Wednesday, August 31, 2011

come-to-Jesus moment

Anyone who has previously visited this blog probably can predict what I'm about to write. The expression "come-to-Jesus moment" paints the wrong picture of correct Christianity. Epiphanies, goosebumps, and euphoria aren't integral. The initial "conversion" experience isn't necessary. Moreover, long afterward, hazy memories of a spine-tingling point in time won't be enough to sustain a spiritual journey. Recapturing it isn't a primary goal unless someone is more accurately classified as a thrill-seeker than an earnest apprentice to the Master. Your personal come-to-Jesus moment doesn't distinguish you; your willingness to follow and "lift your cross" proves your loyalties. Yes, by all means, come to Jesus. Don't assume you'll halt all forward movement thereafter.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

God's backhand?

Aaaggghhh. No! No! No! A thousand times no! Natural disasters aren't heavenly judgments. Neither are terrorist attacks that are carried out by enemies of the Christian faith (I call them that because that is what they call themselves).

I will try to make this as clear as I can. Disasters strike large areas and large populations at once. Those areas contain unrighteous. Those areas contain righteous. Those areas contain unrepentant sinners. Those areas contain Christian devotees. In any case, two aspects cannot be denied about the psychological impact of such a disaster: 1) people turn not exclusively to Christianity but to any god or idol that's lying around; 2) people who are swift to beseech God to sake their skins are likely just as swift to ditch Him after the danger passes. Disasters are not for creating new disciples. Someone may give God a chance in response to the disaster, but on its own the disaster is an outrageously awful evangelist.

And no, it's not a punishable offence to elect a Democratic president who tries to come up with a government plan to support health care for the poor and/or unemployed. Even if it were, wouldn't it be spectacularly unjust to "smite" both the voters who did and did not vote for "God's candidates" (an oxy moron par excellence)? You can disagree with many political policies without speculating that the other person is an Antichrist.

Yes, I'll readily concede that Christianity is less of an overt factor in the U.S.A.'s culture than it was a century ago. I'll also concede that the U.S.A. is a "sinful nation" in the sense that many sinners are citizens. Of course, God "tolerates" us until the end times arrive. But don't these same conclusions apply to every other nation on planet Earth, and every other nation throughout history?

Insist if you will that the U.S.A. is on a downward spiral away from God's favor and we are ultimately doomed. Isn't it also true that there have been other times and places in which Christianity had barely any influence at all, e.g. less than 10% of the populace are Christian devotees, and yet God doesn't and didn't summarily snuff out those times and places? Perhaps we should be eternally grateful that God didn't crush the entire 1st century Roman empire by executing every inhabitant, thereby eliminating the infant church! Look it up. Many of those pagan Romans were surely as deserving of terrible wrath as the modern-day U.S.A.

So frustrating. People look for God's handiwork everywhere except in how they live their lives day by day. The posture during a disaster isn't shaking one's fist or applauding supposed comeuppance. It's reaching out an open hand to help. And helping regardless of the recipient.

Friday, August 26, 2011

modesty

Despite all my coverage of lust in the past few entries, I haven't stated much about modesty. Not plainly, at any rate. So here goes.
  • Mental dismissal of lust is a task for every onlooker. Regardless of (im)modesty, the final responsibility falls on the tempted. Nobody else can defeat the thoughts. 
  • Furthermore, modesty only allows a limited form of prevention. Modesty isn't an absolute barrier to lust. A fleshly person could lust for a person in modest clothing. Contrarily, a self-controlled person could cast out lust when immodest people are around.
  • Nevertheless, beyond any doubt, modesty is helpful. In particular, a community of Christians should include the expectation that everyone dresses in ways that encourage holy thinking. Of course, the same Christians should maintain the same standards whenever they associate with non-Christians, too. Non-Christians who haven't yet learned to sift their thoughts need modesty more, not less!
  • Context matters. Some activities require specialized clothing. It seems to me that Christians aren't forbidden from these activities, but whenever possible they can seek to strike a careful balance between modesty and practicality. Naturally, participation in a specific activity doesn't relax restriction against thoughts that are contrary to the will of God. Lust never should be an integral part of any activity; if it is, then perhaps Christians should abstain from that activity. If, under honest examination, a Christian admits that lust is part of the appeal of an activity, then that activity is a temptation to sin, be it only "partial".

Saturday, August 20, 2011

hypocrisy of purely spiritual romantic attraction

I recently posted a lengthy entry exploring my current viewpoint on the practicalities of combating lust, especially but certainly not exclusively by the unmarried. Part of my view is that unmarried Christians who encounter marriage candidates don't need to lust, because the stirrings of a normal yet resisted sex drive are enough for the purpose. Neither of them must obey or examine these promptings in order to prove their existence, and their very existence is what's relevant in selection for (potential) marriage.

A valid follow-up concern to the role played by this "carnal" component is how much emphasis to place on it. Is it "more Christian" for the unmarried to downgrade its importance? As spiritual beings linked by appreciation for each other's souls and virtue, and individuals looking for suitable lifelong partners whose inner qualities shall never diminish with age, is it irredeemably coarse to care about the degree of excitement provoked by the other's temporal form?

No.

Don't misunderstand. The condition and compatibility of the other's spirit is vital. A couple who have no respect are attempting to build their future on a rickety foundation. It's foolish to consider someone whose character is repugnant. It's quite self-destructive to pair up with a person who's controlled by sin (we all sin but the spiritually reborn person shouldn't be controlled by sin). Two who differ in their beliefs about the Lord of their lives are setting up a painful conflict. It's not enough to find merely someone who makes you laugh, and who is a good conversationalist. A marriage is to the "whole" person, with all the strengths and weaknesses.

But since a marriage is to the whole person, it's still hypocritical to pretend that the person's body isn't involved. And frankly, I doubt that people truly want their bodies to be irrelevant in this kind of relationship: "Do you like to look at me?"  "Your looks don't matter." Full attraction that affirms people and meets their needs will contain a bodily element. Scolding either of the two Christians for not being perfectly disembodied in their affections is a step too far. The hypocrisy is doubled when the self-appointed judge is a happily married person who massages a spouse's shoulder during the sermon rather than taking notes. The hypocrisy is redoubled when the premarital "tsks" suddenly shift to "Why don't you have a child yet?" six months after the marriage ceremony finishes. Demonizing actual lust or inappropriate contact before marriage is excellent. Demonizing any hint of desire in two people who display an earnest interest in holy marriage is unfair, unrealistic, and incorrect.

So a romantic attraction that's "purely spiritual" is mythical, and the myth is a hypocritical burden to place on the unmarried, although they like all Christians have the duty to flee sexual sin in thought and deed. Acknowledgment of the carnal contribution raises another question. What is the right timing of it? How soon should it be felt? If it's the first motive that someone experiences, is that an awful way to start things out?

Once again, I think that the question turns on a false dichotomy. A successful outcome depends on more than the evaluation of physique. It also depends on more than admiration of integrity of character. Thus, I don't think that, in the long-run, the "base" motivations are a worse point of departure than the "elevated" motivations. No matter which is more predominant at the outset, the rest will develop later. Someone who asks or accepts a date in response to the one factor should expect the other factor eventually, before the marriage stage. "That person is loving toward all things great and small" is a more lofty sentiment than "That person tickles my fancy", but neither is sufficient on its own. Early on, participants can't be expected to desire each other mind, body, and soul. Disdaining initial love for the body is hypocritical. It can't be the full extent of the basis for marriage. However, it's a workable root for everything that follows. "You wanted to go on a first date because of shallow skin-deep fascination?"  "Sure. How can I learn to love your soul until we've had the chance to talk some more?"

Sunday, August 14, 2011

answering the obvious about holy Christian singleness

A short while ago I asked the obvious about holy Christian singleness: if sexual attraction is part of the basis for a good Christian marriage, yet all sexual attraction outside of marriage is unholy, how exactly can holy Christians ever end up married? After some research, I believe that I have an answer. It's fairly complex and nuanced, as reality often is. None of the following is a novel revelation; my aim is to lay out the ideas in a plain and forthright manner. Too frequently Christians speak in confounding half-truths and platitudes.
  • "Sexual attraction", the single category I employed in the question, isn't helpful for morality. Instead there should be two categories: "lust" and "normal sex drive". Lust is the sin of a normal sex drive operating in immoral ways. So the upshot is that the holy task is to avoid lust, not normal sex drive. Actually any desire, such as craving for food, operating in an immoral way is "lust".
  • Any person with normal sex drive could react biologically when presented with an exciting stimulus, just as any person with normal hunger could react biologically when presented with tasty food. This instantaneous perception and classification of an object isn't lust. It isn't even necessarily a full-fledged temptation. It's also unavoidable, because of the presence of a normal sex drive. The sole technique to avert it altogether is to withdraw every possible experience of stimuli. Christians would need to completely separate male from female! Regardless of marital status, clothing choices, and body shapes, adults in mixed groups simply must cope with this. In particular, unmarried Christians of opposite sexes can certainly get close enough to each other to have conversations and perform acts of service! It may seem strange to mention that permission, but I'm trying to walk through the topic comprehensively, step-by-step, omitting nothing.
  • Lust starts to enter the situation after a normal sex drive makes its first recognition of someone other than the viewer's spouse. After that point, further thoughts might develop. These thoughts are temptations not only to carry out actions but to focus attention on mere contemplation of the actions. The initial thought is expressible in a statement like, "That person caught my eye", while the further thoughts are expressible in a statement like, "I want to do or think something". An object, for that is all that a person is at this primal level, is starting to lead to "plans". The stream of consciousness has begun to shift in an unlawful direction.
  • I opine that lust is still not truly committed at this stage. I believe that lust isn't there until a decision is made. That is, the person must first realize that their mind is on a wrong track, and then intentionally not put a stop to it. Three clues of indulged lust: 1) a lingering or unbroken gaze, 2) a gaze that leaves momentarily only to return shortly thereafter for no other reason, 3) social interaction that's characterized by notable lack of eye contact. Rejection of the invitation to lust might not be as rapid as it could be. Doubtless it comes easier to some than others. Everyone can improve their skill with time and practice. The primary issue is whether or not someone does halt lust, not how soon they manage. Of course, assuming someone is serious and sincere, then a specific occurrence of lust shouldn't survive for any longer than perhaps 30 seconds.
  • Unambiguous lust is the visualization of unlawful sexual action, where "action" refers to a broad range of activities: basically, whatever the lust entices the person to do to the visualized object. Unambiguous lust is the pursuit of ideas that excite a normal sex drive, outside of the lawful context of marriage. It might not be accompanied by physical acts. Pornography is one avenue. "Creative" daydreams could be a second. A third possibility doesn't receive as much comment: the nurtured desire to repeatedly see (and anticipate) someone other than one's spouse who tantalizes one's normal sex drive. To be sure, the experience could be comparatively mild; for example, it need not involve "explicit" imagining. However, it's a case of willingly-felt lust. Enjoying another person's "company" or "personality" isn't the same thing. Relatively subtle lust shows up in many little signs that aren't individually damning. Strangely deep disappointment when the object-person happens not to be in attendance. Unexplained tension during casual social interaction. An overeager tendency to exchange compliments. Excess attention at others' expense. A sensation like giddiness. If you'll allow me to illustrate... While I was a high school student, one of my teachers had a student assistant ("T.A.") for helping out with minor tasks. During that teacher's class, she was in the room, usually dressed immodestly but silently doing what the teacher assigned to her. We never talked. I don't recall a time when we had eye contact, in fact. Nevertheless, for a long time I grew accustomed to glancing at her many times during that class hour, almost automatically. I never invented sordid mental encounters. Was this lust? Well, I definitely wasn't looking at her for the sake of my education.
  • All the preceding comments apply to unmarried Christians who are intrigued in gauging each other's suitability for forming a marriage. Meaning, Christians aren't temporarily allowed to lust in order to seek or evaluate candidate "mates". Lust isn't required. The rather unmistakable psychological "vote" of a normal sex drive establishes whether the other could fill that role in the marriage; no need to ponder or dwell on that. I've read that some Christians advocate a "friendship" phase - people must call each other "friends" for a while before one of them is permitted to raise the prospect of anything else. I'm not convinced. It's better for everyone to say their current intentions and then start out "slow", than to be "friends" and allow misinterpretation to slowly creep in to the growing emotions of one or both.
  • Assuming reciprocal interest, the couple then spends time together to continue to learn and consider each other. Throughout this period between first attraction and marriage, they remain officially uncommitted and therefore unavailable for lust (or the actions that lust would motivate). This is a peculiar midway in which two people have appetites and cannot act out their impulses, despite being in close proximity. It's inherently unstable. The two either break apart or join in marriage. In the meantime, the suppression of lust isn't any different. Don't encourage it, kill it when it's there, don't fixate on it, and so forth. If the two aren't in total agreement, then one could accidentally or purposely tempt the other. Suggested guidelines aren't complicated, because the sex drive itself isn't complicated. A couple whose hypothetical end is marriage will already be partially driven by each other's nearness. Provocative clothing, private time as a pair, etc. increase the difficulty of preventing simple biology from taking over. 
In short, unmarried Christians who feel a mutual sexual attraction can surely result in a vibrant marriage, without committing the sin of lust along the way. But they must have the resolve and wisdom to see it through.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

What I won't do to appeal to unbelievers...

...is mock other Christians. It'd be too dishonest for me to try to say, "Look, unbelievers, I too think the Body and Bride of Christ is ridiculous!" Do I criticize and critique the Christianity practiced by many? Clearly yes. Do I hate Christians who are mistaken or who don't comply with arbitrary social fashions ("Horrors! They don't watch a lot of cable TV or independent movies!"). I pray that I never do. Telling uncomfortable truths, constructively, is an action that I can advocate. I won't rhetorically cast out fellow brothers and sisters in order to better integrate with cliques that exalt sarcasm (of all things) as the ultimate intellectual technique.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

love and marriage

Usual up-front warning: my opinions are my own, I don't speak for all Christians, and so on.

I've been surprised by how frequently I hear or read the assumption that love either is or should be synonymous with marriage. And that assumption comes with a second: love can never be a sin. I think both assumptions are mistakes, as judged by a Christian perspective.

To be clear, throughout this message, by "love" I'm referring to the common societal concept of people feeling and/or acting on "romantic" attraction. Its intensity and other qualities vary greatly. According to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, its existence is never an automatic moral justification. Sin is sin, at least for some actions, regardless of the (ig)noble motivation. Quite frankly, people are never permitted to sin whether or not they deeply want to. Or whether or not they can invent persuasive rationalizations.

Again according to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, marriage is the appropriate and correct context for the expression of love. By "marriage" I'm referring to the formal, public, (semi)permanent, exclusive joining of a couple through the exchange of vows and obligations. Readers may object to this singularly unromantic definition of marriage, but that very objection strikes at the crux. Love and marriage are not synonymous!

If the two were, then the Christian laws that restrict romantic love to marriage would be totally unnecessary. It's worth remembering that, in many cultures presently and in history, love isn't a requirement for marriage. Marriages happened for many reasons and were set up by people other than the couple. Culturally, the idea of marriage as purely an outpouring of love is not self-evident.

In a curious sense, marriage is for the sake of everybody else. It establishes that the two people are a unit to be treated differently by society. For instance, they're not available for love with anyone else. They're to be caretakers of each other, each other's property, and of course their resulting children. These purposes are distinct from love but certainly not in conflict with it. This is why informal/private/temporary/open "marriages" are contradictions in term.

Officially unmarried lovers are sinning. Not because the "scrap of paper of missing", but because they're partaking outside of the stringent commitment it's intended for. The contrivance of effective contraception has caused some people to forget how eminently practical this law is. Without it, lovers could produce offspring, then abandon each other. Promiscuity before the era of contraception is messy. Promiscuity before or during the era of contraception is sinful. Marriage is for preventing selfish people from fleeing the grave physical, emotional, and spiritual responsibilities of love.

However! It seems to me that the Christian perspective on love and marriage need not be exactly equivalent to the definition of marriage in a society of plural cultures. Societies that aren't explicitly based upon Christian doctrine, or populated only by Christians, can't be expected to maintain a marriage definition that "works" only for Christians. Put another way, people in subgroups in the society could be "married" without being "married" in the societal records, and people might be "married" by societal procedure without being "married" by the standards and procedures of particular subgroups. Call it "civil marriage" versus "religious marriage".

People united in civil marriage don't require others to pronounce them "married", but they do require others to treat them as married in the ways that civil law prescribes. Their civil marriage doesn't force others to change their minds or beliefs. Free societies will contain couples of all types. Some promiscuous. Some monogamous but eschewing commitment. Some in civil marriages. Some in religious marriages. Some in both. None of them affect the Christian viewpoint which selectively condemns or blesses each relationship.

Christians hate sin. We follow the godly example in doing so. But we don't have the right to outlaw all sin or to harass and hamper the lives of people whose sin is more visible. Through government we have the right to maintain order and peace; the rest is left up to the free choices of each individual to honor God or not.