home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

06/25/2003 Entry: "Let's talk about sex - part 4 of the trilogy"

My recent posts about sexual morality (start here if you missed them!) seem to have stirred things up somewhat. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, and i wasn't disappointed! Thanks to those who've sent encouraging messages -- and to those who have disagreed without being disagreeable.

I'd intended to follow my own suggestion and leave this subject alone now, but I do need to respond to the issues that have been raised regarding Jesus' teaching on sex. For example, in a comment on this site Gary offered

I think you're wrong in the implication that the church should ignore this, or any, type of sin. Jesus did not ignore sexual sin (Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 19:18, John 8). He set the bar much higher than the Law had done with his definition of adultery

I think there's a point to be made here, but if this guy thinks Jesus had nothing to say about sex he hasn't read the sermon on the mount. Remember that whole thing about looking at a woman with lust = adultery?

The first thing to say is that I wasn't trying to say that sex is not important. But I continue to maintain that we (I mean the church) have it way, way out of proportion. What I asked was, and I know this is repeating myself, can the Church give the same priority to sex that Jesus seemed to? In a culture obsessed with sex and sexual imagery I'm convinced that this would be a better witness. When the church seems to have the same priorities as a tabloid newspaper, I worry. And I think in this context it would be wiser to risk giving too low a priority to sex than having it too high on the agenda.

Just a couple of points about some of the specific scriptures that were raised. In John 8, a woman is caught in adultery is brought to Jesus. "Shall we carry out the penalty the law requires?" The reply Jesus gives is masterful -- "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Sure, stone her as the law demands. But only if you yourself are pure.Jesus was the only one present qualified to carry out the sentence. And he doesn't do it. "Nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more." There's no sign here that she was a repentant sinner. She's been caught in the act. According to the law she deserves to die. But according to the grace of God, she receives pardon - the same pardon offered to all sinners, free and undeserved. If she repents, she repents after being forgiven and we are not told of it. (Incidentally, there are some textual issues with this story. And it's the only passage that I've heard doubted by conservatives on the grounds that it makes Jesus look too soft)

The point about the sermon on the Mount is surely precisely the one that Gary raises - that Jesus lifts the bar on the standard that's been set. On all sin. If you're angry with your brother, you've committed murder. if you give a lustful look, you've committed adultery. That's the standard that has to be met before stones can be thrown. And I don't meet it. Gentle reader, do you? That's not to say that the Church has nothing to say about sin, or about sex. But if we do (and we should) it should be in humility and with compassion - and that is not often how it's done.

A wider point is that sexual sin is treated differently from other sin in that it is often assumed. Let's say two men come to your church for the first time. They're obviously good friends. It only takes a couple of weeks before it's well known that they share a house. Tongues begin to wag. When someone spots them holding hands in the shopping mall, the pastor receives anxious calls. He goes to see them. "Are you gay.""Yes"Mopping his brow, "Do you have sex?" ...

What should our mythical pastor do? If they say no, will he believe them? Will the church? What if they say, "Mind your own business" - as I would to anyone who came prying uninvited into my sex life. Perhaps they say yes. The pastor might tell them they must remain celibate. But what does celibate mean here? Should he give them a list of what's allowed and what isn't? Or should he, without compromising his own integrity, offer them the same support and care that he would offer to others of his flock?

But, you say, they can't live together because of the temptation to sin. I'll buy that one when I hear pastors telling their business-owning parishioners to sell them on the grounds that they are daily exposing themselves to the temptation to greed. When Christians in advertising are urged to leave their industry because they are leading others into covetousness. I'll buy it when envy, boasting, malice, slander and insolence receive the same hardline attitude.

Or we could do what Jesus did. Call people to the standard - chasity outside of marriage, faithfulness within - as one sinner to another accepting one anothers weaknesses (as we do, all the time with anything other than sex) and together grow in grace and faith.

Posted by Richard @ 06/26/2003 10:06 PM CST

"Or we could do what Jesus did. Call people to the standard - chasity outside of marriage, faithfulness within - as one sinner to another accepting one anothers weaknesses (as we do, all the time with anything other than sex) and together grow in grace and faith."

Hey Richard - I am the guy who commmented on your post a few times on pmPilgrim. I wanted you to know that I love what you said in the sentence above, and I agree with it.

Posted by Bill @ 06/26/2003 07:00 PM CST

Richard, some time ago I blogged on this subject too (I'm too lazy to find the link :-)) and I speculated that the reason so many in the church focus on the sin of homosexuality is that (esp. in light of the Sermon on the Mount) it's one where we know whether or not we are guilty. I may be too angry, covetous, greedy and envious, but at least I'm not Gay...so let's condemn homosexuality but leave those other sins alone. That seems to me to be the tone of much of the religious discussion.

Posted by Russ @ 06/26/2003 04:28 PM CST

Spot on, Richard.

Thank you for saying so clearly what I've been trying to figure out how to say for the past few days.

I appreciate your ministry here, greatly.

Blessings and peace.

Posted by Richard Bott @ 06/26/2003 12:57 AM CST

Thanks Richard. I've picked up on the point about leaving the subject alone. It seems to me that here in the Anglican Diocese of Oxford at least we can't afford to leave the subject alone. Christians with different understandings need to have some dialogue about our differences in this area or... well... who knows what might happen.

Posted by Dave @ 06/26/2003 12:54 AM CST