Sex
by Charles Eaton
By way of an introductory statement, I am a college student attending Oakwood University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution which is also an HBCU (Historically Black College or University). Academia notwithstanding, the real learning takes place at the midday lunch tables in the café. Here different perspectives, various represented majors, and diverse geographical backgrounds gather together to argue about the happenings of the day over veggie meat and rice. The content of my writing both now and in the future will often reflect what is discussed at these sacred lunch table parleys and barbershop like gatherings where the ‘real’ conversations are held.
—–
It has become clear to me the foundation of Adventism is soon going to be challenged. I understand that not everyone here is Adventist, but those of us who are, and certainly the general population of Adventists at large, became and stay Adventist in large part because of how well we believe Adventism parallels biblical truth. It isn’t an exaggeration to say the heart, soul, identity, selling point, and staying power of Adventism — our claim to be the remnant church spoken of in Revelation and our interpretation of the 2300 day prophecy — all hinge on our ability to remain in biblical truth. But have we ignored or misinterpreted some of the truth we so adamantly claim to posses?
CNN recently ran a story which talked about sexuality in single Christians. The article noted that a study conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy in 2009 showed that an alarmingly high 80 % of unmarried ‘evangelical’ young adults between 18–29 years have had sex, compared with 88 % of unmarried adults without the evangelical label. According to my own personal research (asking around), I noticed that 80% translates pretty well to the Adventist community as well. Several reasons were offered by CNN to try to explain this high mark among Christians, and I believe they are absolutely correct when they say it may be an issue of culture.
Back in the Bible times, it was quite common to see young people married in their teenage years. Yet in today’s culture, it is illegal to get married before 18, and most marriages don’t occur until the late 20’s to early 30’s anyway. This difference in marriage ages across time presents a simple reason why people no longer wait to have sex: It’s harder. Although, in general, young people today face many more years of post puberty temptation than the young people of the Bible ever did, the Adventist response remains “suck it up”. As a denomination, we say regardless of culture or times, the action of premarital sex was a sin then, is still a sin today, and will be a sin tomorrow. (Interesting side note for the original meaning sticklers: we translate premarital sex to mean ‘fornication’ which comes from the Greek root word “porneia”, but there is a apparently mini controversy as to whether or not “porneia” was intended to include premarital sex at all.) Regardless, Adventists view this as a biblical principle, not a cultural phenomenon.
Compare that with the biblical teachings of the role of women in the church. The fact of the matter is, biblical days were not as kind to women as they were to horny teenagers (1 Cor 14:33-35, 1 Tim 2:9-15, etc). But the times have changed since then because it is no longer ‘cool’ to treat women in the way these and other verses would suggest. The Adventist church has, understandably, attempted to have its cake and eat it too. Taking a modernized view, our denomination has primarily taught that passages like these promote an idea which is a cultural phenomenon, not a biblical truth. On one hand, we have subtly encouraged female theology majors to enter into the ranks of the chaplaincy, rather than endeavor to be head pastors themselves. Yet, on the other hand, we wink at the verses which bar women from speaking up in the church, nor do we prevent them from holding teaching positions in Sabbath School. It would be very hard to expect the church to conform to the standards Paul laid out in the New Testament, perhaps almost as hard as teenagers trying to stay abstinent in today’s sex-saturated society.
Whether premarital sex and the role of women in the church is a cultural phenomenon or a biblical principal isn’t directly the point of this blog. My questions are these: Who got to decide which is which? What is the standard for determining what is truth versus what is cultural convenience? Is it possible that our approaches to premarital sex and other culturally sensitive topics are wrong? How long will we continue to give females a cute pat on the back and a sticker as we usher them to the Chaplaincy office instead of letting them head their own congregation? Should they even have Chaplaincy positions? If, through careful study of the Word of God, this church has been found slack on its incorporation of any biblical truths, will the institution of Adventism have the nerve to be unpopular in order to be correct? Will we, as a people, be willing to stand up for unpopularity if the church proves slow in moving its feet? I don’t know when, but it’s only a matter of time until these issues come to their climax.
Charles, I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you were trying to say or not, but were you trying to suggest that perhaps pre-marital sex is ok these days?
Rodlie, isn’t a more appropriate preliminary question, ‘what is marriage’ exactly – a biblical term, a legal term or both? They don’t necessarily always mean the same thing. A Jew married to a Gentile in Nazi Germany would not be ‘legally married’, even if they were married by a pastor or priest with witnesses and thus obviously ‘biblically married’. Similarly, de facto couples are often recognised as ‘legally married’ under the law in many Western countries today – even if they are not ‘biblically married’ in our eyes. Thus, it is difficult to always pinpoint exactly when a ‘marriage’ is said to occur.
Whilst there is no doubt pre-marital sex is wrong, it isn’t actually clear whether all this sex is in fact – ‘pre-marital’? Doesn’t both the Bible (Duet 22 and 1 Cor 6) and the history of the law (Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard) teach that betrothed couples who consummate their relationship are in fact legally and biblically married?
I only mention this because the statistics cited by Charles do not seem to distinguish between casual sexual promiscuity and those who have sex in a long-term relationship whilst being engaged. I would think that whilst some 80% of Adventist Christians are having pre-marital sex, the majority of those are still at least engaged and end up formalizing their marriage legally anyway.
Finally, I really do find this modern jihad from senior members of the Church totally hypocritical, given the Church’s very lax enforcement of divorce today. Perhaps the Church leadership should worry about divorce (which is more an issue of their generation) before focusing on young people’s problems. Read Deut 22, and compare God's leniency towards pre-marital sex vs adultery (and divorce is adultery). Who do you think Jesus would be more likely to condemn?
Charles' point, which I totally agree, is that rather than helping and being sympathetic to the difficulties of modern courtship practices (many of which are influenced by pressure from parents and the Church not to get married too young or without sufficient financial assets or the big white wedding), the Church simply asks young people to ‘suck it up’. I find this totally unacceptable – and I am sure Jesus would too!
Interesting article but the analysis is problematic. While it is normal for couples to get married well into their late 20s and early 30s here in the US, the same is not so for many parts of the world. In many countries, females routinely get married before reaching 18, with males being slightly older. So, that aspect of the discussion about culture is really only applicable to the US and similarly-situated countries.
The grounds that the “cultural” argument stands on is common sense. Today, the Church does not send women into certain countries to proselytize and lead out in congregations because they would not be accepted. Just like in the pre-1960s South, it would not be wise to send an African-American into a white suburb of Aroma Alabama to tell them about the Sabbath – it wouldn’t work. Conversely, this idea about pre-marital sex is consistent all throughout the Bible. Consider the woman at the well whom was told by Jesus that she had 5 husbands. The underlying reasoning transcends cultural mores.
I’m interested in the author’s view on the alternative. It seems to me that this logic (that since we can’t control ourselves, then premarital sex should be OK) is the beginning of a slippery slope. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry. Clearly, “everybody” is doing it. Do we then OK it as a church? What about the increased popularity of sex with minors, should that be OK’d too? Also, do we just sleep around at this point? What would be our guidelines?
Lastly, the SDA church is coming around when it comes to women’s roles in the church. Several female alumni of OU are now pastoring and have pastored in the Church. I would only think that more will be coming in the near future.
There are other possibilities, of course: leaping to the one we fear most seems to be an ingrained response.
What about if Christians moved back toward a situation where people married younger? Paul did say it's 'better to marry than to burn (with desire)'. Instead of accepting the social changes that lead to a couple of decades of 'burning', why not support Christian young people to make good choices of partners, help them with support on how to make a marriage last, and have them marry as soon as practicable after the age of consent?
It's not a response I'm particularly advocating, but there are ways, within culture, of sticking by the principles that we believe are important.
On the ordination of women, the current policy is simply wrong and unBiblical. The texts used were not even directed to first century culture in general, but to very specific situations in very specific churches, and they are being twisted out of their plain meaning in order to bolster existing prejudices.
I hope that the recently commissioned Biblical review will demonstrate this, but sadly don't have a lot of confidence, given the outcomes of similar such reviews.
Clearly, culture has entered into the equation (regarding the issue of females in the ministry), as differences in the NAD and more conservative customs (and interpretations) in Africa and other male dominated cultures have been quietly acknowledged — and adopted. The key question is, as Charles has posed it is, "Who decides — and how?"
Over time, questions of theological consistency will butt against expediency in ways that can't be controlled. Organizational discipline has far less meaning for the emerging generation. Rationalizing decisions with cultural smoothing is not likely to cut it.
What a way to start off your blogging. For me the most facinating question is how do we as a church respond to:
1. The reality that many of the Adventist young people going to Adventist schools are having sex before marriage.
2. That many single adults in Adventist congregations are having sex before or outside of marriage.
– Do we hide our head in the sand and pretend it isn't really happening?
– Does this become another vehicle for purging the church of the "unfit or unholy"?
– What is the practical, Christlike redemptive response to this reality?
– Perhaps we most importantly ought to be asking the question, why is this happening in our church?
In the grip of grace
Steve Moran
I congratulate Mr. Easton on raising a question that most church leaders would rather not touch. He also asks one of the right questions about whether we are talking here primarily about cultural or core moral issues–or a little of both?. Since institutional churches–especially those of the conservative variety–have a bad habit of confusing these categories, we need to think carefully about what exactly are the core issues that are in play. Whatever "side" one wants to take, this is one of those topics with a lot of "it depends." I've always been facinated with the statement attributed to Paul about it being better to marry than to "burn." It would appear that this issue has been with us for a long, long, time.
I agree that this is a great way to start a blog. The topic is sure to attract attention.
Sex is great! When it is…. And when is it? When no one gets hurt. When it is truly
consensual. When those "doing it" respect each other. When one person is not merely
"using" the other person. When people practice appropriately "safe sex." When
conception is prevented or is intended. When it is kept very private and personal.
But, of course, as is implied by all above, there are a lot of problems that can
result when sex hurts and harms the people involved or other people who are
significant in their lives. Young people need to become aware–hopefully not
always through direct experience–of the perils and pitfalls associated with sex,
so they will make wise choices. Perhaps there is a need for educational efforts
that can help young people make wiser choices. My guess is that a brittle
"don't do it" policy is regarded as a joke by most young people. On the other
hand, a pretty good case can be made for "wait until you are ready" and "don't
take it lightly" and "don't feel that you have to rush into anything." And, of
course, to try to be sure that every young person knows how to protect
themselves and their partners from the unintended correlates and consequences
of sexual activity.
Historically this problem was dealt with by either marrying people off at or soon after puberty, or providing some other outlet for sexual expression. As recently as 200 years ago, the age of consent in English speaking countries was usally 14 for males and 12 for remales. That was fairly stable for most of European history, and seems about the same as in most other areas of the world.
Where people married others of the same approximate age, the hormonal surges came around the age of marriage. Where the custom was for men to marry later, usually there was some provision made for adolescent males to have some form of sexual activity, either licitly or with 'benign neglect' of laws forbidding such activity. The most common arrangements seem to be 1) access to married women in some form that was seen as less than 'real' sex (as in some areas of east Africa today), 2) access to prostitues or concubines (very widespread), or 3) access to other youths or older men (more common than most would like to believe). I am not sure I would want to be the one to introduce any of those options to a church board. There were of course areas where the culture simply married the girls off young and imposed heavy penalties on youth found breaking those laws. The evidence seems to suggest such areas almost invariably drifted towards 2) above in practice. The presence of female slaves in most cultures allowed a young man to have sex without violating anyone's rights (the female slave having none, of course). I can't see a church board going for that option either.
For the ancient near east, it would seem Israel differed little from surrounding nations. Both males and females married relatively early – certainly within a few years of puberty for males, often at puberty for females. Concubines and sex with slave girls seem to have been allowed in practice. But, sex with free girls was not an option. Most ANE societies seem to give fathers and/or husbands the right to put to death those who had sex with a free girl. Most girls were betrothed at or before puberty, and betrothal gave many of the rights of marriage. It would have been hard for a teenage boy to find a free girl who did not already 'belong' to someone else, so sex before marriage was very likely to be seen as and treated as adultery. That is reflected in the Bible where, if a young man was caught with a girl, he either marreid her if she was not betrothed, or if she was, either he was executed for rape, or both for adultery. The Bible does not speak to a society where both males and females spent long years being sexually mature but not married or betrothed to someone. I doubt that anyone in ancient Israel – or anywhere up until the modern age – could imagine such a state existing.
I don't believe we are misinterpreting the Bible. This is just another case of the Bible speaking to a different situation and not to ours. The easient answer from a moral POV is early marriage – perhaps about 12yo if we really want to avoid pre-marital sex. But would that work in our society? Pobably depends on how much we want it to work. At the moment, 'don't ask, don't tell' seems to be our preferred option. Which, of course, brings its own moral dilemmas.
Kevin, I think you have nailed the issue on the head. The problem is that people's view of marriage is probably more influenced by Victorian notions of Ellen White's time in the 19th Century than either the Bible or modern times. It is very important to compare 'apples with apples'. The same people who put pressure on young people not to have sex are the same people who put pressure on them not to get married too young without being financially secure. In many cases, it is Adventist parents and our Church leaders who are sending these mixed messages. Maybe they need to be consistent with what they are trying to say!
Charles,
Welcome aboard! You are absolutely right that the church is about to undergo a shaking. I'd say it already is because so many people like you and me are seeing the contrasts and asking "Why?" That makes us a threat to traditionalism but the bright hope our future will be built spiritual reality and energized connection with God.
"…the very first blessing specifically made for man (sex)…."
I'm having a little difficulty understanding what is meant by this statement.
Aha! Good story! I especially like your mention of the bonobos…. For those who do not yet know, bonobos (aka pygmy chimpanzees, Pan paniscus) have highly varied and apparently quite joyful sex lives–certainly sufficient to arouse wonder and envy in Adam. For a glimpse of bonobo behavior have a look at:
DeWaal, Frans "Tension regulation and nonreproductive functions of sex in captive bonobos (Pan paniscus)." National Geographic RESEARCH 3(3):318-335, 1987.
The patterns described by Frans DeWaal from bonobos at the San Diego Zoo have also been observed and filmed in the wild. Their behavior could have served as a model for the kama sutra. And, guess what! For bonobos none of this is sinful! Might some human sexuality have functions similar to those suggested by DeWaal?
In the same issue of the journal, there is a review of Jane Goodall's Chimpanzees of Gombe. Interestingly, the "common" chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, have a pattern of sexuality that is mostly characterized by female proceptivity and promiscuity.
Adam must have had plenty to do watching all those copulating animals in the garden.
I think the issue is really how do we view the Bible. Casebook? Codebook? If we say it is our codebook I could point to numerous edicts and admonitions that we readily ignore. We actually use it as a casebook so in that light culture plays a part. To whom was the passage written and what was the lesson to be learned? Then we can prayerfully apply to our lives today. Alden Thompson makes this case and he reminds that we have the 1, the 2 and the 10 so that we don't slip into total moral sloshy permissiveness. These are the Laws that are absolute. The 1–Love God. The 2–Love God and Neighbor. The 10–well you know what those are.
Could I throw another option into the mix? Perhaps the Bible is one of God's attempts to get us to join him in a conversation? Not the final word, but the first word to tempt us to ask questions or even argue?
Yes, underlying most SDA discussions is the issue of how we relate to the Bible (and the related question of how we relate to Ellen White). It seems few people want to have a practical and deep discussion on this issue – most prefer to quote a few texts (often out of context) with the intention of stopping the conversation rather than encouraging it. Even a blog on Dr Canale's ideas (which are rather radical) couldn't get anyone interested in the actual issues. It seems most of us would rather argue over the surface ideas (or argue over whether we should be arguing over them) rather than dealing with deeper issues. A good example is that we spent the last 3 decades arguing over the ordination of women, and only now do we begin to look at what ordination is. I suspect it is too late. Every conclusion comes with a fairly high cost, so we are most likely to discover that we will go with whatever most supports our present situation. Likewise, any conclusion on how to relate to the Bible is likely to come with a high cost, so I suspect we will continue to argue over peripherals while many simply walk away.
On a practical level, what can we do about the fact that most of our members believe that sex outside marriage (between one woman and one man, both preferably SDA and committed to traditional gender roles, in theory if not practice, and intended to last for life) is always wrong, yet the majority do not, and don't really intend to (although they would, sort of, like to), follow the beliefs they espouse? You cannot convince most people the Bible does not teach that sex should only be within marriage, and most peopel are not prepared to wait until they get married at around 30 to have sex. Perhaps the room has so many elephants simply because *no one* has any idea what to do with the elephants should we admit they exist.
I am really surprised – and pleased – that this has not yet degenerated into a discussion of whether the author is promoting immorality and has no idea what the Bible actually says. What it does say on the topic is quite scary when you take a close look and ask about implications. So much that does not fit our picture of what the Bible should say.
This is a good blog and a good thread. Charles, you are as couragious as you are sharp in your observations.
What Kevin has said above, and some other points got me thinking. This issue of sex/sexuality, ordination of women, and (dare I say it) evolution's challenge to fundamentalist views of the Bible, seem to all be intertwined. They all have in common a serious challenge to, at least how we interpret the Bible, but perhaps even more so, to its actual role and authority in faith, belief and practice.
In actual practice, (though to varying degrees), the way many of us relate to these things shows we only give lip service to the so called Authority of Scripture anyway. Perhaps there is a similarity to Kevin's point about arguing over women's ordination for decades, only now to begin asking the better question – what is ordination. Maybe all these issues should point us away from the questions – what does the Bible say (demand of us) in relation to sex, ordination etc – and on to the core question of what authority does it, or should it, have to make any demands? What a waste if we spend another 3 decades arguing over what it says, and worse, trying to live by often stringent interpretations, only then to ask better (imo) question what authority should it have. That would especially be sad if we found the answer to that was "not as much as we think".
Thank you all for your encouraging comments. I have to admit, I am learning just as much reading these comments as I was talking about the subject with my friends. One of the things I found most fascinating about the subject of sex is the fact that Paul seems to suggest marriage as a way to escape sexual tempation. This has always been one of the parts of the Bible which I don't really like because I always assumed that marriage was so much more than the sex (though it is an important part). Yet Paul didn't seem to treat marriage with the…respect that I thought it deserved when it came to the "better to marry than burn" statement. Also, I really don't know what the church is going to do with girls trying to be pastors. I have several female friends studying in the ministry now who plan on going knuckle to knuckle with the conference on this issue, and I myself am conflicted about if those particular verses still apply. Oakwood as a school is still pretty conservative on the issue, though there is a female associate pastor at the church.
Kevin,
To continue your point re the Bible and my point above.
I do think you are spot on when you say:
"Likewise, any conclusion on how to relate to the Bible is likely to come with a high cost, so I suspect we will continue to argue over peripherals while many simply walk away. "
I think you are so right. What seems to also come out of the blog and comments is that the cost of not facing these deeper questions will perhaps be just as high. Female graduates going "knuckle to knucle with the Conference, people walking away, conflict between theological factions etc etc. (and that's not bringing the gay issue into it either).
Perhaps the growing ferment within the ranks on these things will lead to an "Arab Spring" within Adventism.
There is an interesting book by Christian Smith called "Making the Bible Impossible". He makes some excellent points against Biblicism (which is our traditional position). I suspect many of our theologians would concur with him on the problems, but I suspect everyone – administrators, theologians and informed laymen – are somewhat scared by the question "what else is there?" We have been almost brainwashed into believing there is only biblicism or some form of 'Godless' higher criticism. If we don't go with 'the Bible alone' (a liberal Christian invention, embraced whole-heartedly by fundamentalism) and a literal understanding thereof, can we maintain a belief in the Bible as being inspired by God and the foundation of the Chrisitan faith? I believe we can, and a lot of work has been done in different (relatively) conservative denominations to find a way of accepting the Bible as it is (not inerrant, no verbal inspiration, clearly a mixture of the human and the divine – all things we have accepted for most of our history) but still seeing it as the word of God to us. But it leaves the Bible being less clear on many issues than we have asserted, and I suspect that that scares the pants off many. If we are the true church because we have the truth – if not all truth, at least far more than anyone else – then what happens if we admit that there are other answers just as biblical, and perhaps just as right? We have reluctantly come to that conclusion on the human nature of Christ, but what if that is true of other equally important issues, or even lesser issues? What if there is no one clear, unambiguous teaching on marriage, or on sex in general? For a church where 'everything decently and in order' is as important as 'what will the neighbours think?', that is a scary prospect.
I wonder if Mr.Onjukka intended his comment about Adam being "a babe . . . babbling . . ." to indicate that the Adam and Eve narrative has real problems if taken literally. As for the source of conflict between those who study scripture and those who study nature, may I suggest what has been suggessted by many others: the source of the conflict is "who controls" or "who has the final word." Theology provided the last word on "truth" even about the physical world until the rise of science. Theology can still provide the last word in the areas of ethics and morality since science has nothing to say about these subjects. But theology, in the hands of literal Biblicists, still insists it has the last word even in areas that science has a lot to say. That would appear to be the source of much of the conflict.
Here’s a question to which I have never heard an answer: How is it, exactly, that polygamy was legally permitted in Biblical patriarchal society (see Deuteronomy 21:15-17)—though apparently not divinely sanctioned—yet considered unlawful at some unspecified point in the future?
Then again, is it actually unlawful from a Biblical perspective; or is it that western European culture/society has imposed its will and cultural/societal preference on what constitutes/defines marriage?
Another question along these lines: Was it because of man’s fallen state that God permitted something other than His ideal for mankind; understanding that monogamy had become impractical??
As to who has the last word between God via Scripture and man (via “science”), it is perhaps simply a matter of who created—or invented—who. We cannot honestly, or logically, split the difference.
European culture was pre-disposed to monogamy, but it was also derived from what the Bible says. God created one wife for Adam, not multiple wives, even though multiple wives would have helped with filling the earth. God also said "a man will leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife", not wives. God's use of marriage as an analogy to his relationship with his people was also used to argue for just one husband and one wife. As we understand it, God's original plan was one man and one woman united for ever. As you point out, sin required some accommodation, even if it was only that 'for ever' had to be modified to 'until death'. The Bible nowhere explicitly condemns polygamy, or concubinage, or slavery. But neither does it commend these things. Knowing what we do of God's character, can we commend them, or tolerate them? Can we permit them where circumstances may make them the best of bad options? I am not sure of the answers, but they are good questions.
As to who has the last word, I believe we have to be very careful that it is God via the Scriptures (or any other method he chooses) and not simply us using Scripture to impose our answers.
You have not heard an answer because there is none. Even so, did God deal with them any differently than He does with us today just because they had multiple wives? Was He any less interested in their salvation? Any less capable of redeeming them?
Ervin wrote:
" Theology can still provide the last word in the areas of ethics and morality since science has nothing to say about these subjects."
Ah but perhaps it modifies those things. Perhaps the discovery of contraceptives changed the needed moral proscription of sex within marriage. Certain things make brillant sense in a particular culture with particular scientific knowledge. But perhaps when the culture changes because of new discoveries and methods of dealing with things the theology should also change. That of course is the rub. Where one thing may be called progress in life and the other side may call it creeping compromise. Can mankind change and adapt or not is the question.
The literal account of Creation Week is not a myth as suggested but is what the Bible clearly teaches. To pass off such a wonderful act of Creation by an Intelligent Designer as a myth is to accuse the Holy Bible (and God) of teaching myths. This also denotes an undercurrent of anti-Christ as the Bible plainly teaches that Christ IS God and 'the' Creator Himself. The seven day weekly cycle also emerges from within this context too. The 'even to even' literal 24 hour day makes good sense when considering that Jesus observed the Sabbath which was the usual 'even to even' one. It was from this same Intelligent Designer that sexual intimacy between a man and a woman was 'designed' and it was also part of the 'It was Good' pronounced by God on completion of his work/week of Creation. (Imagine an evolving life-form during an 'invisible' transitional stage in which the Reproductive System was still in the process of evolving. How would it all work when considering the complexity and design necessary for it all to work?) Sex was/is a part of our Intelligent Design and therefore what it was intended for: both in its Pro-Creational and Relational context of a union between a man and a woman. A free for all license to engage in 'hanky panky' premarital 'college' sex or any other 'cultural sex' venue is contrary to what fleeing sexual immorality is about [1Cor 6:18]. This would include the practice of self abuse by some horny sex crazed enthusiasts.
I'm afraid this post speaks for itself as one perspective. It certainly is similar to the perspective I was taught as I grew up as an SDA. The validity of this perspective is so far from an evidence-based view that I honestly cannot accept any of it. Nearly every assertion included seems bizarre to me–as if it were all part of a paranoid thought matrix. With apologies in advance to Trevor and others who hold this point of view, I just thought I should express my perspective.
Sir, I didn't expect a red carpet to be rolled out for me by you and some of the others holding similar worldviews as you. This is just my opinion and although I respect your opinion too, I reserve the right to strongly disagree with your views and your fixation to make your usual ‘shrink’ style judgmental assertions. I’m glad though, that at least you are allowed to express your views, opinions and judgments freely. Some of us aren’t so lucky. At least some are more equal than others which makes me happy for you. No need for apologies Sir, go for it. You’re doing a fine job so far.
Joe Erwin
I just had a thought when I read your post above–if we could tell those who lived and supposedly experienced the events of Genesis (the Exodus, flood, etc.) what we are doing today and all about technology, wouldn't they think our lives completely bizarre? And paranoid for sure with being watched by cameras on our streets and in shops?
Whether factual or not, the creation account is indeed a 'myth' as that term is usually used by scholars. A myth is a story designed to explain why things are the way they are. If Genesis 1 is not that, what is it? The argument in Adventism is not over whether Genesis 1 is a myth, but over whether it is or is not also factual.
Timo,
I know you didn’t intend this, but you apparently somehow completely deleted my comment about definitions of the word “myth.”
Well my good friends here's one theologian who thinks otherwise about being too quick to put the Biblical Creation account in the myth box as he seems to think that it signifies more than just what a myth may signify. I like the way he looks at it:
The German theologian Gerhard von
Rad writes in his commentary on Genesis
(s 47 f, 63) that Gen. 1-2 is a doctrine, not
myth or saga.
"Nothing is here by chance; everything
must be considered carefully,
deliberately, and precisely.
It is false, therefore, to reckon
here even occasionally with archaic
and half-mythological rudiments,
which one considers
venerable, to be sure, but theologically
and conceptually less
binding. What is said here is intended
to hold true entirely and
exactly as it stands. There is no
trace of the hymnic element in the
language, nor is anything said that
needs to be understood symbolically
or whose deeper meaning
has to be deciphered."
von Rad also warns modern Bible
students against reading their own problems
concerning faith and knowledge into
the text. These words come from one of the
most respected Old Testament scholars of
our time. According to him, from a hermeneutical
point of view, the creation
story is a doctrine.
So you found one person who says 'it isn't a myth'? That doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, a myth. 'Doctrine' is not a recognised literary form. Von Rad is arguing against the idea of a 'myth' as being untrue, something no one here has suggested. He is saying that Genesis 1-2 was written to explain a belief, and not cobbled together from old and half-true stories. Most of us agree with that. I would disagree about there being nothing 'whose deeper meaning has to be deciphered'. It has long been recognised that Genesis 1-2 is a polemic against polytheistic ideas then current. Genesis 1-2 can be a doctrine expressed in mythic form, or it can be a legend expressed in mythic form, or it could even be a wonderful poem that was meant to be understood symbollically written in mythic form. However you understand it, the form is a myth: it is written to explain how things came to be how they are. Whether it is also a doctrine, a poem, an allegory or a polemical story doesn't change that. As Tolkien pointed out long ago, the true myths are the best ones.
Kevin,
There is an element to mythology, whether factual or not, that you overlook. That element or aspect would be that of the supernatural. Mythology, even in the scholarly sense, invariably includes some supernatural aspect to the explanation of things as they are. Otherwise Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for example, which to some extent explains why Europe is configured as it currently is, might be considered as mythology; which would be ridiculous.
What qualifies the Genesis narrative as a myth—from a “scholarly” perspective—is the assertion that “In the beginning, God created…”
I believe you are correct. Somewhere in every myth there is usually something that goes beyond the ordinary. I suspect it is becasue most people throughout time have had serious doubts that all we see has a very ordinary beginning. Perhaps that is why I find myself very reluctant to accept a naturalistic explanation of of life and how it began.
If some don't like the word "myth" to describe the opening chapters of Genesis (even though it is, from a dictionary point of view, an appropriate word), let's call those passages "narratives." The point of disagreement is the same. Are Adam and Eve actual, literal, historic human beings who lived indiividual lives living in a Garden with a talking snake? Did the ancient Hebrews think they were "real" people. Most (all?) did. Did Jesus' discourses assume that they were "real" people? Since most, probably all, of the people he was talking to assumed that they were, what would we expect?. Is this an important topic for modern Christiains to be concerned about? Only for those who need to believe in an totally error free Bible.
Ya know, I used to be worried about your influence on people who might read what you post and have a weak mind in the faith. Or about non-SDA's who stumble across this on-line site and get the impression you represent the Churches train-of-thought.
But not anymore. When one has spent so much life effort learning the myth of evolution, and so much time using their talents to convince people NOT to believe the opening of the word of God-you are so far adrift you can't even see the shoreline anymore…..With all due respect, I don't see how anyone can take you serious-in or out of Adventism….
Pardon my ignorance, but I have never met SDAs who didn't take the creation narritve literally. If the creation story isn't true, then why believe in the Bible at all? Why wouldn't Adam and Eve be actual human beings who lived and were kicked out the Garden? If they werern't real than logically the entire chapter of Gen 4 (Cain and Able, plus subsequent geniology) would read as "not real" as well. Where is the line drawn?
May I suggest that meeting more SDAs would be beneficial in many ways. If you choose to be somewhat selective, I would completely understand 🙂
I doubt there is a position on origins that is not held by an SDA somewhere. One of the wonders of the internet is that we get to meet, and sometimes even like, people who hold positions we could never have imagined on our own. And then we sometimes find people with the same views right in our own local church. There is so much we don't share with each other, for a number of reasons.
Just curious: what do you mean by 'real/not real'? Not factual? Not true? Nothing to teach us? What you mean by 'real' changes the answer a lot. The same goes for the question of what you mean by 'true'. It is not just a semantic game. The parables of Jesus were true, and taught real lessons, but were they also factual? Think carefully before answering that, as it has disturbing implications.
A month late, but by real I mean actually happened, as in, if I had a video camera and the proper angle, I could have recorded the entire event and played it back when I chose. I don't think there is a way to "know" for sure if the parables were factual or not, but I don't treat them that way. From what I understand of the culture, they seemed to be just contextual stories for the people or anologies, not recounts of actual events.
Mr. Eaton makes a good point often raised when this topic is considered. Once you begin the process of evaluating and rethinking that the Genesis narratives (I didn't say "myth," but it's the same thing) as symbolic of a much greater "truth" that being a literal story, where do you stop? It's the slippy slope problem. Are Cain and Able real people?. Was there a "real" world-wide flood? Is there a "real" Noah's Ark on the "Mountains of Ararat"? Is Hamlet "real"?
It seems to me, if Adam and Eve story is a fable, then I am a fable and I am not breathing and all of you are men babbling and talking but you are not real.
Erv,
We'll leave the bait on the hook for now. How about respecting the question itself? Charles is new to this space. He, like others, is perplexed about the disconnect between Adventists (by faith) and cultural adventists.
Please, help him (and us) understand.
I agree. The main question — sex — is much more interesting.
PS There is a "disconnect" between traditional Adventists and cultural Adventists. That's a fact. Moving on.
Do you have a text to start us on this journey? So much of importance does indeed lie in 'the silence'. I still suspect it is God waiting for our response so he can continue the dialog, but perhaps that is heresy.
What does Genesis 6:2 mean?
Joe,
The sons in the line of Seth found the daughters of Cain attractive, and the rest is history.
Your question really should extend to verse 4. This is where your question brings us to the "fork in the road." There are those who say that the "sons of God" are angels who had sex with women and produced children – the nephilim / giants.
There are 2 interpretations available to Genesis 6: the sons of God were either sons of Seth, or angels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
I imagine the answer is unknown and probably is unknowable….
I reckon Joe is right…the answer is unknowable.
We could also suggest the question was never intended to be asked. Perhaps it is just Myth in the sense of "A story", never intended to be taken as real, or factual, but rather an attempt of the writer/s to grapple with what it means to be human; the stirrings and longings of the human psyche; the dynamics of human interaction etc.
Is the entire "story" of Genesis any different? When one compares it to what nature says about how it and we came to be, one is left with a gaping chasm between the reality we see and the descriptions given in Genesis. At best Genesis should be taken as an attempt to grapple with origins, meaning and what it means to be human.
How is this relevant to the blog? Well, when there is a massive divide between human culture and theological directives of a "book" that is given full authority on ones life, one must either ignore the differences, live according to their culture, and try to banish the subsequent guilt; Try to reinterpret the differences, often requiring twisted logic to do so; convince themselves that the "book" is correct, and attempt to live a "holy" life according to its "agreed" standards, but end up in endless conflict with their own very human nature and the reality of what it means to be human. Of all these options, imo the last is the worst and saddest because it robs people of the simple joy of what life can be.
The theme of the blog highligths a key problem. Much of our culture and lifestyle is way out of sync with that described, and demanded by most interpretations of Scripture.
The solution? Stop trying to make human nature what it is not. Just ask the better question:
"Should the Bible have authority to dictate my sexual behaviour, my understanding of what it means to be human, and my concept of who and what I am?"
Simple answer: No. (my reasons for that answer will be too long to fit in this comment)
Perhaps we owe it to Charles to return to a discussion of the topic he addressed, as has been suggested by Erv, Chris, Timo, Preston, and others. Discussions of sex and sexuality are necessarily rather delicate in venues such as this. Much of what we feel that we know about sex is from our personal experience, which might be quite a lot or not much at all. And it is usually rather private–and that is a special problem, because many of us are not writing anonymously, and, due to the close-knit SDA community, what we write may well be read by people we know, one or more of our spouses, or even our relatives. If we are prudent, we will avoid detailed descriptions of our own experiences. For those who have been pastors or counselors or teachers, or have otherwise lived in the world, we have some vicarious experiences through the eyes of those who have confided in us. Then, of course, we have factual academic or fictional information regarding how people relate to each other, not to mention explicit magazines or videos that are abundantly available, whether or not we have a peek at them. In addition to all that, my professional experience includes observations and literature reviews of comparative reproductive biology and behavior–as well as, growing up on a ranch and being exposed to the breeding of animals from a young age. So, some of the points made about the issues addressed in "Dawn of Sex" and similar books are familiar territory to me.
My view includes the following: Humans and other primates and other animals exhibit a dramatic array of individual differences in sexuality. Overgeneralization and stereotyping is likely to mislead us about the inclinations of individuals.
Joe,
Thanks for the reminder about the potential results from generalizing and stereotyping too much. Such actions may reveal more about our own prejudices and sins than they do about the person we are evaluating and judging.
I appreciate your reminder about us being good at the little arguments. Which leads me to ask: If God is silent on a topic, shouldn't we also be quiet?
My eyes filled with tears as I read this blog and all the responses. At last a discussion with honesty about issues that face us all – if we are candid with ourselves. I want to thank the majority that kept this discussion on the subject, Instead of two sides attacking each other there was open dialogue about sex and the Bible. I have often wondered about a lot of what was voiced and it was so refreshing to read the candidness of those sharing – their questions, beliefs, and uncertainties. I am so tired of “pat” answers and so are many that have nothing to do, not only with the church, but even God as a result. I want to thank AT for the courage to post this blog and to you that responded.
Charles
You asked some good questions in your blog. But, if you were given the responsibility – by God or the church – of setting out guidelines for sexual relations in the C21st century, where would you start? Well, I guess the church would establish a committee rather than turning to one man, so if you had to set out an outline of questions and/or proposals for the committee's discussions, what would you include in that paper?
I'd be interested in anyone else's ideas also.
Kevin… if Bathsheba could have had an abortion would it make David more innocent of what he did? It was easier for David to take Uriah out of the picture rather than the child he created yet both would have taken a murder. Instead of imagining adultry in their minds we now in the 21st century can commit it with the click of a mouse. Sin in the transgression of God's Law yet we look at the world and its political views and compare our actions to them. Sex, being the "act of marraige" was designed for "two to become one" and the gift of procreation by the Creator.
Charles…As far as women in ministry planing to go "knuckle to knuckle with the conference", I would say they need to take thier issue to Gods Word and the SOP which is quite clear on this matter.
Timo how did Christ update the definition of adultery when he spoke about it in the Word of God? One can be tempted without acting on the situation. John the baptist lost his head for calling sin by it's name. If we honestly follow Christ's way it does make our choice as a "vote for the will of God" rather than "personal choice" in this great controversy. Instead of a fork in the road we may think we are heading to the same destination…. and it's potholes that cause the predicted time of shaking.
It pretty much seems like the scriptural portrayal of Christ's attitude is that sexuality is pretty personal and is mainly the business of the person or people involved. He seems to have compassionately indicated that it is not our job to judge the sexuality of others or for them to judge us.
As far as the church's role, it seems to me like the main role would be education designed to help people understand and avoid problem behaviors and their consequences. But there is an obvious need for the messages given to be accurate and current (not like the pronoucements of EGW regarding self-pleasure).
There is a need to understand STDs, how they are transmitted, how to avoid harming one's partner, etc.
"…guidelines for sexual relations in the C21st century, where would you start? "
IF, I were to accept the Bible as the authority from which to answer this question:
1. Read it
2. Believe it
3. Do it.
Simple as that… Forget arguments about meanings of words, historical context, current context: Just take God at his Word.
The result? More of the same. That is pretty much what has got us where we are, all we end up with is debate over meanings, context, relevance etc and denying the reality of what it is to be human.
IF I don't take the Bible as my starting authority?
1. Examine sex and sexuality within other forms of life. eg primates.
2. Study the evolution of and role of sex and sexuality in the evolutionary development of humanity (whether or not one accepts evolution)
3. Survey sexual practices across cultures, past and present
4. Examine the impacts of varying sexual practices on the health, survival, and emotional wellbeing of the peoples of both genders in those cultures.
5. Survey mythology, sacred writings, and spiritual teachings across cultures and time. Bible included.
6. Pull together the results into guidelines which can offer the best combination of health, survival, and emotional wellbeing for individuals and society as a whole.
Comment: Recognition of the role evolution has played in the formation of human nature, combined with "demotion" of the Bible from role of "arbiter of truth" will alter our understanding of sex and sexuality. Sex and sexuality in themselves perhaps should not be considered from a moral perspective. They are amoral if you like. No different to almost everything else in life. IT IS WHAT I DO with it that may become a moral issue. eg I can use a gun to kill. I can use a gun to shoot clay targets. The gun is not a moral object, but I can sure use it in an "evil" way. Just so, I suspect the above survey would not find many cultures where rape was condoned. Nor that it has improved the emotional wellbeing of the subject of the action. Use of ones body for such a purpose could be defined as "wrong" or "evil". A moral issue if you like.
Perhaps after all ones research it would come down to the golden rule. Love God, look out for your neighbor. That of course includes yourself…don't try to twist your thinking and your body into a pretzel making it out to be something it never evolved to be. Sexuality with its drives, desires, and needs is very much a part of what it means to be human. Be respectful of others, recognize the emotional issues tied up with sexuality, and sexual expression. Seek to be healthy in your choices and lifestyle. Every choice will have its benefits, it price, or its effect on you or someone else. Be wise.
Joe…. we don't judge but we can follow the directions the God has given on this matter and if followed STD's would not be a problem. Do you have a better idea than the one God mentioned on abstinence until married?
Yes you are totally correct about needing the Church to get involved in the education of this matter. As you said to "understand and avoid problem behaviors and their consequences. God has a plan for this in His church if we would only follow what He says in Titus 2. Ordination is not a factor in this one.
Thanks Charles for going after the hard stuff. Sex was always pretty much a topic like: something you did in the dark and later pretend it never happened!
How is it that other churches hit the matter head on with ministry looking to restore sexual purity to young and old alike (see Bethel Church's webpage: http://moralrevolution.com/)?!
It would be nice to see the open discussion in our clan turn into real ministry that not only teaches core Kingdom values that supercede earthy culture but ministry that restores sexual purity to broken people.
Blessings
Matt thanks for sharing the webpage…. Blessings
Of course, it will come as no surprise that I very much agree with Chris.
Sex is an important part of life. Attractions and urges are surely not evils. "Sinning in our hearts"
is certainly not the same as actions involving another person–with all the complications in each
of the lives that interact. And even the advice Onan received surely is not a universal truth.
Loading all sexuality with excessive guilt is, in my opinion, terribly distorting and destructive.
And, yes, we could take many lessons from other primates….
Timo,
I think much of what you write is on a similar page to mine, though I have to confess you, like Paul, write some things hard to understand.
I note one point you make:
"The first…human need God did not expressly first provide for, before man sensed a need must surely have a purpose beyond the biological imperitive, .., and females their only power- to which they were, historically and from the garden subjugated to and held servile within-EVEN WITHIN CHURCH.
If you take the garden story to which you allude literally, where else can you end up than with woman being "made" with the ultimate purpose of meeting man's need? Is it no wonder that the subjugation you speak of took place?
I fully agree with you that it is time we overcame our shame of being wrong and learned from history etc. I like the drift of what you say, but I also wonder that all these things you say will continue to be a matter of interpretation and emphasis until the deeper issue of the role and authority of Scripture is actually dealth with. Perhaps our shame at being wrong on that issue is even deeper than to have been wrong on our theology and relational dynamics of sex and sexuality.
Until we address this deeper issue we will in reality be no different to Islam where you will find a spectrum of views from "liberal" to extremist, …all based on interpretations of "their" sacred writings. Perhaps none asking the deeper question of why and what authority the Koran should have.
Forgive me if I have missed some of where you are coming from, as some things you say require careful reading:)
Since there is a committee studying the biblical meaning of ordination, perhaps there should be one studying the biblical concept of marriage.
What I get from the Bible thus far: Before the fall Adam and Eve were equal; after the fall women became subject to men and painful childbirth. This is similar to the use of animals for food–it was not the original plan, yet today we seek to get back to an Eden diet. In the same way we seek to get back to equality of all humans.
There is no indication that a "wedding cermony" occurred between the first two humans, but that they were considered man and wife. When did weddings begin among the primitive humans when they "took" wives?
Not too long after this, we learn they are taking multiple wives and concubines (any weddings??). The women are faithful to one person but not the husbands. This is the pattern through the OT. Somewhere wedding ceremonies came into practice, and apparently marriages were recorded within the theocracy of Israel.
In the NT church leaders are to have only one wife (presuming that some Christians must have had more).
Thus we might say that in the Christian religion the practice of one wife and one husband was a religiously-binding event referred to as marriage. Does this make marriage a religious right for believers but mean something else for nonbelievers making it more of a legal requirement for legal benefits?
If the latter is true, then denying marriage for same-sex partners would seem to be discrimination, because they would not have access to the legal benifits of marriage. If they want a religious marriage, that is their choice and not subject to law; because it is a matter of religious liberty. Nevertheless, they should have access to marriage benefits regardless of belief (perhaps through a civil certificate as required of all marriages). Otherwise wouldn't government be intruding on personal liberties, even religious ones?
On the other hand, wouldn't religous liberty protect those churches who find such partnerships immoral from having to employ said partners? Since we are dealing here with behavior and not a racial issue, would that be different? Catholic Charities (Texas?) had to shut down, because they would not place childlren with partners because of their Catholic religion–did they have the right to do so? I think so, as there are other agencies the partners coud go to in the country.
Weddings were civil rites in almost all ancient societies, and are still so today in many countries. Weddings became religious rites conducted in churches only a century or so ago. Until then, most weddings were conducted at home and the marriage then recorded by the church. A church blessing, often not in the actual sanctuary, was optional. In conducting/recording marriages the church acts on behalf of the state and always has done so. The RCC consdiers the couple to be the ones who act as priests and so sanctify the marriage. That is why they (and all Protestant churches) recognise all legal marriages as being valid. That applies whether the person/s officiating are secular, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or whatever. That very much argues against the belief that marriage is a religious rite. If it were, we would insist it must be done properly by a specific group of people. We do not recognise any baptism as valid unless performed by a Christian and by immersion. We recognise as valid only ordinations conducted by authorised SDA workers. We officially accept as valid *any* marriage conducted according to local custom. So, where marriage consists of the man and woman spending the night together and then eating breakfast together publicly, we recognise that as a valid marriage. It seems to be only in Western countries we insist they must have a wedding ceremony, even where the state and society recognise de facto and common law marriages by giving them the same rights as legal marriages.
I am not sure we can equate ancient marriage customs, even those recorded in the Bible, with God's will in any complete way. But I would hope that we would take into account that God's plan was for one man and one woman to be united for ever. Sin necessitates change to that simply because we no longer live for ever. Just how much change is where we seem not to have been able to reach agreement. Even if God did not approve of polygamy and concubinage, he did accommodate his laws to take those things into account. I am not sure that means we should look to those things as possibilities today, any more than we should look to slavery as a possibility.
Thanks for the response. It raises some questions that are probably irrelevant to our lives, but when you say the plan was for "marriage" forever, do you see that as changing for eternity after the fall ? Jesus indicates there would be no marriage in heaven but we would be like the angels.
Concerning baptism by immersion required in the SDA Church, I may be wrong but it seems I have been part of a church that accepted other kinds of baptism and took in born-again Christians on the basis of Profession of Faith.
When talking about religious rights (not rites) in this country, I was referring to the separation of church and state that would seem to be broken down if an amendment were passed that marriage could be between only a man and woman. This would take away the religious or nonreligious practices of some people and deny them the legal benefits of the marriage custom. This would not mean that all Christian pastors would be forced to perform such marriages, since it would be against their belief systems. One wonders if God would make accommodation for today's cohabitation and partnerships which seem no worse than the polygamy of the past and in fact less destructive.
Jesus was very clear that 1) there will be no 'marrying and giving in marriage' in heaven and 2) that we will be like the angels in this resepct. You could not ask for a clearer statement. It's just a pity that he did not say anything about current marriages continuing or not, nor do we have any information on what angels are like.
While it is true Jesus said there would be no marrying in heaven (Mt 22:30), do we assume that applies to our life on the restored earth?
On the matter of divorce, Jesus pointed us back to Eden where He stated "it was not this way from the beginning" (Mt 19:8). Could the "restoration of all things" (Ac 3:21) include the divine institution of marriage? Something to ponder…
As a non-SDA I am an endless reservoir of advice to those who remain in the church. ; )
This time, I wish to suggest that the women of the church should have absolutely equal consideration and status with men. They should insist on it. My sister would have been a fine church leader, and maybe even a GC President, had she not been dissed and brushed aside by the SDA church in the 1950s. She now serves on a bishops council in her Catholic diocese, pressing for appropriately equal as a Catholic Christian–she would say, catholic with a "small c."
And the men should insist on it too….
More advice:
All "sin" is not equal. That includes various thoughts and acts regarding sex that get labelled
as "sin."
Someone is sure to claim that "a sin is a sin, no matter how small," and that it will still get
you a ticket to hell. One consequence of that reasoning is "if I have already sinned in my
heart, I might as well carry through and complete the associated action." Really?
Actions have consequences (aside from ending up in heaven or hell) that differ in
magnitude of pleasure or pain or harm. I'm thinking we should be trying to get people
to consider the consequences of their actions as they consider choices of what to do
and what not to do.
Maybe the concept of "sin" is not as helpful in this process as is due consideration….
[Warm wishes to all, I'm just trying to get us all back on topic for this blog]
Joe,
You stated that "All 'sin' is not equal." How do you reconcile that with the plain declaration in scripture that the "wages of sin is death…?"
John 19:11 KJV
In my opinion, we will all die whether we sin or not. What happens after that? I do not know for sure, but my best guess is that we cease to exist. Permanently. No heaven. No hell. No resurection. No judgement. No rewards. No punishments. I also do not think humans are "fallen" beings. I see no need for redemption.
However, I do see value in treating each other with care, consideration, and respect. And honesty.
Your question is a good one to be considered by believers in the absolute inerrant authority of scripture and in the Genesis stories of the origins of humans and their fall from grace.
Of course, some will attribute my thoughts to the devil, but please note: what I have said is the opposite of the words attributed to Lucifer. He ostensibly said, "you will not surely die." My belief is that we surely will die. And, furthermore, I am perfectly comfortable with that.
In my view, any positive or negative consequences of our sexual thoughts or behaviors will occur in the real world. But that world includes our imaginations, guilt trips, etc., as well as the external materialistic manifestations, and the imaginations and cognitive-emotional lives of others. While our own experiences may be private, so are those of others involved directly or indirectly. So, our responsibilies are extensive and complicated, and we have obligations to others–probably even extending, in part, to others in our social circles.
So, it is my impression that mankind created God in his own image, and that humans invented religion to help answer questions about the unknown and to provide some comfort in times of distress. It probably did not take long for religion to take on additional functions, such as, its use by the powerful to manipulate the powerless. Religion has clearly been used repeatedly to justify slavery, to subjugate women, and to control children and others. So, of course, it is interesting to discuss with religious people issues related to justifying denial of equal rights and responsibilities of women and men. It seems to me that a church that values fairness would not have much difficulty with this issue, at least in modern America. Why is it so hard to adapt to life in the 21st century?
I will posit that whilst Pluralism is an admirable courtesy extended to visitors and residents of many countries around the world, (the US of A is one such fine example), for which many of us are indeed grateful recipients, there is a tendency, in my opinion, for many in society to extrapolate this Pluralism to mean Moral Relativism in which there are no absolutes. The question is: “Can Christians compromise Morality and matters regarding Sexual Behaviour in particular?”… “OR is this all ‘relative’ as many believe?” Are there no Absolutes? I think that there are. In the Christian playground one has to take into account that Sexual Immorality undoubtedly has to be reckoned with when addressing issues regarding sex. It gets worse: If evolution theory on the other hand is brought into the equation then all forms of human morality can be questioned and a raw animal instinct, dog eat dog mindset may very well be the order of the day, after all, where would all this Morality come from and who or what determines right and wrong. Trying to swallow a tripartite concoction of Pluralism, Christianity and Evolution will surely leave us dizzy with one helluva hangover of immorality and sin. The Church should stand its ground therefore, in matters of Morality and in particular, Sex.
Pluralism is allowing everyone to live according to their own beliefs, in so far as that is possible without becoming a threat to the existence of society. In any area of behaviour, allowing someone else to live by their beliefs does not obligate us to practice their beliefs. Christians can acknowledge a non-Christian's right to do certain things without having to do so themselves. Acknowledging a right to practice a belief in no way implies acceptance of the rightness of that belief. The church should stand its ground, while recognising it can only speak for itself, not for all of society. The only authority we have, and should have, is moral authority. If we cannot convince others by our words and example, we have no right to coerce the law into imposing our beliefs on others, no matter how right we believe we are. If the church finds it no longer speaks for all, or even most, of its members, then it is time for the church to do the hard work of determining if it is mistaken, and if not, then it needs to find new ways of expressing its beliefs so people will understand.
Many members of christianity and other religions, along with nonreligious people, recognize the value of simply treating others as one wishes to be treated. This allows for individual freedom and initiative and responsibility and fosters harmonious relationships, sexual and otherwise. Where does treating others decently come from? The "golden rule" makes sense in many contexts, just on the basis of reciprocal altruism. Rather than "dog eat dog," it is an attitude of "live and let live." The idea that evolution promotes immorality is quite mistaken and misleading.
At the same time, it is quite clear that humans are capable of treachery beyond "raw animal instinct" or "nature, red in tooth and claw." And this has often shown itself in violent and hateful religious intolerance, in the US and abroad, in the present, as well as in the distant past, with plenty of episodes of violence chronicled in scripture, and in some cases, attributed to direct instructions from God.
There are some very natural moral and ethical considerations regarding sexuality, some of them are situationally diverse and related to psychological and physical health. But I don't want you judging what happens in my bedroom any more than I care what happens in yours.
Thanks Charles, I am a relatively young Adventist myself and I know many of my own Adventist friends have struggled with this topic – including being persecuted by the Board and Elders (despite they themselves being divorcees). The one thing that isn’t really borne out in the research, and I would be very interested to know, is how many of these people having pre-marital sex are actually engaged to each other? It matters because if we take the Bible as our standard, there is an argument that such people are already ‘married’ – both legally and biblically.
For example, consider:
Bottom line is – be careful of comparing oranges, to apples, to pears. What a ‘marriage’ is exactly, in both biblical and legal terms, is not as straightforward as people might think. What constituted ‘marriage’ in Ellen White’s time is probably quite different from the practices of the Bible and of today.
Sex is marriage? Divorce is adultry? Are you kidding?
Are we missing something in not bringing up Jacob ("Israel") and Leah and Rachel and their
handmaidens? Or Solomon, in all his wisdom? The biblical messages are mixed. How can we
pretend otherwise? Are we discussing this now because of concerns about the characters of
high-profile political figures?
Full disclosure: I am divorced from the SDA woman I married (who I began "dating" during
academy days, long long ago). We went together for seven years, off and on, and stayed married for only four years. A few years later I married a divorced non-religious woman to whom I have been married for nearly 39 years. It is not appropriate for me to explain the reasons for the divorces. The first marriage of my wife was officially annulled so her ex-husband could marry a catholic woman. So we don't know what that makes the children of whom he is the biological father, but we have a happy family with grandchildren. We just don't worry about it, and it isn't anyone else's business.
Divorce arguably is adultery (except by reason of marital unfaithfulness): ‘He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”’ Mar 10:11,12
Sex is arguably marriage: ‘Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”’ 1 Cor 6:15-17
I am not saying these texts are conclusive. I also agree that the biblical texts are perhaps mixed. Rather, I am stating that because it is difficult to precisely define what marriage ‘is’ or ‘isn’t’, one should be careful of relying on a definition of marriage by the standards of 19th Century English and American views. Thus, my point is that a large portion of these young people, cited by Charles in these statistics, engaged in so-called pre-marital sex may actually be ‘married in God’s eyes’.
Joe, I wasn't having a go at divorcees – I was just making the point about generational hypocrisy. The Church has become very lax on the issue of divorce at the same time as ramping up against young couples in de facto relationships. Maybe a little less judgment all round is what is in order. I certaintly hope no one judges you (because it really is no one else's business as you say) but likewise I hope you don't go around judging other young people about their own supposed sexual sins. I am sure you don't but unfortunately many in the Church do.
Thanks, Stephen. I certainly agree with you that older members of the church have no business applying a standard to young people that they are unwilling to uphold for themselves or their peers. That said, it is probably also apparent that I think people have to develop and uphold their own standards of conduct and decency, and it is up to them–not others in or out of their church–to enforce the standards. Of course, some of the standards also have real and appropriate legal bases, such as prohibition of incest, sexual abuse, etc. What happens between consenting adults is up to them; but as they consider what to do and what not to do, they need to take into account how any relationship they have can affect other people and the commitments they have made to others.
Personally, I think if Adam and Eve are a fable, then I am a fable and I am not really typing these words and I am not really breathing and I did not really happen.
My first premise is, I have personally concluded that the Bible is my rule of faith. So after taking several hours to read this post, I am looking in the Bible to try to understand something about this.
Genesis 1: 26-27. And God said, Let "us" make man, in "our" image in "our" likeness and let "them" rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
In this story, God refers to God as "us" and he refers to man as "them". It says let "us" make man in "our" image. It sounds like conception, to me. It sounds like the celebration at the end of creation. Is it possible that God is the first set of parents? That this was family planning? This sounds like the most beautiful possible honor … to be made, created, in the very image of God. It is an honor, beyond my wordsmithing capability to express, how honored I feel, to have been created by this "us" God.
It makes me also convicted of my deep responsibility to give honor back to God in how I live, in my commitments, in my body. I want to run everything I do, by Him in my thoughts and prayers, before I do anything. God's very words at creation are instilled into my heart …
I notice that polygamy is discussed rather candidily, invitingly, wishful thinking; but in no place, did I see or hear discussed the actual stories and the pain in humanity that polygamy has caused. Today, I was reading about the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. When Abraham and Sarah lied about their marriage, entire regions' wombs were locked down. Think of the emotional pain of infertility. Have you ever tried getting pregnant and not been able to? Have you ever miscarried? God offered womb lockdown, until Abraham and Sarah told the truth and made this right. This sounds important. When Sarah and Abraham sent Hagar and her boy Ishmael away; she was only given a little food and a skin of water … It describes Hagar as sobbing and God heard her sobs and provided for her and her boy… this is only one of the stories that describes the dysfunctionality of this type of arrangement. This type of arrangement resulted in hate, deceipt, abandonment, abuse, neglect, betrayal, pain. God had to intervene to bring healing out of the dysfunction. This is not a picture of God condoning polygamy, but a picture of God providing salvation, having mercy on the slave mother and child born into this dysfunction. (Genesis 20 and 21)
Possibly why there is so much gray area allowed is because there are clergy involved as perpetrators or sex addicts. For example, the Christian organization "Pure Desire International" (not SDA) was originally founded to offer a place to get healed of sexual addictions for pastors and their wives. Wow. This must mean there is a problem that no one really talks about or wants to talk about, in churches.
These are thoughts that I am thinking about.
Jan,
It is nice meeting you here. You have expressed yourself well, and I respect your beliefs. I apologize if I sometimes seem intolerant of views that are unlike my own. As long as you can believe as you do, I encourage you to do so. For those who find that they cannot believe that way, you are likely to have found that changing you views have not ended the world.
Jan, I have no difficulty at all in believing that you exist and that you have typed out your comments. I am skeptical, at best, that Adam and Eve really existed, or at least, that the familiar Genesis origins narrative is literally factual. I do not see that narrative as being consistent with factual real world physical evidence of an ancient world and universe where life has existed for hundreds of millions of years. But you believe what you believe, even if my belief differs. What either of us believes does not make it so, one way or the other.
What does matter, I think, is that we treat one another as we would wish to be treated–hopefully, with warmth and respect.
There are messages in those stories of Abram and Sarai/Abraham and Sarah, as well as the ones about Isaac and Rebekah and their sons, Jacob ("Israel") and Leah and Rachael and their handmaidens, along with the sale of Joseph, etc., that focus on deception. It seems to me that much of the importance has to do with deception, yet, in several cases, it seems that deception was almost condoned in terms of the ultimate consequences. There certainly was plenty of drama.
Thank you, Joe. I have a personal belief that it is possible to track human history back to Adam and Eve. I believe that their DNA is in me, as in a family lineage. I believe it is possible to track back through written lineage. Before written lineage the only thing they had was verbal lineage, but they had family intentioned story telling events, to keep the verbal history going. So, I believe it. They couldn't have written it if not told it first, it was too complicated to make it up. It doesn't seem difficult at all, for me to believe this. I do not know how long it took before Adam asked for Eve but he apparently did. I'm not sure why he did because recorded history has shown that women were soon disdained, not cared for as one would care for a precious gift they had asked for, but he did ask for her according to the recorded history. It does not bother me, that God may have used ancient carbon dated material to create the matter of things He spoke into existence. It does not bother me, that this earth may not be the only earth. Even though I am fair skinned, It does not bother me that my heritage includes being made in the image of the "us" God and that "they" God may be dark skinned, as in the color of some clays on earth. It does not bother me, that I do not know everything. It does not bother me that I now see through a glass darkly, but someday, I will know alot more. The one thing I need to know, I know in WHOM I believe.
If you are inquiring about my faith, the fact that Jesus Christ is NOT in the grave and other religious prophets are in their grave sets seal on Him to me; He is the One to follow, of all these choices.
The main reason I'm convinced that the Bible is a reliable source for my convictions is that the efforts to destroy it have been really without ceasing, everything from national Bible burning parties to killing people if they owned one and yet … it is still here. It took people, like the Waldenceans weaving pages into their garments and risking their lives to preserve it … but, it is still here. The fact that people would risk their lives really puts impact into my thinking. I value it as one source of my faith in God. I also have had many personal experiences where God came along side of me when life was crushing me and He was there. I did not audibly hear His voice, but I sure felt Him at my side, in my skin. This is another source of my faith. If you and your wife want to discuss this further, I'm willing to, but not on this public forum because the experiences are too graphic and personal.
Joe, I appreciate how you are willing to come on this site, even though you do not have the same beliefs and engage with, encourage and care about those who are writing here. Thank you for reaching out to me.
If you look at the OT text about marrying someone you have had sex with, it should suggest that sex does not equal marriage. The only case example we are given is Dinah and Shechem, and it is very obvious that *no one* in that story considers that Shechem and Dinah are married simply because they have had sex. We can argue that the Bible teaches that you *should* be married before you have sex, and if you do have sex before you get married, then it is *preferable* that you get married, but nowhere do we find sex itself being considered the act of marriage.
Divorce is not adultery. If you divorce and then remarry, except for 'porneia', you are guilty of adultery. Nowhere does the Bible equate divorce with adultery.
In practice, the Bible equates marriage with a public ceremony that states that a woman has been asked to accept a proposition of marriage and she (or her father on her behalf) has accepted. It was a binding agreement, although I believe it could be broken by mutual consent of both families. It was essentially a family affair, as it was into medieval times, and even later in many areas.
Re divorce – ok divorce and remarriage, except for porneia, is adultery, not just divorce per se. However, in my experience, there are plenty of people in the Church who are both divorced and remarry. I have no real problem with that (because it is none of my business), except that some of these same people are Elders of the Church, and go on to enforce the 'Church's standards' re to young people. With some irony, it only seems to be Roman Catholics who still uphold the long held Christian standards on divorce. There is a whole chapter in the SDA Church Manual on divorce and about one sentence on de facto cohabitation, but these days you would think it the opposite.
You say marriage has must involve a public ceremony – who says? What about Adam and Eve? If you say, God and the Angels, how is that different from a young de facto couple today? Even if it has to be a public ceremony, who says what type? In many cultures involving arranged marriages, the bride and groom do not partake in a public ceremony together (e.g. Isaac’s servant had the arrangement with Rebecca’s family and they only met at the moment of consummation). Finally, consider Deut 22:23,24, where betrothal is equated with marriage: ‘If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.’
I am not trying to be difficult, only to argue that it is not always as clear what marriage ‘is’ or ‘is not’ exactly as many in the Church think. Marriage is a universal human concept, but what and how one becomes married differs greatly across the world’s cultures and across history. The Church’s leaders need to be careful in equating marriage with the 19th Century American and English Victorian era idea of marriage (aka Jane Austen-style), which was common in Ellen White’s day. These 19th Century views do not necessary fit with either non-Western paradigms of marriage, nor arguably modern Western views, or even arguably a strictly biblical view.
In full disclosure, I am married myself and not divorced. This only bugs me because I have seen young people in our own Church been forcibly removed from positions (and then leaving the Church), by Elders and Pastors who themselves have a questionable right to cast the first stone. If leaders are going to enforce Christian standards of behaviour, they should start with the top in their older generation, not coming down so hard on young people, otherwise they risk being abject hypocrites.
We all tend to view the Bible through our own eyes. That tends to diminish, if not entirely hide, our own sins while leaving the sins of others in plain sight. I would agree, marriage in the Bible is not simply 19th century marriage. Nor is it 2st century marriage. In 'foreign' lands we have tended to accept cultural definitions of marriage, as long as it involves only one man and one woman. For a while we debated about polygamy, but in the end decided it was 'unBiblical'. So we asked men with more than one wife to 'put away' all but one. As a man with three wives once pointed out to me, God is silent on polygamy, but says clearly that he 'hates divorce', yet the church sees divorce as the solution to polygamy. It seems that in 'home' countries we are reluctant to accept cultural definitions of marriage, but insist on a 'church wedding' as the only legitimate form for a marriage to take.
Perhaps our reluctance comes from a recognition that some forms of marriage today do not take the form of 'leaving and cleaving'. While that is true of some de facto relationships, it seems increasingly common that people enter into a marriage with at least a tacit understanding that it may not last. Is a church wedding on the basis of 'until I find someone better' or 'until s/he no longer meets my needs' really any closer to a Biblical marriage than many de facto marriages? How far can we depart from 'one man and one woman united for ever', and in how many directions, before what we call 'marriage' no longer resembles what God intended?
Which brings us back to the original topic. If we depart from 'just say 'no' until you're married', where do we go? There have been a number of other solutions during the course of history, but are any of them acceptable? Is turning a blind eye any more aceptable? If not a marriage ceremony, what is the minimum requirement before people can legitimately have sex with each other? Does a limited time commitment in any way reflect what God desires?
Okay, I admit to having a bias. I like sex. How good it is depends a lot on how you feel about your partner. And, of course, how your partner feels about you. And how your partner feels about herself. And how you feel about yourself and what you are doing. Having some experience can make a difference. Sometimes, quite a lot of difference. And there are some inexplicable factors, such as attraction and libido. Not all attractions are equal. And, I think I'd have to say that some people find it a lot easier to be faithful or to abstain than others.
So, given individual differences in how strongly motivated one is to engage in sexual behavior, it seems all the more important that individual privacy and responsibility should be respected. When two people consider and consensually agree to copulate, why or when does that concern others?
I can't quite tell what is being said above. It sounds like what is being said is that if one's partner is unfaithful (even once, regardless of the circumstances), one is then free to do as one pleases. It sounds that way, although it probably was not meant that way.
I'm just saying that the choice is very personal, and if someone stands to be harmed, discretion becomes especially important. That is even recognized in scripture, with the "…and if they be found…" proviso. Even in that legalistic context, the provision is not that "someone said they were sleeping together" or "it seems like they are seeing too much of each other." Gossip has driven many people into bed with each other when jealousy or suspicion led to false and premature conclusions.
Someone here is sure to ask about how strength of "temptation" relates to culpability for actions. And, we are sure to hear the quotation regarding "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And we are also sure to be reminded that none of us will be tempted beyond our ability to resist. Really?
May I inject a quasi-serious question into this deep subject: Where does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were married?
I would assume Jesus’ statement in Mark 10 about ‘But at the beginning God created them male and female’, being a clear reference to Adam and Even, indicates that in Eden ‘the first couple’ were in a relationship akin to marriage. This is especially as Jesus was talking about the subject of marriage, adultery and divorce.
However, it does certainly emphasize the point that what marriage ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is far from clear from a biblical, cultural, historical and legal standpoint. Thus, the Church, its leaders, and all of us need to be careful about making statements and disciplinary judgments if we believe people are not living up to our own personal views of marriage – because they may not be even biblical.
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
After weeks of discussion, it seems almost no one is interested in the practical issue: if the church were to move from a complete ban on sex outside of marriage (understood currently as between one man and one woman), what would we put in its place? Assuming (as I believe we can) that no one is arguing for acceptance of any and every sexual act, where do we draw the line? Even if we decide that the church will not get involved in discipline, there is still the need for some teaching on sexual matters. When a person asks "what does the SDA church believe about sex?", what should we say? When a young (or not so young) church member asks "what can I do without sinning?", what should we say?
A good question, Erv. Where are the earliest mentions of marriage? Is it the "sons of God" "taking" the "daughters of men" as wives. Even then, not much detail of what that meant….
Hmm. When indeed is the first explicit mention in the Bible that two individuals had been married? I'm sure that one of our orthodox posters might provide us with that text. Seriously, I have never thought about this . . . I'm sure we all know that there is a wide spectrum of customs in different socieities about the rituals associated with "marriage." What was it among the ancient Hebrews?
May I ask Mr. Riley the reason why the institutional church should provide some "teaching on sexual matters"? May I suggest that the credibility of the institutional church is so low among the youth in general and many thinking individuals that any statements would (and should) be ignored. Just ask your local youth pastor assuming that he is willing to discuss this topic with someone who is no longer thinking and feeling like a normal teen ager or young adult. (On another topic: Why do I get the feeling that calls for formal "teaching on sexual matters" by the church tends to come from older males in which certain hormone levels have long since dropped to very low levels.)
And as I have been trying to say, part of the reason why credibility is so low is the bleating generational hypocrisy – especially how divorce is now treated compared with de facto cohabitation. What I get out of Charles’s original blog is the Church has simply said ‘suck it up’, without any real guidance or understanding of added pressures of changing cultural mores. The same parents and Church leaders who say don’t have sex before marriage are the same ones who then go and say make sure you go get a College education and financially established before you get married. I have experienced this personally, as have many of my Gen Y generation.
I considered that myself after posting. They should provide such teaching because the church should be able to provide teaching on the realities of this life as well as on the next. But the reality is that in most areas of life, most members do not actually pay that much attention to what the church says. And that is not something restricted to the younger members of the church. I suspect it is mostly, although certainly not entirely, the way the messages are presented. But in some cases, the message itself leaves a lot to be desired.
My son attends a SDA school. Sex education seemed to consist mostly of the warning "if you have sex you'll catch a disease". Like many of the other students, my son wondered why so many people who have sex don't catch a disease. He suspects the church is into scare-mongering (his term was not so polite). He also argued, after significant attempts to indoctrinate him otherwise, that pornography was harmless. After 30 minutes of sharing with him the persectives I had gained from 'godless' secular education, mostly from a feminist or queer theory perspective, he acknowledged that pronography could be, and in most cases probaly was, harmful. It sometimes frustrates me no end that the church tells the truth so badly that no one takes it seriously.
Kevin, to answer your question about a practical solution, the Church should uphold its stance, and teach it publicly, that sex should remain within the confines of marriage, and that sex outside of marriage is sin. However, following scripture, those principles apply as much to pre-marital sex (mostly affecting young people) as they do to divorce and remarriage (mostly affecting the older generation). Whilst retaining these high standards at an official Church level, it really should be left up to individuals according to their own conscience how to apply them in their own lives. The Church has no business looking into anyone's bedroom – young or old.
Getting back to Charles’s original point in the blog, perhaps the Church should try to come up with some practical solutions to the issue of pre-marital sex and cohabitation, rather than just telling young people to ‘suck it up’? The same parents and Church leaders who tell their kids not to have pre-marital sex are the same people who then discourage their kids from getting married before finishing a College education or being financially established. Parents and Church leaders can’t keep trying to have it both ways and be surprised that pre-marital sex is going on.
When was the last time you read something say in the Adventist Review or other Church publication aimed at parents, where it actually encouraged their teenagers to get married young at 18 or 19? Why aren’t our colleges set up so young marriage couples, rather than singles, are the norm? When was the last time you read something that strongly discouraged the ‘Princess’ weddings of today, which often mean couples have to wait years to save up (and with parents noticeably paying less and less of wedding costs today)? When was the last time you read something that encouraged young married couples to continue living in the parental home, as they did in biblical times and do today in many non-Western cultures? To quote a recent Indian taxi driver I met, why do parents in the West effectively abandon their children to the wide world without ongoing support?
The bottom line is, the Church, its leaders and parents are sending mixed messages. If they want to stop pre-marital sex, especially in the West, they need to change the normative cultural mores of the Church culture. Simply screaming, ‘stop having pre-marital sex’, isn’t really go to achieve anything.
It is rather sad that something so natural and joyful as sex should be made out to be so awful and so sinful that people acting naturally become confused and wracked with guilt.
May the parrot squeek again?
Why do we continue to complicate the issue:
Sex and sexuality in themselves should not be considered from a moral perspective any more than the hand upon my arm. They are amoral if you like. No different to almost everything else in life. IT IS WHAT I DO with it that may become a moral issue. I can use my hand to reach out in care or I can punch your face in with my fisted hand. The hand is neutral.
I can choose to use any part of my body in ways which can become "wrong" or "evil". A moral issue if you like.
If our Church should have guidlines, I think they should not go beyond this:
* Love God, (if you believe He Is – the next points fit either way),
* look out for your neighbor.
* Respect your Sexuality with its drives, desires, and needs as a normal part of you which is very much a part of what it means to be human.
* Be respectful of others, recognize the emotional issues tied up with sexuality, and sexual expression.
* Seek to be healthy in your choices and lifestyle.
* Understand that every choice will have its benefits, it price, or its effect on you or someone else.
* Be wise.
Chris,
Your comments regarding sex really come through loud and clear and are highly appropriate.
They really address the topic directly, maybe better than anything else that has been said here.
Chris,
not a bad place to start. Teaching people to see sex as something that you do with other individuals, not just something you do to someone/thing, is something many people need to hear.
Sorry, just catching up with this blog and earlier commentary; but what is the point in having any church guidelines like the ones proposed by my friend cb25?
What does “be wise” mean, for example? (Who is to say what is “wise”?)
What does “love[-ing] God (if you believe He Is)” have to do with anything?
ahh Stephen,
We catch up again:)
What does be wise mean? Perhaps the dynamics of that statement are better illustrated by an example of what it is not.
As I understand it a particular nation with whom Jesus had interaction had lost any trust that their citizens could be counted on to be wise in their moral judgments, particularly in the religious arena. The result was endless rules and laws about what to do and not to do. Nobody needed to know what it meant to be wise because there was no moral autonomy.
In general people know what the right thing to do is. Most are wiser than you think when given the opportunity to be morally autonomous and responsible. I actually think some of those who are not so good at doing so are found within churches. Whether this is because we attract people who like to have it laid out for them to avoid having to make their own moral judgments, or because we as a church actually foster (pardon pun) an inability to think. Perhaps even discourage it.
On the same note, I suspect that such a culture actually leads to more "evils" because people who have "wise" choices imposed on them through an outside "authority" (God, Bible, church says) actually have less ownership of their choices and are prone to hiding their real "moral" position. Jesus called them whited sepulchres. (I said years ago that a certain broadcasting network would be a can of sexual imorality worms – now comes to light it is)
As for love God etc. My point there was that whether one believes there is or is not a God should make no difference to the importance of taking responsibility for ones own moral choices and autonomy. Joe is an example of someone who does not believe in God. I have immense respect for his posts and attitude on these threads. He is a top example of how somone can be wise without requiring an outside "God" to dictate what is right and wrong. What it means to be wise if you like. There are millions of people who make wise choices just as often or more so than you and I and they do not have God.
Stephen, how come people like Joe and many people who don't believe in God are better at knowing what it is to be wise than many of us churchy folk. Judging by your question that includes you?
Chris, please do not suggest that I am very wise. That is not a claim I make, and I'm confident that some here would think it more accurate to characterize me as foolish, if not a Fool with a big F.
Sometime back I mentioned "internalizing values" and on other occasions, "locus of control." Too often, it seems to me, we emphasize our own weakness and we seek external authority or validation on which to base our choices. For myself and others I prefer to emphasize taking control of and welcoming responsibility for choices and actions. When we become appropriately self-sufficient and self-reliant, we recognize that we can make a difference–that it matters what we want and what we do, not to please someone else or conform to some external control. We do not have to limit ourselves to what is allowed or what is on the menu. We have creative abilities. We are not able to control everything, but we are able to control or influence much. We are not pathetic helpless wretches, at least, we do not need to be.
So, Chris, I'm not wise, I'm just old. As is sometimes said, I've been around the block a time or two. There have been times when I was unwise that have helped me see what would have been a wiser choice. And, if opportunities knock, I intend to do a few more unwise things in my life. I'm not talking about SINNING if I have a chance, I'm talking about taking some chances.
Like Joe, I will be the first/second to admit or stipulate that I am not wise. So, if my question led you to that conclusion, it didn’t mislead.
I too have been around the block. However, unlike Joe I do believe that we are/I am "pathetic helpless wretches," who nonetheless "can do all things through Christ."
“Self-sufficiency” and “self-reliance,” and doing what we want to do, and not limiting ourselves or what we choose according to the commands of an “external control” is certainly a popular philosophy advanced in certain quarters.
It happens to be the polar opposite to that of reliance on “Someone Else” as a means of pleasing “Someone Else;” and being willing to submit to a higher Intelligence whom you are persuaded actually loves you more than you love yourself.
It says somewhere that the acknowledgment/love/respect of this Someone "is the beginning of wisdom."
Lest I be misunderstood, I think there is great merit in having an orientation toward serving others, not merely being self-absorbed. The topic of this thread is an apt place to mention this. One of the wonderful things about sexual intimacy is learning to focus on giving pleasure to one's partner. So, there is a sense in which such intimacy can serve as a foundational model or metaphore for one's wider role in life. One learns, hopefully, that life is not "all about me," but that giving is among the most fulfilling aspects of living.
Learning to be able to subordinate one's own desires to those of another, can also be important, and, again, there are many times and places in life where it is important to be able to do this. But having the abilty to take charge and be competent is also valuable and has its place.
An excessive emphasis on obedience, subordination, helplessness, and dependence do not seem to me to helpful in living life. It seems to me that it breeds confusion, incompetence, poor mental health, lack of fulfillment, and unhappiness. But, apparently, it works just fine for some people.
My own very personal view is that God, whether an omniscient, benevolent, loving, and real living creator, or nothing more than a concept invented by humans to address fear and explain life's meaning, is not honored very much by the notion that we are pathetic useless worms. We are what we are. We, like the rest of nature, are remarkable, collectively and individually. We're not all warts and scum, are we?
Hi Joe,
I love that worms bit…I was writing while you posted your comment and I featured worms too! Conincidences are cool.
Hi Joe and Stephen,
Joe, thanks for the reminder, I shall keep my personal assesment to myself in future:), but I do remain somewhat unconvinced. Life does bring wisdom to the observant and humble. (and yes mistakes are human, but seldom "sin" or "Sin")
Stephen,
Was I suggesting you were wise? No. I was suggesting you struggled with the concept of personally owned making of choices and the concept that making good choices could be the result of wisdom. Personal wisdom, personal responsibility.
Stephen you believe that we are "pathetic helpless wretches," who nonetheless "can do all things through Christ."
THAT sums up your puzzlement at who is to say what is wise. You are. If your values and sense of right and wrong were internalized (rather than having their source in an external authority), and you did not subscribe to the tradedy of that comment you would not need to ask the question.
To say we are pathetic, helpless wretches is the most sad, destructive and life robbing "teaching" ever to come out of Christianities interpretation of the Bible.
In keeping with the theme of the blog: may I point out that in my observations the young people who lacked wisdom and often made the greatest mistakes in regard to their sexuality and actions were those who were brought up with the strongest emphasis on an external authority and belief that they were helpless, wretched, and pathetic. Oh God, the things we do in your name!
So, guidlines for sexuality and sexual expression in our church? Just let people internalise their own values and grow their own wisdom – let's give people their own value and respect. We are not worms!
For the sake of repetition:
If our Church should have guidlines, I think they should not go beyond this:
* Love God, (if you believe He Is – the next points fit either way),
* look out for your neighbor.
* Respect your Sexuality with its drives, desires, and needs as a normal part of you which is very much a part of what it means to be human.
* Be respectful of others, recognize the emotional issues tied up with sexuality, and sexual expression.
* Seek to be healthy in your choices and lifestyle.
* Understand that every choice will have its benefits, it price, or its effect on you or someone else.
* Be wise.
But of course the ‘other’ philosophy, to which I refer, Joe, teaches that God’s strength is perfected in weakness, and that without Him we can do nothing; yet through Him we can do practically anything.
This enabling power is an aspect of this dependence that you seem to miss. Because God is for me, who can successfully oppose me? Of course God, no respecter of persons, is “for” anyone who acknowledges their need for Him, respects His right of authority over them, and accepts His unconditional love for everyone—them included.
We who believe that we were created by Him in His image should also understand that rebellion and rejection of Him, which is/was our prerogative, has had awful consequences; resulting in our weakness and depravity.
However, being reconciled to God by His Son, we are on a path of restoration to our destiny and His purpose. It is very empowering my man, indeed!
cb25,
I immediately recognized that you weren’t suggesting that I was wise; in fact you were accurately suggesting just the opposite. That’s why I said that if my question led you to the conclusion that I was not wise, then my question did not mislead you. Read it again.
With that, I’ll let my comments to Joe above, stand for you as well.
Yes, sorry Stephen I did miss the twist in your point re wisdom.
As for the points to Joe – there is something empowering about a sense of value being placed on oneself by another (God in this case), but seems to me its value is quickly and often squandered when the reality of human nature easily ends in personal failure to live up to such expectations of restoration – with the net result being discouragement and guilt. I've probably said enough on other threads (eg Herbet Douglass's) to illustrate my view on that.
Almost needless to say, my view is the nearly the complete inverse of this. When one appreciates and believes he/she is valued by God, it’s completely different than simply perceiving oneself of value to “another.”
That the ruler of the universe values you, regardless of your wretched human nature and personal failings, is liberating from expectations; especially since the contractual promise of restoration has already been signed, sealed, and delivered.
Jesus has promised to complete the restoration. That freedom is liberating and empowering, brother. But one must believe that He exists.
How did we get from human righteousness being of no value in the process of salvation to human beings being of no value? Did we perhaps cross over from being Arminians to Calvinists somewhere without a formal announcement? It seems strange to build a belief on a doctrine (original sin and complete depravity) we don't accept. We are flawed, we are not worthless.
It is not (logically) possible to be valued by God and simultaneously worthless; poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked, yes; pathetic, helpless, and wretched, yes—worthless, no.
(It might be helpful to discuss the issue, or the point of view, without categorizing/classifying or labeling it/everything as an –ism.)
In the interest of, or for the sake of clarity, and to set the record straight, let me re-punctuate this statement: "It is not (logically) possible to be valued by God, and simultaneously worthless. Poor and miserable and blind and naked? Yes. Pathetic, helpless, and wretched? Yes. Worthless? No."
Timo, I think you are cautioning against casual sexual relations with others. Yes, there are many natural risks inherent in "hooking up," as it now seems to be called. Not only the usual concerns of STDs or unwanted pregnancy, but also an erosion of capacity for deeper and more fulfilling relationships. It seems to me that "self-gratification" (i.e., without involving someone else) has gotten a bad rap, at least in the sense that is can serve as an alternative to more risky activities. It has become quite clear that most of the horrible consequences that used to be asserted, just don't have any validity. Maybe there is some small risk of not developing a mutually dependent and fulfilling committed relationships, or becoming excessively narcissistic. But interpersonal sexual relationships quickly become very complicated, in every way from great to terrible. It is difficult enough to manage one's own affairs, without managing or being managed by others. If the church has any role at all, one would think it would be limited to helping ensure that people have the information they need to make reasonably wise choices. And, of course, to assure those whose choices have not always been wise that there is hope. There is way too much assignment of guilt, and, sadly, many people whose feelings of guilt over past behavior continues to motivate hopelessness and perpetuate destructive patterns.
Good points, Timo. When two people come to the marriage bed, whether chaste, or experienced, with each other, or with others, both bring points of view, perspectives, expectations…. Each brings a libido, a set of unique arousal features, and much of each one posesses is really understood by the individual him or her self, let alone by the partner. So, the adjustment begins. One likes more of this. The other likes more of that. Each learns from the other's body and from their own. Physical and emotional responses are sometimes unexpected, and expectations often go unmet. Trying too hard, or not enough, being too selfish, or not selfish enough. Frequency, duration, sequence, intensity, timing, coordination, all complex and each one different. And all complicated by some difficult to understand dynamic involving guilt and shame and rewards and punishments, all mixed up together. How likely is it that anyone can get it right the first time? Love and commitment can help, and how well interactions during courtship work out (consideration, kindness, gentleness, sensitivity, etc.). But why would anyone be surprised if first choices did not really succeed? Or if one or both parties might feel a need for something more….
If this article had been published during the time of Elijah, the message would have been "Worshipping Baal is an inescapable cultural phenomenon. It's such a strong temptation for our youth that maybe we ought to reconsider whether or not it's a sin."
100% correct
I am not sure you are correct. Worshipping other gods has clearly always been wrong. Sex is not such a clear issue, especially when it was not recommended that the church accept sex before marriage.
I agree that sex isn't necessarily the same as bowing to Baal. I think the "cultural phenomenon" idea fits, however. Sex outside of marriage is clearly wrong (including sex before marriage), and the fact that rampant premarital sex is a cultural phenomenon does not make it any more acceptable to God than the rampant cultural phenomenon of worshipping Baal was. Sex has consequences, and it damages people when engaged in outside the originally intended context. God doesn't prohibit things that are good for us. The author of the article has avoided this point.
Why taste of the apples of Sodom?
Adultery, fornication, lust, homosexuality-it's all sin.
Where is the only place the "bed" isn't "defiled" according to Paul?—Marriage…..
Sometimes the Word of God can be simple & to the point
"Lust" is just a word for the dark side of desire, perhaps implying a carnal and inappropriate obsession,
but it seems also to be used as a descriptor for mere attraction. It is a loaded word. People get pretty confused when "lust" is equated with consumatory sexual action. It is really unfortunate when perfectly natural human behavior, characteristic of all other primates and mammals, gets branded as evil.
Thank-you, Charles, for your ennervating discussion, along with the perceptions by a myriad of commentators. Many great insights pertaining to the catalyst for this blog have been posted, yet I don't see much scratching on the surface of the questions asked at the end of it, especially the last two.
I note, also, the beginning of the third paragraph might more accurately read: "'Until the industrial revolution in the 19th', it was 'the norm' to see young people married in their teenage years." With this in mind, what is the gospel principle invoked in delaying marriage from late adolecence until full adulthood, ten to fifteen stress-ful years later? Should I have to wait another dozen years to be safe in the teachings of my Savior?
Have we sacrificed individual salvation to worldly conformance? Of course Satan does not want us to marry: when two are living as one flesh, their hearts, minds, and bodies united in all things, the effect is much greater than the sum of its parts, and the defeat of evil influences is more certain than one on his own. How long do we deprive our children of the blessings such a sanctified Union makes?
It seems to me pretty difficult to get clear scriptural advice regarding modern relationships. The context was so different in so many ways. Just in terms of life expectency (probably about twice now what it was in the time of Jesus), and with changes in nutritional status probably moving puberty/menarche earlier, along with changes in social structure, risks of STDs, availability of prophylaxis against STDs, as well as pregnancy, the consequences of becoming sexually active have changed. The relative status of men and women have also changed dramatically. Back in biblical times women were often regarded as property. That has mostly changed in our part of the world (Europe, America, Oz/NZ, and many other places, increasingly).
While there are still biological and emotional bonding mechanisms to be considered, practices have changed, or, at least, have become more transparent.
Surely, becoming sexually active before marriage need not brand someone as forever damaged. One gets that impression from some comments here and elsewhere. Imagine the persistent guilt and suffering inflicted on someone by such a belief.
Then, imagine the case when one partner in a marriage is unfaithful–is the relationship damaged forever? If one partner is untrue, what are the obligations of the other partner? To forgive and forget? Free to roam?
The attitudes so often expressed regarding relationships leave many questions unanswered. Charles is correct to wonder whether "the rules" and "standards" apply equally to everyone, and to wonder what scripture actually teaches.
What about Jacob/Israel, King David, King Solomon, and others. Marriage is between one man and one woman? Except when you are chosen of God to do otherwise? God seems not to have been displeased by David having multiple wives–only that he stole someone else's wife and had the guy killed.
The old idea that a piece of paper makes sex blessed, while without it even though the same committment is given, it suddenly becomes a sin which God condemns. (BTW, the Decalogue makes no mention of sexual relationships other than marriage and this was forbidden when it was taking another man's wife property). Isn't their pledge to each anther what binds a couple, not a state license?
There are studies showing that in the majority of weddings consummation has occurred prior to the ceremony. While there may be a difference in Adventist couples, don't bet on it. Besides, who's asking?
I was hoping to see more 'practical' discussion. The problem of early sexual maturity and late marriage – if marriage takes place at all – does not seem likely to go away. It would seem to be a discussion most Western societies need to have. I am not sure, given our commitment to a simplistic hermeneutic when to interpreting the Bible that our church could ever contemplate any response other than "just say no!". By 'simplistic' I don't necessarily mean 'wrong', although I guess that is implied. A brief perusal of historical and anthropological material would reveal that there are many possible responses we could make as a society. Some would remain off-limits for our church, no matter how 'sophisticated' our hermeneutic may become in the future. By 'sophisticated' I don't imply any level of education, or any ethnic or racial identity, just that it would take into account more elements of interpretation than our current 'preferred' model does. I can't imagine any hermeneutic that could say an unqualified 'YES!' to casual sex. Perhaps I just don't have an adequate imagination, but it seems to me the Bible at least implies that sex to be legitimate requires some level of interpersonal relationship, and is more than just a random physical activity.
Perhaps starting with a discussion of whether we could recognise relationships that have a degree of permanance but do not involve a formal legal ceremony as a 'marriage' would be workable. But that does raise the difficult question of when exactly such a relationship comes into existence, and how it would be recognised to have done so. And how would we view its ending?
Surely there is some appropriate position regarding sexuality that falls between advocacy (or even approval of) "casual" sex or promiscuity and celebacy, except sex only with one person in one's life, and only then without contraception and for purposes of procreation.
It probably would not hurt for there to be some recognition that masturbation is natural, normal, and healthy, and is not harmful to physical or mental health. People should be made aware that masturbation can sometimes be a pretty good alternative to coitus (for example, during absence of a consenting and committed partner). I don't think the church probably wants to just repeat the advice given to Onan.
There surely is also a moral divide between loving and exclusively committed couples living together and casual "hooking up." But probably also a very big difference between "open" and "exclusive" relationships of whatever stripe.
Perhaps a practical matter that might be worth discussing here is the following: when one member of a marriage or other relationship "strays," where does that leave the other? And what about divorce? Is it, or is it not, fully recognized by the church.
And, ultimately, what should the role of the church be with regard to awareness or sanctioning of sexuality? Surely there is a pastoral counseling role, but that should be a private matter–and maybe the official position ought to be simply that sexuality is a private matter, as long as the sex acts are between consenting adults. But that doesn't quite address sexuality in youths, which is an important issue that bears on when and how sex education should be handled.
I’m curious Joe, who says that “there surely is a moral divide between loving and exclusively committed couples living together and casual[-ly] ‘hooking up.’ But probably also a very big difference between ‘open’ and ‘exclusive’ relationships of whatever stripe”?
I mean, is the perspective of who is hurt the most, or least, the determiner of morality? That is, it a matter of pragmatics?
I said that. It just seems to me that when it comes to questions about morality, thare are many shades of gray. Some things that may not be ideal, are not necessarily evil or sinful–short of optimal is not so terrible. I mean, there are worse things than falling short of optimal.
Yes, I think the degree of harm, if any, should play a role in evaluating the moral advisability of an action. There is, I guess, a pragmatic consideration, don't you think?
Joe,
You may not want to know what I think. Turning around the words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, (played by Jack Nicholson), “Can you handle the truth?” or perhaps, the truth according to me?
Silence has its benefits. Currently, there is no church or pastor of which I'm aware that interrogates a dating couple as to their intentions and whether they are sleeping together.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" is a good motto to follow.
As for teens, the best approach to early sex is for them to have a future and goal to see ahead in their future and how early sexual activity may curtail, if not close the doors to their future plans. For those past the teens, they should have already been taught proper contraception and aware of STD. Knowing all this, they still make mistakes, which is the part of learning that we all must traverse.
Another recurring question that I have: Why is it that the patriarchs were obviously permitted by God to engage in polygamy while remaining in close connection to Him; and why was there legal provision made in accommodation of polygamy as a reality?
Deuteronomy 21:11-17 is an example of this.
Ellen White says that it was a sin, but it became so widespread that it ceased to be regarded as one. (PP 145, 338) Apparently it was never God’s ideal, but nevertheless it was permitted.
That said the consequences of defying God’s will, as is our prerogative, are inevitable. The Biblical record is replete with examples of how polygamy was, let’s say, problematic. My observation is that no one escapes from either premarital or extramarital sex unscathed.
God does not punish us, in my opinion; but permits effects from certain causes. He merely discourages causes with bad effects; much as we should do as parents.
I also have a real problem with how the Bible dealt with polygamy. Not even the Bible, I have a problem with how God dealt with polygamy. All respect and deference of course, if He allowed it, then I'm sure He had His reasons for it, and thats enough for me. But I can't help but wonder, especially after seeing how much trauma it caused families back then.
Were the non-polygamous families any better? Adam and Eve's first two sons were murderer and victim, Esau and Jacob didn't get along and their parents took sides. The Bible doesn't exactly present the 'men of faith' as having well-functioning families.
Right. It is difficult enough to keep one relationship at a time on track, let alone two or three or a thousand.
How does this issue translate into something practical in today's world?
Well, for one thing, even if few people in American and "The West" are involved in polygamy,
many people in other parts of the world have polygamous traditions. Must they reject those
traditions in order to convert to Christianity? Must they reject those traditions if they emigrate
to America?
Whether a convert to Christianity must reject polygamous traditions period—much less if they immigrate to America—goes to my question of since the patriarchs were permitted to be polygamous and yet remain in close connection/relationship with God (given that it isn’t God’s ideal) how do we know at what point did it (polygamy) become impermissible?
How, indeed. And it seems like there are many similar questions to be posed.
We have always given a clear answer on this. We have changed it a few times, but we were always clear in what we were saying 🙂 Depending on when you asked the question "must a polygamous man send away all but one of his wives?" the answer was a clear "yes", "no" or "maybe". Most of the time,and I think consistently for about the last 100 years, it has been"yes". The basis has usually been because it falls short of the ideal. We seem reluctant to accept that most of life does, and that is why God set rules that were often less than the ideal. We have been very reluctant to do likewise, probably because we have always been attracted to aiming for perfection. Perhaps also because we have tended to make rules based on doctrines, without considering the practical effects that will have on people. We've always been better at doctrines, rules, and programmes than people.
By “we” here, Kevin, I take it you mean “we SDAs.” However, in the case of polygamy, it would be more accurately inclusive to say this of Christianity.
I would think that all Christian denominations have the same stance on monogamy/polygamy that “we” do. Unanimity is apparent on this.
If by 'all Christians' you mean Western Christians, yes. But then, is that just because of shared cultural values? I believe there is some diversity among African churches. Actually, there is an amazing and wonderful diversity among African churches on virtually everything, including the Bible. Perhaps we could learn something from them?
Yes, you are correct that it probably is because of shared western cultural values that most, if not all of western Christianity has the same view of polygamy.
Surely you are not suggesting that we don’t have enough diversity among Christians outside of the continent of Africa; are you? Most often it seems that people lament that we do not have enough unity.
What does diversity on the Bible mean?
Everything from the Bible being irrelevant (and, no, I am not advocating that) right through to the Bible being verbally dictated and therefore every word being inerrant (I don't advocate that one, either). Most would read it devotionally – which is exactly how it is read by most Western and Eastern Christians, now and throughout history. That has never been the preferred hermeneutic by theologians at any time. I would personally recommend that one for individuals, but not for churches.
I don't see diversity and unity being contradictory. We need much more of both.
I wouldn’t want to irritate you, Kevin, or to distract from the theme of the blog or its discussion. So, although I don’t understand, I’ll let it go.
Doesn't it seem that there have been things that were definitely identified as wrong or displeasing to God at some times that ceased to be wrong later on in scripture?
And didn't some people get some favoritism from God? There was no apparent mercy for the sons of Judah, but King David got off pretty light. He got to keep Bathsheba, though God made sure the child conceived "in sin" did not survive. And then there was Solomon…. And those were supposedly in the line that led to Jesus–although the lineage is traced to Joseph, rather than Mary. What's that about? It certainly is not straightforward, is it?
Very little in the Bible is straightforward. Perhaps God wants us to think while reading it. There must be some use for the intelligence he gave us. Perhaps he even wants us to dialogue with him, rather than just accepting everything at face value, no matter how confusing it seems.
The “problem,” I would contend, with the Bible is that—if anything—it is too straightforward. (Of course, that’s not really a problem.) The genealogy of Jesus is as straightforward as it gets. 42 generations between Abraham and Joseph. The Bible is clearly patriarchal in never recognizing any daughters in its recording and recounting of genealogical records; that could not be more straightforward.
The fact is that Biblical record of the generations from Adam to Jesus’ generation ends with the husband of Jesus’ mother. Given the way Biblical genealogical records appear, it could hardly have been another way.
Except there are two different genealogies. I don't know that there is much point in recording the genealogy of someone who is not actually related to the child. There is also a problem of making the genealogies in the Gospels line up with previous genealogies. But, I guess that is still all 'straightforward'. If you can read the Bible without it raising lots of questions, then I guess it is 'straightforward' for you. I find the more I read it, and the more I think about what I have already read, the more questions I have. If that had not happened, I guess I would still be a fundamentalist SDA, so I guess I should be grateful that I did start thinking 🙂
Well, when we find the accounts of details from multiple narratives of an event—from varying sources—differing slightly, it would seem that that should not be disturbing. If however, we find that genealogical accounts are contradicting each other—wherein somebody is sired by one guy in one place, and by another guy in another place—we should certainly call for an investigation:)
The fact that the genealogical records are those identifying only sons, and fathers of sons, is clearly straightforward; consequently necessitating that they should end with…surprise, yet another guy!
(Alas, Biblical authority; seems this conversation should be picked up on the 'other' one.)
Stephen, you wrote:
" The genealogy of Jesus is as straightforward as it gets. 42 generations between Abraham and Joseph.
Then, in you next comment those "straightforward" genealogies are dismissed as "not disturbing." What is your definition of "contradictory"? If one has 42 ancestors and the other has a different number, they are not contradictory?
Huh? You should re-read that post Elaine.
I wasn’t referring to genealogies; the multiple narrative accounts of events I referred to were such as appear in the gospels. I don’t regard genealogical records as events.
So, would it be wrong of me to suggest steering this thread back to its simply stated topic: "SEX?"
One of several questions posed was, essentially, "who gets to decide" what the standards should be, or how they are to be enforced?
I think it goes back to respect for others, self-respect, self-control, self-reliance, personal responsibility, privacy, empowerment, confidence, and internalized values. An emphasis on personal weakness, helplessness, and self-loathing, along with guilt and shame erodes the ability to have and hold high standards of conduct–along with providing a multitude of excuses for moral failure.
We may, believe it or not, have just found common some ground. Who can argue with "respect for others, self-respect, self-control…personal responsibility, privacy, empowerment, confidence, and internalized values”?
We clearly differ on who determines what is moral, and/or perhaps even on the definition of morality, as well as the definition of “internalized values;” and in whom we place our “confidence.”
The biggest difference, of course, centers around the role and/or legitimacy of “self-reliance.” Wherein I view self-reliance as the guarantor of failure, you may view it as the guarantor of success.
Stephen, my brother, I imagine we agree on much, even if common ground sometimes seems elusive. I value the conversations we have had. Each comment provides a little window on how each of us thinks, and often, it seems to me, our views are not so much diametrically opposed as they are just different from one another, and are based on some different perspectives and experiences.
Despite any disagreements we have had, I want to assure you that I believe that you have every right to hold the views you have expressed. I do not require that my friends hold views that are identical to mine. I have met several people on AToday with whom I have become friends–and with whom I expect to have continuing connections. Whatever the differences are in the ways we think, let's celebrate that we can communicate with each other.
Hear, hear!
it has taken me a couple of hours to meander through this thread, and it was well worth the time.
Charles — OU has got da hump! well crafted questions, thought provoking, and important.
All, this conversation was a joy to read.
Thank you.
I don't want to take anything away from the discussion or the thought put into it, but I can't help wishing that we. as SDAs, could become as good at reaching conclusions – even tentative ones – as we are at discussing. What I look for in vain in this discussion is practical solutions.
Charles, I too was fascinated and discouraged by the report concerning sexual promiscuity among professed Christians. You raise many interesting points, but many of them are focused on the needs of man as opposed to the expectations of God. I highly recommend Mark Driscoll's sermon series "Real Marriage". You can find it on the Mars Hill Church website. He is boldly tackling these challenging questions in a very public and honest way. He is setting the bar high for his congregation. The highly secular society of Seattle is responding strongly to this guidance. In my experience, SDA churches have ducked their heads in the sand on issues like this. Our members know what to do, but we are sort of left alone to figure it out for ourselves. Perhaps it is time for our churches to take this topic seriously and with transparency.
Last weekend I was talking with someone who made an observation about work in a well known SDA retirement village here in Australia. Apparently among the "senior citizens" there are some who's memory and awareness is slipping. Some of the things they come out with are revealing. Their observation was that the "worst" offenders at conversation/revelations about things inapropriate are guess who – retired ministers!
Generalization? Yes. And God forbid we should call into question the lifetimes of work of anyone or someone on account of such things. However it does play into the observation that "conservativism is often driven by sex". And suppression of the real person is alive and well inside SDA Christianity because of our over emphaisis on behaviour.
Be carefull how you lift up someone who is harping on the theme with a high bar. There will be those in life for whom such actions are compensatory attempts to suppress the real person and desires.
cb25 – I'm not entirely sure if you are referring to my recommendation about Mark Driscoll – and of course, only God, and apparently his nursing staff when dementia sets in, can know his most inner self.
That said, I feel that our Adventist culture encourages the cover up. I know of very few SDA Congregations where people dealing with sin feel comfortable seeking help within the church, but of course, every member is dealing with sin. There is a felt pressure to appear like we are on our way to perfection. But appearance is for fools…truth is all that matters.
It could be that the reason Pastor Driscoll deals directly with this theme has nothing to do with his inner perversion, but has to do with the overwhelming reality of perversion within his city of Seattle and the congregation of sinners saved by grace. Our church members suffer from the same issues with sin, but they do it alone if our churches do not play an active role in addressing it. By addressing it, I'm not talking about judging and reprimanding…I mean exposing sin as sin and allowing the Spirit to convict and transform. Nothing wrong with that.
Hi Chuck,
Yes, it was a slightly tongue in cheek observation triggered by your point about Mark D.
One of the questions Charles asked was "What is the standard for determining what is truth versus what is cultural convenience? Is it possible that our approaches to premarital sex and other culturally sensitive topics are wrong?"
Charles may have in fact expected answers to these type of questions in the direction of more stringent standards. However, if these are valid questions – and I believe they are – then the answer could also be in a less stringent direction.
I would suggest that it should be. In fact, I think the whole issue, particularly to do with sex and like issues, hinges on the concept of SIN. What is it etc? For some writers here it is anything from a peice of cheese cake to the real big deal things.
I believe we are way too hung up on behavior and defining far too many actions/things as sin. I see people like Mark (have not heard the guy) as adding to the burden and confusion experienced within people's lives as they try to live out standards which are wrong in their focus and expectations.
My point earlier about suppressed issues is to suggest that perhaps more often than not the one's who harp on it all the time are the ones who themselves have the greatest problems with the same themselves. As you say, only God knows our hearts.
cb25…perhaps you'd like to define which standards are wrong in focus and expectation.
In the meantime, I decided to set aside what I believe the Bible says about sex, lust, fornication, etc. and try to consider the report from a worldy view point. I arrived at the simple conclusion that the only way this 'sexual freedom' makes sense is if we no longer value marriage as a life long idea. I cannot come up with a single worldly standard of sexual freedom that strengthens a marriage or family unit; however, I can see the fallout from various pursuits all around.
For the sake of argument, I postulate that marriage and the family unit are valuable to society and God, even Biblical. So, can anyone think of a way in which sex outside of marriage will improve the marriage and strengthen the family unit? Can anyone conceive of a way that it draws the participants closer to God?
The problem remains that young people are not waiting. They are inundated by all forms of media with the message that it is o.k. and natural. Peer pressure is immense. The world tells us there is one reason to date, and it is sex, not marriage. Perhaps some churches take the approach of trying to scare youth or teaching them that sex is bad. I suggest we go the other direction. Tell them about how great a gift it is to a marriage. I would even go so far as to suggest they should not date people until they are ready to marry. Talk about a truly counter-culture choice.
But what have we done instead…encouraged our youth to 'go steady', even at younger and younger ages, telling them that they should wait for sex until marriage and pretending it is enough to overide the media war that is everywhere around them. Our efforts aren't enough, and we are delusional if we think otherwise.
Cb 25,
Hung up on behavior as sin…? There are about 12 different terms used in the Bible (Hebrew & Greek) that give a rather comprehensive definition of sin. But… with the topic of sex, especially premarital sex, let's just use the Greek word, harmartano = missing the mark. Has the sexual revelution since the "60's" benefited us as a people, in and out of the church? Check out this website just as example of what it means practically to "miss the mark" and why premarital sex could be rightly defined as sin in the eyes of God, both Biblically, and just as importantly practically.
http://www.singleparentsuccess.org/stats.html
Peace
Laffal,
Very sad statistics. May I point out these are from a Christian Nation. They illustrate premarital sex Charles was speaking of.
Is focussing on or calling it sin the solution though? I wonder how these stats would compare with – let's say Iran? Srarkly different I suggest. Of course, the teenage girls there are probably long married. And sin? Well , at risk of a beating or stoning don't even think about it!
No wonder Islamics there call the West Evil. Do you get my point? Where would you rather live? Obviously we/those stats are doing something wrong, but I do not believe it is the absence of understanding sin or calling things by their right name.
No, we have to ask better questions and find better solutions. Those stats are symptoms of deeper social issues. Calling it sin will change nothing. Well, perhaps it will – just make more young people who don't have the emotional resources to deal with life feel worse.
Cheers
sorry about the typo. That should be "starkly different".
cb25,
Your point only illustrates where the "deeper social issues" lie, at least in my opinion, and here in the self proclaimed "Christian nation." To deny, or reason away the fact, that these stats are a direct result of sin doing it's baleful work in society, leads us to what? What different set of questions will lead society to better decision making processes? Because if it is a sin induced problem, then there is a solution, the Savior from sin. To say, or see solutions from other means / methods, then what might they be. Here in the west, after 50 years that I personally know of, it's only getting worse.
Maybe God did know better all along, and the stats are proving it as a fact.
Laffal,
You make fair points. However, if we remove the word "sin" and simply describe the direct cause of these stats "bad or poor choices" – it changes the way we look at it. It may cause us to ask questions that we would not ask if we believed we already knew the cause – "sin".
It is too simplistic, not to mention guilt imposing. If we focus on educating people about "sin" (in this case premarital sex) the solution will only ever be exterally forced for many. Where does that stop? Do we impose the same rigid rules as Iran? (like the OT!) Why not set out to ask questions about how we give value to each person? How we can enable them to make choices which will show respect for themselves and others.
I don't have all the questions, nor the answers. I am simply suggesting that just imposing more standards or "setting the bar" higher is too simplistic. It will ultimately only create a mix of non thinking obedience, guilt for failure, rebellion, and even loss of faith for some.
I do agree with you there is a problem. There are many.
Cheers
cb25,
When you look at this issue, and all of the many problems that are growing exponentially in our world, from the standpoint of whether to impose or not to impose "bahavioral standards" is as old as humanity's existence. But have you considered that your viewpoint of sin as a default factor is at the heart, and source problem, might be the truly single minded perspective?
Iran, your example of imposed morality, is not free of premarital or extra marital sex. Yes, prostitutes are marginalized, and thought very little of by society, as well as being left with the resulting children and drug addictions. To say that the OT viewpoint on sex / sin in the moral framework of the books is misguided. Man always has the God given freedom to choose. The problem most of us humans struggle with, and dismiss without hesitation, is the fact that the Bible says that "sin" at the core is a power that effects each and everyone of us. The behaviors are only the outworking of this principle that dominates us. Hence the need of a Savior who has greater power then the principle of sin. Here and here only are the true objective choices are clearly available to us. Then the obedience is not "unthinking", but much rather clearly formulated, and decided.
My personal life, including my family before me, and my sons after me have had our battles with the issue of sex outside of the Bible's formula. Only when I realized that sex outside of what God created it for in the first place, armed with all of the attending misery that came with exercising the freedom to what I knew to be wrong, could I make the better decision. I know why God says that premarital / extra marital sex is sin, I've experienced what the Bible clearly demonstrates in the lives of those who followed the same course, the outcomes are inevitable. The stat's prove it… so… It's not about impositions, it about choices…
Peace
Laffal,
I'll just try to pick up a point or two. I know "the Bible says that "sin" at the core is a power that effects each and everyone of us."
I do not come at it from this perspective. I would rephrase that as "human nature is the core power that drives and motivates each one of us". Be it hunger for food, desire for belonging and love, seeking of self purpose and fulfillment – all are distinclty what it means to be human. None of these things in and of themselves (including sex) are sin. It is what we are – normal.
You only have to watch the TV show "Embarrassing Bodies" to see that poor choices (eg diet) exhibit in many facets of life. It is not just sex, as I'm sure you would agree.
You are right – it is about choices. I would just suggest that better choices may not be the direct result of "calling sin by its right name", or "setting the bar higher". Each person has within themselves the ability and the will to make better choices when given the right information, context, purpose and self respect. There is no doubt that Christianity presented right can give much of that to people. There is also no doubt that Christianity is responsible for much unnecessary guilt, shame and evil.
Anyway, as you will gather I come at this issue first and foremost from the basics of what it means to be human, not from an imposed explanation from the Bible. To me it provides insight into these issues, but not the authoritative word on it.
Cheers
cb25 – I think there is a fundamental difference between focusing on sins – setting the standard high – and being informed about the Law and some of the ways in which it illustrates sin. The only healthy point is to focus on God – "If with all your hearts you seek me, you will surely find me." Focusing on sin is not the same as focusing on God, but I don't understand how reconsidering sin as human nature and normal helps us in seeking God. Do you think that statement is incorrect?
To blame all of society's problems on sex outside marriage may be unrealistic. Separate the figures for class and/or income and you discover financial factors have a stronger negative impact on people than whether or not their parent are married. Are the figures for a single parent family and a two-parent family really that different if you hold other factors equal? The research I have seen suggests that they are very similar.
I am not going to say that sex outside marriage is not a sin, but perhaps it doesn't lie at the heart of all our problems. I suspect greed and selfishness have better claims on that position. Maybe we need more of a focus on the Bible's call to care for the poor and less on sex. Perhaps people who are financially secure are in a better place to make good decisions about all aspects of life.
Who has blamed sex outside of marriage for all of society's problems? Even if wealthy children are less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, I'm pretty sure that the rates of experimentation are similar across all financial spectrums. Everywhere we look, secular media is promoting the idea that multiple partners and starting young is normative.
As a teen/young adult and follower of Christ, I was taught that sex outside of marriage was a sin, but I wasn't really taught what the sin is. The aim of premarital sex is self worship. Greed and selfishness are entirely at the core. The world tells us that the endgame for dating is to have sex…but I believe God reveals the point of dating is to find the one whom you will marry. Young Christians need to be taught that dating is not about the physical…but about the spiritual…the aim of finding the partner to marry…of being equally yoked…of starting a new life together. With this in mind, young Christians should not even date until they know they are ready to marry. The questions to answer – are you the right one for me? – are our purposes the same? – do we have the same values? The world will ask, but what about sexual compatability? To which I answer, if you are not attracted to each other, why date? Beyond attraction, young Christian people should be focused on these larger questions that I've raised, not on sexual compatability. I know that these ideas run in the opposite direction of the world. As I watch my young children approach their teen years, I realize that I need to offer more guidance than my 'elders – parents and church leaders' did. It's not about ruling with an iron fist, but it is not enough to simply tell our youth that it is a sin and then turn a blind eye to their struggles.
Teaching young Christians to serve others, be selfless, and seek God/Kingdom actually lays the foundation for traversing the teen/early adult years by focusing on God, as opposed to self. But if their church community does not teach them about healthy, Godly relationships, then these young Christians will find another teacher – peers, tv, hollywood, porn industry, music, advertising, and the list goes one. Do we really want to hand over the job of teaching our youth to the world?
cb25 – before I saw this sermon series, I would have almost surely agreed with you. Driscoll's message is definitely conservative, but it is much more thought out than that. His real issue with these sins is that they separate us from God. He holds no punches…meaning that, received with an open heart or not, these sermons are likely to offend all listeners at some point…so it is a little salty. I really think his heart is in the right place with these messages…by the way, I also think the Apostle Paul's heart was in the right place, even if he personally struggled with these things.
As for redefining the standards or the questions – I would say that is what we do and have been doing for years. Culture stretches our world view on a daily basis, and we do allow it to impact us. Most 'freedoms' that we seek concerning sexual issues have everything to do with worshiping our own desires/self and nothing to do with seeking God. God created us to be sexual beings, to enjoy sex, to experience oneness – but the Bible reveals that this is to be experienced within the union of marriage.
Today's culture mocks that notion. "You'd be crazy to marry someone without giving it a test ride." "The only way to become good at sex is through practice…and with multiple partners." I've got secular friends who take their boyfriends to strip clubs as a gift…thinking they are being selfless. And while I want my children to grow up being computer literate, I fear the reality of what they will most certainly encounter online…or on their cell phones. As Mark D. points out, each year, American's spend more money on pornography than we do on foreign aid. We spend more on it in the U.S. than all professional sports combined.
It is certainly true that culture has shifted away from marrying early, and this presents a real challenge. But after watching this sermon series, I became convicted that the issues are much bigger than the sin. They begin much earlier than the action of pre-marital sex or adultery. They are issues of mind and heart, of making a god of self. How can we grow into mature followers of Christ if we are focused on the god of self?
I've always liked Morris Vendon's definition – sin is separation from God – the stuff we generally call sin is actually the result of separation from God – which is sin. We can look at the consels/wisdom of the Bible as 'limitations' or as 'freedoms'. If I eat a bunch of shellfish and get food poisoning, my freedom created a limitation in my life. Had I heeded the Bible's wisdom, I would have been free of experiencing the food poisoning. Sexual sin, however gratifying and freeing, does result in limitations and definitely separates us from God.
If our churches remain passive and silent on these issues, our members are much more likely to flap in the wind and follow their own desires, resting in justification that it feels good so it can't be bad, and not realizing the long term damage they do to themselves, their future husband/wife, their future children, their church and community, and most of all their God.
There are seniors in residential and nursing facilities who move in with each other, and no longer is there horror exclaimed by attendants. Sex is one of nature's driving force much like hunger and thirst and labeling it sin does not change its power and attraction.
If calling it sin had been effective we would not be having this conversation.
The Decalogue never addressed premarital sex as it was given in a world away as far as culture and practices. Women were "taken" as wives, ordered by God when capturing in battle: women had no choice nor
recognition as being able to choose her course–it was decided by her father.
Today, with women and men marrying at much later ages (whether it is a good or bad thing, it cannot be changed it was never seen during Bible times. Men sought prostitutes but women were supposed to be chaste virgins. Women depended on father or husband very here very life.
Today, women are financiall independent and have no reason to marry as did their grandmothers.
Preaching and teaching against sex will not change anything but putting guilt on young people.m There is a difference between promiscuity and living together as engaged and planning to marry.
Couples who are recognized as dating are surely not going to be questioned about their living arrangements, so teaching and preaching about unmarried living arrangements have no redeeming reasons. If someone suggests otherwise, let them speak out.
Elaine – I suggest otherwise. I suggest that the church (all denominations) has increasingly done as you have suggested while relegating 'sex ed' to the world. I suggest that sex is not a sin…the sin is choosing to enter into it with multiple partners. I suggest it is a beautiful gift from God to be shared between a committed couple…for life. I suggest that the vast majority of our young people simply are not thinking about God, or have been educated about God on this point, when they casually accept the world's advice that sex should be enjoyed by all dating couples. I suggest the young do not realize how multiple partners over years, even in temporary commited relationships, will confuse the value of sex and make it that much harder to remain happily married to one partner for life.
This relativistic outlook you promote is exactly what the world promotes. I'm not trying to take women back to the 'dark ages'. If you are honest, you must admit that I'm holding men to just as high a standard as women. God wants our all. Choosing God over premarital sex, lust, adultery, fornication, etc. is wise, and I believe this is the direction we should be leading our youth. At least, this is what I desire for my own children…and so I speak out.