Sex
By Jemila Kwon
“One, two three, say, “SEX!” Click. The photograph was snapped, semi-immortalizing me, along with the rest my coach-training cohort. The room, filled with women and one man from from places like Dubai, Greece, France, England, Germany and Jordan, as well as me, the token American student, reverberated with giggles, hardly distinguishable from the sound of twelve year-old girls. Some things are universal.
I love sex. It wasn’t always that way. Like when the first time I got married (I was a virgin) and it sucked. It was, well, degrading. In a legally tendered, pastor-sanctioned Christian marriage. It happens, more often than you’d think, that sex in marriage is unholy, in one way or another, yet the M word is like a tent that covers the sins of countless people against their own partners.
I love sex. I am divorced. I got married again to a wonderful man who had sex before marriage. He’s glad he did, only because he has absolutely no doubts that I am IT — the one and only one for him. The the occasional “ew” thoughts I have toward his previous partners pale in comparison with the incredible happiness I have in a partner totally sold out for yours truly. I would much rather a husband with experience who knows that what he wants is me than a husband without experience who secretly wonders, “What would it be like with someone else?”
I love sex. My husband and I assume that the partner who doesn’t feel up for doing has eternal veto. Let tell you, I want it a lot more than I would if I felt like it was my duty. In fact, I am the initiator over 50% of the time.
I love sex. I am not the only one making love when we do it. It’s a holy, intimate, loving, incredible, hot thing for him too.
Sexuality is a funny thing. It runs our culture and sometimes our lives like gasoline, and sometimes it lights up our sacred inner places…or even opens the way for a new soul to enter in.
As curious, spiritual beings, we wonder, “What’s love got to do with it?” What’s sex for?
Release, please? A song of creation? An intimate celebration?
For those of us who have had sex, or sex with love, or gotten pregnant (or gotten someone pregnant,) we understand all of these elements often present either as instigators or self-evident experiences during the sex-act. Pretty much everyone is okay with sex where all three elements occur each in balance with the others. — at least if you’ve gotten a legal license to fuck.
But what if you love your partner more than life itself and you offer each other your sacred vow to honor one another always…but you just don’t think your sex life is the government’s business? Now that’s a conservative Christian viewpoint that has been co-opted by the liberals, if you ask me.
Or what if you just want to get off and you couldn’t care less about intimacy or anything uniquely human about sex — the fact is, you’re up to your eyeballs with work and your horny and you think it’s your wife’s Christian duty is to let you spill your seed all over her on the grounds that it’ll help you keep your eyes on the prize — instead of on someone else’s prize, like take your secretary, for example?
Or what if you’ve dotted your legal “i”s and crossed your intimate “t”s and you lovingly bring each other orgasm in an act of complete, joyful surrender…but you don’t want to have kids. Ever. Like you’re not open to it.
On the other hand, what if you’re a teenager with an undeveloped frontal lobe, way too many hormones and cute, possibly charming boy or girlfriend and it happens, because unmarried sex has always happened,whether or not it’s condemned, accepted or ignored. I wonder what it means to protect our daughters at a time when there is something we can do to protect them from cervical cancer, even if we cannot always protect them from impulsive choices?
Or what if you weren’t scheming to ruin your Christian parents’ lives when you rode the rainbow down to earth and discovered early in life that you like people…like you.
Sex is a life force that catalyzes the start of a new person, invigorates us while you occupy this spinning planet and creates within us contradictory impulses that can either deepen our compassion and connection to all living beings, and especially our human brothers and sisters, or it can tear us apart, in our inner selves, in our families and perhaps most preventably, in our communities.
I think we appoint ourselves The Judge,when we see only two options: judging or condoning. In good faith, if find we cannot condone a sexual behavior, or a couple engaged in a non-condonable (from our viewpoint,) behavior — then we feel integrity-bound to judge. Which is ironic. Because we have only one judge. And he didn’t come to judge. Go figure that.
So what’s the alternative to condemning or condoning? A life-giving alternative is to employ different part of your brain and take “The Judge” off of payroll, or assign it a more suitable job, like separating out the rotten bananas from the regular ones in preparation for baking banana bread.
What I am saying is that by focusing on the people in front of us in the present tense, we can free ourselves from the compulsion to judge them. Let that be God’s job. Instead of imagining that we have to figure out which check box to click on Christ’s online survey of moral uprightness, give the whole checklist back to God, who has already ripped up the thing and put it out of his Mind, as far as the east is from the west. Instead of thinking about whether a couple is doing something wrong, help them with the lives in front of them. Get them water. Invite them over to play Cranium simply to be a friend. Let go of fixing them. God knows, it’s not in our power to fix people, nor has the task been assigned to us. Consider asking open-ended questions, by which I mean, open-ended questions to which the asker does not (think) she have the answer.
And whatever else you remember, do keep in the mind that the Master of the big bang holds you fully and loves you totally wherever, whenever, if ever and with whomever you have an orgasm.
Jemila Kwon is a life coach dedicated to helping leaders from all walks of life live at full potential. She lives, loves, laughs & learns with her husband and three kids. www.leapcoachinc.com
Tags: Jemila Kwon, Sex
March 31st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I’m liking these “sexy” posts as of late, and I’m waiting for someone to open up the can of “How can the emerging church be involved in teaching sex-positive, comprehensive sex ed?” Something beyond “Don’t do it, you’ll be blinded!” Like really, far beyond. I’d do it, but I don’t know how to get in on this mass blogging stuff.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Ok, I’m a little uneasy about most of this post.
I agree that sex is beautiful, in fact the term for correct sex between two married person in the song of Solomon is “dod” meaning “the mingling of souls”. That is incredible. But, sexual relations outside of marriage is completely wrong.
Marriage should be defined with government, 1 Corinth. 7:3 uses the term conjugal. In the time of this letter, marriage was still verified by a church or government. There is a standard.
And on the topic of condoning or condemning. I agree, Christians are good at condemning. But, it is our job to judge those in the Church. 1 Corinth. 5:13. We do not judge the outside, we cannot hold someone to a standard that they haven’t agreed to. But we HAVE to purge the ones among us.
When I mean purge this doesn’t necessarily mean abandon. But rather encourage to flee the negative behavior.
I’d love to hear what you think.
Grace and peace.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hanna, I’d love to see you offer up your gifts to create a life-affirming sex ed module that could be flexibility adapted for spiritual communities such as churches! What’s stopping you, ultimately?
I think a lot of positive sex ed has to do with the air kids breathe at home with their parents. How do parents react if they are “caught”? Is there a sense of intimate playfulness, equality and connection between the parents in ordinary life? If we put the oxygen masks on ourselves and learn what it is to be free, committed and intimate and to be open about that in appropriate ways with our kids, they’ll be hundreds of light years ahead of us!
Matt, I so appreciate your openness with where you are uncomfortable! I’ll let others interact with intercanonical diversity, what we opt into if we opt into a life of loving the God of Christ and what’s culture got to do with it, and so forth.
If you look into your spirit where deep calls unto I think you will find a freedom that is wholly connected to God that will guide you as you seek to swim in the truth & grace that sets us free to love in a way that inspire others to live lives wholly offered to up to the One Who Is.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:05 am
Matt – you say that marriage is defined by government and that anything outside of that union is completely wrong. I can think of any number of exceptions to that. What about a woman in a muslim country who wants to marry a Christian? The government forbids marriage to infidels, but a priest marries them anyway before God? Is that completely wrong? I just think there is a lot more to marriage than a government contract.
And why do you think the church should purge those in its midst? Do we put God working in their lives on a timeline? Who decides whose interpretation of the bible sets the guidelines for purging? What about the commands to love and forgive? There are many factors to consider in what often simply is just one group of people imposing their cultural values onto another group of people. Just saying it’s not as clear cut as you seem to be asserting it is.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Re: Matt’s comment about purging and Julie Clawson’s response to it
Julie, as to your question, “And why do you think the church should purge those in its midst?” the simple answer is, because it says that in the Word of God. We see it in the context of a verse that Matt referenced, 1 Cor. 5:13. In that passage, the Apostle Paul wrote, “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. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (1 Cor 5:12-13). And if you think it’s a translation problem, you’d think that someone would’ve gotten it right, but I’ve checked 20 versions, and they all say basically the same thing. Funny sidenote: The Message says, “clean house.”
So, it wasn’t Matt who was saying we should purge some among us. It was the Apostle Paul, inspired by God.
Also, I don’t see anything unloving about purging someone from a fellowship if they are living a sinful lifestyle and will not repent of it. According to the Scriptures, that is what we should do. To say that’s not loving is to say that God commands us to not love in these circumstances. Of course, that’s just silly.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Julie, you misread my comment.
I’ll quote myself “Marriage should be defined with government, 1 Corinth. 7:3 uses the term conjugal. In the time of this letter, marriage was still verified by a church or government. There is a standard.”
In context, marriage still had legal implications. I also said that marriage should be defined with government. Obviously the commitment to God is still the more important part. For the Muslim issue, that couple probably should make a contract with the church to remain together for a lifetime (which I still suggested in my first comment).
For the purging comment.
Well, besides being clear instructions from Paul and Jesus (matthew 18:15-17) it is to keep the image of Christ reflected well. This doesn’t mean to not help them through it, but we have to call each other out. Yes of course we forgive, and when we call a brother or sister out it is going to because we love them, not because we are going and saying we are better.
If a child is playing in rat poison would a loving brother let them keep playing in it, because “that’s what they want to do” or would they be like “hey, stop!” and move them away from it. Sin is death, I would never want a brother or sister to fall or have the temptation to fall. That is love.
And I’m not juxtaposing two different cultures, but rather Christ’s teachings.
Good discussion so far everyone!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
Matt, I can tell you have a great, spirit-filled heart with a desire to care about people, whatever their lives look like — fabulous!
What do you mean by “I’m not juxtaposing two different culture but rather Christ’s teachings?” I am under the impression that lots of sincere people understand Christ’s teachings (or lack there of in some cases) in incredibly diverse ways, so when one person says, “I want to be like Jesus and have God flow in and through my life through Christ” they may not understand it to entail entering into the same behavioral contract as someone else, and can you hold someone to a standard that is not in some sense internalized? I think a person can only be convicted of what he or she truly believes truly deep down, yet is having trouble living out. So I think it’s one thing to directly speak to someone about their own hypocrisy in a loving way, for example if know they are committed to waiting until marriage to have sex, but are involved sexually before that time, I think it is appropriate to say, “Hey man, what’s going on? What you see is X, but what you are doing is Y. What’s up?” That’s different from telling someone who truly believes what they are doing is fine, has never expressed conviction about that issue and is engaged in a mutually consenting relationship that they believe is unharmful to anyone involved. With such a person, I think it’s appropriate to say, “What do you think of this verse? Or have considered the implications of….” in an open way. That’s different from telling them what to do or saying ,”This is God’s word, I know it better than you do, so you better listen to what I say and put your panties/boxers on.” What if someone loves God but doesn’t see the bible the same way you do? Can you hold them to the same standard if it’s not their own standard, ultimately?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Well the problem there is that there is only relative truth.
If I only hold you to your standard, then what is the process of sanctification?
There is none. We can make up anything in our own mind that is “right” God created “the Law” for a reason. Now with Christ, we are not held down to the law but through Christ, we are set free from it. That doesn’t mean “screw the law” which is essentially what you are saying. Paul even said that without the law he would not know what sin is.
So, that being said.
What is sin then?
April 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I’m not saying screw the law, I’m saying the Law is written on hearts of flesh by the spirit. If you are imposing a law from the outside in on someone, it doesn’t matter whether you are correct or not — you are still imposing a law as opposed to fostering sanctification. Jesus said all the laws are summed up by Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I’m with him on that one
What do you think sin is? What is important about knowing what it is?
I think you can nurture people in their own journey toward sanctification without being certain whether a certain action is sin in a certain context. Who of us knows what is sin and what’s not in every context? Love, Humility, Openess to new ways of looking at life and connecting with God and others… and a Will to want God’s Will above the whim of the moment…I think these are what lead to sanctification.
April 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I agree, as believers we cannot hold a person who hasn’t confessed Jesus as Lord to God’s standards (that’s what the pharisees did with Hebrew law on the Gentiles
But, there has to be a standard. Jesus even said, if you love me keep MY commandments. Not if you love me do what makes you feel right.
Sin is sin not matter what the context, it might not be apparent to the person–that is why it is the Christian’s job to look at scripture and see if their life is matching up with that. Sin usually is not ambiguous in scripture. Christ says nothing, to my knowledge, about “openess to new ways of looking at life” He want us to live as He did. So what about Jesus’ context, does that even matter? Apparently not if you are saying to avoid what scripture says about it. Sanctification means to make holy, or set apart. How can we be sanctified if we only leave the things “we think as wrong”. So if a child molester is a believer, and he or she thinks that it is ok to that. We should leave him or her be, right? If a believer likes raping people, we should let him or her do it, right? It’s not sin in their context. If an alcoholic doesn’t want to stop drinking and it’s going to kill them, we should let them drink even more then too?
It is LOVE to stop those people and it is HUMBLING to listen to others say your wrong.
If you say sin is based on context, then anything is justified and there is nothing universally wrong.
April 13th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
WOW — you have passion! What a great quality! It’s funny how Jesus says, if you loves me, you’ll do what I command, and what he commands is to love God and love each other, because in doing so, you fulfill the Law. It’s my favorite circle of understanding, actually
I do believe certain things are universally bad — just not universally bad in all situations, for everyone. Antibiotics kill off healthy bacteria and cause drug-resistant strains of illness, so they are not good to take flippantly. In some situations, they are lifesaving. Killing is bad — except that alot of folks feel that in certain exceptional situations it could be the best thing to do. Yelling at your kids is bad, except if you are yelling at them to stop them from running into traffic, it’s good. Birthday cake is good, but not it’s sugar-laden and you have diabetes — or if you eat it everyday. Artificial sweeteners are bad — except if you have diabetes they are better than sugar. Potassium in bananas is good — too much potassium can stop the heart in its tracks. Grabbing someone you don’t know on the street is bad, but grabbing them to keep them from falling onto train tracks is good. Get what I am saying?
I so agree that any time someone is behaving in a way that clearly harms themselves another person, involves a non-consenting person it’s important to stop them in as much as its in our power — are you saying we should not those who are no followers of Christ’s way to the standards of basic human rights and dignity — those that all humane laws agree upon? Every helping professional is bound by U.S. law to report anyone who is deemed at serious risk for harming themselves or others. That would include someone who is intent on drinking rat poison, as well as child molesters and drunk drivers. It doesn’t include sex between consenting adults. I personally am happy we live in a country where the cops don’t knock on people’s bedroom doors and check for marriage licenses while people are in the middle of lovemaking! Yikes! I certainly think its fine for churches to have their own standards and be up front with people and say, “If you want to be part of this community, it’s important for you to understand where we stand and to subscribe to these codes of conduct,” and based on what, people can decide if that particular church is aligned with their own conscience, as well as their wish to the God who is with us through and in Christ. If you tell someone something that doesn’t ring true on some deep level with their own conscience, then you are faced with only two choices: force them to conform outwardly anyway using whatever forms of ostracism, pressure etc, or let go of control and leave the whole matter in God’s hands where it fits easily, which is what I suggested in my essay.
April 13th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“If you want to be part of this community, it’s important for you to understand where we stand and to subscribe to these codes of conduct”
Ironically, that’s what the early apostle Paul said too. Romans 12:1-2:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Paul makes it clear that there is a standard, the world and the spirit. Not, us and others.
Colossions 3:1-10
1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[b] 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
This is God’s will, that we do this for eachother. It is not relative, He is ultimate and never changing. We need to abandon these desires. Yeah it sucks, yeah it’s difficult but we have to do it. There is grace shown when one falls but ultimately we need to hold each other accountable, not to their standards.
There isn’t sin if there is only our standard. We’ll set the standard we know we can keep, one that suits us. I’m sorry the standard is Jesus. It is impossible to live up to that (praise God for grace) but that is our desire, to become more like Him. So, I’m guessing you have the viewpoint that sin is relative. Then what did Christ save you from? Obviously you’ve met your standard, or even if you haven’t, what standard do you repent from? What is he changing you into? Besides the loving and humble person that you say is sanctification. Where is the life change beyond that?
Jesus said this in matthew chapter 4:17
17From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
I can assure you, I do not meet my own standard (total unconditional love in all circumstances, to all people, with an ability to see them fully as God sees them and to act accordingly) thanks be, though the grace of God I am me from the pressure and learning celebrate small successes and the joy of living freely! If I were to be totally loving and humble, I would say that would be a lot like Jesus – I would be happy with that — unfortunately, I am a long way off from that; happily, I am growing and so thankful that learning is a gift and truth is a joyful adventure in grace!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
What about other things.
Tell me about the other life changes besides learning how to love people (which is very important). Are you still lusting, do you get angry etc. where is that life change?
And from now on, lets use scripture to back up our argument, cool?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I can’t imagine that someone who was unconditionally loving to all people, seeing them as God sees them, would lust after someone not theirs or not intended to be theirs, or get inappropriately angry or act out that anger — like I said, I am far from attain to what I understand to be God’s standard of total love. On the other hand, I do see signs of Life and growth as I look at my life
I choose not to quote scripture because, as a graduate of a Christian college where you could argue any opinion as long as it was backed up by scripture, it’s my understanding that scripturally backed opinions are every bit as personally biased as those that are scripturally informed, yet owned as there simple opinions of a mere human being. I own my opinions — I do not claim them as the ultimate word of God — yet they come from a sincere wish to fully surrender my utmost for God’s highest.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
So, where do you get your opinions then? How do you know God is love? How do you know anything about the Gospel of Christ? How do you know that you are right?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Oh and btw, I’m at a Christian university currently and I understand the argument thing. But a few very big certain things are clear, like sin. The ambiguous topics that are disputed are more along the lines of predestination or limited atonement or if babies go to hell.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Interesting to think about how we get to our assumptions — the unquestionables, if you will
If you have studied Christian history using multiple sources you know that what is taught as unquestionable/already resolved by councils and so forth was once lively discussion within Christian circles, until it was officially labeled heresy by fallible human beings.
I’m fine with uncertainty. I am confident in the one who graciously holds together the strands of uncertainty. I *know* in that sense of knowledge was intimacy, which you are familiar with, I”m sure
April 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
You didn’t answer my questions.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am
April 15th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
what?
You still didn’t answer my question.
I’ll ask again.
How do you make any opinion about anything deal with God?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
dealing*
April 15th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Wow,
This is a fascinating discussion to observe. I have a couple of thoughts, and while I certainly don’t want to hijack this, I imagine that it will run out of steam soon because of two things. The first is that Matt and Jemila are speaking two completely different languages, which just happen to use some of the same words, but in completely different ways. It requires tremendous energy to cross this language barrier over and over.
And the second is that again, we’ve come around to the question (to use Phyllis Tickle’s recent phrasing) – “whence the authority?” Rob Bell’s metaphor is the wall and the trampoline. Everyone thinking or writing about the emergent shift has their way of categorizing this disconnect. There is a great yawning chasm between these two points of view, and once this question has been asked – “how do you make any opinion about anything dealing with God?” we are at its edge.
As an outside observer I see how Jemila has been consistently extending olive branches – gestures of understanding and peace and affirmation, and I love this!
Matt – Jemila has answered your questions, but I don’t think you’re able to see how her responses relate to your questions because they aren’t quite what you are expecting.
I would suggest that there is no “besides learning how to love people.” “Sins” are abstract concepts, not situated within the context of life with others. Instead of tilting at the windmills of “lust” or “anger” I have found it more transformative to focus on the specific person in my life now who requires a response. When I am able to act in love toward her or him, I seek to understand their motivations, and respond to their presence or action in a way that is free of self interest, and focused on what is best and most helpful for that person. If and when what is best for that person is not healthy for me or someone else, I balance the competing needs of all persons involved, myself included.
Will anger, lust, impatience, harsh words still be present in life? Of course. But this reframing, this change of focus, one that is evidently present in Jemila’s responses is significant. To separate and abstract these sins away from their context in relationship is like treating the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. Until we can commit to love – in the strongest, most radical sense of that word – as the answer, we will wage a continual and ineffectual war on “sin.”
April 16th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Lovely put, Bethany. I appreciate your blend of softness and candor
Matt I understand your strong desire to have firm chair legs on which to place your seat of faith — I have come a place where, to take the analogy of physics, there is nothing *absolutely* solid and yet the chair is still useful for sitting in. Absolute truth and relative truth are not mutually exclusive, they just operate at different levels and from different points of view. Both can be useful; however it’s my opinion that we run into trouble when we confuse relative truth (the chair is solid) with absolute truth (we need to convince ourselves that the chair is absolutely solid in order to feel safe sitting in it even if it isn’t ultimately solid even while easily holding the weight of our lives.)
I once heard a great sermon by a conservative pastor entitled “keep your eyes on your own paper.” The idea was, take the plank out of your own eye before worrying too much about the sins of others.
I see your ardent desire for truth and transformation and I wish you so much peace and wonder and joy as you pursue the questions toward yourself that will lead you to the sanctification and transformation that will create you from the inside out to look like the One you Love with all your heart, mind and strength!
With peace & love,
Jemila
April 16th, 2009 at 7:23 am
“As an outside observer I see how Jemila has been consistently extending olive branches – gestures of understanding and peace and affirmation, and I love this!”
Agreed, that doesn’t mean she is right.
“Matt – Jemila has answered your questions, but I don’t think you’re able to see how her responses relate to your questions because they aren’t quite what you are expecting.”
Agreed, its unexpected because she is wrong.
“Sins” are abstract concepts, not situated within the context of life with others.”
Agreed on the context part, but no they are not abstract concepts. They are in fact listed in the ten commandments and Jesus also goes through them again in Matthew 5. Paul reiterates them to the churches in Colossus, Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, Galatia, Rome, and Thessolonica about sin. Scripture is clear.
Here is my one life-transforming question(s): How do I get to know God (encompassing His Son, and discerning His Spirit)? I pray, I experience him in nature, I see glimpses of His Spirit in conversations,I desire to become more like Jesus, even though I will never be completely like Him (thank God for grace)…. I read His word, I medidtate on it (Psalms), but I try to live it out (read through James). One way to live it out is to know when a brother is falling into sin.
We call them out in love and understanding not in anger or pride. That is truly love. To be okay with someone falling into a pit fall of sin is not love it is assisted suicide. Yes the Spirit will do the convicting, but we have to be wary of sin and where are brothers are dealing with it. Without women and men in my life willing to keep me accountable, I would not be any closer to sanctification. I would not be any closer to becoming more like Jesus.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Here is my one life-transforming question(s): How do I get to know “God (encompassing His Son, and discerning His Spirit)? I pray, I experience him in nature, I see glimpses of His Spirit in conversations,I desire to become more like Jesus, even though I will never be completely like Him (thank God for grace)…. I read His word, I medidtate on it (Psalms), but I try to live it out (read through James). One way to live it out is to know when a brother is falling into sin.
This is a lovely answer to the question. I appreciate its honesty, vulnerability and strength!
“We call them out in love and understanding not in anger or pride. That is truly love.”
In principle, I agree. In coaching, for example, if you have an observation and you communicate it directly, it’s called messaging. First off, permission is always asked before offering a message. It is never forced on someone. Second thing is, a message comes from the subjective observer as his or her truth, which may or may not land as truth for the other person, and whether or not it is consonant with “The Truth” we leave it on the hands of the One Who Is Ultimate Truth. So a message can be offered freely, in love, but then it rests with the person and their own conscience/the Spirit. Perhaps the one sending the message IS on target and a seed is planted in the one who hears. Or perhaps the one sending the message is well-intentioned yet somehow missing the mark in his/her own understanding.
“To be okay with someone falling into a pit fall of sin is not love it is assisted suicide.”
If we truly believe someone is hurting themselves or someone else, of course we feel compassion and an ache for all to be well with them. That’s a totally distinct kettle of fish from condemning someone’s consensual sexual actions only on the basis of one’s intellectual interpretation of the bible and one’s personal longing for certainty in life.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:49 am
if they are consensual sexual actions between, as I am seeing the argument is over, two unmarried believers, that is sin. That is not my “intellectual” interpretation of the Bible, here is what it says.
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ”
1 Cor 7.1-2 ESV
The greek of “the temptation to sexual immorality” translates in some versions to “avoid fornication”, which, by definition is within the verse, to avoid “consensual sexual relations with someone you are not married to.” I don’t think Paul is suggesting here. He says in Col 3 to put to death all sexual immorality, He says kill, I don’t think he is suggesting there either. We have avoid and also put to death. I’m not sure if he can be any clearer or how that can be taken another way. I would love to know your view on it but you say, from other comments, you don’t use scripture.
I never said condemn, Matt didn’t either, we said, if they are living in sin, then we should, as loving believers or brothers and sisters in Christ, tell them to stop. I would say condemn in the since that we express strong disapproval of their actions. Not condemn in the since of we pronounce a sentence on them like a judge in a court. Perhaps this where you might be confused or where there was some misunderstanding.
“That’s a totally distinct kettle of fish from condemning someone’s consensual sexual actions only on the basis of one’s intellectual interpretation of the bible and one’s personal longing for certainty in life.”
I sure hope they are not using sex to find certainty in life. That my dear, would be “a totally distinct kettle of fish.”
April 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
“I sure hope they are not using sex to find certainty in life. That my dear, would be “a totally distinct kettle of fish.”
I love you sense of humor!
I was creating a distinction between a sense in someone’s depth of being that what they are doing is truly harming themselves or someone else as opposed to quoting scripture at them out of an intellectual believe in inerrancy/infallability in a way that intends well but actually harms the individual. I didn’t mean to sound unkind in my statement about one’s personal longing for certainty, it’s simply that I have seen so many people hurt by believer’s insistence on certainty that I see it as a form of sin; when that resolute stance on certainty overshadows the human being in our midst, knowledge ceases to be Love.
Let’s say you come from that genuine place where your own sense of what they are doing hurting themselves is from inside you and not simply the outward imposing of you understanding of the bible — what happens after you share your heart with someone concerning their actions?
If you agree totally with Paul, you will be left with no choice, if they do not share your understanding, than to instruct them to leave the community.
I love Paul, however I feel free to disagree with his opinions, which I understand to be formed much the same way as each of ours — through experience, insight, inspiration, struggle and interpretation.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I think Bethany makes great point about different languages being used here. When sin itself is defined so differently (as concrete object versus failure to love) it is very hard to talk about it as the same thing. And when different worldviews of the bible clash the same problem ensues.
For those who don’t think the bible is interpreted they think throwing verses around settles the discussion – but they need to realize that that is fairly meaningless to those of us who think that bible is always interpreted in context. Those basics of starting point need to be cleared up if any discussion is to make sense.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
And this is where you shine Julie
April 17th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” 1 Corinthians 2.10-14
April 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I love that quote! It’s oozing with delicious truth, profound layers and opportunities to sit with it and let it open us up from the inside out!
April 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
What do you think it means jemila?
April 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Every time I read scripture I feel touched in a new way!
April 19th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Well, that’s good…I guess.
Read it and tell me what you think it means, not how you feel.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Thoughts and feeling both occur in the brain in response to biologically and culturally influenced experiences which lead to beliefs, which in tern create the filters through which we think/feel. For me, thoughts and feelings are to sides of the same thing. Sometimes I may feel something, which leads to a thought about it and sometimes a thought leads to a feelings, but they are equally subjective experiences that occur in side my little noggin. I bow neither to the gods of intellect or sentiment. I find that conviction, understanding and confidence occur in the synergy of feeling, thought, awareness, intuition and insight, which intuition and insight ultimately trumping both thoughts and feelings. Thus the meaning that I derive from a verse may be both scripturally and culturally situation, yet it is inspired only the point where the spirit of God that knows the mind of God connects with the my spirit, which knows my mind (with all its thoughts and feelings.) WOW– to sense that Ultimate connection that is beyond words, yet can be intimated by words is incredible, isn’t it? Yet at times our intimations from God cannot be understood by others. I bet it was hard for Paul when that happened. What he sensed from God far surpassed either his own ability to figure it out (look how he wrestles with his own understanding of things in say, Romans or 2nd Cor,) as well as the firsthand understanding of many around him. Sometimes, I think in his feeling like others didn’t “get it” and in the process of being persecuted, he may have slipped into an unfornate “us vs. them” mentality, labeling all those who didn’t agree with him as lacking the spirit of God,” but I think it’s understandable given the pressure he was under. I believe Paul’s revelation was pure and incredible, but sometimes in our interpretation of revelation we add some of our own baggage to the pot and I do not that Paul was in some esoteric way shielded from such human inclinations, even if he perhaps believed he was, creating the ironic circular reasoning/circle the wagons logic of inerrancy and its intimate friend, infallability.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matt 7.13-15
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” Matt 7.20-23
These scriptures haunted me for a long time. What I and matt are asking is that you seriously evaluate the claims you seem to be making. God hates sin. Premarital sex is a sin and we must hate it (the sin) in love we should call our brothers and sisters out who are falling into this sin. If you know the Father, you know what pleases Him, and you know what he hates. I’m truly sorry for becoming impatient with you at times. But i truly care about your walk. I don’t even really know you personally but I sense that you want to get to know the God i know and the Christ that i know. It is completely detrimental to your walk for you to reevaluate that claims you are making in your post. Sin is sin and scripture is clear on this one. You are not preaching truth.
Honestly Jemila (and others who may agree wholeheartedly with her post), I question whether you know the Father and whether you truly know the character of His Son. Do you know Him?
April 21st, 2009 at 5:53 am
I know a God of infinite love, wisdom, compassion and power who indeed hates sin — it is possible this isn’t the same God you know, but at the core, I truly hope it is! It’s interesting that I actually did point out some sins in my post, yet they were not observed by either you or Matt because of the particular filter with which you see life and ethics. It’s interesting that I neither condemned nor condoned premarital sex but rather held some situations up for examination to see where boxes may not contain the whole picture of a situation. Indeed if you read my article closely, you will find that I do mention at least one particular sin that I think needs calling out: sins of one partner against another in marriage in various forms.
I do not see the bible the same way you do and I understand where you are coming from and that you have a genuine wish to see people walk clean with the LORD. I truly believe that to talk a path of total unconditional love is a much narrower path than to uphold those OT purity codes that Paul opted to import into the NT. I understand that you’re view of inspiration takes Paul’s free will/culturally influenced decisions about what to incorporate from the OT and how to frame his arguments theologically out of the equation because you understand him to be protected from error as he was writing. Others hold a different view. I certainly appreciate your passionate desire to do the good and the godly and wish you ultimate best in your walk. I wish you so much grace for yourself, as well as others. I wish you a sense of praise as you learn, as you lift your hands in love, as you live Life to the Full in the palm of your Creator.
Take care!
April 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I think it’s clear that neither Matt nor Christina chose to actually read Jemila’s article. It’s like the Wild West – comment first, ask questions later…
April 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
By the way Matt, you might want to investigate the premise that the Song of Solomon has anything to do with married lovemaking.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@ Middle man
“Let that be God’s job. Instead of imagining that we have to figure out which check box to click on Christ’s online survey of moral uprightness, give the whole checklist back to God, who has already ripped up the thing and put it out of his Mind, as far as the east is from the west. Instead of thinking about whether a couple is doing something wrong, help them with the lives in front of them. Get them water. Invite them over to play Cranium simply to be a friend. Let go of fixing them.”
This is what I have a problem with. We need to call our brothers and sisters out in sin. My understanding is if we see someone (who claims to be a believer) committing sexual sin such as premarital sex, which I believe scripture makes clear. We are to call them out. What I believe Jemila is suggesting here is that this is not our job because this is not showing love. Love is shown when we put the relationship we hold with those person’s aside and care more about their walk with Christ than with us. That is what Matt and I are getting at. I’m sorry if that wasn’t made clear in the beginning.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
sorry i meant @ medium guy lol i guess it was my own interpretation (like scripture!!!)
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 am
Well I did my research Medium guy.
Song of Solomon can be divided into three basic parts.
1. Courtship.
2. Wedding.
3. Marriage maturity.
In the first three and a half chapters they refer to each other as “lover” or “beloved” this doesn’t mean consensual sexual partners, like it can mean in our society. It literally means “love” like one of a father or uncle. Meaning that they care for each other. There are no sexual implications in the first 3 chapters at all, unless you want to go with chapter 1:16 then a claim could be made, but read in context (of the writer not us) it is discussing a field or a hill.
He calls his lover bride in chapter 4 five times. The writer describes his lover’s eyes behind a veil (a wedding one).
After that it is good a amount of sex talk and lovemaking.
I have, now medium guy, if you can tell me where it suggests they are not married. Please, point it out.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Christina,
I understand your point and why you’re making it.
Please allow me to illustrate my point with some examples, quoting the original article.
“Like when the first time I got married (I was a virgin) and it sucked. It was, well, degrading. In a legally tendered, pastor-sanctioned Christian marriage. It happens, more often than you’d think, that sex in marriage is unholy, in one way or another, yet the M word is like a tent that covers the sins of countless people against their own partners.”
NOT ADDRESSED
and,
“I would much rather a husband with experience who knows that what he wants is me than a husband without experience who secretly wonders, “What would it be like with someone else?”
NOT ADDRESSED
and,
“Or what if you’ve dotted your legal “i”s and crossed your intimate “t”s and you lovingly bring each other orgasm in an act of complete, joyful surrender…but you don’t want to have kids. Ever. Like you’re not open to it.”
NOT ADDRESSED
and,
“Sex is a life force that catalyzes the start of a new person, invigorates us while you occupy this spinning planet and creates within us contradictory impulses that can either deepen our compassion and connection to all living beings, and especially our human brothers and sisters, or it can tear us apart, in our inner selves, in our families and perhaps most preventably, in our communities.”
NOT ADDRESSED
Bottom line is, when you pick and choose pet issues at the expense of considering new ones, your credibility suffers and your witness is impaired.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Medium, you forgot to address me.
I guess you’re not credible now.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I completely agree that sex is great and when you are married you can do it till you are blue in the face. If my future husband is inexperienced It prolly won’t be that fairytale that many girls want for their wedding night. Even still, I can’t wait its gonna be awesome, what I’m am arguing is that she is unwilling to call believers who are having premarital sex out on their sin.
I understand falling in to that sin. I have definitely failed in that area and so have many of my other brothers and sisters. Sex is a beautiful, awesome thing that because sin has entered the world from the beginning has turned in to this crazy pursuit of pleasure over the pleasures that are at God’s right hand (ps 16.11) Sex outside of a marriage is sin and if our brothers and sisters in christ are falling into that sin we should call them out. Its not being judgemental, it is not saying “you disgusting creature, Go to hell” its saying “Hey, that is not glorifying God, you should stop because I love you.” we would do the same to a porn addict, theif, liar, anyone.
“Bottom line is, when you pick and choose pet issues at the expense of considering new ones, your credibility suffers and your witness is impaired.”
But this was the one issue in her post that I truly disagreed with, it wasn’t at the expense of anything. I didn’t automatically stop listening to what she had to say. The supporting arguments of your recent comment weren’t adressed because they really had nothing to do with the problem I had with the post.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“we would do the same to a porn addict, theif, liar, anyone.”
But would you do “the same” to a husband who expects that his wife will give it up even when she’s not up for it because of his interpretation of the so-called “doctrine of submission?
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Don’t worry Matt, my boy, I was getting to you.
So, it sounds like you have a certain conceptual framework within which you interpret the Song of Solomon. Namely, you have concluded that “courtship” implies that you can feel for the one you are courting love that is like that of a father or an uncle. Sounds a little weird and incestuous to me, but hey, different strokes for different folks.
Also, I’m not really convinced that the language used [i.e. "bride"] is a perfect translation of what was intended as originally written, especially considering that Solomon [yeah, supposedly the wisest man who ever lived, right?] had how many hundreds of wives and how many concubines? It’s like trying to believe an account of Imelda Marcos falling in love with a pair of shoes at the exclusion of all other pairs, if you know what I mean – kind of ludicrous.
If Solomon’s account of seducing yet another wife or concubine is being held up as the holy grail of “one man, one woman” then I guess I have much to learn about what Christianity supposedly teaches about the sanctity of monogamous unions.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Non sequitur medium.
That was not the arugment she was making.
All logical fallacies aside.
I would absolutely call that jerk out for mistreating his wife, that is ridiculous. He took that scripture out of context.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Here’s a link with the root meaning of the term bride used in SOS
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3618&t=ESV
Having the love of a father or uncle is not incestous, you eisegeted that passage with our understanding of love for a father. Love of a father is meaning love, unconditional love.
You also forgot that Solomon was in fact human. He’s sinful, and he fell multiple times. However, that doesn’t contradict that this passage is probably between one male and one female.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Matt,
I hope your life and ministry bring fulfillment to people and to yourself.
All the best,
MG
April 27th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
No response?
Okay.
Talk to you soon man.
December 5th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Thank you for talk about this. Good post and nice you talk about this. I was studying your blog post.
March 29th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I have been a devoted fan of this web site for a while and never really given anything back, I really hope to improve that later on with an increase of dialogue.Thanks for another new addition on the web site.