty of lust and by trying to control women's dress they are admitting their weakness to it. I wonder why none of them looking the mirror and say -- 'I have to change'? Because they have a self righteous belief in the rightness of their opinion. "My lust is not my problem it is all these women running around 'naked' that are the problem".

Living Faith differs from this in that a person is dedicated to a relationship with God. it is not about religious codes or following rules as it is about love. Love toward God; love toward neighbor. Physical nakedness should not affect a person acting in in living faith and love. When a man sees a woman, regardless of dress, he will either choose to love who she is or treat her like an object. When religious people look at a woman and say "Did you see how she was immodestly dressed' they are not acting in love. They are simply bringing someone else down to justify themselves.

Living faith understands that their is a genuine difference between admiration of a person' body and lusting after a person's body.

One example in Scripture is Esther 2:7 where Esther is declared to be by the writer to be 'lovely of both form and features'. In short she had a great figure and a beautiful face. This is sincere admiration and does not diminish Esther's personhood one bit. The writer is not lusting his is simply pointing out that Esther was beautiful.

Another case of someone respecting the personhood of a woman is Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Because she was caught in the 'very act' of adultery, one thing can be surmised -she was probably dragged naked to Jesus. Sorry, they did not give her time to dress -- their whole purpose is to humiliate both her and Jesus. As she is dragged naked through the streets, her exposure and shame (true nakedness) would have been more pronounced. Honestly, I don't think the mystery of what Jesus wrote on the ground is as fascinating as how Jesus acts. He looks down to write -- respecting her nakedness. He only faces her to forgive her, once no one condemns her and he does not either. Her exposure and shame evaporates and she heads home with neither, even though the physical state of her dress has not changed. Of course someone probalby covered that up as well, but only after she has already been forgiven.

My point is that living faith based on love is not conscious of a persons physical nakedness but the spiritual nakedness of others. Then it seeks to cover that nakedness with the grace of Christ. Some of the most spiritually naked people I have met have been wearing the most modest of dress. While others I have seen are spiritually covered by god but were wearing little in the way of clothes.

Next: The Final Word on the the Bible and Nakedness.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 19 -- Other Things to Consiider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation.

Aah. Vintage Bomber nose Art from World War 2. The 'Modest Maiden" and compared to some of this art she is 'modest'. Got into nose art after I found out my grandfather was a WWII B-17 pilot. Never have found out what his plane's name was. In case anyone is out there who knows his name was Captain Edward William Raby.

OK. Liberty aside what can these new understandings do to help us in our understanding of the nature of sin and temptation.

First of all, we need to understand that sensuality and lust are spiritual forces. Can the visual be used by Satan to tempt us -- of course but how does it have this power. Certainly not, the nudity in and of itself. The power of lust comes from a lustful heart. Jesus was very clear about this -- that which comes out of a man corrupts us. What come from outside into us does not corrupt us.

Secondly, I would have to conclude that the notion that we can stop lust from happening by everyone covering up is nonsense. Whether a woman is nude or not a man could lust after her. Remember Jesus spoke into a Jewish Ancient Middle Eastern where women were cover up more than today. Still he warned that lusting after a woman was adultery. He also said something else which is the third point.

Thirdly, both Jesus and James point that the target we should take for action is ourselves. James gives us the fact we are tempted from our own lusts and Jesus gives us the notion that we should cut off hands and eyes to avoid it. Metaphorically, take extreme measures to correct yourself in the face of sin.

Add to these understandings that nakedness in spiritual and not necessarily physical and you get in my opinion a very different course of action in dealing with temptation to lust. The target dramatically changes from the outside world to yourself -- in particularly your own heart.

Perhaps an example is in order. Let's say I am walking down the streets of New York City on a hot day. Never been there but maybe someday. Two women approach me and because of the laws they are topless/topfree and it is OK because several men have their shirts off as well. To add to the crisis of temptation they are both highly attractive. To top it all off, I am street witnessing. They head right for me, curious as to what I am doing. The come right up to me and ask we what I am talking about.

Now if I was a conventional conservative Christian with traditional views on sexual temptation and nudity the proper response is to beat feet out of there and leave the women standing with their mouths open. We might send up a prayer that someone else will talk to them about Christ when they are 'properly attired".

Or I could show some Christian maturity and armed with my understandings about nakedness and what Biblically constitutes nudity, I might say a prayer for myself that lust will stay dormant in my heart and then witness to them myself. By so doing I also treat them as humans and not as problems. If they accept Christ, then things might change or maybe not. Might be an interesting testimony from them how they accepted Christ as Lord while strolling around topless on a hot day in New York City. Imaging that, God still loved them anyway.

Maybe the imperative of this understanding would hit you if I further tell you that two minutes later they are both hit by a car and killed. Which option does the will of the Father then?

Isn't it amazing how we pick and choose who is worthy of the message of the gospel simply because of outward appearances and our own religious prejudices as if sinners hold to our moral views.

For myself, I never won a single victory over lust by getting rid of every image or nudity from my presence. I did this once upon a time and I can tell you the human imagination is far more vivid than a photograph and more likely to produce lust. It wasn't until I changed my understandings of things and sought a Biblical understanding of nakedness and nudity that I began to realize that I was taught very badly on this issue by the church. The 'don't look' approach does not work. What did work is when I began to appreciate the human body for what it is -- a beautiful creation of God and learned to treat women as human beings regardless of how they are dressed (including those in photographs and artwork) that I began to win battles against my own heart. When I began to truly understand what nakedness is, that is when I began to win the battle against my own shame and exposure. When you can stand naked in front of God and feel no shame, then you are walking in victory in Christ and have returned to 'naked and unashamed'. Unlike the 'Modest Maiden' above, you can be exposed and understand it is about openness and intimacy, not shame as God originally intended.

Next: Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 18 -- Other Things to Consider -- Christian Liberty

Ancient Corinth above, Paul moved in these streets that were dotted with brothels, temple prostitutes and nude images.

Contextualization is the process by which you take what you have studied (observed/interpreted/applied) and put it into large stew pot of all previous knowledge and see if their are new understandings or changes to previous understandings you already have in your beliefs and theology. It is a lifelong and constant process.

The first question: What areas of understanding would this affect? I can think of three:

1. Christian Liberty

2. The Nature of Sin and Temptation

3. External Religion vs. Living Faith

I had originally thought to handle all of this in one post but I am going to take three. Let's Start with the issue of Christian Liberty

The issue of Christian Liberty is most properly presented by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 where Paul reminds us to take care with our liberty so as not to be a stumbling block to those that are weak. Paul also address the issue of immorality in chapter 5 of the same book so it was on his mind when he talked about liberty. The church of Corinth was given over to idolatry and immorality as mentioned before so it also puts things right in our context. Despite this, Paul champions liberty for the Christian but with this condition -- don't let your liberty become a stumbling block to the faith of another. The strong in there personal liberty should make sure their liberty does not become something the weak in liberty might use as an excuse to sin. Paul was so strong in this view that he was committed to not eating meat at all to make sure the weak did not stumble.

In the issue of nudity and nakedness, we need to define who is weak and who is strong. Based on chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians, we are never to condone immorality in fact strong action may be required to discipline those who act in immorality, but there is a great deal of difference between sexual intercourse and nudity for public display. One requires relationship (no matter how brief or poorly motivated) and the other simply is there for public view by anyone who looks.

The strong would be people who understand that Biblically 'nakedness' is a spiritual state of vulnerability and shame because of sin and not an outward state of undress. Paul was one of the strong here -- he was able to minister in places where nudity was both prevalent and common and did not succumb to temptation. The weak would be those who could not do this because nudity leads them to sin -- lust in particular. Those of us who understand the true definition of 'nakedness' need to be mindful that not everyone understands this and are not at liberty to act in this freedom. We cannot use our freedom as a stumbling block for others. It may be that some could join a Christian nudist colony and be free in it, but others would be drawn back to their sin. The very fact someone may discover its existence might be a stumbling block in and of itself. Liberty used as licence in this area may be out. That said I find to many weak people not willing to become stronger in their understanding. One could spend all their time trying not to offend the weak but that also is wrong -- liberty s their to make us free.

What the strong need to do is think of ways to walk in their liberty and not offend others. To be free but understanding of others. Probably the bast way is those who are strong can use this to help them in their fight against temptation and sin.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 17 -- The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction

Now as a general observation -- traditions die hard. Even if the truth of a situation can be shown -- the tradition will be maintained because it is...well tradition. That means even if you show the truth that a tradition is wrong it will be maintained. People do not like change and they do not like to admit they were wrong.

Now in the case of traditional Christianity and Nudity the issue is that Biblically there is little support for traditional understandings of what constitutes nudity and nakedness. However, I doubt they will change their definition. Simply put, they have invested a lot of time and energy maintaining and they are not going to consider it a waste. There are political and religious forces that will hold them in place as well.

In order to affect change, a younger generation that is willing to reexamine their understandings of Scripture. In short, there is a need for a reformation of Biblical thought and theology. You can see it already beginning in many ways but the most significant is the amount of young people leaving the church but returning but with their own ideas. The emergent church also has had an effect with people have their own Christianity on their own terms. I think an interesting transition is about to take place in the American church where a new generation is going to throw off the old ideas and rediscover a new Christianity that will be different. It will also have its problems but hopefully one thing that will be present is a desire to reexamine viewpoints in the context of what Scripture actually says. I hope the issues of sexuality and nakedness will be among them.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- An Initial Attempt to Contextualize.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 16 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World

Here in North America one thing is becoming clear -- skin is becoming more and more common. Christians still have to live and minister in this world, but it is becoming more clear that as we do we are going to see more public nudity and it is going to become more prevalent. The questions are course of action ones. We have one state that already has topless laws that allow women to be topless in the same places men can be and several others that have laws that allow these things in certain situations. I predict it is only the beginning.

The traditional 'conservative' position is one of isolation and an attempt at stopping the skin from showing as much as possible through political action. With the prevailing wind being that the church is supposed to stand for 'traditional morality' including women and men keeping their clothes on, it becomes difficult to kind of stand against that wind but here I go.

1) To be blunt, there is no Biblical support to the idea that nakedness, in and of itself is evil or sinful, and if we are going to maintain credibility we need to acknowledge this. The fact is our views on nudity, toplessness and other related issues reflect more of a holiness movement cultural mentality than an honest Biblical assessment.

2) I see this issue being used more as another reason to isolate ourselves from people who need the gospel. The nude beach sign above is humorous in its own way but there are real ones in certain states that warn of areas where nude sunbathers might be. On the streets and everywhere else in New York State, in any place a man can go without a shirt so can a woman. In many places, people are not a squeamish about showing their bodies to public consumption. The church's reaction has been one of hiding and avoiding or trying to reverse political decisions on enact moral legislation.

Looking at the book of Acts, I do not see the apostles doing this. As Paul ministered in Corinth he would have been greeted with sexual perversion on a grand scale. Nudity was in abundance in Corinth. I find it telling that Paul does not start a petition with the government to get it stopped. He does not stay away from areas where the temple prostitutes are showing themselves and their services. He does not lead a moral crusade against the nude temple statues and mosaics depicting nudity. He does none of that -- he ministers right in the middle of it all. He simply preaches the gospel and disciples those who believe. Even when the church is established his focus is the ethics and morality of the church -- not those outside of it. It is almost as if he expects sinners to sin -- imagine that.

I think the American church's failure in this country continues to be compounded because we act as America's moral police rather than engaging the message of Christ. When we do pop out of our holes we seem to call down curses from our ivory towers and then disappear back into our holes. So much for compassion for the lost -- we continue to want to meet the sinner on our terms instead of his or hers. To do this may require us to walk down the streets of cities where women are walking around topless, go to nude beaches and visit places where nudity in both reality and art are present. Why? Because it may be our only opportunity to minister to some people.

3) The current 'conservative' position fails to understand the nature of the lust problem in this country is not the prevalence of nude images. Nude images are the result of an already existing lust in people. The fact is there is a current philosophy among many church folks that in order to stop sin is to eliminate external temptation but this does not take James 1:13-15 into account. Temptation comes from our own flesh. It does not come from externals it comes from our heart. Why then do we think we will rid the world of evil by getting rid of externals -- eliminating pornography and making women cover up will no more get rid of lust than standing on your head.

Next: The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction.