Clergyman Charlie: On Sex
June 10th, 2007 by Charles Lamb
One Christmas I sent my son in law a subscription to “National Wildlife” magazine as a present. Some of you may know that magazine, which features beautiful photographs of birds and animals.
Now, my son in law is a hunter, and he thought “National Wildlife” was an anti-hunting magazine. So, being the frank and outspoken person that he is, he wrote me something as follows: “I received your gift with mixed emotions. Of course I appreciate a present, but sending me, a hunter, “National Wildlife,” is the equivalent of my sending you, a clergyman, a subscription to “Playboy.”
I thought about that and then responded, “If you had sent me a subscription to “Playboy,” I would have hated its philosophy but enjoyed the pictures. I hope you can do the same with “National Wildlife.”
There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that the human body, or sexuality, is sinful. A beautiful and healthy body is to be celebrated. And sex is a gift of God. Read “Song of Solomon” in the Old Testament. While many have tried to see that book as a symbol of God’s love for Israel or the Church, there seems little doubt that originally it was simply a celebration of erotic love.
This is one reason that the attitude toward the body expressed by some Muslim groups seems so wrong to me. When I see photographs of women covered so completely that they only have eye slits so that they can see, I wonder, “Do they think men can’t control themselves, or are they so controlled by men that they aren’t allowed to be free?”
I have read statements by some Muslim women saying that they like to dress this way, because they are not “hit on” and they feel safe and modest. If that is truly their choice, and not one forced upon them, I guess it is their business. But it seems misguided to me.
Now having said all that, let’s look at the opposite extreme. By that, I mean what we do sometimes in our culture! When parents can’t find clothing for 10 year old girls that don’t look like something Britney Spears would wear, that’s too bad. When we make sex so cheap and loveless that it becomes strictly “recreational,” we lose its deeper meaning. When even comedies on TV have the characters jumping into bed with one another on first dates with no commitment and no consequences, this is a travesty of what sexual love should be.
I asked you earlier to read Song of Solomon. Now may I say also read I Corinthians chapter 6, verses 12 through 20. There is a need in our society for more modesty and self control. Sexual fulfillment needs to be preceded by love and loyalty and commitment.
This is what I meant when I said I might like the “Playboy” pictures but I would hate the magazine’s philosophy. It is normal to admire the beauty of a human body; that is natural. To wish to exploit that person for your own pleasure with no regard for that person’s welfare is lust. This, I think, is what the Playboy philosophy indicates and what Scripture condemns.
And I don’t mean to suggest that everyone starts dressing (or undressing) like Playboy models. My point is just to say that sexuality is good, not evil. But we need to take care to use that gift of God in responsible ways.
In a recent column I wrote about cleaning up our language. Now I’m writing about reclaiming some restraint in our sexual expression.
This column may draw some comments. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t. I’ll be glad if it does. Our society needs to take a new look at this whole matter. In the case of American culture, I think we’ve gone too far. I think we need to pull back into a more modest and restrained lifestyle. What do you think?
Share This
Add this to your favorites