How to write an introduction to the obvious? This has been taught since Christ: before Christ the writer of Proverbs noted that avoiding those who place their bodies on the meat rack was wise. Well, we have to start with the ideology of this age, which denies reality, and leaves us in despair and failure. The seeking of one’s pleasure should not be a sport, but instead sex should be elevated: the bed, like the table, be the altar of that covenant. We need to be a bit more spiritual, but at the same time we need to be a lot less interested in those who see this most human of acts as the end of all spirituality.
The Pick up Artist who sees fornication as a sport is in the same moral trap as the glutton: enslaved to his desires, and listening to the marketers who will encourage this. Bobby Flay and Nigella Lawson as as great a moral hazard as the other kind of porn.
And we have to remember that there is no such thing as “safe sex”. If you are intimate with someone, you share their biome: their fauna and flora. You swap bugs. Not just the sexually transmitted ones. Your body gets attuned to his DNA or her DNA. And this intimacy is shown when our genomes combine and there is a new one born. This ain’t merely theology, this is biology.
12“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.
This was elaborated by Augustine, who pointed out that most of our sins are taking a god given appetite and desire and pushing it to excess, or alternately, denying it. We need to confront the sin within our congregation: and that 800 lb gorilla is our tolerence of divorce. Zippy is a good Catholic, and we disagree on the theology of this — the Reformed will allow remarriage to the innocent party of a divorce (the one abandoned or adulterated against — and abandonment must be wilful and against the counsel of the elders, so there is clear proof and clear condemnation. What happened to Jenny Erikson is the correct way to manage this within a church).
But there isn’t anything inherently impossible about the Church doing something phenomenally unloving and harmful in its pastoral practice and discipline. Further undermining our public understanding of marriage would be incredibly cruel and vicious, especially toward people in very difficult situations who struggle daily to do the right thing. Giving people an “easy way out” toward sacrilege and self-destruction is not merciful. It is the opposite of mercy: it is a way of patting ourselves on the back about how wonderful we are as we march God’s children into the pits of Hell.
Now, thiat leaves us divorced in a difficult position. If I was a Papist (I am not) I could go legalistic and easily find grounds that anulled this. But I have two children, who I love dearly, and my ex is their mother. We live apart for good reasons. But their teaching is clear — we must reconcile, or live as if celibate.
The classic reformed were equally clear. If you were the guilty party, you were called back to your marital relationship and into accountability to the eldership. And if you left, the other party was to treat you as dead, and could remarry.
But the modern church tolerates neither positions (and both can be argued from scripture — let us leave that apart). We have a bunch of people who have remarried and have children. Even worse, a lot of women have been supported by the sisterhood of the bitter churcian, driving men out.
And the young man sees the hell his father or uncle or boss lives in — not seeing his children, paying monies to a woman who lives with another, and shackled by the bailiffs of the family court, who hold his livelihood and licensure ih their hands. They see marriage as a trap, to be avoided. The altar of marriage is not merely desolate, but shunned.
And within the church we tolerate these “good Christian young people” who act just like their secular peers — playing hard in the sexual marketplace. We are not showing mercy to the rare and tragic broken marriage, but fornication is tolerated, even encouraged.
What to do? Well, we need to obey the word of God. Shun gluttony and fornication. Aviod those things that lead us to temptation.. which in my case, includes Food TV.
Secondly, we have to, as a church, understand that the state is our enemy, and will destroy our conscience. Consider this (Hat tip Wintery Knight)
ADF Senior Counsel Brett Harvey added in a statement that “the government should not require a Catholic school to tell its students that the Catholic faith is no more valid than a myriad of conflicting faith traditions.”
“All faith-based institutions must be free to speak and act consistently with their faith,” Harvey maintained.
The brief also argues that Canada’s diversity is partly reflected in the multiple religious organizations represented in its society, and that the diversity of those views needs to be respected.
In his interview with CP, Chipeur said that much like blasphemy laws around the world, teachers are prosecuted for offending the religious sensibility of the governing party.
Polls, such as a 2011 National Household Survey, show that two-thirds, or over 67 percent of Canada’s population, identify as Christians, while 23.9 percent profess no religious affiliation.
Despite this, the attorney argued that Quebec’s governing party has adopted a “very atheistic approach, very antagonistic to all private religious schools.
“They are against all religions; they are not just choosing one, they are against all religious practices,” he added.
Our courts are not of the faith. We cannot trust them. If a couple have a secular divorce, which you can get for any reason you so choose, then the church has to adjudge. Carefully, prayerfully, and set rules for that couple. If one is excoummunicated, the other is free. Otherwise, the separation must end in reconciliation. And then, the elders need to carefully meet with those of us who have been through the mill. This will be painful. But, but, we need to remove this evil from among us. I hated divorce from a young age, and now that I am divorced, my hatred for the institution is far, far more intense.
For, in this fallen time, it is not merely the young or foolish who fornicate. The temple has been broken, and then we wonder why our sexual life has become mundane.
I don’t disagree with you, but how do we put this into play? Today you can easily hop churches when your church won’t let you do what you want to do. (This is a serious question, I am NOT arguing, I want ideas).
For instance, our former pastor was asked to leave because he was watching porn. Shortly thereafter, he was pastoring another church, not associated with the Calvary Chapels. Nothing to stop him from doing that. Later I hear he got a divorce, occasionally his ex wife (lovely lady) shows up at church. He’s still pastoring.
I know how our church leadership holds one another in accountability and how they vet leaders. It’s a good thing. But once you leave – you’re out of that link of authority.
The short answer is that we cannot outside our demoninational structures. There will always be the Unitarians — and liberals — who will heartily approve of the fauxly married Lesbian Pastrixes. (Yes, they exist.).
The question of how we do this in our congregations is going tb be huge. For people WILL leave. Pastor Barry, who cares and bleeds for my congregation, was divorced and then remarried after finding God and has been married for 20 years — should that be dissolved?
And Porn is everywhere. Almost every man is fallen in this area. And every woman — the average Romance Novel is on the same moral plane as the girly magazines. And that is without considering the daily tempations to gluttony and avarice — I mentioned food TV above, but we could add MSNBC and Bloomberg etc. This is one point where the manosphere can help — but it requires that husband and wife accept that in marriage, being celibate is not chaste, and invol. celibacy increases the temptation of 50 shades or similar.
We have to care for the broken, but ironically this is easier. For if you tell a woman who has been a sex worker — ” don’t do it, it damages you” — in my experience, she agrees with you and is prepared to stick to rules in rehab (which generally are around living clean; no theiving, no sex, no drugs).
If we teach this and pastor this I think our churches will grow. There will a little less chaff. But we cannot rely on our courts.
{I am not enjoying talking about this, BTW: this hits very close to home to this heterosexual who is nowhere near a monk}.
Additional:
The old solution was that elders were accountable for people in their congregation and would meet with them and ask pointed questions: if the marriage was falling they would counsel both couples, and if there was a divorce they would intevene and hold them to account.
To have communion, you needed a communion card, which you got at your quarlerly visit from your elder. The table was closed and guarded. (Yes, I know presbyterian polity all too well).
This no longer happens, the table is open.
Apart from the leadership in places like Calvary, where the system has been reinvented because it is needed — your pastors are under continual temptation and attack.
Communion at Calvary is open – but is supposed to be on your honor to only take it as a Christian, in right standing with the Lord.
The elders/pastoral staff are *so* careful about time with women. Never alone with women not in their immediate family – no matter the age, no matter the reason. We seem to have added sideways conversations, which make my neck hurt. (DH says it’s harder to stare at things not-the-face if you stand like that).
There are 2-3k members/attenders at CCO. How in hades are the elders supposed to oversee all of their marriages?
Yes, the broken ones are easier to help than the ones (like me) who learned to shuffle dirt under the rug. :p (We have ex-sex workers at CCO, and enough ex-addicts to have a ministry devoted to them).
Does this make you want to beg Jesus to come back and set us in order as it does me? :p
You do a good job – at least through the combox – Chris.
I think communion should be open. We are evangelical, and we must have a time of confession — including both public and private prayers before this, together with the words of comfort.
God does work through these things.
On large churches — Moses. Have leaders of tens (corporals) reporting to leaders of hundreds (sergeants) to leaders of thousands (Captains). Or whatever. The elders need to train sub-elders and sub-elders. And yes, that sounds like home groups.
Or deliberately split the church when it gets to 200 people: which is not what Calvary does.
We have home groups. Optional home groups… although they are highly encouraged.
Your elders are smart.
As is your husband. If we are looking directly at you we can see your figure and we may be old, but we are not blind… that is for your husband, not for us. Looking sideways for us means prob. Not looking at you but at the wall beside you or the task we are doing. Besides, we would prob. be looking at you rhead. It’s indirect eye contact, not twisting your neck.
It is very male. We hard code among ourselves direct eye contact as confrontational or power: working alongside is cooperative.
In teaching consultation skills we tend to set chairs at an angle for
these reasons: allows people to safely look away and avoids direct
challenges. You want to be working with a patient, not directing a
patient.
For example, if we are meeting at a table, I would sit around the corner from the pateint, not directly opposite.
—-
Sad to hear about the lady casualty of the fallen Pastor. There are many female victims of all this.
I had to ask my husband what they were doing. One of the pastors I was following around and I had an odd little dance in the hall, where we were talking and he kept going off to the side, and then I’d reorient… and then he’d move… (This is supposed to make you laugh – I gave up after the third move, figured there was a reason, but didn’t know what the reason was).
*I* strongly prefer face-to-face only slightly offset conversations. I can go with what they’re doing – but only if I figure it out first! And I don’t think of myself like *that*.
Looking up at someone a foot taller than I am, particularly if they decide to stand fully next to me is uncomfortable. I’m not saying I won’t respect, but … owie. (Down/side is comfy, side/side is okay if not optimum, up/side is ouch).
Bringing it back to church structure -> church discipline, I just wanted to throw out what the unstructured church does with it. Mostly self-discipline, and that has its potholes. Does anything *not* have its potholes?
No. Everything has potholes. There is a parallel conversation at Zippy’s place. The Catholics do not run an open table: the priest should refuse communion to those who are in open sin. But they have problems with doing this, and as Zippy says, giving a pass to those who are in sin is cruel to those who are struggling with their broken state.
This is why we need to pray more.
A few more things… As a tall beast, I sit in a low chair and generally lean back or forward so I am at your eye level or thereabouts. Much harder when walking — I would be talking at the space above your head at times so no one gets a cricked neck.
All this varies culturally — not merely with being a Kiwi or a ‘murican, but regionally, ethnically… and you have to continually adjust.
In theory they run a closed communion, but it’s honor based in fact as well. (I was offered communion at a funeral mass I attended, which I of course passed on). Those who have no honor … will make their apologies to the Judge.
Slouching is bad for your back
Walking is okay, you’re supposed to look ahead when you walk. I like staring at faces when really talking. I get a lot of information from faces, so I turn my head until I *can* see your face. But I don’t read as challenging 90% of the time.
Kiwi. Staring directly over here can get you into fights. In the US, I have to force myself to deliberately look at people’s eyes.
[…] Fornication is not a sport. [I really hate divorce] […]
[…] the Politicians who bring up the gay marriage debate, to distract voters from political corruption. Yes, the broken ones are easier to help than the ones (like me) who learned to shuffle dirt under the rug. :p (We have ex-sex workers at […]