In 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Paul explains that sanctification is the will of God. The first aspect of sanctification he mentions is avoiding sexual immorality.
There is a universal innate ethic in humanity that tells us that some things are right and others are wrong. I assume that studies have been done to determine what activities jar the sensitive conscience in every culture. Taking what belongs to and is treasured by another might be an example of a universal ‘wrong’. I don’t know. I haven’t reviewed such studies.
This week’s lesson indicates that in the culture of the Thessalonians, sexual indulgence was considered ‘normal’, acceptable, even sacred. Paul has explained to the believers there that this is not the case, that doing what is right in the sight of God includes being sexually pure. Now he’s reminding them of this teaching.
I wonder: Is sexual morality part of our built-in moral system or is it defined by culture? Were the pagans in Thessalonica aware at some level that their sexual indulgence was wrong? Or did they consider it simply satisfying a natural physical hunger with no more moral significance than eating an apple?
Unlike swans, humans do not have a natural fidelity to a single, lifetime mate. Rather, there is an inclination to be promiscuous, to consider every attractive member of the opposite sex (or even the same sex) to have potential as a sexual partner, even after having committed oneself to marriage. How universal is the moral call to do right by denying that natural inclination? Was Paul bringing the Thessalonian Christians back to a known but suppressed moral standard or was he introducing a completely foreign moral code with no natural support even by the sensitized conscience?
Perhaps we could find the answer in sociology. Or maybe sexual morality is actually an extension of love and needs no separate code to define it. Love directs us to value others and seek their highest welfare. Sexual indulgence uses others without valuing them. Someone with two partners sets them in competition with each other, both vying for the undivided attention of the beloved. Even if those partners don’t know about each other, the person whose bed they share is depriving his or her lovers of pure (unadulterated) love. It seems that true love for others would naturally and necessarily lead to sexual purity, to imposing self-control on natural urges out of concern for the happiness and well-being of others, both one's marriage partner (present or future) and the attractive and available person. It seems that Paul was connecting dots for the new believers that would have naturally come together for them over time.
God is holy; God is love. Being holy, set apart, sanctified, means loving God and loving others. This leads inevitably to sexual purity, controlling and channeling our urges to procreate into committed and exclusive relationships.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Agreed, Marsha, that the concept of pure love should sufficiently rein in this human penchant for wandering from partner to partner, since that definitely does not secure the highest good for the [alleged...so said, b/c if it does not, the "love" is questionable] loved one.
Seeing no other comments, I'd guess that others, too, have decided you've said it well enough that there's nothing much to be added; we added a comment so you wouldn't think your blogging re "holiness & sex" had been overlooked.
;o)
gina [NN'er]
Thanks, Gina. I appreciate the feedback.
Post a Comment