Thursday, November 30, 2006
Legislating morality
So can the government force morality on the citizens it governs by passing laws that make immorality illegal and subject to fines and punishments? That's what we'll be discussing this week. Anyone care to comment? Anyone anywhere? Hellooooooo? Is anyone out there? Anyone at all?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Where do we go from here?
Our last week in 1 Thessalonians. It has been a challenging unit.
Last Sunday morning we started with the question: "If someone asks you ... What does the Bible say about ___________? ... how do they fill in the blank?" The rhetorical answer was "the end of the world" in order to transition into the 2nd coming aspect of the lesson from 1 Thessolonians 4-5. The actual responses, however, resulted in a decision to take a look at some of the questions people ask us about the Bible and what the Bible really says about those issues. So we won't be using the WordAction curriculum for the winter quarter.
I'm starting to dig out books on issues from the Dialog series. It's interesting that the book from the church library with the closest match to the issues brought up last week is the oldest. It's not actually from the Dialog Series or even the Nazarene Publishing House. I suspect it predates the Dialog Series. It's from the "Contemporary Discussion Series" from Baker Book House and the copyright date is 1969. The subjects addressed include: gambling, social responsibility, abortion, the threat of technology, modesty in dress, and church music.
For today, we're still in 1 Thessalonians, finishing out the end of chapter 5. Verse 23 is a golden text for Nazarenes that has been used as a launching pad for untold promises about "sanctification". The rest of my group hasn't been subjected to nearly so much in that area as I have and I try to be careful to not spend my time reacting to offenses that they haven't encountered. Fortunately, it's not the only verse in this morning's scripture focus.
Last Sunday morning we started with the question: "If someone asks you ... What does the Bible say about ___________? ... how do they fill in the blank?" The rhetorical answer was "the end of the world" in order to transition into the 2nd coming aspect of the lesson from 1 Thessolonians 4-5. The actual responses, however, resulted in a decision to take a look at some of the questions people ask us about the Bible and what the Bible really says about those issues. So we won't be using the WordAction curriculum for the winter quarter.
I'm starting to dig out books on issues from the Dialog series. It's interesting that the book from the church library with the closest match to the issues brought up last week is the oldest. It's not actually from the Dialog Series or even the Nazarene Publishing House. I suspect it predates the Dialog Series. It's from the "Contemporary Discussion Series" from Baker Book House and the copyright date is 1969. The subjects addressed include: gambling, social responsibility, abortion, the threat of technology, modesty in dress, and church music.
For today, we're still in 1 Thessalonians, finishing out the end of chapter 5. Verse 23 is a golden text for Nazarenes that has been used as a launching pad for untold promises about "sanctification". The rest of my group hasn't been subjected to nearly so much in that area as I have and I try to be careful to not spend my time reacting to offenses that they haven't encountered. Fortunately, it's not the only verse in this morning's scripture focus.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Holiness and sex
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?
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?
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Running behind
My goal for this blog is to comment on upcoming lessons from the adult WordAction curriculum rather than past lessons. However, this past week (1) life didn't provide much time for composing blog entries (2) I had difficulty getting a handle on the lesson. I hope to do better this week.
I did want to make a couple of a posthumous comments on today's (Nov 5) lesson. I use the term posthumous because I feel like I pretty much sucked the life out of the lesson in my weak attempt to present it. It spoke of the pastoral relationship and I gave in to the ploy of pulling in an illustration of a poor example of pastoring from this week's news. After all, it doesn’t hurt to talk about what people are already talking about in the Sunday School setting where we can approach the discussion from a biblical point of view. However, no one in this morning’s group had heard anything about it, leaving me playing the role of a gossip, revealing the shocking truth of someone else’s sins. I revealed nothing that hasn’t been verified as truth by reliable sources and actually less than is now verified, but I wish I had simply left it alone. Examples of exemplary living would have left a much better taste in my mouth.
Paul amazes me in his confidence that the best life the people in his churches can live is in imitation of the way he and his fellow evangelists live. I’m much more inclined to hope that anyone who might look to me for guidance would listen to the best of the words I say rather than imitating my practices. I know that I have weaknesses that sometimes make me a poor model of Christian living. How would I ever point to myself as an example for others? Rather, my goal is to point people to Jesus as the model for holy living.
I am reminded today of words from one of my favorite DC Talk songs:
Is this one for the people?
Is this one for the Lord?
Or do I simply serenade for things I must afford?
You can jumble them together, my conflict still remains
Holiness is calling, in the midst of courting fame
Cause I see the trust in their eyes
Though the sky is falling
They need your love in their lives
Compromise is calling
(chorus)
What if I stumble, what if I fall?
What if I lose my step and I make fools of us all?
Will the love continue when my walk becomes a crawl?
What if I stumble, and what if I fall?
I did want to make a couple of a posthumous comments on today's (Nov 5) lesson. I use the term posthumous because I feel like I pretty much sucked the life out of the lesson in my weak attempt to present it. It spoke of the pastoral relationship and I gave in to the ploy of pulling in an illustration of a poor example of pastoring from this week's news. After all, it doesn’t hurt to talk about what people are already talking about in the Sunday School setting where we can approach the discussion from a biblical point of view. However, no one in this morning’s group had heard anything about it, leaving me playing the role of a gossip, revealing the shocking truth of someone else’s sins. I revealed nothing that hasn’t been verified as truth by reliable sources and actually less than is now verified, but I wish I had simply left it alone. Examples of exemplary living would have left a much better taste in my mouth.
Paul amazes me in his confidence that the best life the people in his churches can live is in imitation of the way he and his fellow evangelists live. I’m much more inclined to hope that anyone who might look to me for guidance would listen to the best of the words I say rather than imitating my practices. I know that I have weaknesses that sometimes make me a poor model of Christian living. How would I ever point to myself as an example for others? Rather, my goal is to point people to Jesus as the model for holy living.
I am reminded today of words from one of my favorite DC Talk songs:
Is this one for the people?
Is this one for the Lord?
Or do I simply serenade for things I must afford?
You can jumble them together, my conflict still remains
Holiness is calling, in the midst of courting fame
Cause I see the trust in their eyes
Though the sky is falling
They need your love in their lives
Compromise is calling
(chorus)
What if I stumble, what if I fall?
What if I lose my step and I make fools of us all?
Will the love continue when my walk becomes a crawl?
What if I stumble, and what if I fall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
