Abstinence or Chastity?

Ever since the oh-so-wise and ultra-experienced new mom Bristol Palin expressed her opinion about "abstinence" being "unrealistic," the Christian blog world has been abuzz, with bloggers tsk-tsking, scolding, pontificating, and hand-wringing by turns.

I'll be the first to admit that the abstinence movement (the stalwart True Love Waits and various smaller efforts) has been a joke and a general failure. A Slate.com article from a while back (one of many on the subject) called such programs a success on a sociological level, in that they motivated participants to delay sexual intercourse by around eighteen months, on average. Wow! Eighteen whole months! What a triumph...

"Joke" might sound like a bit of a strong word. It is. But in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Lemme splain. No, there is too much. Lemme sum up."

Abstinence is a stupid term. Abstaining is something teetotalers do, something Sylvester Graham touted. However fancy the packaging, the word "abstinence" still feels punitive. It's the absence of something. And as any dieter will tell you, when you feel deprived, you're that much more likely to splash out by having an appetizer AND a rich dessert AND a glass of wine.

But a proper view of human sexuality is not supposed to feel like eating celery sticks at the Food and Wine Classic. Sexuality is woven into the created order. It's got a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. It's supposed to be honored and protected. It's meant to be celebrated by the community of faith. It's part of our identity as image-bearers of God.

Do you see why it's completely insufficient to say merely that true love (whatever that means) "waits"?

Waits for what? Waits how? Waits why?

I think we need to completely remove the idea of "abstinence" from our discourse -- particularly the discourse we aim at young people -- and put in its place the idea of chastity. Chastity is both broader and narrower in its focus than "abstinence." To abstain is to do without something -- in this case, sexual intimacy. To be chaste is to view sexuality and sexual intimacy as something godly, valuable, and noble, to be experienced freely and joyfully in the right context, and to be directed toward that context. It's not a "don't." While abstinence is necessarily temporary, chastity is to be practiced throughout the Christian life.

(As a side note, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Christians say, "I was sexually pure until I got married." Hold up! If you've only ever been intimate with your spouse, you are STILL sexually pure. I believe this rather amusing and revealing malapropism stems from the idea that sexual purity is for the virgin but not the wife -- still perpetuating the old stereotype that sexual intimacy is a malum in se rather than an evil only when misused.)

I signed a True Love Waits pledge as a young teen, and I even wore a promise ring for a while until I misplaced the darn thing (sorry, Dad!). But I did so alongside dozens of friends who went on to forget those foundationless and hastily-written promises, which sounded so meaningful at age fourteen but somehow wore thin over time.

The truth is, we have failed to give young people a compelling reason to direct their sexuality toward marriage. At the same time, we've encouraged them to put off marriage, making even compelling reasons ring hollow! We've hinted that sex is dirty and sinful. We've told them No, No, No, No, and that's the end of it. We've told them they have to conquer the beast of temptation alone. We've spoken in hushed and shocked tones of fallen women and p orn addicts and all manner of other sexual sinners, driving the struggling and fainting heart into isolation.

Worst of all, we've failed to put before them the blinding glory of Christ and the plan of the Almighty God of the universe for human relationships. We've failed to tell them of the provision of Christ for our every need, and for the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who comforts us in our distress and guides us into all truth.

Given all these failures, is abstinence unrealistic for most young people? Of course.

But chastity, grace, and the glory of God? That's a message well worth our time to tell.

Discernment

In the church, there seems to be an idea that "discernment" means "praying and waiting for God's specific, personal direction on every decision in my life" -- see John Eldredge's book, Walking with God for a classic example. But is that the view of Scripture? I think not. Such an understanding of discernment leads to several errors:

1. A separation between Christians who "know God's will," i.e. the super-Christians that God speaks to, and the "ordinary" Christians who seem not to hear from God about stuff like the color of their wallpaper.

2. Using "discernment" to excuse unwise behavior and even sin. I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Well, I've prayed about it for months and the Lord has told me it was OK," even if "it" was buying a $300,000 house when you're $60,000 in debt, or living with but not sleeping with your fiance, or being slack in disciplining your kids. Those are not areas about which we ought even to pray. The best advice I can give people who encounter this "God told me" business from people is to remember that it's not a trump card. We have a responsibility to one another in the body of Christ, and letting someone off the hook just because they played the "God told me" card is hardly showing love to our brothers.

3. Total paralysis in decision-making, stemming from not using your brain and instead waiting for some sign or feeling to show you that God has given you direction. I strongly believe that for the Christian, the ordinary way of making decisions goes like this: Learn, study, and love God's word. Use the mind that God is sanctifying to make wise decisions. Rinse and repeat. But too many people seem to think that's just not "spiritual" enough. A Christian's life IS spiritual -- it's life IN the Spirit! And it can look very ordinary, but an ordinary life lived faithfully still results in "Well done, good and faithful servant." That's not to say that I don't think God sometimes uses other methods to reveal his will to us -- I certainly do believe that he does! But the ordinary way seems to be knowing God's word and living wisely in accordance with that.

How many things are necessary for thee to know,
that thou, enjoying this comfort,
mayest live and die happily?

Three;
the first, how great my sins and miseries are;
the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries;
the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance.

--Heidelberg Catechism

Discipline

There's been a bit of a dust-up over on Boundless Line lately, regarding a pretty great summary of Mark Dever's view of church discipline. The usual comments ensued -- you can't kick people out of church for sinning! We wouldn't have a church! Doesn't the Bible say, Judge not, lest you be judged? Who are you to say what is a bad enough sin to kick people out? Since when is "membership" a biblical concept anyway? Etc. etc.

It seems to me, in my experience with these kinds of discussions, that people's misunderstandings about church discipline fall into a few categories:

1. They don't understand the nature of the Church.

2. They don't understand the nature of church membership.

3. They don't understand the seriousness of sin.

4. They don't understand the nature of church discipline.

Let's start with the first one. People who get their knickers in a twist about church discipline often seem to view "church" as an activity for people who call themselves Christians -- something they do on Sundays and Wednesday nights, a group they're a part of by choice, but nonetheless and organization that doesn't necessarily have the right to make any claims on their lives -- maybe slightly more that their book club or union or Facebook group, but not much more. They come to Sunday services to get blessed or "be fed" spiritually.

But what is the Church, really? Two things: 1) the Church is true followers of Christ everywhere, at all times throughout history, and 2) the Church is the local gathering of Christians in particular times and places. Paul's letters, for example, are written to both groups -- the church at Rome in the 1st Century A.D. and by extension to all believers everywhere at all times. Let me emphasize what I think is an extremely important point: if you are a Christian -- a genuine follower of Christ, not just a "Christian" by default -- you are, by necessity, a member of the first group. All believers at all times in all places are members of the first group. But the first and second categories were never meant to be thought of separately. Read Paul's letters and see if you think that the pioneer of the early church had any category in his mind for a person who was a Christian but not a part of any local church. (I'll give you a tip to save you a little time: he didn't.) It's not optional for a follower of Christ to be consistently out of fellowship with a local body. In fact (brace yourself, people, this is pretty serious), I would go so far as to say that if you steadfastly refuse to join yourself with a local congregation of believers, you are in serious danger of revealing that you are not a follower of Christ at all. And now I'm just going to back away... slowly... slowly...

That leads to the second misunderstanding. There is a whole group of folks in the church, as I mentioned in my previous post, who glance through their Bibles, don't see the word "membership," and conclude that any formal affiliation with a church is unnecessary at best and unbiblical at worst. First, I have bad news for those people -- the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible, either. Ruh-roh, Raggy.

Second, there is substantial evidence throughout the New Testament that the pastors of the early churches kept very precise, formal records of the believers they had charge of. I would basically defy anyone to do a careful study of the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts, the job description of an Elder in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), and Hebrews 13 and come away with the idea that it's cool for a believer to sorta hang out on the fringes of a church and never commit to it.

Side note: one of our teaching pastors, Daniel, tells a pretty great little story at the beginning of our membership classes about a guy who falls in love with this amazing, beautiful girl, spends all his time with her, can't shut up about her... and then three years later, they're still dating, but not married or even engaged. Of course she's frustrated, all his friends are saying, "What are you waiting for, dude?" but he keeps telling her, "We don't need to get married to prove I love you, right, baby?" Well, obviously the story is about us and the church. Of course we don't "need" to join a church to prove we love it, but we also can't reap the benefits of commitment unless we're actually committed!

Well, what are the benefits of commitment to a church, i.e. formal membership? First off, when a church admits you to membership, they're saying, "We testify to your salvation. We believe and acknowledge that you are a Christian." (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why walk-the-aisle, sign-the-card "Baptist" membership is so pernicious -- if your pastors don't examine you and make sure you're actually saved, how on Earth can they be accountable before God for your soul?) What a precious testimony this has been in seasons of doubt! I have often countered the lies of the enemy and of my sinful heart about my salvation by saying, "No! 417 other people, including my pastors, daily witness to my salvation! They see fruit in my life! They believe I am a Christian!" Second, formal membership provides a structure of accountability in a way that mere attendance cannot. You are consciously, intentionally placing yourself under the authority of your pastors, and humbly opening yourself up to be held accountable to a life worthy of the gospel. You're also taking on the responsibility of bearing the burdens of your brothers and sisters in the church and being willing to call them out when they sin as well.

Speaking of sin... Sin. I'm always surprised to read the "Dear Boundless" letters that deal with couples having sex or living together outside marriage -- the writers almost always characterize their behavior as "mistakes" or "slip-ups" or "crossing the line" or some other such convenient phrases; rarely does anyone write in and say, My boyfriend and I have been violating the standards of a holy God every Friday night for three months. We've also been dragging the name of Jesus through the mud by our behavior, and we'd like some advice on how to stop being an offense to the Gospel...

But that's just what sin is -- defiance against the rightful Ruler of the universe. Listen, I don't know if you know this, but God, as the Creator of all things, has the right to rule the universe as he wishes. You don't go to Iran, dance around on a picture of Muhammad in a town square in a bikini, and then think you're going to get away with it by calling it a "slip-up" when somebody throws your butt in jail. Sin is a serious, serious matter -- why would we look at our brothers and sisters in the church falling into persistent sin and look the other way? We should feel shame at the thought of standing idly by while those who bear the name of Christ deny him with their actions when we could do something about it!

And that's just what church discipline is, people. Church discipline, at heart, is the Body of Christ refusing to allow the beloved children of God continue in sin unchecked. It is a reminder to those who have ignored the Spirit's whispers that danger lies ahead.

99% of the time, church discipline does not involve "excommunication." Usually, the preaching of the Word, worship, the sacraments, and community life are the means the Lord uses to discipline his people. Occasionally, a brother or sister will have to call you out for a particular sin. Less often, someone will have to be confronted in love by the pastors if they continue to live in unrepentant sin. Usually, that person will repent in the course of one of those events. If not -- if that person continues to refuse reconciliation and ignore the pleas of his brothers and sisters, acting like he is not a believer -- then the church is to treat him in the way he is acting! The problem is, people see Paul's command to the Corinthian church to treat the adulterous man in their midst "as an unbeliever" and think that means they kicked him out. But doesn't your church welcome unbelievers? Don't you pray that unbelievers will show up? Don't you invite unbelievers to your services?

Church discipline is a beautiful ministry of the local body; I for one am blessed to be a part of a congregation that has the structures for church discipline in place -- it reminds me of both the grace and the judgment of God. I pray that I never have to be placed under formal discipline by my church, but I know that my fellowship with them is part of what ensures that I never will!

OK, More Linkage

Pastor Lance, a black Reformed minister in West Philadelphia (born and raised!), has written an appropriately scathing critique of what he calls The Baal Network (TBN). Seriously, welding helmets and HazMat suits need to be in place before you read the full article. Just a taste:

And why did the Lord of glory endure such grievous pain and death? So that you could sow your seed offering, claim your blessing and have yet one more thing to put in your Public Storage locker.

Folks, enough is enough. These people aren’t in error, misguided or confused. They’re deliberately prostituting scripture, the cross and Jesus Christ to engorge their own debauched greed.

Pour it on, brother, pour it on.

The Chief of Sinners

Dave Harvey, author of the acclaimed book, When Sinners Say "I DO," gives this beautiful perspective on the sinfulness of our hearts, in a July 2007 interview with Discerning Reader.

I actually borrowed [this phrase] from the apostle Paul in his words to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:15). But it applies to all of us. Yes, really.

Paul didn’t say ‘I was.’ He said ‘I am’—the ‘present-tense’ apostle Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners. [...] And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that he knew he was capable—given the right circumstances—of the worst of sins and the vilest of motives. Paul was a realist. He wanted to see God and himself truly. No hiding behind a facade of pleasantness or religiosity for him. It’s almost as if Paul is saying, “Look, I know my sin. And what I’ve seen in my own heart is darker and more awful; it’s more proud, selfish, and self-exalting; and it’s more consistently and regularly in rebellion against You than anything I have glimpsed in the heart of anyone else. As far as I can see, the biggest sinner I know is me.”

But in the very next verse Paul says, “But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.”

With the passing of each day, two things grew larger for Paul: his sinfulness in light of the holiness of God, and God’s mercy in the face of it. Knowing both God and himself accurately was not at all discouraging or depressing. Rather, it deepened his gratitude for the vastness of God’s mercy in redeeming him, and the patience of Christ in continuing to love and identify with him in his daily struggle against sin.

Paul’s confession to Timothy presents us with a stunning example of moral honesty and theological maturity: Paul’s acute, even painful awareness of his own sinfulness caused him to magnify the glory of the Savior!

As I’ve studied Paul’s example, I’ve found it to be true in my own life as well.

(ht: Pure Church)