 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Fundamentalist's Misuse of
Sex
Fundamental religion uses sex as control with codes and rules that limit the free growth of autonomy to outside directions. Sex, from the minds of ancient tribes to preserve independence, misinterpretations and the literalization of human letters, to the slanted letters of Paul, the writings of St. Augustine and the fundamental codes of Islam (as in a recent case of the death penalty for a women having sex out of wedlock), to that of various cultures that impose such strict codes of adhesure, bring one-sided domination over one of the most strongest human desires. Ethics incorporated in such religious teachings bring more that theological analysis and doctrinal conformism into a way of life that both constrains those to remain within the ranks, and in turn, segregates those from one persuasion to the other,
The Watchtower's Views
The Watchtower's Twisted Version of
"Godly Marriage"
March 15, 1983 - pages 30,31
-------- BEGINNING OF WATCHTOWER ARTICLE ---------"Honor Godly Marriage"
How about sexual activity between married couples within the marriage bond? It is not for the elders to pry into the intimate lives of married Christians. However, the Bible certainly enters into their lives. Those who would keep walking by spirit should not ignore the Scriptural indications of God's thinking. And they will do well to cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices. Married couples should act in a way that will leave them with a clean conscience, as they give unimpeded attention to developing the fruitage of the spirit. Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5.
What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show that porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate's enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage. Even though a believing mate is distressed by the situation, yet that one's endeavor to hold to Scriptural principles will result in a blessing from Jehovah. In such cases it may be helpful for the couple to discuss the problem frankly, bearing in mind especially that sexual relations should be honorable, wholesome, an expression of tender love. This certainly should exclude anything that might distress or harm one's mate. Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7.
As already stated, it is not for elders to police the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why? Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one s being disqualified from God s Kingdom. Among them are uncleanness (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and loose conduct (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct. Of course, a person with that attitude might even sink to committing porneia; then there would be a basis for a Scriptural divorce. How concerned all devoted Christians should be to avoid and war against all such works of the flesh ! Galatians 5:24, 25.
All of Jehovah s people, whether married or single, should shun every kind of immorality. They should give loyal support to all of Jehovah s arrangements, including the institution of marriage. (Psalm 18:21-25) Those who are married should, as one flesh, endeavor to honor Jehovah, cultivating true love and respect in their marriage. (Genesis 2:23, 24; Ephesians 5:33; Colossians 3:18, 19) In this way, as in other ways, they can show that they are no part of the world a world that Satan has dragged into a mire of immorality and corruption and that is about to pass away with its desire. Remembering that he that does the will of God remains forever, all should strive to do God s will in relation to His precious arrangement of marriage. John 17:16; 1 John 2:17. [Footnotes)
------------- END OF WATCHTOWER ARTICLE --------------
According to the Watchtower publication supplied to the elders entitled" Pay Attention To Yourselves And To The Flock," it states on page 93, "Porneia . . . . includes oral and anal sex or mutual masturbation between persons not married to each other . . . . " On page 142 it states, "While perverted practices are wrong, if within a marriage one is involved or has been involved in such, it does not mean that he or she would necessarily lose service privileges. If such conduct becomes known to the elders, they would need to consider: Is the practice recent or ongoing, or is it something occurred in the past and is definitely conquered? Is the individual promoting such conduct as a proper life-style? Is his attitude one of remorse? If he is sincerely repentant and the situation is not generally known, it may not be necessary to remove privileges of service."
I find this amazing. Here the Watchtower calls oral sex "perverted" and yet no "service privileges" are lost, unless the "situation is generally known." Either this is a wrong practice or it is not. Is it right that the elders can ask the above questions to married couples? There appears to be so much open space in the above counsel, that one elder, who is firm, harsh and legalistic would take away "service privileges" of the individual, while a more balanced, mature elder would not do such. It now comes into the personal decisions of men to determine the outcome of the situation and not solely the scriptures. This is clearly a legalistic way to deal with matters, a legal code, similar to the Pharisees of Jesus day, a code that is not to be practiced under the "law of Christ." For such practices "make the word of God invalid."I am not either advocating or condemning oral or anal sex. What I am saying is, what right or authority does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have to determine and enforce what is proper sex for married Christians? Notice that it is stated more than once, that this type of sex is "clearly a perverted sex practice." How "clearly" is it? Not clear at all. And the fact is, that if it becomes known to the congregation, that a Married couple is having oral sex, the result could be a deletion of the brother's privileges in the congregation, or possible disfellowshipment. Now this person would be completely shunned and labeled an outcast, all for having certain types of sexual relations with his wife. Is this in harmony with the scriptures? There are certain cases where women are frigid and penetration is almost impossible. What then? There are also cases where men cannot obtain an erection, thus unable to please their wives. What then? According to the Watch Tower Society, they would have no other choice but to remain celibate.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society also, puts their own meaning into the words "loose conduct" and "uncleanness" (Galatians 5:19, Colossians 3:5). They claim that "loose conduct" pertains to any type of sex, other than sexual intercourse, including practices between married couples. Using the term "uncleanness," the Watchtower publication supplied to the elders entitled "Pay Attention To Yourselves And To The Flock," it states on page 92,
"Uncleanness includes an intentional momentary touching of sexual parts or caressing of breasts." And on page 94, "Self-abuse, or masturbation, is not porneia (fornication), nor would one who was raped be guilty of porneia . . . . copulation (as in penetration) is not necessary to constitute porneia, and neither is sexual climax." The Watchtower Society.(1) To go even a step further on the interpretation of sexual practices, Jehovah's Witnesses elders have to ask individuals some very intimate personal questions to determine whether they should conduct a judicial hearing or to determine the outcome of the judicial hearing they are already conducting. Can you imagine Jesus Christ instructing his disciples to ask such questions and lay out such details on sexual matters? Did Jesus Christ teach a Christian Law code of judicial hearings and organizational procedures for married couples sexual practices and for men who have nocturnal emissions in private or woman who use a vibrator in private? Certainly this goes far beyond the "law of Christ," following legalistic practices that Jesus himself condemned in his day.
Masturbation - A Normal Human Practice
Time, Place and Frequency
Any human function and practice can be abused, in regards to place, time and frequency, but to put a blanket condemnation on a normal human function or practice is both unbalanced and legalistic. Notice that the Watchtower Society label the practice of masturbation as "self abuse." The term "self abuse" is not a scriptural name, nor is this term and practice mentioned anywhere
The Watchtower
May 15 1970, p. 315
(see also Watchtower October 1 1970, p. 604)
"...masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts..."in the bible. The Watchtower puts guilt on a normal human practice that has gone on in a non hurtful, non abusive and non domineering way since the beginning of man. To say it is "self abuse" is to put a man made ruling which "makes the word of God invalid." Were not talking about masturbating in the streets. Any normal human practice and function can be abused. Human beings need to eat food to survive, but that wouldn't constitute a volunteer abusive way of eating that causes severe obesity. Human beings have waste but they would never defecate on the public sidewalk. Sexual intercourse is a normal human function, but common sense and morals tell us its wrong and hurtful to others to do this in public and in front of children. The bible speaks of the Israelite men having "nocturnal emissions," or in modern terms, "wet dreams." This is a normal human function of men just as a limited, discreet amount of masturbation is. Just as when a man and woman have sexual intercourse, masturbation has it's proper place and time. To label this normal human practice as "self abuse," is to throw a blanket condemnation, an example of legalism with interpretive ruling and man made opinion that goes far beyond what's written in scripture and against the Spirit of God that internally leads us to mature growth in wisdom and charity.
Elders Are Allowed To Ask Personal Sexual Questions To Individuals.
An Ejaculation a Day May Keep Prostate Cancer at Bay
Wed Jul 16,10:35 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
Yahoo! News
Health - ReutersAn Ejaculation a Day May Keep Prostate Cancer at Bay
Wed Jul 16,10:35 PM ET
Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo! SYDNEY (Reuters) - Frequent masturbation may be really good for you.
Research by Australia's Cancer Council Victoria found that the more often men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to suffer the disease that kills more than half a million men each year.The survey of 1,079 prostate cancer (news - web sites) patients and 1,259 healthy men found that those who masturbated or had sex at least once a day in their 20s were a third less likely to develop the malady.
"For men in their 50s of course that's often not achievable," Graham Giles, who led the research team, told Reuters Thursday.
"(But) masturbation isn't bad for you. I don't believe in the blindness and hairy palms theory. Prohibitions against ejaculations are not based on science," he said.
The study, conducted between 1994 and 1998 but still being analyzed, did not focus specifically on masturbation.
Nevertheless, it was the largest so far to ask participants not just about their sexual relations but also about masturbation, and to analyze the answers.
Giles said the findings correlate with previous research that showed Roman Catholic priests were 30 percent more likely to get prostate cancer, but they contradict other studies that suggested having a variety of partners or frequent sex could lift the risk.
One theory that could explain the new results is that semen may have a carcinogenic effect on the cells lining the prostatic ducts if not flushed regularly out of the pipes by ejaculations.
The research is due to be published in this weekend's British Journal of Urology International.
Lust and Sexual Appetite
Normal Human Desires
Vs.
Hurtful, Abusive Desires
The question has been raised by both the Watchtower and theologians as to what type of thoughts we enter into our minds when masturbating. The answer of course is lust. Are these in each and every case the thoughts of lust being the same "sexual appetite" that Apostle Paul tells us to "put away?" It appears not to be the case. The context of Paul's words are those of hurtful, abusive and domineering sexual actions. These types of actions we are to "deaden," or "put to death." Our thoughts of lust can be unbalanced, even abusive, causing us to act on these negative, "ungodly" and hurtful actions towards others or their spouses. Does this mean the act of masturbation is morally wrong? Can we put a blanket restriction on this practice? Many who eat sweets and desserts get carried away with the pleasure and become overwhelmingly obese. Does this mean all sweets and desserts are bad? Some people watch police entertainment shows and get carried away with violence. Does this mean all police entertainment shows are bad? Some children play with water pistols and end up stealing their adult relatives gun and use it. Does this mean all toy guns are bad? Some women watch soap operas and end up having an affair. Does this mean all soap operas are bad? Masturbation brings thoughts of lust. Does this mean that any thoughts of lust are bad? Anotherwards, desiring sex, and receiving a manual pleasure relief in a infrequent, discreet way can not be considered violating Paul's words, nor Gods, nor do the thoughts and desires to hurt or domineer another have to enter the mind.
"Put Away Your Sexual Appetite" - Colossians 3:5
Sexual abuse, domineering sex and sex that hurts others in relationships are the ONLY real application. To apply this and other scriptures in any other way, including masturbation, restricting normal human sexuality, is to misquote and put a unfair legal requirement that is not there.
Jesus said that "any man that keeps looking at another woman commits adultery in his heart," We need to think of the balanced application and the context of his words. Jesus was speaking about adultery and went further to the extent of covetness. We should not covet another man's wife. The context shows, this applies to adultery in marriages, (or serious relationships of two individuals with a commitment) where men covet other women, (and women, men) when they have an agreement with their spouse, a vow and marriage. No one can say in court, "She asked for it!" This type of defense is unacceptable. However for a single man or woman to have a sexual desire for another single person, looking that way, having sexual thoughts in that way and even desiring them, is not a sin. To have normal human, non hurtful, non abusive thoughts of sexual relations with another single, uncommitted, person is not a sin. These are gifts God has given us for reproduction, the continuation for the human race. But of even greater importance, these are gifts given to us to form an intimate bonding with another human being that in no other way can be obtained, as the "two will become, one flesh." (Matthew 5:28)
"Any Man That Keeps Looking At Another Woman Commits Adultery In His Heart." - Matthew 5:28
Jesus was speaking about adultery and went further to the extent of covetness. We should not covet another man's wife. The context shows, this applies to adultery in marriages, where men covet other women, (and women, men) when they have an agreement with their spouse, a vow and marriage. To have normal human, non hurtful, non abusive thoughts of sexual relations with another single person is not a sin. The very non sinful thoughts that enter a normal person's mind during masturbation.
1 Peter and Sinful Desires/Fleshly Lusts
Again, the subject of "sinful desires" and "fleshly lusts" comes up. What is Apostle Peter speaking about in chapter 2:11?
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." 1 Peter 2:11 NIV
"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." 1 Peter 2:11 KJVWhat Peter appears to be saying throughout his letter: for us to put our mindset on the Spiritual things, not the earthy, but on the incorruptible, not the corruptible, as we are to clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, putting away our "sinful desires" and "fleshy lusts," for we are "being built into a spiritual house to be a a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation and people belonging to God offering ourselves and our bodies as spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Once we were not God's people, but now we are the people of God; once we had not received mercy, but now we have received mercy."
The description to Peter's words in 2:11 can be seen in 2:1. Verse 1 explains the nature of the "sinful desires" and "fleshly lusts" as:
"Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." 1 Peter 2:1 NIV
"Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings." KJV
"So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander." RSVOverall, it would be in harmony with Peter's words to put our thoughts and focus in life pursuits in the internal Spiritual things, not our human external selves. As alien residents here in this world, we in a sense "foreigners" because our "citizenship belongs in the heavens."
We are not to concentrate on the external things of the flesh as our mainstay, which can in addition, lead us to the more sinful, fleshly and lustful desires that Peter tells us to rid ourselves from. However these lusts and desires are not the same desires that are normal human healthy sexual desires, which even they are to not be our main focus here in this life. The sad problem is, that so many read Peter's words along with Paul's and Jesus' quoted above and put a blanket condemnation on all human sexual desires. To be an uncommitted, single person aroused by another uncommitted, single person, having sexual desires is a healthy normal human function and a gift that God has given us. Peter, Paul, John and Jesus do not speak of this type of desire to be including in the "lust" and "sinful, fleshly" desires they tell us to "rid ourselves of." Verse 1 here tells us, in harmony with the entire scriptures, that it is hurtful, selfish and abusive actions that fall into the sinful and lustful ways, which we are to both avoid and reject, honoring our bodies as temples that house God's very Spirit.
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." 1 Peter 2:11-12 We are to be concerned in living "good lives among the pagans," lives that do not exhibit, greedy lust and selfishness that put our self advancement and desires ahead of others. We are to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves," as Apostle Paul instructs us in Phillipians 2:3. Our service to God, means service to our fellow man. Our sexual desires and healthy human arousal cannot be equated to selfishness and greed, unless we make it that way. We can take any desire we have, whether it be personal, political, social, religious, commercial and recreational and use it in such a way to be either humble and graceful of others or abusive, selfish and inconsiderate of others, the choice being ours. Our choice should be in line with Peter's words above. To have the balance and discernment to know the difference between healthy normal sexual desires and selfish lust. It pains me greatly to see so many young men, engulfed in the heavy hand of guilt over their infrequent episodes of private masturbation. Not only is masturbation - with non-hurtful, non-abusive desires of covetness. - not pertain to Peter's words, but the guilt from incorrectly teaching the meaning of Peter and Paul's use of "lust," is a tool of the negative Spiritual realm used at us to break our faith with God. And sadly it works! So many men have ceased their faith in God over guilt that need not be there in even one small iota.
As Peter further states:
"Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." 1 Peter 4:1-3 What is the type of "lust" Peter speaks about? Is it the normal human sexual arousal of another single person? The context shows it not to be the case but rather the "evil human desires" of "debauchery, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." Two things being conveyed by Peter are (1) To put our main focus in life on the Spiritual things, not the desires of human external life, including our normal, healthy human desires. (2) To totally, put away and rid ourselves, laying aside, all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Hypocrisy is the putting away of normal human sexual desires, including discreet masturbation, and yet callously treating others in our daily encounters.
King David, Sin & Guilt
If King David could be so loved by God, and he was, then think about the over emphasis and the incorrect label of sin on the act of masturbation. King David was a good man. He loved Jehovah so much that he wrote the most beautiful Psalms ever written. His heart was full of God's Spirit. And this Spirit, God
gave him. He gave David this because, despite all the wrong David did, he never let the spirit of guilt let him loose his love, faith and confidence in God. Here is a man who was being chased by Israel's King Saul and was under allot of pressure. To make matters worse Saul's daughter, Michal, who was David's wife, was given to another man, Paltiel, the son of Laish, who was from Gallim. On top of that, the prophet, Samuel, had just died and he and his men were visibly upset after his burial for they "mourned for him; and they buried him at his home in Ramah. Then David and his men moved down into the Desert of Maon." So David was under a lot of emotional strain. It is sheep shearing time. He approaches a pretty woman named Abigail and requests her to inquire her rich husband Nabal in a very kind way:
The Next Time We Either Sin or Do Something that Bothers Our Conscience, Rather Then Let Our Feelings Of Guilt Overwhelm Us:
We should meditate On God's love for his servant, David. David did not let feelings of guilt destroy his faith in God. He maintained his love, faith and confidence in God, who in turn, maintained his love and supply of Spirit to David. Guilt must never allow us to loose our faith and love in God! God will never forsake us! (Hebrews 13:5)
"So he sent ten young men and said to them, "Go up to Nabal at Carmel and greet him in my name. Say to him: `Long life to you! Good health to you and your household! And good health to all that is yours! "Now I hear that it is sheep-shearing time. When your shepherds were with us, we did not mistreat them, and the whole time they were at Carmel nothing of theirs was missing. Ask your own servants and they will tell you. Therefore be favorable toward my young men, since we come at a festive time. Please give your servants and your son David whatever you can find for them." I Samuel 25:5-8 Nabal's response:
"Nabal answered David's servants, "Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?" 1 Samuel 25:10-11 David's response:
"David said to his men, "Put on your swords!" So they put on their swords, and David put on his. About four hundred men went up with David, while two hundred stayed with the supplies." 1 Samuel 25:13 Think about this: David was about to kill this man! He was going to murder him for his lack of generosity! What kind of a man thinks this way? A man like us, a man under terrible strain, pressure of loosing his wife, Michal, his father-in-law, the King of Israel, Saul, pursuing him, wanting him dead, a man who loved a prophet that just died, all with the hardship of living in the desert with his men. Fortunately, as the story goes, Abigail, the wife of Nabal was smart, she brought David back to his senses
and he did not sin more than he had already. How did God react to all of this? God loved David, he loves us. He forgave David, just as he does us. Happily, David did not let feelings of guilt destroy his faith in God. He maintained his love, faith and confidence in God, who in turn, maintained his supply of his Spirit to David. Guilt must never allow us to loose our faith and love in God! We must repent and move on, knowing that the entire time, God has both loved us and has never left us. He intends to stick with us and stay with us. No guilt from our anger and other sins should let us loose our very special and indescribable free gift and relationship we have with God through the sacrifice of his son, Jesus.
Some Claim that Gen 38:8, 9 . .
. . . speaks about masturbation, putting it in a negative light, however it appears to not be the case. Both the Watchtower and many theologians will agree this account to have no application to masturbation. "And Judah said unto Onan,
"Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother." Genesis 38:8-9
The context of this account, shows nothing to do with masturbation, but rather the man Onan did not want to supply his sister in law with a child, so he withdrew from intercourse and "spilled it on the ground." And for this he was killed for his refusal to raise seed (offspring) for his deceased brother.David sinned far worse with his adultery with Bathsheeba and the subsequent murder of her husband Uzziah. He was punished for this serious sin. Yet guilt never allowed David to leave Jehovah. David never left God and God never left David. Our guilt over an action such as masturbation, which frankly does not pertain to sin when it is not engaged in an abusive, hurtful, over indulging and habitual way, should never allow us to cease our faith, strength, confidence and love of God, knowing he is not disappointed with us, nor does he wish to punish us. We are his children and we are expected to love him and his people. In turn we attempt to discipline ourselves to open us up for room for him to enter us with his Spirit, mold us and transform us into new creatures of Christ.
Guilt and Conscience
The Healthy Warning
Device of Our MindsThe Debilitating Force That Destroys
Our Self Confidence and Faith In God
The end result should be this: If masturbation bothers your conscience, then you should not do it. However if it does not, regarding you are not feeding yourself with abusive and hurtful thoughts, your time is infrequent and discretion is used, then your faith in God and love of man is neither hindered or a sin to God. Balance, discretion and maturity are needed. In addition, guilt is normal when we do wrong and can be a good warning device of our minds to protect us for doing wrong things. However this same feeling of guilt can also be a very unbalanced and debilitating force that can destroy our very confidence in ourselves and faith in God. We must never let this feeling deter us from knowing without a doubt that God loves us, is not angry with us, never allowing ourselves to give up in open prayer and meditation with him with our full confidence that he both listens to us and grants our requests according to his timing and his will. Guilt can also be a tool, that the wicked spirit forces of the world use to destroy our confidence and self worth and cease our faith and intimacy with God.
If Masturbation Bothers Your Conscience, Then You Should Not Do It.
However If It Does Not - Regarding you are not feeding yourself with abusive and hurtful thoughts, your time is infrequent, privacy and discretion is used - Then Your Faith in God And Love of Man Is Neither Hindered Nor A Sin To God.
We Also Need To Recognize What Things And Habits Control Us In Life And Release Ourselves From Their Bondage.
The Spiritual Discipline of Chastity
In exercising the spiritual discipline of chastity, or sexual desires, we purposely turn away from dwelling upon or engaging in the sexual dimension of our relationships to others-even our husbands or wives.
Is this to say our sexuality is something to shun? That would be not only unbalanced and unnatural, but also impossible, as we are sexual beings: "male and female God created them."This very passage ties our sexuality to our creation in the image of God. It is a part of our power with which to serve him. It is provided in a special form for embodied personality. In the the full sexual union, two people know their full bodies and knows the other by their body. The depth of involvement is so deep that there can really be no "casual sex" just for fun without emotionally bonding with another, being a contradiction of terms, understood by Apostle Paul who taught how we should learn "how to possess our vessel in sanctification and in honor," that fornication - the misuse of sex in a hurtful, abusive, selfish or domineering way - is a sin against one's own body.
Dallard Willard explains:
"Our sexuality reaches into the essence of our being. Therefore chastity does not mean nonsexuality, and any pose to that effect will certainly do great harm,. And this is a very important point. The suffering that comes from sexuality does come in large part from improper indulgence in sexual thoughts, feelings, attitudes and relations. But much also comes from improper abstinence."
In no domain of human life is it more true that "hope deferred makes the heart sick." (Proverbs 13:12), and it makes many minds sick as well. Jesus clearly saw that abstinence from sexual relations of which he called "adultery in the heart" (Matthew 5:28)-and that a right abstinence was something that called for very special qualification (Matthew 19:11-12). The realism about sex is carried on by Paul, who taught about a wrong kind of abstention when he wrote it is "better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:9) (2)"Burning" here is something very serious and not just a trivial "inward" manner. It spills out into human life in many ways: severely affecting emotion, inability to engage in normal, healthy sexual relations, disgust and hatred and frustration for the opposite sex and even the abuse children, sexual perversion and sex murders. Chastity that is practiced correctly as an overall rich and enlightening walk with God can bring out the poison from sexual abstinence and prevent the sickness of heart that is now so prevalent in today's world.
Dietrich Bonhoefer observes that
"The essence of chastity is not the suppression of lust but the total orientation of one's life toward a goal."(4) Dallard Willard further explains:
"Healthy abstention in chastity can only be supported by loving, positive involvement with members of the opposite sex. Alienation from them makes room for harmful lusts, and so this discipline must be underscored with compassion, association, and helpfulness. . . . To practice chastity, then, we must first practice love, practice seeking the good of those of the opposite sex we come in contact with at home, work, school, church or next door. Then we will be free to practice the discipline of chastity as appropriate and gain only positive results from it." (3)
Augustine and the Invention of Shame
It is not the Bible, but Augustine who has shaped our contemporary Christian views and theological interpretations on sex. Augustine is responsible for the Western moral teachings on sex. Harvard University Memorial church, Reverend, Peter J. Gomes, relates:
"To minimize carnal pleasure, Augustine and his colleagues endowed the act of intercourse with the burden
of shame. Lust was the sinful desire that could only be mitigated by purposeful, procreative, an unpleasurable sex. the very organs of sex, the genitals, were called by Augustine pudenda, from Latin pudere, "to be ashamed." Thus the genitals were instruments of shame because what they facilitated was itself a shameful, disgusting, but necessary act. Augustine reconstructs, "resitualizes," as modern biblical critics would call it, the Eden story and transforms it from a story of creation and disobedience to a tale of discover of sexual shame, making sex, and not disobedience, the original sin by which all of the subsequent race was tainted at birth. It is in this way the he reads Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." As Ray Tannahill points out in her eminently readable Sex In History, for Augustine and the moral theology he was developing, "The body was no more than a flawed vessel for the mind and spirit, and it was now up to the Church to propagate Christian morality in these terms."
Augustine & Sex
Masturbation was forbidden because it wasted valuable and necessary seed for an endangered species, the holy community, and because it gave pleasure without a compensatory pain. Hence, prices of masturbation had to be invented: hair on the palms, blindness, insanity and impotence by reducing the finite supply of sperm. Thus, one whole strand of Christian ethics contributed to the dangerous reductio ad absurdum that sin is simply sex and thus sex is evil. Augustine has much to teach us, but even he cannot possibly teach us all that we now need to know.He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, if the austere Augustine may be credited with wild dreams. Celibacy became the bade of moral authority. Marriage was a concession to human weakness and the need for companionship, children and sex. And sex within marriage was tolerated not for pleasure but for the morally worthy purpose of producing more Christians-but even children were described as a "bitter pleasure," of which the pangs of childbirth were both sing and punishment. Somewhere in the twelfth or thirteenth century, marriage was made a sacrament, which mean that like all sacraments it could not be dissolved. Jesus' judgment on divorce, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-22), confirms Paul's textually older prohibition on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. According to Tannabill, "One marriage . . . should supply enough companionship for any man; second marriages were adultery, third fornication, and fourth nothing short of 'swinish.'" (7)
Given these meanings of shame and sin attached to the meaning of sex, its no wonder that all sex outside of marriage was looked at in disgust. Pleasurable sex, masturbation, homosexuality and any other non procreative sexual activity was considered deviant and compounded the sin of lust and therefore heresy, labeling those practicing such as heretics.Until fairly recent times, homosexuality was regard first as sin, then as crime, and then as illness. These cultural identifies all stem from what homosexuals do or cannot do sexually, and the source again is not the Bible but the moral assumptions of the Church Fathers with which they then read the Bible and interpreted it as part of the teaching tradition of the church.
"It is just in the explicit sexual sense that Augustine writes about in The City of God. The lust that excites the indecent parts of the body is dangerous because it "assumes power not only over the whole body, and not only from the outside, but also internally, it disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotions combines and mingles with the physical craving," resulting in so intense a sensation of pleasure, "that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed." Since such a lust is not subject ot rational or physical control but is itself master of all, it is both to be feared and controlled. "It is right, therefore, he writes in the very next chapter, "to be ashamed of this lust." and the organs that serve this lust should be called pudentda, or "parts of shame." The trouble with arousal for Augustine is that is does not operate at the behest of the mind, but literally has a mind of its own. The corrective to lust is shame, and shame itself is not a virtue, like modesty, but a punishment for lust. Thus lust, of which sex is the manifestation, is to be punished by shame not because it is pleasurable but because it is irrational.
Most Baptists and Methodists have not spent much time in consideration of the moral philosophy of Saint Augustine, but their anxieties about the sins of the flesh could not be better expressed then his. They threw off much of Roman Catholicism's moral theology, but they retained the notion that somehow, the sins of the flesh got between the sinner and God. Such sins, however, were not sinful because they offended reason but rather because they gave pleasure, which in the refracted Calvinism to which they all heirs, was itself an unacceptable end. Thus sex was only for the begetting of children, shameful for the man, painful for the woman, both part of a divine plan; and sex for any other purpose simply confounded pain and shame, especially if any pleasure without penalty was involved. Women were thus vessels of shame who, like Eve, Jezebel, and Delilah, led their men to disastrous ends. Masturbation was forbidden because it wasted valuable and necessary seed for an endangered species, the holy community, and because it gave pleasure without a compensatory pain. Hence prices of masturbation had to be invented: hair on the palms, blindness, insanity and impotence by reducing the finite supply of sperm.
From these anxieties come many of the other social inhibitions of the flesh. Drinking, for instance, like sex, contributes to the "almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, as overwhelmed," Dancing was also forbidden for its similitude to the sexual act. The old Southern Baptist joke has the young man say to the young woman with whom he is about to have illicit sex, "We'd better do it on the sofa so they won't think we're dancing."
Although wider spectrum of virtues, including those of the Commandments, and those to be aspired to in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, when most Christians think of morality they think first of the sins of the flesh, and then most explicitly of sex. Thus, one whole strand of Christian ethics contributed to the dangerous reductio ad absurdum that sin is simply sex and thus sex is evil. Augustine has much to teach us, but even he cannot possibly teach us all that we now need to know. (8)
Augustine and those who take their moral philosophy from him, think that the creation account in Genesis, all has to do with sex and their awareness of their genitals, what he calls the "parts of shame." He assumed that the nakedness was ipso facto a cause of shame because it provided the occasion of lust, and we know his views on lust. It is hard, however, to take seriously the implication that the story of that first disobedience is simply a tale of prudery and a genealogy of shame. The story is not about sex or lust or "parts of shame," no matter how titillated Augustine was by the conviction that it was. It is about limitations, indeed about the ambiguity of knowledge. The fact that they knew that they were naked means that they saw themselves for the first time a they were and that knowledge, contrary to the modern notions that "knowledge is power," made them realize with their first infusion of knowledge, just how weak and vulnerable they now were and had been. It was not knowledge that had protected them from the blandishments of the serpent, but ignorance that had preserved their innocence. Now they knew all, but their knowledge was not a blessing, it was a curse; and hence, as John Halagood says, "All knowledge is ambiguous." (9)
Fornication - A Term Misapplied
What Does It Really Mean?
Normal Human Passionate Actions
Vs.
Hurtful Actions of Self or Others
Theologians and churches, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others, define the word fornication as any type of sex outside marriage. But is that the correct meaning of the word? Is it fair to put a "black and white" meaning on this word, with a blanket condemnation on any sex outside marriage?
In Easton's Bible dictionary, it is noted: "Fornication: in every form, it was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law." It also goes on to state, "But this word is more frequently used in a symbolical than in its ordinary sense. It frequently means a forsaking of God or a following after idols." So in essence this is not how the fundamentalists define this word with their blanket definition of all sex outside of marriage.Vine's Expository Dictionary defines fornication as illicit sexual intercourse. One has to question: What is illicit sexual intercourse? Here Vines' puts fornication on the same plane as adultery, as a hurtful, unfaithful action.
Throughout the Hebrew and Greek Christian scriptures, within all various accounts, including those of Moses' marriage to a non-Hebrew, Hosea's marriage to a prostitute (the kind that have babies from other men), King David's account of Bathsheba, King Solomon's violation of Deu 17:17-marrying many wives and the strict "putting away and sending back of foreign wives" of Ezra's instructions, there is one main teaching that stands out: love your fellow man as yourself, put mercy over sacrifice, put kindness, empathy and consideration of others over the obedience to laws, rules and regulations. This would include a life that does not hurt and take advantage of others. A way of living that would think of other's feelings and put agape love in the forefront.
Fornication, the same as adultery, were actions that were hurtful, harmful and abusive to others. They were actions
that took advantage of others that acted selfish and callous. Vine's Expository Dictionary calls fornication, "implying excessive indulgence." Adultery consists of people who are unfaithful to their marriage spouses, hurting them. And fornication was also in the same line of unfaithful, hurtful actions. Fornication consists of hurtful actions, actions of unfaithfulness, actions that both defile one's own body of untrustworthiness, lack of loyalty and being a breaker of vows.
Notice Vine's Expository Dictionary
Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words
Fornication, Fornicator: A-1 Noun Strong's Number: 4202 Greek: porneia is used (a) of "illicit sexual intercourse," in Jhn 8:41; Act 15:20,29; 21:25; 1Cr 5:1; 6:13,18; 2Cr 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Rev 2:21; 9:21; in the plural in 1Cr 7:2; in Mat 5:32; 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery; it is distinguished from it in Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21; (b) metaphorically, of "the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith," Rev 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2; some suggest this as the sense in Rev 2:21. A-2 Noun Strong's Number: 4205 Greek: pornos denotes "a man who indulges in fornication, a fornicator," 1Cr 5:9,10,11; 6:9; Eph 5:5, RV; 1Ti 1:10, RV; Hbr 12:16; 13:4, RV; Rev 21:8; 22:15, RV (AV, "whoremonger"). B-1 Verb Strong's Number: 4203 Greek: porneuo "to commit fornication," is used (a) literally, Mar 10:19; 1Cr 6:18; 10:8; Rev 2:14,20, see (a) and (b) above; (b) metaphorically, Rev 17:2; 18:3,9. B-2 Verb Strong's Number: 1608 Greek: ekporneuo a strengthened form of No. 1 (ek, used intensively), "to give oneself up to fornication," implying excessive indulgence, Jud 1:7. Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words
Exceptions To The Rules
King David broke the law and ate the show bread and it was counted as acceptable. Jesus, healed, threshed grain and did work on the Sabbath, clearly breaking the law, and it was acceptable. Why was this so? Because the circumstances neither hurt other people, took advantage of, abused or cheated others, nor did they consist of idolatry. The same is true of sex. When two people have sexual relations and it is a mutual agreeable thing, it does not always fall into the hurtful actions of "excessive indulgence." When married couples are both agreeable to end their relationship and one or both parties has sexual relations before a legal divorce, can it be considered adultery? If there are not hurtful actions of both parties and/or other parties involved, then the opinion here is this cannot be considered adultery. Nor can two consenting persons who have sexual relations without being married, be considered fornication, unless their is hurtful actions taken towards another. Neither of these actions fall into the definition of fornication, unlike the hard line fundamentalist thinkers, who put a "black and white" meaning on the word.
Fornication takes in all acts of prostitution. To sell one's body for sex is idolatry. Sex of humans is to please the other person. With each person doing what pleases the other, sex becomes a beautiful experience of the human psyche and the most intimate and bonding form of intimacy two human beings can obtain. Prostitution is completely selfish to both the buyer and the seller, neither do so for the benefit of the other but only for the self. This is the negative "lust" Apostle Peter and others speak about and falls within the term "fornication."
Jesus was condemned by the religious leaders for breaking the many laws that he did, for the Pharisees put "black and white" restrictive meanings to the many rules, laws, regulations and interpretations of words and scripture, just as many theologians and church leaders do today. They take a word, fornication, and they put a hard-line, black and white meaning into it. For instance the word "kill" means one thing, while the word "murder," means something different. A person can kill someone in self-defense and it's not considered murder. To "steal" something would be a wrong action, no doubt, but to steal a piece of bread to feed your children, who are starving, would that be considered stealing? To have sexual relations of excessive indulgence, domineering, controlling, abusive and hurtful actions would fall into the definition of fornication, but can it be considered fornication when two human beings, who are not legally married, both consenting, neither taking advantage of one another, or hurt another, do what comes natural to two human beings?
1 Corinthians 6:9 English Strong's Greek (Root form) Tense fornicators, [4205] pornos
Lexicon for Strong's Number 4205
4205 pornos {por'-nos}
from pernemi (to sell, akin to the base of 4097); TDNT - 6:579,918; n m
AV - fornicator 5, whoremonger 5; 10
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicatorNowhere does this definition of the Greek word, "pornos," apply to simply include any sex outside of marriage. Unlawful sex, is that against God, not human governments. Unlawful to God, is the lack of mercy, the hurtful actions towards others, selfish, abusive and/or domineering actions. Unlawful pertains to God and not the issuance of human government marriage certificates.
A person, who lives by the law of Christ, is one who tries his or her best to put the consideration of others ahead of their own. They fight with themselves to stop following their inherited selfish tendencies, applying mercy and kindness over the obedience to laws, rules and sacrifices and the unfair interpretive judgment of others. Their actions fall short, but are continually being adjusted and aimed at non-hurtful actions towards their fellow man. Sex is a normal human function. When this takes advantage over someone and becomes hurtful, abusive and unkind towards another person in anyway, whether it is the person partaking in sex, or a partner of this person, it is not in line with the law of the Christ. But, when sex is not domineering, nor abusive and does not hurt or show unkindness to another human it cannot be considered to fall under the term, fornication.In describing the symbolic "Great Whore" of Revelation, written by Apostle John, author Eugene H. Peterson, the Pastor of Christ Our King Presbyterian Church, in Bel-Air Maryland, describes the definition of Whore-worship, adequately defining what fornication is.
"The terrible thing about the whore is not that she takes strangers to bed with her (that is the one arguable decent thing that she does), but that once getting them there she uses her body to lie about life; there is no joining of lives, only of genitals. The exploration and development of our unique human identity, of which sex is the physical means, is replaced by elaborate and deceiving fantasies. A fundamental impoverishment of person is accomplished behind a seductive spell of perfumes, silks, and flatteries. Whoredom uses sex to lie about life; the truth of life is that love is a gift, that relationships are commitments, that sexuality is the sacrament of spirituality. The whore's lie is that love is purchased, that relationships are "deals," the sexuality is appetite. Whoredom is the use of good to do evil; the use of a good body to demean the person, the use of the means of realizing our identity to depersonalize identities. The great wrong in whoredom is not sexual immorality but spiritual sacrilege."
The Great Whore is presented in implicit contrast to the Virgin Bride. After the judgment of the Whore is complete, the contrast will become explicit at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19). The Bride is as sexual a metaphor as the Whore, but it forms an absolute contrast. For the Whore, sex is in the service of commerce; with the Bride, sex is devoted to love. For the Whore, sex is a contract; for the Bride, sex is a life commitment. For the Whore, sex is a calculation; for the Bride, sex is an offering.
We are sexual beings deeply, thoroughly, and inescapably. In the experience of our sexuality we know another and, indirectly, ourselves. It is also in our sexuality that we know or don't know, God. Whore-worship is a matter of moments and occasion. Bride-worship gathers every part of life unto union. Whore-worship is practiced on the principle of attraction and pleasure; Bride-worship is for better and for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part. Bride-worship is always at an immediate disadvantage in competition with Whore-worship, for Whore-worship is indulgent and lusty getting, while Bride-worship is sacrificed and faithful giving. That is why Whore-worship is such a continuous threat to Bride-worship. And why we need St. John's violent caricature of the religious advertising that endangers our endurance and faithfulness." (5)"Fornication" is an abusive, selfish sex that is hurtful and unloving towards others, It is sex for the self and the self only. It is sex for hire, services for pay. It is use of the body for means other than love. Real sex is for the other, a giving of love, a sharing of self, a bonding of spirit, a joining of souls. Real sex is free of charge, moving towards a special intimacy where two human beings communicate and connect in no other way that brings closeness to a higher realm. Nowhere does the Greek word, "pornos" define itself to mean government issued marriage certificates. This has been a misinterpretation from the early days of the post New Testament church, which later mutated to jail terms, torture and executions enforced by the church and government authorities. Today, while far removed from the intolerance of the religious tyranny of the past, the remnants and teachings of many doctrines, dogmas and interpretative meanings still remain.
Today's Changing Circumstances
Today's rising divorce rate in not always a tragedy but represents in some cases mature decisions to change or to grow. To suggest celibacy outside marriage or to "anything goes," are both two extremes that neither bring remedy nor agreement with God. Where sex destroys or diminishes life it can be considered wrong, yet set outside of a legal marriage can be holy and mature.
Our times contain many divorced people that may have been so hurt and devastated that they are not
capable of making another lifetime commitment. Rehabilitation from the death of a spouse can take years of grieving and healing. Dependent children and financial obligations can be left that can drain a person and present extremely unreasonable conditions. Various laws, such as social security, taxes on last will and testaments, career changes and many other obligations all contribute to our changing times, all beyond the patriarchal society of the Jewish nation and subsequent early Christian hierarchical society.
Physical expression of sexuality in relation to another should be appropriate to the level of loving commitment within the relationship. This requires the freedom of relativity.
Yet despite this, the need for an intimate companion does not disappear. That companionship can be on many levels, working, social, friendship. Is sex to be completely ruled out because they do not fit into the churches theological interpretation of the scriptures? Yet is sex expected to be casual on every occasion? The answer to both would no by myself. The real answer depends on the varying level of circumstances on each individual case.
The issue of vulnerability brought out by John Spong and Dr. Lebacqz relates the account of Adam and Eve, "to be naked and not ashamed," suggesting a metaphor for being vulnerable.
"Adam and Eve chose to abandon that stance of vulnerability in exchange for the quest for power. They were enticed by the hope that they might "be like gods." (Gen 3:5), rather then continuing in the status of vulnerability. The desire to possess godlike power over another is a manifestation of the hardening of "the heart of vulnerability."It is interesting to note that the climax of the Christian story is in the affirmation not of power but of powerlessness, which is nothing other than the willingness to be vulnerable. How else can one read the story of the cross?"(10) The conclusion drawn by Dr. Lebacqz and retold by John Spong relate:
"That any exercise of sexuality that violates appropriate vulnerability is wrong. This includes violations of the partners vulnerability and violations of one's own vulnerability." (11) Sex is not just for fun, for play for physical release, for showing off or any other sort of emotional playing that are often attached to sexuality, Rather sex is for the appropriate expression of vulnerability. Without that, sexual expression can be destructive.
John Spong gives five suggestions:
1. The sexual relationship between single adults must be just that-a relationship between single adults. It must not be a violation of either person's marital bond. If one's marital vow is broken by a sexual affair, that affair becomes an expression of dishonesty and will finally be destructive to both the marriage and the character of the violating person. 2. A sexual relationship between single adults must be a union of love and caring, not just a union of convenience or desire. 3. A sexual relationship does not appropriately initiate a relationship. Rather, a sexual relationship must grow out of the bond that two people build together over a period of time. Sex is not properly shared until many other things are shared, such as time, values, life stories, friendship, communication, and a sense of deep trust and responsibility. In other words, sex is not appropriate until there is a structure that will protect each person's vulnerability. 4. Intimacy is by its nature an intensely private and discreet human activity. Appropriate vulnerability requires that it must be kept that way. If both partners are not willing to protect the vulnerability of the other, the relationship becomes hurtful, hateful , and destructive. The sacred exclusive quality of these special moments cannot be compromised by gossip, by indiscretion, or even after the relationship has come to an end, by an expression of one person's anger. The unwillingness to make this commitment, or to carry through on it once made, would argue that the relationship was built on the power of ego needs and are the vulnerably of Personhood. 5. The relationship in which sex is shared by single adults needs to be exclusive. It may not turn out to be eternal, but while it is active it does need to be exclusive. Multiple sex partners at the same time is a violation of vulnerability, commitment, honesty, and the reality of caring. (12)
Comments on Paul's Words in Ephesians 5:3-6
"Let there be no sex sin, impurity or greed among you. Let no one be able to accuse you of such things. dirty stories, foul talk and coarse jokes, these are not for you-instead remind each other of God's Goodness and be thankful. You can be sure of this: The kingdom of Christ and of God will never belong to anyone who is impure or greedy. Don't be fooled by those who try to excuse these sins for the terrible wrath of God is upon all those who do them." Can this scripture be used as a black & white text book ruling?
Apostle Peter:
"For it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." 1 Peter 1:16
Jesus Christ:
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48
Instead of deceiving ourselves, that we are righteous, or that we can become righteous with our efforts and good deeds, we must realize that we are incapable of being such. This is why we need God's grace.
"Any honest, self-aware person should have immediately asserted the impossibility of being perfect like the Father. If human perfection is God's requirement, then no one will make it. Precisely the point! If only the Pharisees had been willing to see their spiritual inadequacy, they would have been well on the way to true rightousness. For then they would have cast themselves on God's mercy alone and appealed for His grace." (6)
"Some people never reveal any of the good that is hidden in them until we give them some of the good, that is to say, some of the charity, that is in ourselves.
We are so much the children of God that by loving others, we can make them good and lovable, in spite of themselves.
We are obliged to become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). That means that we do not regard the evil in others, but give them something of our own good in order to bring out the good He has buried in them." (6a)What is the balanced view of this? What does it mean to be "holy" and "perfect"?
As noted above Paul had a war within himself, the war between his righteous, zealous and legalistic past as a strong, wise, highly educated Hebrew and Pharisee on the one side and the weak, beggarly, incompetent, powerless and worldly foolish man on the other. The later being the only one God would use to operate his spirit and power from within, making Paul strong.
One of the best examples to weigh Paul's words, along with Peter's words, "to be holy," would be to look at the example of Jesus Christ, "the one whose steps should be followed closely." When Jesus hung around tax collectors and prostitutes, do you think any of them spoke about impurity or greed among them? Do you honestly think that none of them told dirty stories, foul talk and coarse jokes in the presence of Jesus? Are there any accounts of Jesus getting bent out of shape over this? Did Jesus make any statements equivalent to the above made by Paul? With the exception of Jesus words on adultery in Matthew 5:28, 32, there are none. Instead of getting offended and making some blanketed legal statement, Jesus both taught and socialized with these known sinners. He taught what was right and exposed what was wrong, which most likely included rudeness, coarseness and sexual jokes and stories that were hurtful towards another, but never in the way of a strict legal obedience to reading of the scriptures. It was only the Pharisees who did that, including the former Pharisee Paul.
These sinners, on the other hand, never strictly followed the Jewish rituals, performing the many sacrifices, only the Pharisees so righteously did them. Yet when Jesus gave the parable of the tax collector (who were known to be both greedy and extortioners of money out of people) and the righteous Pharisee (know to be righteous, law abiding, God favored people), it was only the tax collector's prayer that God heard. This is because the tax collector was both repentant and humble, unlike the Pharisee, who made blanket, legal statements of scripture against the tax collector. When the Pharisees got morally bent out of shape and overly offended because of Jesus both eating and socializing with Prostitutes, Tax Collectors and known sinners, Jesus condemned them for this, at the same time forgiving the others.
Instead of agreeing with the Pharisees, that these sinful people were "unholy," Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 to them:
"But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matthew 9:10-13
Jesus considered these humble, weak, "sinners" as holy, as they exhibited repentance and humility. With this example in mind, the example of Christ himself, who is stated about himself, :
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9
And is described by the writer of the book of Hebrews as, :
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being." Hebrews 1:3
To "follow Christ's steps closely" as a "perfect example," and put in balanced and proper perspective what it means to be "holy," along with Apostle Paul's religious background as a former Pharisee, his perspective and war going on within himself, as he wrote the above words. We can then use "our perceptive powers," along with God's Spirit, that lives in us, to guide us "to distinguish right and wrong," becoming "full grown in our powers of understanding, " using discernment. True discernment, along with God's spirit, always puts flexibility, tolerance and understanding, on each and every individual circumstance, without making blanket legal statements and rules.
Footnotes: 1 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Pay Attention To Yourselves And To The Flock, p. 92 2 Dallas Willard, The Spirit of Disciplines, p. 171 3 Ibid, p. 172 4 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 163 5 Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder, pp. 146-147 6 Tom Hovestol, Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees Extreme Righteousness, p. 83 6a Thomas Merton, No Man Is An Island, page 170 7 Peter J. Gomes, The Good Book, pp. 168-170 8 Ibid, pp. 251-253 9 Ibid, pp. 259-260 10 John Spong, Living In Sin, p. 213 11 Ibid, pp. 214 12 Ibid, pp. 216
