Death To Adulterers (September 28, 2003)
Should adulterers be executed?
You may have heard the news story about Amina Lawal, a 31-year-old Nigerian woman who, several months ago, was sentenced to death by a Muslim court that seeks to enforce sharia, or law based on the Koran. Had the sentence been carried out, she would have been pelted with rocks till dead. But last Thursday her conviction was overturned.
News commentators and human rights groups assailed the original decision to execute her, and everyone seems to be breathing a big sigh of relief now that she has been acquitted. I have yet to hear anyone, Christian, Muslim, or other, saying, “Too bad about that reversal. They really should have killed her.” We who are civilized know that stoning adulterers is barbaric and primitive, and we who are Christians know that we are supposed to be merciful and not judge anybody.
But wait a minute - there is a problem. God commanded the Israelites to kill adulterers. It’s as clear as can be: Leviticus 20:10: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death.” Deuteronomy 22:22: “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.”
If it is always evil to execute adulterers, then the Bible is false and we hold our faith in vain.
But didn’t Jesus overturn the death penalty for adulterers in that story about the woman caught in the act (John 7:53-8:11)? I don’t think so. There are several asterisks attached to that story. Look it up in any good study Bible, and you will see it bracketed or italicized because even the most conservative scholars agree that the earliest Greek manuscripts do not include it. (No Greek church father commented on the passage until the 12th century!) That does not mean the incident did not occur - I believe the story is true even though it was not originally part of John’s gospel - but we should be cautious about assuming that it has Scriptural authority.
Even assuming, however, that Jesus really did let an adulteress go free, note that he didn’t say it was because the purpose of the law concerning adulterer-execution had been fulfilled, or that men had misinterpreted it, or that he as Lawgiver was now superseding it. You can make that case (and in fact I do) about the way Jesus dealt with Sabbath law, ceremonial washings and dietary restrictions. But it does not work with adultery. Adultery is condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old.
The reason Jesus let the woman go free (with a warning not to sin again) was because her accusers were just as guilty as she. “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone,” he said. None of the men qualified. The justice system had broken down. When righteous men enforce the law, that is pleasing to God. When adulterers stone adulterers, that is perverted farce.
In a perfect world, no one would commit adultery. In a slightly less perfect world, all adulterers would be executed quickly. I believe that would be a wonderful world to live in. The deterrent force of a death penalty administered with absolute consistency would mean that soon there would be few adulterers to execute. There would be no AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. Few children would be raised in broken homes. No one would have to endure the grief of a partner who cheated and got away with it. Within a few generations the perverse chromosomes of philanderers and rapists would be weeded out of the gene pool, and the human race would become more humane.
But we don’t live in that world. That is why the Nigerian court made the right decision in freeing Ms. Lawal, and why we ought not to seek the revival of Old Testament punishments - even though, strictly speaking, God commanded them. We’re not saying that adulterers don’t deserve to die. They do. There is nothing wrong with the law. But there is something so wrong with us and our culture that we are not good enough to enforce this punishment fairly and consistently. Don’t think for a moment that we have progressed to a point of some great moral enlightenment because we now know that it is wrong to kill adulterers. The truth is the opposite. We have rather descended to such a low moral state that we cannot righteously carry out the just punishments that God ordained.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Choose You This Day (September 21, 2003)
Sometimes you just have to make a decision.
In Sunday School the other day I noted that Abraham’s servant pressed Rebekah’s family for a decision about whether they would let her go marry Isaac. “Tell me one way or the other,” he said (Genesis 24:49). They said yes, but then tried to stretch it out 10 days. He refused to put up with the delay.
Challenges to make a decision occur often in Scripture. Abraham said to Lot, “Pick the land you want. If you go left, I’ll go right. If you go right, I’ll go left” (Genesis 13:9). Joshua said to the Israelites, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Paul urged Herod Agrippa II to convert to Christ on the spot, prompting the king to say, “You want me to become a Christian now?” (Acts 26:28).
Yes, now. There is a time to pause, ponder, think, weigh, calculate - and there is a time to decide. If you will permit me to poke fun at my own church, I would say that we seem to be gifted ponderers but challenged deciders. Maybe that is why I have always felt so comfortable at Faith Bible Church - I blend in. A friend once pegged
my personality by saying, “I know someone who likes to say, ‘I don’t think - I react.’ You’re the opposite, Paul. You don’t react - you think.”
True, but at least I can make up my mind about where to eat lunch. Yesterday when Ben and I were finishing our sandwiches at Wendy’s a couple FBC families walked in, and I learned there had been another one of those group “Where are we going to eat?” discussions in the parking lot. For some reason, these discussions take a LOT longer
among us than they do among normal people. I still remember, with frank astonishment, that 2-hour discussion back in December about where to eat after the upcoming ice skating party. A “decision” was finally made - only to be overturned the night of the party!
Indecision isn’t always bad. Personal indecision is often motivated by a legitimate fear of choosing badly. Group indecision often springs from genuine courtesy - a desire to ensure that all voices are heard and that everyone’s inclinations are taken into account.
But good grief, sometimes you’ve just got to make a decision and go with it. Hesitation about where to eat lunch is trivial, but in matters like war, indecision on the part of Union Generals McClelland and Meade lengthened the Civil War by several years and cost tens of thousands of lives. And indecision about spiritual matters can bear eternal cost.
In C. S. Lewis' novel The Great Divorce, an angel tries to persuade a borderline soul to repent. The sinner wants to put off the decision. He’ll think about it, go home, and come back the first moment he can. The angel responds, “This moment contains all moments.”
If you are waiting to make a decision between sinning and not sinning, wait no longer. This moment contains all moments. Choose what is good. In murky matters that do not involve moral concerns, pray and choose as best you can as quickly as you can. Yes, you’ll make some mistakes and have some regrets. But you’ll make even more mistakes and have even more regrets if the only real choice you make is to make no
choice at all.
Sometimes you just have to make a decision.
In Sunday School the other day I noted that Abraham’s servant pressed Rebekah’s family for a decision about whether they would let her go marry Isaac. “Tell me one way or the other,” he said (Genesis 24:49). They said yes, but then tried to stretch it out 10 days. He refused to put up with the delay.
Challenges to make a decision occur often in Scripture. Abraham said to Lot, “Pick the land you want. If you go left, I’ll go right. If you go right, I’ll go left” (Genesis 13:9). Joshua said to the Israelites, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). Paul urged Herod Agrippa II to convert to Christ on the spot, prompting the king to say, “You want me to become a Christian now?” (Acts 26:28).
Yes, now. There is a time to pause, ponder, think, weigh, calculate - and there is a time to decide. If you will permit me to poke fun at my own church, I would say that we seem to be gifted ponderers but challenged deciders. Maybe that is why I have always felt so comfortable at Faith Bible Church - I blend in. A friend once pegged
my personality by saying, “I know someone who likes to say, ‘I don’t think - I react.’ You’re the opposite, Paul. You don’t react - you think.”
True, but at least I can make up my mind about where to eat lunch. Yesterday when Ben and I were finishing our sandwiches at Wendy’s a couple FBC families walked in, and I learned there had been another one of those group “Where are we going to eat?” discussions in the parking lot. For some reason, these discussions take a LOT longer
among us than they do among normal people. I still remember, with frank astonishment, that 2-hour discussion back in December about where to eat after the upcoming ice skating party. A “decision” was finally made - only to be overturned the night of the party!
Indecision isn’t always bad. Personal indecision is often motivated by a legitimate fear of choosing badly. Group indecision often springs from genuine courtesy - a desire to ensure that all voices are heard and that everyone’s inclinations are taken into account.
But good grief, sometimes you’ve just got to make a decision and go with it. Hesitation about where to eat lunch is trivial, but in matters like war, indecision on the part of Union Generals McClelland and Meade lengthened the Civil War by several years and cost tens of thousands of lives. And indecision about spiritual matters can bear eternal cost.
In C. S. Lewis' novel The Great Divorce, an angel tries to persuade a borderline soul to repent. The sinner wants to put off the decision. He’ll think about it, go home, and come back the first moment he can. The angel responds, “This moment contains all moments.”
If you are waiting to make a decision between sinning and not sinning, wait no longer. This moment contains all moments. Choose what is good. In murky matters that do not involve moral concerns, pray and choose as best you can as quickly as you can. Yes, you’ll make some mistakes and have some regrets. But you’ll make even more mistakes and have even more regrets if the only real choice you make is to make no
choice at all.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Seeking The Company Of “Positive People” (September 14, 2003)
Yesterday I heard a TV preacher say that you should surround yourself with positive people. Shun people who bring you down, he said, and associate with those who encourage you.
I suppose there is something to be said for that advice. We all need a "Barnabas" sometimes (Acts 4:36), an encourager who can cheer us up and make us feel better. Often it is for lack of such support that a person falls into misery or sin.
But what troubled me about this preacher's counsel is that, unqualified, it is a command to be selfish. Surrounding yourself with positive people is contrary to the spirit of Christ, who made a point of associating with the downtrodden and lowly. When criticized for keeping company with misfits, he said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Mark 2:17). It was the Pharisees who sought out the mutual encouragement of their own kind, who admired one another and who furthered one another’s careers. The way of Christ lies more in the path chosen by Mother Theresa, who deliberately surrounded herself with needy souls who probably gave little thought to boosting her morale.
Twice in the last couple days people new to Faith Bible Church have told me how nice people at FBC are, and I readily agreed, adding that it has been a delight for me to preach before a pleasant group week after week. To worship regularly with kind-hearted and mature people is a blessing for which I thank God.
At the same time, I know that Christian duty and charity compels us to seek out, invite and bless those who are dysfunctional, unstable, disordered and self-absorbed. They need Christ. We must not shun them even though they won't be doing anything to build us up any time soon.
A sign of growth in Christ is that you think less about how others might benefit you and more about how you might benefit them. Beware of surrounding yourself with only "positive people." Sure, they can do a lot for you, but they're probably the ones who least need your help.
Yesterday I heard a TV preacher say that you should surround yourself with positive people. Shun people who bring you down, he said, and associate with those who encourage you.
I suppose there is something to be said for that advice. We all need a "Barnabas" sometimes (Acts 4:36), an encourager who can cheer us up and make us feel better. Often it is for lack of such support that a person falls into misery or sin.
But what troubled me about this preacher's counsel is that, unqualified, it is a command to be selfish. Surrounding yourself with positive people is contrary to the spirit of Christ, who made a point of associating with the downtrodden and lowly. When criticized for keeping company with misfits, he said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Mark 2:17). It was the Pharisees who sought out the mutual encouragement of their own kind, who admired one another and who furthered one another’s careers. The way of Christ lies more in the path chosen by Mother Theresa, who deliberately surrounded herself with needy souls who probably gave little thought to boosting her morale.
Twice in the last couple days people new to Faith Bible Church have told me how nice people at FBC are, and I readily agreed, adding that it has been a delight for me to preach before a pleasant group week after week. To worship regularly with kind-hearted and mature people is a blessing for which I thank God.
At the same time, I know that Christian duty and charity compels us to seek out, invite and bless those who are dysfunctional, unstable, disordered and self-absorbed. They need Christ. We must not shun them even though they won't be doing anything to build us up any time soon.
A sign of growth in Christ is that you think less about how others might benefit you and more about how you might benefit them. Beware of surrounding yourself with only "positive people." Sure, they can do a lot for you, but they're probably the ones who least need your help.
Sunday, September 7, 2003
Sibling Love (September 7, 2003)
In studying through Genesis it dawned on me that a recurrent theme of the book is brothers who don't get along. Sibling animosity erupts as soon as there are siblings. Cain killed Abel, Ishmael mocked Isaac, Jacob cheated Esau, and Joseph's brothers faked his death and sold him into slavery.
I think of Rodney King's simple plea, "Can't we all just get along?". But I know it is not that easy. If your brother is evil it is hard to be his friend. Read John 7:1-7 where the brothers of Jesus mocked him, telling him to go to Jerusalem if he really wanted to make it big as a prophet. Certainly they knew that people are waiting to kill him there (see verse 2), but you get the feeling that, like the brothers of Joseph, they would not have minded seeing their brother dead. Jesus responded that he was on God's timetable but they were are not, and that he was hated by the world (though they were not) because he testified against sin.
So not everyone (not even Jesus!) can have a good relationship with all his siblings. But try. Psalm 133:1 says, "How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!" I can't tell you how grateful I am for the love that my two brothers and two sisters and I share for each other - a love that has deepened now that our parents are with the Lord and our connections are lateral rather than triangulated by a parent. I hope my sons Ben and Peter can share a love like that as they grow old and my wife and I die off. I have told them explicitly that, even if they wind up on different sides of the country, they must call each other frequently and maintain contact. They are brothers. If one needs a kidney, the other donates. I was happy to hear Ben say, "Of course!"
I'm a little self-conscious making this point as a Caucasian to my mostly Asian congregation (like I've got anything to say to the Chinese about the importance of family ties!). But maybe it is worth pointing out that, as the third generation grows up on American soil, it will be more and more tempted to reflect American values (or lack thereof). America has many strong points, but the sibling bond is not
one of them.
Unbelievable - I'm not making this up - just as I finished typing that last line I heard Ben's voice downstairs saying, "Shut UP! I'm going to smash your face!" It turns out Peter was provoking him, but not quite enough to deserve getting his face smashed. I lectured them both, and said, "Do you know what I'm writing about for the Pastor's Page right now? Right this minute?"
"Not fighting?" one of them offered.
"Close. I’m writing that siblings should get along with each other."
In studying through Genesis it dawned on me that a recurrent theme of the book is brothers who don't get along. Sibling animosity erupts as soon as there are siblings. Cain killed Abel, Ishmael mocked Isaac, Jacob cheated Esau, and Joseph's brothers faked his death and sold him into slavery.
I think of Rodney King's simple plea, "Can't we all just get along?". But I know it is not that easy. If your brother is evil it is hard to be his friend. Read John 7:1-7 where the brothers of Jesus mocked him, telling him to go to Jerusalem if he really wanted to make it big as a prophet. Certainly they knew that people are waiting to kill him there (see verse 2), but you get the feeling that, like the brothers of Joseph, they would not have minded seeing their brother dead. Jesus responded that he was on God's timetable but they were are not, and that he was hated by the world (though they were not) because he testified against sin.
So not everyone (not even Jesus!) can have a good relationship with all his siblings. But try. Psalm 133:1 says, "How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!" I can't tell you how grateful I am for the love that my two brothers and two sisters and I share for each other - a love that has deepened now that our parents are with the Lord and our connections are lateral rather than triangulated by a parent. I hope my sons Ben and Peter can share a love like that as they grow old and my wife and I die off. I have told them explicitly that, even if they wind up on different sides of the country, they must call each other frequently and maintain contact. They are brothers. If one needs a kidney, the other donates. I was happy to hear Ben say, "Of course!"
I'm a little self-conscious making this point as a Caucasian to my mostly Asian congregation (like I've got anything to say to the Chinese about the importance of family ties!). But maybe it is worth pointing out that, as the third generation grows up on American soil, it will be more and more tempted to reflect American values (or lack thereof). America has many strong points, but the sibling bond is not
one of them.
Unbelievable - I'm not making this up - just as I finished typing that last line I heard Ben's voice downstairs saying, "Shut UP! I'm going to smash your face!" It turns out Peter was provoking him, but not quite enough to deserve getting his face smashed. I lectured them both, and said, "Do you know what I'm writing about for the Pastor's Page right now? Right this minute?"
"Not fighting?" one of them offered.
"Close. I’m writing that siblings should get along with each other."
Sunday, August 31, 2003
The Christian And The Politician (August 31, 2003)
Recently I saw the documentary Bowling for Columbine, where writer-director Michael Moore struggled to discover the reasons why we have so many murders in the U.S. It turns out (what a surprise!) it is because we are not liberal enough. Michael Moore hates all things conservative, and sees in every misfortune an opportunity to score political points and bash the Right. You may remember how he savaged President Bush during his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards.
Of course we see raw hatred go the other way too, as conservatives threw fits for years about the behavior of Bill Clinton. At my former church I confiscated a video somebody had planted in the foyer that claimed Vince Foster did not commit suicide - Clinton obviously had murdered him!
In the face of such hostility toward the powers that be I like to remind people that we've got it pretty good here. Last week I talked with a Haitian friend who told me about how badly his country is deteriorating under the hopelessly corrupt regime of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristide is no better than renowned thug Duvalier. Also last week, with the death of Idi Amin, we were reminded of that African reign of terror where hundreds of thousands of Ugandans were killed. And “time would fail me” to tell of Pinochet and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.
Few nations (no nations?) in history have had better leaders than we. Thank God today for our leaders - both those on the left and those on the right. And pray for them. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”
For a primer on how to pray for leaders it is hard to improve on what Tertullian wrote nearly 1800 years ago: "We pray for all the emperors, that God may grant them long life, a secure government, a prosperous family, vigorous troops, a faithful senate, an obedient people; that the whole world may be in peace; and that God may grant, both to Caesar and to every man, the accomplishments of their just desires." If Tertullian could pray so graciously for emperors hostile to Christ, how much more should we pray, with grateful hearts, for all our leaders - regardless of whether they share our political convictions.
Recently I saw the documentary Bowling for Columbine, where writer-director Michael Moore struggled to discover the reasons why we have so many murders in the U.S. It turns out (what a surprise!) it is because we are not liberal enough. Michael Moore hates all things conservative, and sees in every misfortune an opportunity to score political points and bash the Right. You may remember how he savaged President Bush during his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards.
Of course we see raw hatred go the other way too, as conservatives threw fits for years about the behavior of Bill Clinton. At my former church I confiscated a video somebody had planted in the foyer that claimed Vince Foster did not commit suicide - Clinton obviously had murdered him!
In the face of such hostility toward the powers that be I like to remind people that we've got it pretty good here. Last week I talked with a Haitian friend who told me about how badly his country is deteriorating under the hopelessly corrupt regime of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristide is no better than renowned thug Duvalier. Also last week, with the death of Idi Amin, we were reminded of that African reign of terror where hundreds of thousands of Ugandans were killed. And “time would fail me” to tell of Pinochet and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.
Few nations (no nations?) in history have had better leaders than we. Thank God today for our leaders - both those on the left and those on the right. And pray for them. 1 Timothy 2:1-2 says, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”
For a primer on how to pray for leaders it is hard to improve on what Tertullian wrote nearly 1800 years ago: "We pray for all the emperors, that God may grant them long life, a secure government, a prosperous family, vigorous troops, a faithful senate, an obedient people; that the whole world may be in peace; and that God may grant, both to Caesar and to every man, the accomplishments of their just desires." If Tertullian could pray so graciously for emperors hostile to Christ, how much more should we pray, with grateful hearts, for all our leaders - regardless of whether they share our political convictions.
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Happy Inconveniences Versus The Joyless Pursuit Of Pleasure (August 24, 2003)
A few days ago my son Peter brought me Time Magazine's August 25 issue (about a blackout in the eastern states), and showed me a picture of more than three dozen stranded New Yorkers hitching a ride on a long flat-bed truck. Peter noted (I thought it was an inspired observation) that nearly every person in the photograph was smiling.
What were they smiling about - wasn't the blackout supposed to be a miserable inconvenience for everybody? Sure it was. But somehow even in the midst of that un-air-conditioned traffic nightmare these people found an occasion for joy. (Peter thought it had something to do with their not watching TV) I remembered something my mother used to say about working in a sweatshop for 40 cents an hour during WWII. She said there was a group of black ladies, segregated from the other employees, who were made to work in the hottest part of the factory. What amazed my mother was that these women were so happy - they laughed all day long as they enjoyed one another's company.
By contrast I think of something my brother Dave once told me about his experience aboard a riverboat casino. "Those are joyless places," he said. Rows and rows of slot machines reflected the grim faces of men and women giving away quarters like they were pieces of their souls. Snap a hundred photographs in such a place and see if even one shows as much happiness as that of stranded New Yorkers sharing a ride.
Genuine fun is nearly always a by-product of community. Though we tend to seek fun in a place (a casino or an amusement park) or before a screen (a movie or video game), it is much more likely that fun will find us if we give it a chance to materialize by spending some time together.
A few days ago my son Peter brought me Time Magazine's August 25 issue (about a blackout in the eastern states), and showed me a picture of more than three dozen stranded New Yorkers hitching a ride on a long flat-bed truck. Peter noted (I thought it was an inspired observation) that nearly every person in the photograph was smiling.
What were they smiling about - wasn't the blackout supposed to be a miserable inconvenience for everybody? Sure it was. But somehow even in the midst of that un-air-conditioned traffic nightmare these people found an occasion for joy. (Peter thought it had something to do with their not watching TV) I remembered something my mother used to say about working in a sweatshop for 40 cents an hour during WWII. She said there was a group of black ladies, segregated from the other employees, who were made to work in the hottest part of the factory. What amazed my mother was that these women were so happy - they laughed all day long as they enjoyed one another's company.
By contrast I think of something my brother Dave once told me about his experience aboard a riverboat casino. "Those are joyless places," he said. Rows and rows of slot machines reflected the grim faces of men and women giving away quarters like they were pieces of their souls. Snap a hundred photographs in such a place and see if even one shows as much happiness as that of stranded New Yorkers sharing a ride.
Genuine fun is nearly always a by-product of community. Though we tend to seek fun in a place (a casino or an amusement park) or before a screen (a movie or video game), it is much more likely that fun will find us if we give it a chance to materialize by spending some time together.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
The Sin I Never Hear About (August 17, 2003)
There are two types of sexual sin, but unless I'm missing something, there is only one type that I hear condemned from pulpits, confessed at Promise Keepers or discussed on Christian radio. That is the sin of having sex when you shouldn't. Examples include adultery, fornication, homosexual practice, rape, pedophilia and lust. (Lust - even where there is no sexual contact - is included in this list because Jesus identified sexual covetousness as "adultery of the heart" in Matthew 5:28.)
But I think the other kind of sexual sin has been getting a free pass in evangelical circles. That is the sin of not having sex when you should - the sin of withholding legitimate sexual pleasure from your married partner. When was the last time you heard a sermon condemning frigidity?
As Christians we are often ridiculed by the world because our insistence on purity is interpreted as a slam against sex. “You think sex is dirty!“ No, far from it - we don't hate sex - but I do wonder if we feed the world's contempt of us by (1) neglecting to celebrate the delights of conjugal ecstasy and (2) neglecting to condemn the sin of withholding such delight.
The Bible isn't shy about celebrating sex. Many who read the Song of Solomon for the first time respond with a "Wow! I can't believe the Bible says that!" Things also get a little heated in Proverbs 5:18-19: "May you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love."
Nor is the Bible shy about condemning the (marital) refusal of sex. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says, "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent..." I believe that last line is an oft-disobeyed commandment. The assumption in the minds of many is that there needs to be mutual consent to engage in sex - but this text teaches the opposite. It says that there needs to be mutual consent to refrain from sex. Marital abstinence is acceptable only if both parties agree to it. But if one party desires sex, it is wrong for the other to withhold it.
Years ago in college my roommate and I laughed out loud as an uninhibited friend told us of his desire to marry. "I have a real strong sex drive," he said. "I can't imagine being single the rest of my life. I want to have sex SO bad." Well there is nothing wrong with that. The Bible says "It is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). Marriage, among many other things, is God's channel for what might otherwise be a reckless, uncontrolled torrent of passion. I haven't seen that college friend in 20 years, and I don't know how things turned out for him. But I do hope that he conscientiously confined his sexual delights to his wife, and that he was blessed to marry a woman who, as necessary, chose obedience to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.
There are two types of sexual sin, but unless I'm missing something, there is only one type that I hear condemned from pulpits, confessed at Promise Keepers or discussed on Christian radio. That is the sin of having sex when you shouldn't. Examples include adultery, fornication, homosexual practice, rape, pedophilia and lust. (Lust - even where there is no sexual contact - is included in this list because Jesus identified sexual covetousness as "adultery of the heart" in Matthew 5:28.)
But I think the other kind of sexual sin has been getting a free pass in evangelical circles. That is the sin of not having sex when you should - the sin of withholding legitimate sexual pleasure from your married partner. When was the last time you heard a sermon condemning frigidity?
As Christians we are often ridiculed by the world because our insistence on purity is interpreted as a slam against sex. “You think sex is dirty!“ No, far from it - we don't hate sex - but I do wonder if we feed the world's contempt of us by (1) neglecting to celebrate the delights of conjugal ecstasy and (2) neglecting to condemn the sin of withholding such delight.
The Bible isn't shy about celebrating sex. Many who read the Song of Solomon for the first time respond with a "Wow! I can't believe the Bible says that!" Things also get a little heated in Proverbs 5:18-19: "May you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love."
Nor is the Bible shy about condemning the (marital) refusal of sex. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says, "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent..." I believe that last line is an oft-disobeyed commandment. The assumption in the minds of many is that there needs to be mutual consent to engage in sex - but this text teaches the opposite. It says that there needs to be mutual consent to refrain from sex. Marital abstinence is acceptable only if both parties agree to it. But if one party desires sex, it is wrong for the other to withhold it.
Years ago in college my roommate and I laughed out loud as an uninhibited friend told us of his desire to marry. "I have a real strong sex drive," he said. "I can't imagine being single the rest of my life. I want to have sex SO bad." Well there is nothing wrong with that. The Bible says "It is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:9). Marriage, among many other things, is God's channel for what might otherwise be a reckless, uncontrolled torrent of passion. I haven't seen that college friend in 20 years, and I don't know how things turned out for him. But I do hope that he conscientiously confined his sexual delights to his wife, and that he was blessed to marry a woman who, as necessary, chose obedience to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)