To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:
1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution
All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.
Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:
1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue
In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.
When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.
Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.
Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.
Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.
The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.
1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.
2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.
3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.
4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.
5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.
Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.
Finis
Showing posts with label Series 007 - Sexuality the Church and America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Series 007 - Sexuality the Church and America. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 6 -- Legalized Prostitution
This is the last issue, other than the churches response, in this series.
Hookers, street walkers, working girls, soiled doves, doxies, call girls...no matter what you call them you are talking about prostitution. According to the best estimates 1% of women in the United States are prostitutes of some form or another. There is also no real economic class restrictions on women who engage in prostitution. There are a ton of part timers (waitress during the day; prostitute by night), to the down and outers to the expensive high end call girls.
Prostitution in legal in two states with limits.
In Rhode Island a woman can be a prostitute legally. What is illegal in Rhode Island is brothels, pandering (pimping) and street prostitution. In short a woman can prostitute herself for money but has to be an independent free agent and has to work out of her home.
Nevada also allows prostitution but a prostitute must be associated with a legal brothel. Prostitution outside these brothels is illegal. In Nevada there are also sundry laws regarding the fact that those that work in brothels must get regular health examinations among other things.
So what to think as a Christian. Historically this is a debatable point. Augustine said it should be tolerated so that men did not engage in some worse sin like homosexuality. Others have said it should be banned it because of its association with pagan worship.
Biblically, this is hard. Adultery is bad and so is fornication. Established that a Christian should not engage in prostitution or use a prostitute. See my previous posts along with the fact that even Jesus' lineage has two women how were or played the harlot -- Rehab and Tamar but both of them gave it up after they became part of God's chosen people. But what of society's choices in having to enforce these no prostitute laws.
1. The fact is that no prostitution law has stopped prostitution and all fifty states have women who practice it as well as men. Most prostitutes are non violent and the sin they engage in is not one that seems to harm anyone other than the promotion of disease.
2. Law enforcement finds itself using resources arresting women who are legal age for sex and otherwise law abiding. If you were to take those resources and say use them to fight underage prostitution and the sex slave trade would they be better spent? Perhaps it would, as I find those two things to be more ugly than regular plain Jane prostitution.
3. By making it legal you open up an avenue to regulate the practice. This means required health screenings and licenses with taxation for income. Instead of being totally in the dark authorities would have real numbers and situations to deal with instead of estimates. Another thing then is the legal trade would blow the whistle on the illegal stuff to get rid of competition. Then as legal businesses the women fall under the protection of the law and when violence does happen they would be at liberty to report it instead of just living with it for fear of being arrested themselves.
On the moral front I cannot condone the practice, but practically it exists and will not go away. "The world's oldest profession" got that name for a reason. As a Christian can I advocate the above for society. Perhaps. This is one issue where I think states rights should dominate the discussion. If the majority says illegal then it should be illegal but to those that legalize prostitution in some way like Rhode Island or Nevada, I can't really yell as they have made the decisions as a state. Let's the states decide and bring it to a vote of the public would be the best solution.
Next: How Should the Church React to All This?
Hookers, street walkers, working girls, soiled doves, doxies, call girls...no matter what you call them you are talking about prostitution. According to the best estimates 1% of women in the United States are prostitutes of some form or another. There is also no real economic class restrictions on women who engage in prostitution. There are a ton of part timers (waitress during the day; prostitute by night), to the down and outers to the expensive high end call girls.
Prostitution in legal in two states with limits.
In Rhode Island a woman can be a prostitute legally. What is illegal in Rhode Island is brothels, pandering (pimping) and street prostitution. In short a woman can prostitute herself for money but has to be an independent free agent and has to work out of her home.
Nevada also allows prostitution but a prostitute must be associated with a legal brothel. Prostitution outside these brothels is illegal. In Nevada there are also sundry laws regarding the fact that those that work in brothels must get regular health examinations among other things.
So what to think as a Christian. Historically this is a debatable point. Augustine said it should be tolerated so that men did not engage in some worse sin like homosexuality. Others have said it should be banned it because of its association with pagan worship.
Biblically, this is hard. Adultery is bad and so is fornication. Established that a Christian should not engage in prostitution or use a prostitute. See my previous posts along with the fact that even Jesus' lineage has two women how were or played the harlot -- Rehab and Tamar but both of them gave it up after they became part of God's chosen people. But what of society's choices in having to enforce these no prostitute laws.
1. The fact is that no prostitution law has stopped prostitution and all fifty states have women who practice it as well as men. Most prostitutes are non violent and the sin they engage in is not one that seems to harm anyone other than the promotion of disease.
2. Law enforcement finds itself using resources arresting women who are legal age for sex and otherwise law abiding. If you were to take those resources and say use them to fight underage prostitution and the sex slave trade would they be better spent? Perhaps it would, as I find those two things to be more ugly than regular plain Jane prostitution.
3. By making it legal you open up an avenue to regulate the practice. This means required health screenings and licenses with taxation for income. Instead of being totally in the dark authorities would have real numbers and situations to deal with instead of estimates. Another thing then is the legal trade would blow the whistle on the illegal stuff to get rid of competition. Then as legal businesses the women fall under the protection of the law and when violence does happen they would be at liberty to report it instead of just living with it for fear of being arrested themselves.
On the moral front I cannot condone the practice, but practically it exists and will not go away. "The world's oldest profession" got that name for a reason. As a Christian can I advocate the above for society. Perhaps. This is one issue where I think states rights should dominate the discussion. If the majority says illegal then it should be illegal but to those that legalize prostitution in some way like Rhode Island or Nevada, I can't really yell as they have made the decisions as a state. Let's the states decide and bring it to a vote of the public would be the best solution.
Next: How Should the Church React to All This?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 5 -- Polygamy
There is one supreme difficulty in saying polygamy is not Biblical -- so many heroes of the faith were in polygamist relationships: Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, David, Solomon, for the guys along with many others. Sarah, Leah, Hannah, Abigail for the girls along with others. Fact is multiple wives with one guy is quite common in the Old Testament.
The New Testament is completely silent other than the mention by Paul that church officers should be the husband of one wife. The fact is in the ideal of the New Testament both in the teaching of Christ and Paul is one man and one woman for life. However, polygamy is never condemned in either Testament.
The best we can say is that the Bible does not promote or condemn polygamy but holds up monogamy as the ideal standard. Nothing is said about one woman with multiple guys but then again it does not appear at all in Scripture -- prohibition by silence? The issue back then is parentage and when a woman has a child there is no doubt who the mother is but the father can only be verified by the husband being the only guy to 'know' his wife.
Bible aside, are there any good reasons for polygamy, Let's list the pros and cons.
Pro: Defence Against Infertility: in fact this seems to be one of the reasons it was allowed in the society of Abraham and Sarah because in the case of infertility the man had a second option to produce and heir. Today we have a lot of science to do this kind of thing be even that does not always work. If there is the option to do like Sarah did, would some couples take it today? They might because not everyone is comfort able with the unknown donor or adoption.
Con: Spousal Rivalry: Not every biblical account has this but many do: Sarah/Hagar, Leah/Rachel, Hannah/Peninnah are but three notable examples. There are some cases however of of seemingly peaceful polygamy, even in the present day. Can happen but also could be absent.
Pro: Women taken care of in Later Life: Much as I hate to say it this one isn't mine, but a woman I talked to, who was elderly, once told me that she would not mind having to share a husband because having a man around part of the time was better than having no man at all and the loneliness that goes with it. Given that women outlive men this is what happens most of the time. She cited being taken care of and occasional companionship as reasons.
Con: Woman Used As Property: In many places around the world this is the case with polygamy, it is basically another asset to the men to have multiple wives but none of them are loved just used. Would that be the case in freely entered into polygamy? Well, doesn't abuse exist in monogamy too. Either way this does not help and maybe having more than one wife would soften some men. Also with more than one woman, abuse might not go unreported as much. The truth is that even though abuse is often expected both toward women and and children in polygamist relationships, it is actually rarer than in monogamous ones.
Pro: Another Option Instead of Being an Unwed Mother: The standard sad story is boy meets girl, girl and boy have sex, girl gets pregnant, boy feels trapped, boy takes off leaving girl alone. Polygamy might eliminate the 'boy feels trapped' part and thus the girl left alone. Biblically, the guy is obligated to marry the girl and provide for her and her children, also however, if he works hard and can afford it he could take another wife later. Double motivation? As a Variant to this -- Polygamy as an option to divorce.
Con: Complicated Family History: "Yeah this is my oldest son by my third wife" comes to mind. One thing though is that the kids would have two parents in stead of one but the legalities of this are going to get complicated.
Pro: Shared Motherly Resources: This is another one from a woman. Wouldn't it be nice to take turns watching the children and taking care of them. One breastfeeding mother said it would also be nice to have more than her small breasts to feed her child. One wife acting as wet nurse so to speak. Additionally, in our career minded world -- one woman works and the other does child care. Or you could alternate working and child care with three jobs. The possibilities get long as long as you have a group of wives who work together well.
Con: Not the Ideal: Polygamy is not ideal Biblically. In the end it becomes a state where the love Christ has for a church (which is supposed to be reflected in marriage) really does not exist.
In America this notion of polygamy is gaining popularity and a lot of the reasons I gave above are from a simple 'legalized polygamy" search. Lots of hits, so if you are look for more pros and cons just do that search yourself.
Can I make a call about it as a theologian. The Christian should aim at faithful monogamy as the ideal, but a can see no way to preach or teach against polygamy. To each their own, but the most practical thing I can say is -- Can You Really Handle Two or More Women? No Thanks.
Next: Legalized Prostitution (yeah, I thought of another one)
The New Testament is completely silent other than the mention by Paul that church officers should be the husband of one wife. The fact is in the ideal of the New Testament both in the teaching of Christ and Paul is one man and one woman for life. However, polygamy is never condemned in either Testament.
The best we can say is that the Bible does not promote or condemn polygamy but holds up monogamy as the ideal standard. Nothing is said about one woman with multiple guys but then again it does not appear at all in Scripture -- prohibition by silence? The issue back then is parentage and when a woman has a child there is no doubt who the mother is but the father can only be verified by the husband being the only guy to 'know' his wife.
Bible aside, are there any good reasons for polygamy, Let's list the pros and cons.
Pro: Defence Against Infertility: in fact this seems to be one of the reasons it was allowed in the society of Abraham and Sarah because in the case of infertility the man had a second option to produce and heir. Today we have a lot of science to do this kind of thing be even that does not always work. If there is the option to do like Sarah did, would some couples take it today? They might because not everyone is comfort able with the unknown donor or adoption.
Con: Spousal Rivalry: Not every biblical account has this but many do: Sarah/Hagar, Leah/Rachel, Hannah/Peninnah are but three notable examples. There are some cases however of of seemingly peaceful polygamy, even in the present day. Can happen but also could be absent.
Pro: Women taken care of in Later Life: Much as I hate to say it this one isn't mine, but a woman I talked to, who was elderly, once told me that she would not mind having to share a husband because having a man around part of the time was better than having no man at all and the loneliness that goes with it. Given that women outlive men this is what happens most of the time. She cited being taken care of and occasional companionship as reasons.
Con: Woman Used As Property: In many places around the world this is the case with polygamy, it is basically another asset to the men to have multiple wives but none of them are loved just used. Would that be the case in freely entered into polygamy? Well, doesn't abuse exist in monogamy too. Either way this does not help and maybe having more than one wife would soften some men. Also with more than one woman, abuse might not go unreported as much. The truth is that even though abuse is often expected both toward women and and children in polygamist relationships, it is actually rarer than in monogamous ones.
Pro: Another Option Instead of Being an Unwed Mother: The standard sad story is boy meets girl, girl and boy have sex, girl gets pregnant, boy feels trapped, boy takes off leaving girl alone. Polygamy might eliminate the 'boy feels trapped' part and thus the girl left alone. Biblically, the guy is obligated to marry the girl and provide for her and her children, also however, if he works hard and can afford it he could take another wife later. Double motivation? As a Variant to this -- Polygamy as an option to divorce.
Con: Complicated Family History: "Yeah this is my oldest son by my third wife" comes to mind. One thing though is that the kids would have two parents in stead of one but the legalities of this are going to get complicated.
Pro: Shared Motherly Resources: This is another one from a woman. Wouldn't it be nice to take turns watching the children and taking care of them. One breastfeeding mother said it would also be nice to have more than her small breasts to feed her child. One wife acting as wet nurse so to speak. Additionally, in our career minded world -- one woman works and the other does child care. Or you could alternate working and child care with three jobs. The possibilities get long as long as you have a group of wives who work together well.
Con: Not the Ideal: Polygamy is not ideal Biblically. In the end it becomes a state where the love Christ has for a church (which is supposed to be reflected in marriage) really does not exist.
In America this notion of polygamy is gaining popularity and a lot of the reasons I gave above are from a simple 'legalized polygamy" search. Lots of hits, so if you are look for more pros and cons just do that search yourself.
Can I make a call about it as a theologian. The Christian should aim at faithful monogamy as the ideal, but a can see no way to preach or teach against polygamy. To each their own, but the most practical thing I can say is -- Can You Really Handle Two or More Women? No Thanks.
Next: Legalized Prostitution (yeah, I thought of another one)
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 4 -- Friends with Fringe Benefits
I first heard the term 'friends with fringe benefits' back about ten years ago but it seems to have gained steam over the years. The term basically refers to a couple or other situation that people are not considering any long term relationship but are willing to have casual sex. In my ministry, I have encountered several couples who had this sort of relationship. 'Were just friends' but then a long passionate kiss or comment later and it is clear that the friendship is more than platonic. It is a sexual friendship with no expectation that it will be anything other than that.
Casual sex is making a comeback of sorts. The sexual revolution of the 70s was big but the AIDS issue of the 80s slowed things down a bit. Recently though it seems it is getting larger again, probably do to the fact of increasingly open sexual education, a topic of mine for an earlier post, but for now lets deal with the existence of casual sex and who it affects. Well, just about everybody. Since I have turned forty, my e-mail has had no less than three spam type e-mails inviting me to join sites that for all practical purposes are not about relationships but casual sex. Also my advertising that gets place in front of me while I am getting my e-mail has much the same thing in the sidebar from time to time. Don't think this is odd, I hear it happens to everybody because the assumption is that once you hit mid life you want to take chances and do something different and one of the areas this happens most often is sex.
Why is this dangerous? Because it assumes that sex is purely a physical act for fun with no other possible consequences other than pregnancy (which can be avoided through birth control) or a STD (avoided through condom use). These two issues aside, the fact is there is something going on here that goes larger than just the physical.
What exactly happens when a couple has sexual intercourse? The Bible describes this in a couple of ways:
1. 'Knowing' -- Adam knew his wife.... -- more than just sex it is a knowing of the other person in a way you cannot know someone without sex. From personal experience I can tell you there are things I know about my wife's spirit, emotions, mind and body that no one else knows because I have had sex with her and she with me. These things no one else will every know unless we violate our marriage covenant. Which I have no plans on doing, of course, but such a violation causes such knowledge to leak out to others who have no business knowing what we know, should it take place.
2. Becoming one flesh. The union of husband and wife is called this but Paul also uses this term do describe the actions of a man and and a harlot -- 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (verses 15-16 in particular).
Looking at sexual intercourse theologically this means that something happens every time sexual intercourse takes place that is a knowing of the other person on all levels that binds a person to the other and makes them one flesh. When sin is committed in sex, it usually involves not respecting this union and the spiritual and mental/emotional side of it as well.
This is why the Law of Moses prescribed automatic marriage for couples caught in fornication. 'Dad I'm pregnant and Jake is the father" had automatic consequences -- the man and woman were married immediately and the man lost his option to divorce the girl. (I wonder what would happen if we enforced that one today?). The union was assumed and sex is what caused it to happen.
Paul comments directly on this in relationship to fornication (in his case fornication was the casual sex involved in pagan rites of worship) and makes the following points in 1 Corinthians 6:
1. The body is for the Lord
2. God has raised us up by His power
3. Our bodies are thus members of Christ
4. If we join in fornication with someone we are making the body of Christ joined with that person in fornication -- in his case he says by doing this a person was making the body of Christ a member with a harlot.
5. Regardless if there is a marriage covenant or not, sexual intercourse makes two people one in the spirit as well as flesh.
6. Fornication is a sin against a person's own body for we are joined to Christ
7. Our body is the temple of the holy Spirit we should treat it accordingly.
8. Because we have been bought with a price, including our bodies, we should glorify the Lord in our bodies.
Now, lets get back to this friends with fringe benefits thing. The fact is that when you and you friend have sex you are joining yourself to at all levels (spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically). This has an affect on all these areas because once you come apart from each other and go different ways you will never be the same because you know the other person in a way others do not on all levels. That is until you or they have sex with someone else. Regardless of what you think is happening this is what the Bible says is happening. Our society and culture may have changed, but the Word of God has not. This why, no matter what people may say about it, people are unhappy about their casual sexual relationships over time. Because there you are 'knowing' someone intimately but forcing yourself to deny it. It is this denial that something is wrong and our effective treating each other as objects for sexual gratification that cause this -- SIN.
Now I have no problem with the idea that sex is fun and should be fun. What I have a problem with is that you can have fun with sex without commitment in marriage without spiritual and other consequences before yourself and God and your relationship to him will suffer for it. When you first treat the person as a person by committing yourself to them for life in marriage and then explore the fun of sex, then the 'knowing' gained can be shared in complete confidence and trust.
For the Christian there can be no such thing as 'friends with fringe benefits'. The church therefore must take an active stand against such relationships in any way it can without being a bunch of moral judges that condemn people. This sin is pardonable and once true salvation enters, then and only then does the law of God really come in force. My personal stance has always been to tell such couples to forget me marrying them and just head to the justice of the peace, magistrate or whatever and get the piece of paper. You are already married just let the law know it.
IMHO
Next: Polygamy
Casual sex is making a comeback of sorts. The sexual revolution of the 70s was big but the AIDS issue of the 80s slowed things down a bit. Recently though it seems it is getting larger again, probably do to the fact of increasingly open sexual education, a topic of mine for an earlier post, but for now lets deal with the existence of casual sex and who it affects. Well, just about everybody. Since I have turned forty, my e-mail has had no less than three spam type e-mails inviting me to join sites that for all practical purposes are not about relationships but casual sex. Also my advertising that gets place in front of me while I am getting my e-mail has much the same thing in the sidebar from time to time. Don't think this is odd, I hear it happens to everybody because the assumption is that once you hit mid life you want to take chances and do something different and one of the areas this happens most often is sex.
Why is this dangerous? Because it assumes that sex is purely a physical act for fun with no other possible consequences other than pregnancy (which can be avoided through birth control) or a STD (avoided through condom use). These two issues aside, the fact is there is something going on here that goes larger than just the physical.
What exactly happens when a couple has sexual intercourse? The Bible describes this in a couple of ways:
1. 'Knowing' -- Adam knew his wife.... -- more than just sex it is a knowing of the other person in a way you cannot know someone without sex. From personal experience I can tell you there are things I know about my wife's spirit, emotions, mind and body that no one else knows because I have had sex with her and she with me. These things no one else will every know unless we violate our marriage covenant. Which I have no plans on doing, of course, but such a violation causes such knowledge to leak out to others who have no business knowing what we know, should it take place.
2. Becoming one flesh. The union of husband and wife is called this but Paul also uses this term do describe the actions of a man and and a harlot -- 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (verses 15-16 in particular).
Looking at sexual intercourse theologically this means that something happens every time sexual intercourse takes place that is a knowing of the other person on all levels that binds a person to the other and makes them one flesh. When sin is committed in sex, it usually involves not respecting this union and the spiritual and mental/emotional side of it as well.
This is why the Law of Moses prescribed automatic marriage for couples caught in fornication. 'Dad I'm pregnant and Jake is the father" had automatic consequences -- the man and woman were married immediately and the man lost his option to divorce the girl. (I wonder what would happen if we enforced that one today?). The union was assumed and sex is what caused it to happen.
Paul comments directly on this in relationship to fornication (in his case fornication was the casual sex involved in pagan rites of worship) and makes the following points in 1 Corinthians 6:
1. The body is for the Lord
2. God has raised us up by His power
3. Our bodies are thus members of Christ
4. If we join in fornication with someone we are making the body of Christ joined with that person in fornication -- in his case he says by doing this a person was making the body of Christ a member with a harlot.
5. Regardless if there is a marriage covenant or not, sexual intercourse makes two people one in the spirit as well as flesh.
6. Fornication is a sin against a person's own body for we are joined to Christ
7. Our body is the temple of the holy Spirit we should treat it accordingly.
8. Because we have been bought with a price, including our bodies, we should glorify the Lord in our bodies.
Now, lets get back to this friends with fringe benefits thing. The fact is that when you and you friend have sex you are joining yourself to at all levels (spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically). This has an affect on all these areas because once you come apart from each other and go different ways you will never be the same because you know the other person in a way others do not on all levels. That is until you or they have sex with someone else. Regardless of what you think is happening this is what the Bible says is happening. Our society and culture may have changed, but the Word of God has not. This why, no matter what people may say about it, people are unhappy about their casual sexual relationships over time. Because there you are 'knowing' someone intimately but forcing yourself to deny it. It is this denial that something is wrong and our effective treating each other as objects for sexual gratification that cause this -- SIN.
Now I have no problem with the idea that sex is fun and should be fun. What I have a problem with is that you can have fun with sex without commitment in marriage without spiritual and other consequences before yourself and God and your relationship to him will suffer for it. When you first treat the person as a person by committing yourself to them for life in marriage and then explore the fun of sex, then the 'knowing' gained can be shared in complete confidence and trust.
For the Christian there can be no such thing as 'friends with fringe benefits'. The church therefore must take an active stand against such relationships in any way it can without being a bunch of moral judges that condemn people. This sin is pardonable and once true salvation enters, then and only then does the law of God really come in force. My personal stance has always been to tell such couples to forget me marrying them and just head to the justice of the peace, magistrate or whatever and get the piece of paper. You are already married just let the law know it.
IMHO
Next: Polygamy
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 3 -- Homosexual Marriage
Isn't it interesting how sometimes things come together that you didn't expect or look for? Like my post for today and the decision yesterday to allow active and practicing homosexuals to be ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELC). I really wonder how they can claim to be Evangelical (there is little conservative evangelicalism in this decision) or Lutheran (Can we really see Martin Luther advocating homosexuals in the pulpit), but then again nothing surprises me these days.
There is absolutely no Biblical basis to say homosexuality is justified by God. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God looks at homosexuality as one of the great sins. Right up their with adultery and rape. Homosexuality is listed by multiple Biblical authors as a sin that will destroy you covenant with God both in the Old and New Testaments. Yet here we are not only fighting about homosexual marriage but whether or not to let such people in the pulpit to preach the Word they are violating.
Now, I want something understood, I consider adultery to be just as bad and I have a fit where many denominations have rehab stuff for ministers caught in infidelity but not in homosexuality. Both are equally abhorrent to God. It is only in our minds that we make one above the other. In the Law of Moses both were punishable by death along with rape, murder and sorcery. (Not fornication, couples caught in 'trouble' are simply required to get married with no option for divorce) The reason I say this is I know many churches where homosexuals are forbidden to attend but people in adultery are openly allowed to go. Sorry, double standard. Sexual sin is sexual sin.
Now, in our relationship with the world I think we need to realize not everyone is a Christian and we can't go around legislating morality or in the end homosexual marriage. The battle is not over on this but I believe it will end with some states having homosexual rights. California surprised me. but don't think that is forever. Just means California gays will probably take their case to a higher court which is what they have been looking for in the first place. What we will see is gays immigrating to states that allow them their wishes. Ultimately legislation solves nothing, if people want to engage in sin, they will do so whether it is legal or not. Only the gospel and the changed life through its acceptance stops homosexuality, adultery or any other sin. This gospel is very difficult to preach to someone if they look at you as an enemy political force or trying to take away their rights.
Homosexual marriage has some implications to other things normally seen in this issue.
1. If the homosexuals get their way, what other marriage situations will suddenly petition to have equal rights: polygamy (subject of another post in this series) -- which might include one man with multiple women or *gasp* a woman with multiple men and group marriages of all types (One form is 'line marriage' with men and women sharing each other -- say three men and four women -- the combinations are endless -- for the purpose creating and raising children -- a la Robert A. Heinlein's views in his science fiction) and open marriages. Or is it open if hubby is dating his perspective fourth wife? Yipe, this gets confusing doesn't it
2. Homosexual and other marriage situations listed above in the church. (I think it might be very interesting for some guy to come into my church and introduce me to his wives!)
The church's response will be interesting because as you can see in some churches like the ELC they accept such things and it makes no difference to many of them if your homosexual or polygamist (See the Mormons in certain places). But what about those good ole boy conservative Evangelicals?
1. We will take the morally superior position and blast people for their lack of moral fortitude that we obviously possess and they don't.
2. We will enter the halls of government as moral crusaders trying to fix every body's bad morality and make things right.
3. When we fail, (and we will fail -- we have been failing with this tactic for over fifty years) we will advocate isolation and casting out with no hope of reconciliation. Creating our own Christian enclaves shut off from the world Jesus loves but is lost in sin.
Not good, but then again it is what we do, even if it hasn't ever ultimately worked. What might work is never done, because we are always looking for someone to blame for the fall of morality in the United States and the real answer is not them, but us. We stopped making change about the gospel and instead left it to the courts and legislatures. We really don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit or the gospel anymore, if we did we would use them more for this and other situations.
Next: Friends with Fringe Benefits
There is absolutely no Biblical basis to say homosexuality is justified by God. In fact, quite the opposite is true. God looks at homosexuality as one of the great sins. Right up their with adultery and rape. Homosexuality is listed by multiple Biblical authors as a sin that will destroy you covenant with God both in the Old and New Testaments. Yet here we are not only fighting about homosexual marriage but whether or not to let such people in the pulpit to preach the Word they are violating.
Now, I want something understood, I consider adultery to be just as bad and I have a fit where many denominations have rehab stuff for ministers caught in infidelity but not in homosexuality. Both are equally abhorrent to God. It is only in our minds that we make one above the other. In the Law of Moses both were punishable by death along with rape, murder and sorcery. (Not fornication, couples caught in 'trouble' are simply required to get married with no option for divorce) The reason I say this is I know many churches where homosexuals are forbidden to attend but people in adultery are openly allowed to go. Sorry, double standard. Sexual sin is sexual sin.
Now, in our relationship with the world I think we need to realize not everyone is a Christian and we can't go around legislating morality or in the end homosexual marriage. The battle is not over on this but I believe it will end with some states having homosexual rights. California surprised me. but don't think that is forever. Just means California gays will probably take their case to a higher court which is what they have been looking for in the first place. What we will see is gays immigrating to states that allow them their wishes. Ultimately legislation solves nothing, if people want to engage in sin, they will do so whether it is legal or not. Only the gospel and the changed life through its acceptance stops homosexuality, adultery or any other sin. This gospel is very difficult to preach to someone if they look at you as an enemy political force or trying to take away their rights.
Homosexual marriage has some implications to other things normally seen in this issue.
1. If the homosexuals get their way, what other marriage situations will suddenly petition to have equal rights: polygamy (subject of another post in this series) -- which might include one man with multiple women or *gasp* a woman with multiple men and group marriages of all types (One form is 'line marriage' with men and women sharing each other -- say three men and four women -- the combinations are endless -- for the purpose creating and raising children -- a la Robert A. Heinlein's views in his science fiction) and open marriages. Or is it open if hubby is dating his perspective fourth wife? Yipe, this gets confusing doesn't it
2. Homosexual and other marriage situations listed above in the church. (I think it might be very interesting for some guy to come into my church and introduce me to his wives!)
The church's response will be interesting because as you can see in some churches like the ELC they accept such things and it makes no difference to many of them if your homosexual or polygamist (See the Mormons in certain places). But what about those good ole boy conservative Evangelicals?
1. We will take the morally superior position and blast people for their lack of moral fortitude that we obviously possess and they don't.
2. We will enter the halls of government as moral crusaders trying to fix every body's bad morality and make things right.
3. When we fail, (and we will fail -- we have been failing with this tactic for over fifty years) we will advocate isolation and casting out with no hope of reconciliation. Creating our own Christian enclaves shut off from the world Jesus loves but is lost in sin.
Not good, but then again it is what we do, even if it hasn't ever ultimately worked. What might work is never done, because we are always looking for someone to blame for the fall of morality in the United States and the real answer is not them, but us. We stopped making change about the gospel and instead left it to the courts and legislatures. We really don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit or the gospel anymore, if we did we would use them more for this and other situations.
Next: Friends with Fringe Benefits
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 2 -- Pornography
I originally was going to talk about the issue of homosexual marriage as part two but the issue of pornography and public nudity have a link that needs to be considered. The issue involves the definition of pornography and what changes would be made to that definition if women are allowed to show their breasts in public. Suppose in ten years ladies of the 'topfree' movement have won a national decision that allows them to be 'topfree' in any public places a man can. What then happen to all the pictures involving women with exposed breasts? Are they still considered porn? Probably not. What that means is that certain covers of magazines would change. For example (once again I am not trying to freak anyone out with this picture but I need a real life illustration to make my point), here is a cover from Maxim magazine:
This cover is indicative of a lot of men's magazines that do not necessarily contain naked pictures but if 'topfreedom' is achieved this lady would be allowed to drop her arm and hand without fear of prosecution for the magizine. Now, I pass the magazine racks everyday at my job and when I shop as well and so do a lot of other people. If women can be 'topfree' in public, then the covers of magazines would then be allowed to do the same. The issue I have is suddenly being forced to explain to children what is going on and why that women can show her breasts now and what are they? If I was a parent of small children and did not want my child to be exposed to this kind of thing, I would be out of luck. The store could say: "no shirt, no shoes no service" but I still have to go by the magazine rack where breasts would be visible.
Another issue would be Internet porn. What I mean is suppose you are using a filter of a secular nature and the filter does not allow you to filter out exposed female breasts because of the changes in the law. Your kid could be doing a report on some famous female celebrity and wham there is a picture of that celeb with herself exposed. Happens a lot these days.
That then brings up the question of then what does constitute pornography -- pictures of sexual genitalia and sexual acts only? This leaves a lot of wiggle room for a lot of other things because you dealing with the fine line of when exactly does an image become sexually explicit. That line would be even finer and more difficult to see.
The Church has never dealt with this issue well to begin with and this would make it even worse. Gentlemen we are going to have to live in a world when the sexually suggestive poses are going to be less suggestive and more overt and this going to mean a necessary change in the way we deal with this temptation. Ladies understand that your competition level for your husband's or boyfriend's attention will become more difficult. The 'topfreedom' movement may have a few good points, but I don't know if they see all the ramifications of their actions should they succeed. Pornography would be one issue that will certainly be affected.
Christians need to be ready for this change and not get overly bent out of shape about it, but take action that shields ourselves from the temptations that will be associated with these possible changes. I don't think we can stop this from happening in the very near future and the plan need to be one not of protest but one of reaching people (despite their ethical differences with us) for Christ with the life changing gospel.
IMHO
Next: Homosexual Marriage ( I mean it this time)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 1 -- Public Nudity
This is a new series based on some observations I made a week ago about the future of sexual morality in America. In this post, I want to look more fully at the issue of public nudity. The backdrop of this is my series Nudity, Modesty and Culture (If you haven't read it, do so and then come back) where I deal with the following related topics on this issue:
1. That nudity from a Biblical point of view consists of what the apron area of a persons body.
2. The idea of nakedness and women's breasts is never connected in Scripture.
3. Modesty Biblically is supposed to be a matter heart and spirit but the church often makes it a matter of dress and covering up.
4. In the end, modesty is culturally defined.
Which leads us to the culture war between Christians and the secular world of the USA about public nudity. There are significant things to consider here as I look at the news and issues coming up very soon.
1. Several women's groups, lead by the Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) are advocating equal rights for women to go topless (topfree) in the same places men can -- You can go to their web site but understand they have many pictures of 'topfree' women so if this bothers you don't go. A good chunk of the main supporters are women who breastfeed which have increased TERA's membership in number since the whole Facebook breastfeeding fiasco. There are also a growing number of women who simply see this as a constitutional issue. The argument leveled is that if a man can appear in public without a shirt a women should also be allowed to do so as well. They see this as a question of equal rights under law. The inequality being that a man is only considered naked if he exposes his genitals but a women is also considered indecent if she shows her nipples (by the way this is why a woman can show every part of her breast on those magizine covers as long as she covers her nipples). They further argue that in reality women's breasts do not constitute actual nudity as they really don't have a sexual function but a nurturing one.
2. There of course are many nudist organizations which I will not chronicle but suffice it to say they do not see nudity as a problem but maintain that a person should be allowed to dress or undress as they see fit.
3. Currently there are six states that allow some form of topfree rights for women and two others engaged in legal battles over the issue -- in every case the women have won and I predict they will continue to do so. It also should be noted that in many local areas there are topfree rights already in place by local ordinance and these are changing in favor of the women as well. Bourbon Street in New Orleans has been this way for many years but now they are definitely not alone. Ladies you may already have 'topfree rights' where you live and not know it.
How the Christian culture responds to these things is typical. There is a cry of outrage followed by a blaming society for the moral slippery slope. The self righteous judgment game follows where we all feel better about ourselves and our righteousness by looking down on those that engage in these practices. I would have to say this is not effective. A few observations:
1. Lust as a problem does not exist in these women or nudists -- it is a problem of each individual human heart. If the whole world dressed like the Amish, lust would still exist.
2. Self righteousness never wins a culture war.
3. If people are forced to live a certain way they will resent it, but righteousness that is engaged freely as Christianity is designed to do is a powerful thing.
4. In making a Biblical argument against these things we are going to be hamstrung by a couple things -- One, there is no way to make an argument that Women's breasts constitute nudity and so to get on the Bible here is difficult (shocking but true). Two, this IS a constitutional issue in this country and not a Biblical one and the fact is equality would dictate that either women should be allowed to go topfree, or men are going to have to be covered up (No more shirts and skins basketball guys)
5. Full nudity is something that people still have trouble with that are not Christians so the fight is going to be long here anyway because both sexes are required to cover up the angle of equal rights cannot be used.
My prediction is that the women who are advocating Topfree Rights will eventually win them on a nationwide scale and probably before the next ten years are out. Like when women began to show more leg and the public had a fit along with the moral majority the reaction will be same and then familiarity will come to a point that people will not notice anymore. In fact there may be a time when a women walks into a church with a bare chest and nobody will think anything of it. Sorry, it may happen because women walk in with short skirts now and nobody notices, well accept those people with lust in their hearts or self-righteousness.
This of course assumes we continue to go on the same path we have been going and when it comes to sexual morality and right now there does not seem to be a cultural reason to change course.
IMHO
Next: Pornography
1. That nudity from a Biblical point of view consists of what the apron area of a persons body.
2. The idea of nakedness and women's breasts is never connected in Scripture.
3. Modesty Biblically is supposed to be a matter heart and spirit but the church often makes it a matter of dress and covering up.
4. In the end, modesty is culturally defined.
Which leads us to the culture war between Christians and the secular world of the USA about public nudity. There are significant things to consider here as I look at the news and issues coming up very soon.
1. Several women's groups, lead by the Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) are advocating equal rights for women to go topless (topfree) in the same places men can -- You can go to their web site but understand they have many pictures of 'topfree' women so if this bothers you don't go. A good chunk of the main supporters are women who breastfeed which have increased TERA's membership in number since the whole Facebook breastfeeding fiasco. There are also a growing number of women who simply see this as a constitutional issue. The argument leveled is that if a man can appear in public without a shirt a women should also be allowed to do so as well. They see this as a question of equal rights under law. The inequality being that a man is only considered naked if he exposes his genitals but a women is also considered indecent if she shows her nipples (by the way this is why a woman can show every part of her breast on those magizine covers as long as she covers her nipples). They further argue that in reality women's breasts do not constitute actual nudity as they really don't have a sexual function but a nurturing one.
2. There of course are many nudist organizations which I will not chronicle but suffice it to say they do not see nudity as a problem but maintain that a person should be allowed to dress or undress as they see fit.
3. Currently there are six states that allow some form of topfree rights for women and two others engaged in legal battles over the issue -- in every case the women have won and I predict they will continue to do so. It also should be noted that in many local areas there are topfree rights already in place by local ordinance and these are changing in favor of the women as well. Bourbon Street in New Orleans has been this way for many years but now they are definitely not alone. Ladies you may already have 'topfree rights' where you live and not know it.
How the Christian culture responds to these things is typical. There is a cry of outrage followed by a blaming society for the moral slippery slope. The self righteous judgment game follows where we all feel better about ourselves and our righteousness by looking down on those that engage in these practices. I would have to say this is not effective. A few observations:
1. Lust as a problem does not exist in these women or nudists -- it is a problem of each individual human heart. If the whole world dressed like the Amish, lust would still exist.
2. Self righteousness never wins a culture war.
3. If people are forced to live a certain way they will resent it, but righteousness that is engaged freely as Christianity is designed to do is a powerful thing.
4. In making a Biblical argument against these things we are going to be hamstrung by a couple things -- One, there is no way to make an argument that Women's breasts constitute nudity and so to get on the Bible here is difficult (shocking but true). Two, this IS a constitutional issue in this country and not a Biblical one and the fact is equality would dictate that either women should be allowed to go topfree, or men are going to have to be covered up (No more shirts and skins basketball guys)
5. Full nudity is something that people still have trouble with that are not Christians so the fight is going to be long here anyway because both sexes are required to cover up the angle of equal rights cannot be used.
My prediction is that the women who are advocating Topfree Rights will eventually win them on a nationwide scale and probably before the next ten years are out. Like when women began to show more leg and the public had a fit along with the moral majority the reaction will be same and then familiarity will come to a point that people will not notice anymore. In fact there may be a time when a women walks into a church with a bare chest and nobody will think anything of it. Sorry, it may happen because women walk in with short skirts now and nobody notices, well accept those people with lust in their hearts or self-righteousness.
This of course assumes we continue to go on the same path we have been going and when it comes to sexual morality and right now there does not seem to be a cultural reason to change course.
IMHO
Next: Pornography
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)