OK, I'm ready for Paul to get off the topic of sex. I think he keeps hammering on it, though, because it's so hard for us to get right. It's hard for the same old reason: we're too often self-centered.
This morning I read this (1Cor7:2-5): "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
My first thought was, "Lord, how counter-cultural do you think we can really be?" It's things like this that make others think Christians are radical whackos.
First, there's the statement that our spouses get authority over our bodies. What happens to autonomy? What about, "It's my body so it's my business?" But Paul is clear, and I can only think that he is reminding us that within the marriage partnership, some things become joint decisions. My wife has a right to expect a vote in what I do with my body, certainly in sexual activity. It raises the very difficult question of whether she has a right to expect me to work at maintaining a reasonably attractive body.
But then there's this whole thing about conjugal rights, and the idea that I can't deprive my wife, or she me, unless we both agree to it. Really? That would mean that cutting your spouse off as a power tactic is off limits. So is letting your spouse live without because you've lost interest.
The core issue is probably this: With sex and our bodies as with everything else, we mayn't be selfish. When we're deciding how to behave, we must think first of the needs of others, and of God's guidance.
There's also the admonition not to lead others astray. Paul says our behavior can induce our spouses to sin. Our behavior can also induce another's spouse to sin, if we make ourselves more attractive to him/her than his/her partner.
What God wants from us married folks is this: Within the framework of mutual agreement, we're to love our spouses with our bodies. Doesn't seem like it should be that hard. Why is it?
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Good sex, bad sex
Sometimes it's easy to see Godly values displayed in society at large (take philanthropy, for example). Often it isn't.
I thought that this morning as I read Paul's admonition against sexual immorality in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Key verse: "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."
Paul starts this verse talking about food, so it's tempting to decide the passage is about appetites in general. I think Paul is pretty specific in talking about sex here, though, since the next seven verses are specifically directed to that topic. As uncomfortable as it is, we need to think about sex sometimes, and what God's will for it may be.
Paul isn't against sex, he's against immoral sex. We get a little queasy discussing what may be appropriate in the bedroom, but I think Paul just wants to point us back to the basic fact that unless sex is in the context of marriage, it's wrong.
For many of us, that isn't a problem. However, there are two elements of living obediently to God: the internal and the external. It's not enough just to say, "Well, I don't do that." We need also to stand for the right things in the world.
At a minimum, I must never appear to condone what God has forbidden. When the topic comes up in conversations or TV shows or in someone's behavior, I need to at least make my position known so no-one thinks I'm OK with it.
Sometimes my role will be to actively work against sexual sin, maybe in the life of someone I know, or maybe to protect a neighborhood or school zone from exposure to the sex business. I hate having to do things like that, but I must be willing to stand against evil as much as I stand for good.
Those who are called to live without sexual expression can be especially effective, since their faithfulness in this area is proof that we need not be driven by our hormones.
Sex is one of those areas where, to the rest of the world, Christians seem hopelessly out of touch. We just need to remember that we're the only ones who really know about great sex. What the world has is Satan's twisted substitute.
I thought that this morning as I read Paul's admonition against sexual immorality in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Key verse: "The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."
Paul starts this verse talking about food, so it's tempting to decide the passage is about appetites in general. I think Paul is pretty specific in talking about sex here, though, since the next seven verses are specifically directed to that topic. As uncomfortable as it is, we need to think about sex sometimes, and what God's will for it may be.
Paul isn't against sex, he's against immoral sex. We get a little queasy discussing what may be appropriate in the bedroom, but I think Paul just wants to point us back to the basic fact that unless sex is in the context of marriage, it's wrong.
For many of us, that isn't a problem. However, there are two elements of living obediently to God: the internal and the external. It's not enough just to say, "Well, I don't do that." We need also to stand for the right things in the world.
At a minimum, I must never appear to condone what God has forbidden. When the topic comes up in conversations or TV shows or in someone's behavior, I need to at least make my position known so no-one thinks I'm OK with it.
Sometimes my role will be to actively work against sexual sin, maybe in the life of someone I know, or maybe to protect a neighborhood or school zone from exposure to the sex business. I hate having to do things like that, but I must be willing to stand against evil as much as I stand for good.
Those who are called to live without sexual expression can be especially effective, since their faithfulness in this area is proof that we need not be driven by our hormones.
Sex is one of those areas where, to the rest of the world, Christians seem hopelessly out of touch. We just need to remember that we're the only ones who really know about great sex. What the world has is Satan's twisted substitute.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Disputes
I read 1 Cor 6:1-8 again this morning -- it's that passage about believers taking each other to court. Paul expresses his disappointment this way (vv 5-7) "Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
This is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, Paul argues that the church is a better place to settle disputes, and his reason seems to be that a church solution will focus on love and justice from a spiritual perspective.
Second, Paul says the very fact that you enter into a lawsuit means you've already been defeated. I think he means more than just that we've lost fellowship with another believer. Our value system has become skewed because the material benefit we hope for will be gained by confrontation and antagonism; in pursuit of earthly benefit we're willing to compromise our own spiritual growth, that ongoing process of growing more like Jesus that we call sanctification.
It makes you wonder, doesn't it, what life would look like if we all valued the fruits of the spirit more than stuff? A lot could change if we would rather be good than wealthy, if we would rather have joy than a new car, if we would rather be patient and kind than get the last iPad2 on the shelf.
In fact, what if we looked at our wealth as a tool we use to progress toward our sanctification? What if we thought the reason for money was to enable us to be loving, joyous, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-controlled?
Even if we didn't go that far, it would be refreshing to see church members in dispute sit down with pastor or elder to work things through. The spiritually-wise are the only ones qualified to judge matters between spiritual people, Paul says.
We don't want to do that because we're still confused about what's really valuable. We chase after worldly things because we think they'll buy us happiness, and in a way it does. Happiness is a response to an external stimulus -- we say, "That made me happy." The causes of happiness are many and fleeting.
We forget that God promises something better than happiness, which is joy. Joy is a character trait based on something internal: an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit. The source of joy is singular but permanent. That's why true joy cannot be erased by a bad day. That would be worth, in Paul's words, "suffering wrong."
This is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, Paul argues that the church is a better place to settle disputes, and his reason seems to be that a church solution will focus on love and justice from a spiritual perspective.
Second, Paul says the very fact that you enter into a lawsuit means you've already been defeated. I think he means more than just that we've lost fellowship with another believer. Our value system has become skewed because the material benefit we hope for will be gained by confrontation and antagonism; in pursuit of earthly benefit we're willing to compromise our own spiritual growth, that ongoing process of growing more like Jesus that we call sanctification.
It makes you wonder, doesn't it, what life would look like if we all valued the fruits of the spirit more than stuff? A lot could change if we would rather be good than wealthy, if we would rather have joy than a new car, if we would rather be patient and kind than get the last iPad2 on the shelf.
In fact, what if we looked at our wealth as a tool we use to progress toward our sanctification? What if we thought the reason for money was to enable us to be loving, joyous, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-controlled?
Even if we didn't go that far, it would be refreshing to see church members in dispute sit down with pastor or elder to work things through. The spiritually-wise are the only ones qualified to judge matters between spiritual people, Paul says.
We don't want to do that because we're still confused about what's really valuable. We chase after worldly things because we think they'll buy us happiness, and in a way it does. Happiness is a response to an external stimulus -- we say, "That made me happy." The causes of happiness are many and fleeting.
We forget that God promises something better than happiness, which is joy. Joy is a character trait based on something internal: an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit. The source of joy is singular but permanent. That's why true joy cannot be erased by a bad day. That would be worth, in Paul's words, "suffering wrong."
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Double standard
God says we should have a double standard.
That sounds bad to us; it seems unfair. But Paul explains part of it in 1 Cor 5:9-10, when he says we're to look at a sexually immoral Christian differently than an unbeliever who commits the same sin. He concludes by saying, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."
That's too bad, because it's way more fun to judge outsiders. I just want to get along with the insiders. I don't want to have to challenge their behavior; I don't want to risk the relationships. Far better to concern myself with the sins of those outside my church.
God says, not your job. I want you to show love to those outsiders. I want you to show them what joy there is in following. Holding them accountable isn't necessary.
I think that's true because of a very simple fact: the unbeliever hasn't bought in yet. (I know, theologically that's not how it works, election and God calling and all that, but I mean something different here.) There is nothing that can possibly be gained by calling someone out for something they don't think is wrong. That's why vegans can seem so obnoxious to us carnivores.
That guy or gal who has professed faith is another story; we have a responsibility to them to hold them accountable. We can't let them hurt themselves spiritually any more than we would let them put a gun to their own heads.
I'm not always sure how to sort out this admonition with the "do not judge" directive, so I tend to lean toward love over judgment if there's doubt. Paul says here that with the unbeliever, there isn't a choice. Love is all they should see from us.
That sounds bad to us; it seems unfair. But Paul explains part of it in 1 Cor 5:9-10, when he says we're to look at a sexually immoral Christian differently than an unbeliever who commits the same sin. He concludes by saying, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."
That's too bad, because it's way more fun to judge outsiders. I just want to get along with the insiders. I don't want to have to challenge their behavior; I don't want to risk the relationships. Far better to concern myself with the sins of those outside my church.
God says, not your job. I want you to show love to those outsiders. I want you to show them what joy there is in following. Holding them accountable isn't necessary.
I think that's true because of a very simple fact: the unbeliever hasn't bought in yet. (I know, theologically that's not how it works, election and God calling and all that, but I mean something different here.) There is nothing that can possibly be gained by calling someone out for something they don't think is wrong. That's why vegans can seem so obnoxious to us carnivores.
That guy or gal who has professed faith is another story; we have a responsibility to them to hold them accountable. We can't let them hurt themselves spiritually any more than we would let them put a gun to their own heads.
I'm not always sure how to sort out this admonition with the "do not judge" directive, so I tend to lean toward love over judgment if there's doubt. Paul says here that with the unbeliever, there isn't a choice. Love is all they should see from us.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Unleavened bread
The recent recession has been called a watershed event, one of those points in time that marks a strong difference in how things get done. A watershed, of course, is a geological way of defining how water flows: at certain places it no longer flows one way but instead, due to changes in the landscape, flows somewhere else.
Paul points to the ultimate watershed event in all of history in 1 Cor 5:7&8: "Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
The watershed event, the one that started everything flowing in a new direction, was the sacrifice of Christ, our Passover Lamb. As a result, Paul says, it's out with the old (leaven) and in with something new.
Keep in mind that this is in the context of the man in an incestuous relationship with his step-mother. The old leaven Paul refers to is the old sinful ways that we used to do church, with no accountability for what he calls "malice and evil."
I find it interesting that Paul doesn't say put in new leaven, he says worship with unleavened bread. A couple of thoughts here: First, coupled with reference to the Passover lamb, this is a deliberate reference to the use of unleavened bread at the original Passover and every celebration since. In this way Paul still honors Jewish history, reminding us that Old Testament principles endure even if practices don't.
The second thought: We don't need to add anything to what Christ has done. His work is sufficient, and the best way to honor it is with "sincerity and truth;" that is, accurately reflect what has been done, rather than trying to embellish.
It would be interesting sometime to review our worship to see how much embellishment is there. Even more, what about church life as a whole? Is there still some old leaven, some tolerance for malice and evil? Or do we serve one another in sincerity and truth?
Remember the reason: the amazing sacrifice of Jesus means we're free of all that. If we still do it, that's our choice, but it's not a choice that honors the sacrifice
Paul points to the ultimate watershed event in all of history in 1 Cor 5:7&8: "Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
The watershed event, the one that started everything flowing in a new direction, was the sacrifice of Christ, our Passover Lamb. As a result, Paul says, it's out with the old (leaven) and in with something new.
Keep in mind that this is in the context of the man in an incestuous relationship with his step-mother. The old leaven Paul refers to is the old sinful ways that we used to do church, with no accountability for what he calls "malice and evil."
I find it interesting that Paul doesn't say put in new leaven, he says worship with unleavened bread. A couple of thoughts here: First, coupled with reference to the Passover lamb, this is a deliberate reference to the use of unleavened bread at the original Passover and every celebration since. In this way Paul still honors Jewish history, reminding us that Old Testament principles endure even if practices don't.
The second thought: We don't need to add anything to what Christ has done. His work is sufficient, and the best way to honor it is with "sincerity and truth;" that is, accurately reflect what has been done, rather than trying to embellish.
It would be interesting sometime to review our worship to see how much embellishment is there. Even more, what about church life as a whole? Is there still some old leaven, some tolerance for malice and evil? Or do we serve one another in sincerity and truth?
Remember the reason: the amazing sacrifice of Jesus means we're free of all that. If we still do it, that's our choice, but it's not a choice that honors the sacrifice
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Radical solutions
Sometimes my world view is so different from other people's, even other Christians, that I don't dare speak up. And sometimes I blame the Apostle Paul.
The verses I read this morning are one reason. In 1 Cor 5:1-5 Paul writes to the Corinthian Christians about a specific case of sexual perversion. He reproves them for tolerating it, and then writes this (vv4-5): "When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."
The drastic solution in these verses seems shocking at first, but Paul is prescribing radical sacrifice to save a soul.
I get that, because all soldiers get it. Soldiers sometimes throw themselves on hand grenades or stay behind to hold the pass. And soldiers also accept that a certain number of casualties is an acceptable price for victory. They do those things because they know there are more important things than their own lives.
The reason I can't have conversations about that: People think life and health are more important than anything. In fact, don't we often assume that God wants long life and good health for His people? We think that because our focus is life here on earth.
However, we can all name one or more saints who don't get both of those things, because that's not what's important to God. To Him, there is only one thing about us that is really significant, and that's the relationship we have with Him. He's willing to put us through all kinds of badness in order to get that right.
Give that man to Satan, Paul says. Cut him off from the blessing of fellowship with the body. Two things will result: He will no longer contaminate the whole church, potentially causing others to sin. And after Satan has gleefully wrung everything good from his life and left him a wreck, he may turn again to God. That chance of a renewed relationship with God is worth whatever the man suffers.
Blunt truth: Following Christ, though a guarantee of eternal life, is no guarantee of health or even happiness here on earth. Why, then, should an unrepentant sinner get a better deal? Why should I, if I don't repent?
The verses I read this morning are one reason. In 1 Cor 5:1-5 Paul writes to the Corinthian Christians about a specific case of sexual perversion. He reproves them for tolerating it, and then writes this (vv4-5): "When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."
The drastic solution in these verses seems shocking at first, but Paul is prescribing radical sacrifice to save a soul.
I get that, because all soldiers get it. Soldiers sometimes throw themselves on hand grenades or stay behind to hold the pass. And soldiers also accept that a certain number of casualties is an acceptable price for victory. They do those things because they know there are more important things than their own lives.
The reason I can't have conversations about that: People think life and health are more important than anything. In fact, don't we often assume that God wants long life and good health for His people? We think that because our focus is life here on earth.
However, we can all name one or more saints who don't get both of those things, because that's not what's important to God. To Him, there is only one thing about us that is really significant, and that's the relationship we have with Him. He's willing to put us through all kinds of badness in order to get that right.
Give that man to Satan, Paul says. Cut him off from the blessing of fellowship with the body. Two things will result: He will no longer contaminate the whole church, potentially causing others to sin. And after Satan has gleefully wrung everything good from his life and left him a wreck, he may turn again to God. That chance of a renewed relationship with God is worth whatever the man suffers.
Blunt truth: Following Christ, though a guarantee of eternal life, is no guarantee of health or even happiness here on earth. Why, then, should an unrepentant sinner get a better deal? Why should I, if I don't repent?
Monday, August 1, 2011
Servant, not service
Boy, this apostle business doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Listen to Paul (1 Cor 4:9-13). "For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things."
Wow: Spectacle to the world . . . weak, held in disrepute . . . hunger, thirst, poorly dressed . . . buffeted and homeless . . . and labor. Why would anyone do that?
Paul's point, I think, is that he isn't out building an empire for himself, he isn't doing this for Paul. Paul's not getting much out of it. Instead, in the truest sense of servant-hood, he and his fellow apostles are spending themselves in pursuit of the Master's goals.
I can't honestly say I do that. I'm comfortable -- like my job, make decent money, nice house, good food, some leisure time. I'm not looking for ways to make my life harder; more like the opposite. I'm willing to serve, sure, in fact I look for ways every day. But I tend to pick and choose.
Make myself a spectacle? I'll pass (although Janie VD has gotten me a couple times.) Hunger and thirst? I'm not at my most graceful that way. Buffeted and homeless? I don't think so.
No, give me service opportunities I can do on my own schedule, in ways that are comfortable to me, someplace where it's not too inconvenient. Otherwise, give someone else a chance to be blessed.
This train of thought reminds me how much time I spend working toward the wrong goals. I live as though life here on earth was the point. I forget that anything I build here I build for me, and it won't last. What has value is the time and effort I put into God's kingdom; I'll spend a lot more time there than here, and whatever I build there, God promises, will last.
We like the idea of service -- that sounds noble, and gives us choices. I get less excited about servant-hood. That sounds like fewer options and no time off. But I think we're called to be servants, not to provide a service. It's worth thinking about the differences.
Wow: Spectacle to the world . . . weak, held in disrepute . . . hunger, thirst, poorly dressed . . . buffeted and homeless . . . and labor. Why would anyone do that?
Paul's point, I think, is that he isn't out building an empire for himself, he isn't doing this for Paul. Paul's not getting much out of it. Instead, in the truest sense of servant-hood, he and his fellow apostles are spending themselves in pursuit of the Master's goals.
I can't honestly say I do that. I'm comfortable -- like my job, make decent money, nice house, good food, some leisure time. I'm not looking for ways to make my life harder; more like the opposite. I'm willing to serve, sure, in fact I look for ways every day. But I tend to pick and choose.
Make myself a spectacle? I'll pass (although Janie VD has gotten me a couple times.) Hunger and thirst? I'm not at my most graceful that way. Buffeted and homeless? I don't think so.
No, give me service opportunities I can do on my own schedule, in ways that are comfortable to me, someplace where it's not too inconvenient. Otherwise, give someone else a chance to be blessed.
This train of thought reminds me how much time I spend working toward the wrong goals. I live as though life here on earth was the point. I forget that anything I build here I build for me, and it won't last. What has value is the time and effort I put into God's kingdom; I'll spend a lot more time there than here, and whatever I build there, God promises, will last.
We like the idea of service -- that sounds noble, and gives us choices. I get less excited about servant-hood. That sounds like fewer options and no time off. But I think we're called to be servants, not to provide a service. It's worth thinking about the differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)