It's always kind of a bummer how in modern America Dec.26 is back to the same-old-same-old, it's kind of a "Christmas crash," if you will. Well guess what, I'm going to annoy all of my co-workers today by playing Christmas music all day. HA!
"The Twelve Days of Christmas and the associated evenings of those twelve days (Twelve-tide), are the festive days beginning the evening of Christmas Day (December 25) through the morning of Epiphany on (January 6). The associated evenings of the twelve days begin on the evening before the specified day. Thus, the first night of Christmas is December 25–26, and Twelfth Night is January 5–6."--From Wikipedia
Friday, December 29, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
BIG FLAMING BOWL OF BOOZE !!! :: Christmas Rum Punch
This recipe comes from Esquire’s Handbook for Hosts, from 1949, via http://www.cocktailchronicles.com/2006/12/11/mxmox-ho-ho-ho-and-a-bottle-of-rum
Ingredients:
*6 oranges
*1/2 gallon sweet cider
*1 bottle Meyers Jamaica rum
*Sugar to taste
*Whole cloves
*Ground cinnamon and nutmeg
*Glass punch bowl (Glass is better here than a stainless container as it will illumine the room much more nicely.)
*"Carol Of The Bells" from "Celtic Woman: A Christmas Celebration" queued up. (I know I know, the whole Celtic Woman thing is a little gay but this particularly song is totally evil, what with the blue flame on the rum and all.)
Directions:
*Stick the oranges full of cloves and bake them in the oven until they soften (20-30 minutes at 350 should do the trick).
*Meanwhile, preheat both the cider and the rum in separate steel containers on the stove (the fire alone wont make the whole thing warm enough), and warm rum lights better.
*Have a partner-in-crime dim all the lights and fire up the aforementioned song.
*Place oranges in the punch bowl, pour over them the granulated sugar to taste, then the rum.
*Set fire to rum for a minute or so, then add the cider slowly to extinguish the flame. Careful: letting the cloves burn too long will leave ashes in your drink!
*Stir in cinnamon and nutmeg, and transfer the mixture from the glass bowl to the steel container on the stove and set to low heat; this should keep the mixture hot.
Ingredients:
*6 oranges
*1/2 gallon sweet cider
*1 bottle Meyers Jamaica rum
*Sugar to taste
*Whole cloves
*Ground cinnamon and nutmeg
*Glass punch bowl (Glass is better here than a stainless container as it will illumine the room much more nicely.)
*"Carol Of The Bells" from "Celtic Woman: A Christmas Celebration" queued up. (I know I know, the whole Celtic Woman thing is a little gay but this particularly song is totally evil, what with the blue flame on the rum and all.)
Directions:
*Stick the oranges full of cloves and bake them in the oven until they soften (20-30 minutes at 350 should do the trick).
*Meanwhile, preheat both the cider and the rum in separate steel containers on the stove (the fire alone wont make the whole thing warm enough), and warm rum lights better.
*Have a partner-in-crime dim all the lights and fire up the aforementioned song.
*Place oranges in the punch bowl, pour over them the granulated sugar to taste, then the rum.
*Set fire to rum for a minute or so, then add the cider slowly to extinguish the flame. Careful: letting the cloves burn too long will leave ashes in your drink!
*Stir in cinnamon and nutmeg, and transfer the mixture from the glass bowl to the steel container on the stove and set to low heat; this should keep the mixture hot.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Science and Apologetics: Response to 12-18 Deist
"Most of the great scientists are best described as Deists"
I'm going to take your second-to-last answer first here. Whether a scientist is a Deist or not is irrelevant when debating the issue of where the evidence of empirical science leads with regards to the arising of life on earth; in the Academic world, the only option is evolution by pure chance/probability. So the debate must always occur as with dealing with practical atheists. On a personal level though, it is good to know that you yourself are a man of reason. And regarding the dust, ribs, and garden remark: Without these, it'd be pretty difficult to establish a world without death, wouldn't it?
"Something from nothing" happens all the time in science. It is a staple of Quantum Physics."
1) Even if this is a staple of quantum mechanics as you say, we now operate in a universe full of highly organized matter; that is vastly different than matter arising from Absolute Void.
2) If "something from nothing" qualifies as "science" these days, I'll stick with my Christianity, it takes less blind faith. ;-)
Forces external to The Singularity
"Physicists have never assumed that [The Singularity] was "the beginning of all things."" So then, there were other forces at play along with the Singularity. From whence did THOSE forces arise?
Sagan's irrelevant comment
Aha my friend, this is supremely relevant, for when faced with these same questions, it's not only Sagan who has expressed discomfort and resorted to the above copout, this is the constant refrain heard from Naturalist physicists when evidence and logic become too uncomfortable for them. The point is, the "where did the *Singularity/11 dimensions/external forces/whatever* come from?" question only has 2 other answers, and neither of them pass muster:
1) The stipulation of various other possible forces. This is, at this point, almost pure cosmological conjecture amounting to little more that sci-fi novelism, which is unverifiable, and therefore "unscientific," and therefore unacceptable.
2) A Creator, which, as an a priori, is unacceptable in Naturalist Academia. *Note: As shown in this apologetic, belief in the existince of a Creator is a preeminent display of scientific research and logic, yet such belief is covertly deemed unacceptaple, chiefly for non-scientific reasons (ethical, moral or amoral, etc.)
Therefore, instead of going wherever the evidence leads, modern scientists duck out of the question where their modernistic, artificially drawn definition of "true science" has made it possible.
Conclusion
What you are admirably subjecting yourself to is a relatively unlettered man's poor attempt at Presuppositional Apologetics (for definition, see very good Wiki article) with regards to cosmology. As I understand it, Presuppositional Apologetics is supposed to do a number of things:
1) Determine more of the substanstance of an opponents argument
2) Turn the opponent to confess the Kingship of the Trinity
3) If nothing else, at the very least, engender in the opponent respect for the consistency, coherence, and potential of human advancement through the Christian worldview. I am curious, have my arguments accomplished this third goal in any way?
I'm going to take your second-to-last answer first here. Whether a scientist is a Deist or not is irrelevant when debating the issue of where the evidence of empirical science leads with regards to the arising of life on earth; in the Academic world, the only option is evolution by pure chance/probability. So the debate must always occur as with dealing with practical atheists. On a personal level though, it is good to know that you yourself are a man of reason. And regarding the dust, ribs, and garden remark: Without these, it'd be pretty difficult to establish a world without death, wouldn't it?
"Something from nothing" happens all the time in science. It is a staple of Quantum Physics."
1) Even if this is a staple of quantum mechanics as you say, we now operate in a universe full of highly organized matter; that is vastly different than matter arising from Absolute Void.
2) If "something from nothing" qualifies as "science" these days, I'll stick with my Christianity, it takes less blind faith. ;-)
Forces external to The Singularity
"Physicists have never assumed that [The Singularity] was "the beginning of all things."" So then, there were other forces at play along with the Singularity. From whence did THOSE forces arise?
Sagan's irrelevant comment
Aha my friend, this is supremely relevant, for when faced with these same questions, it's not only Sagan who has expressed discomfort and resorted to the above copout, this is the constant refrain heard from Naturalist physicists when evidence and logic become too uncomfortable for them. The point is, the "where did the *Singularity/11 dimensions/external forces/whatever* come from?" question only has 2 other answers, and neither of them pass muster:
1) The stipulation of various other possible forces. This is, at this point, almost pure cosmological conjecture amounting to little more that sci-fi novelism, which is unverifiable, and therefore "unscientific," and therefore unacceptable.
2) A Creator, which, as an a priori, is unacceptable in Naturalist Academia. *Note: As shown in this apologetic, belief in the existince of a Creator is a preeminent display of scientific research and logic, yet such belief is covertly deemed unacceptaple, chiefly for non-scientific reasons (ethical, moral or amoral, etc.)
Therefore, instead of going wherever the evidence leads, modern scientists duck out of the question where their modernistic, artificially drawn definition of "true science" has made it possible.
Conclusion
What you are admirably subjecting yourself to is a relatively unlettered man's poor attempt at Presuppositional Apologetics (for definition, see very good Wiki article) with regards to cosmology. As I understand it, Presuppositional Apologetics is supposed to do a number of things:
1) Determine more of the substanstance of an opponents argument
2) Turn the opponent to confess the Kingship of the Trinity
3) If nothing else, at the very least, engender in the opponent respect for the consistency, coherence, and potential of human advancement through the Christian worldview. I am curious, have my arguments accomplished this third goal in any way?
Deist response to 12-7 "Science and Apologetics"
1) Something from Nothing?: From where did the Big Bang singularity come into existence? To say it arose purely by chance from nothingness is a violation of scientific law.
>>"Something from nothing" happens all the time in science. It is a staple of Quantum Physics.
2) Inertia: Even granted the free lunch of point #1, how did the Big Bang singularity remain in organized stasis for eternity, and then all of a sudden change states without being acted upon by an outside force? This is an effect without a cause, and is therefore another violation of scientific law.
>>Recent mathematical resolutions point very strongly to outside forces (11 dimensions worth, read M-Theory). As well, it >>did not remain in an "organized stasis" for eternity. It blew up, didn't it? Internal pressures, rather than "non-existent" >>external influences, may have also been a culprit for the Big Bang. Recent science has never suggested that the singularity >>was without beginning. Physicists have never assumed that this was the "beginning of all things".
3) Mathemtical Probability in Evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge said that the chances of a living cell appearing somewhere in the universe spontaneously are 10 to the 40,000 power (yes, count 'em, 40 THOUSAND!). It is accepted among all mathematicians that anything greater than 10 to the 50th power never occurs. And, the amount of time required would be trillions of billions of years, compared with the scant 12 to 20 billion years currently speculated to be the age of th universe.
>>Fred Hoyle was an Astronomer, not a mathematician or statistician or biologist. He was not qualified to generate any such >>estimates. He was also an atheist. I think it would do some good to break down his numbers, see how he acheived them, >>and present his work to the rest of the scientific world. I'll bet this study would come up wanting. Considering that the >>scientific world estimates that there are Earth-like worlds in this galaxy alone numbering probably in the millions, what, >>with the necessary temperature band and quantity of liquid water, complex hydrocarbons to form proteins, the chances >>were actually astronomical. One jackass speaking outside of his area of expertise does not a debunker make.
4) "Science doesn’t feel the need to get into answering the problem of the origin of the Big Bang Singularity or how the Big Bang actually occurred." "What kind of science is this that arbitrarily stops before answering its main question?"--RC Sproul to Carl Sagan’s position that science doesn’t feel the need to go back that far.
>>This is irrelevant. Physicists, Cosmologists, Astronomers, and Mathematicians have been wrestling with that very issue, >>with some startling results (again, read M-Theory). As well, I doubt that Carl Sagan's actual position does "not need to go >>back that far." I would take a closer look at Carl Sagan's work before blithely accepting a critic's assessment of them. Even >>if that were the case, which I doubt, , I would not perceive a criticism of one astronomer as an infallible indictment of the >>science itself.
Through the scientific elements of mathematical probability, entropy laws, thermodynamics, & the fossil record, science proves that it would have been utterly impossible for life on earth would be to arise by pure chance. Science tells us that the existence of a Creator God is unavoidable.
>>According to the starkest forms of science, there is no such thing as mere chance, although there is probability. Science >>has never demonstrate that life could never have arisen by chance, nor has it asserted that life could only have arisen by >>chance. They go where the evidence takes them. As well, most of the great scientists are not atheists. They are usually, on >>a personal level, best described as Deists. So when it come to what begat life here, they are open to a lot of ideas, just not >>usually ones involving dust and ribs and gardens.
History / archaeology has shown that the aforementioned Creator God is Christ, Who was prophesied in the Old Testament, joined Himself to mankind by being born of a woman, died for our sins, was resurrected, and now sits incarnate in heaven ruling His Universe.
>>History and archeology have also shown that Buddha is divine, Allah is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet, and >>that our lives are governed by the twelve Zodiacal constellations. Just ask any adherent to any predetermined, mystical, >>ready-to-serve model of the Universe: they will point at all perceivable phenomenae, historic or current, and hail it as >>validation of their belief system. If it fails the consistency litmus test, then it is either the work of (insert-evil/fallen-diety->>here) or ahs yet to be properly construed. Sorry, I kinda sounded like a smartass on that one.
>>"Something from nothing" happens all the time in science. It is a staple of Quantum Physics.
2) Inertia: Even granted the free lunch of point #1, how did the Big Bang singularity remain in organized stasis for eternity, and then all of a sudden change states without being acted upon by an outside force? This is an effect without a cause, and is therefore another violation of scientific law.
>>Recent mathematical resolutions point very strongly to outside forces (11 dimensions worth, read M-Theory). As well, it >>did not remain in an "organized stasis" for eternity. It blew up, didn't it? Internal pressures, rather than "non-existent" >>external influences, may have also been a culprit for the Big Bang. Recent science has never suggested that the singularity >>was without beginning. Physicists have never assumed that this was the "beginning of all things".
3) Mathemtical Probability in Evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge said that the chances of a living cell appearing somewhere in the universe spontaneously are 10 to the 40,000 power (yes, count 'em, 40 THOUSAND!). It is accepted among all mathematicians that anything greater than 10 to the 50th power never occurs. And, the amount of time required would be trillions of billions of years, compared with the scant 12 to 20 billion years currently speculated to be the age of th universe.
>>Fred Hoyle was an Astronomer, not a mathematician or statistician or biologist. He was not qualified to generate any such >>estimates. He was also an atheist. I think it would do some good to break down his numbers, see how he acheived them, >>and present his work to the rest of the scientific world. I'll bet this study would come up wanting. Considering that the >>scientific world estimates that there are Earth-like worlds in this galaxy alone numbering probably in the millions, what, >>with the necessary temperature band and quantity of liquid water, complex hydrocarbons to form proteins, the chances >>were actually astronomical. One jackass speaking outside of his area of expertise does not a debunker make.
4) "Science doesn’t feel the need to get into answering the problem of the origin of the Big Bang Singularity or how the Big Bang actually occurred." "What kind of science is this that arbitrarily stops before answering its main question?"--RC Sproul to Carl Sagan’s position that science doesn’t feel the need to go back that far.
>>This is irrelevant. Physicists, Cosmologists, Astronomers, and Mathematicians have been wrestling with that very issue, >>with some startling results (again, read M-Theory). As well, I doubt that Carl Sagan's actual position does "not need to go >>back that far." I would take a closer look at Carl Sagan's work before blithely accepting a critic's assessment of them. Even >>if that were the case, which I doubt, , I would not perceive a criticism of one astronomer as an infallible indictment of the >>science itself.
Through the scientific elements of mathematical probability, entropy laws, thermodynamics, & the fossil record, science proves that it would have been utterly impossible for life on earth would be to arise by pure chance. Science tells us that the existence of a Creator God is unavoidable.
>>According to the starkest forms of science, there is no such thing as mere chance, although there is probability. Science >>has never demonstrate that life could never have arisen by chance, nor has it asserted that life could only have arisen by >>chance. They go where the evidence takes them. As well, most of the great scientists are not atheists. They are usually, on >>a personal level, best described as Deists. So when it come to what begat life here, they are open to a lot of ideas, just not >>usually ones involving dust and ribs and gardens.
History / archaeology has shown that the aforementioned Creator God is Christ, Who was prophesied in the Old Testament, joined Himself to mankind by being born of a woman, died for our sins, was resurrected, and now sits incarnate in heaven ruling His Universe.
>>History and archeology have also shown that Buddha is divine, Allah is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet, and >>that our lives are governed by the twelve Zodiacal constellations. Just ask any adherent to any predetermined, mystical, >>ready-to-serve model of the Universe: they will point at all perceivable phenomenae, historic or current, and hail it as >>validation of their belief system. If it fails the consistency litmus test, then it is either the work of (insert-evil/fallen-diety->>here) or ahs yet to be properly construed. Sorry, I kinda sounded like a smartass on that one.
The "Separation of Church and State" Debate is wrong
The whole current "separation of church and state" debate doesn't withstand deep scrutiny.
Whether you are a congressman legislating for partial-birth abortion, a ban on prayer in schools, for a 10 Commandments monument in a courtroom, for welfare reform, or for an open border policy, all these things come from a religious perspective, and are indeed, at their very core/essence, philosophical and religious in nature. Therefore, with regards to religion, there is no "neutralism" in government. "Either you are with me, or you are against me." - Mt.12.30. Eventually, either one religion or another is going to rule our gov't and country. Right now, the believers in Secular Progressivism are winning.
If we want the United States to remain a "Christian nation" and not become a Secular Progressive one, there is the really WaCkY-cRaZy idea of, I don't know, maybe actually *mentioning* the God of the Christian Bible in our founding document!, the Constitution. (It's a little known fact that America was the very first country to institute an inherently atheistic founding document; previously, all European countries acknowledged in their founding documents that the authority to govern comes from God, not a bunch of little false gods {"We the people"}. I support the President and the war, but how in the world can we ever found a country in the Middle East when we ourselves can't or won't acknowledge this fundamental error.)
If you would like to research this issue further, please read Gary North's "Conspiracy in Philadelphia," which is available for free at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north291.html.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
Whether you are a congressman legislating for partial-birth abortion, a ban on prayer in schools, for a 10 Commandments monument in a courtroom, for welfare reform, or for an open border policy, all these things come from a religious perspective, and are indeed, at their very core/essence, philosophical and religious in nature. Therefore, with regards to religion, there is no "neutralism" in government. "Either you are with me, or you are against me." - Mt.12.30. Eventually, either one religion or another is going to rule our gov't and country. Right now, the believers in Secular Progressivism are winning.
If we want the United States to remain a "Christian nation" and not become a Secular Progressive one, there is the really WaCkY-cRaZy idea of, I don't know, maybe actually *mentioning* the God of the Christian Bible in our founding document!, the Constitution. (It's a little known fact that America was the very first country to institute an inherently atheistic founding document; previously, all European countries acknowledged in their founding documents that the authority to govern comes from God, not a bunch of little false gods {"We the people"}. I support the President and the war, but how in the world can we ever found a country in the Middle East when we ourselves can't or won't acknowledge this fundamental error.)
If you would like to research this issue further, please read Gary North's "Conspiracy in Philadelphia," which is available for free at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north291.html.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Science and Apologetics
Ironically, mainstream modern "science" often exists more in the realms of philosophy, religion, and mythology, in that it posits theories contrary to well-etablished scientific laws:
1) Something from Nothing?: From where did the Big Bang singularity come into existence? To say it arose purely by chance from nothingness is a violation of scientific law.
2) Inertia: Even granted the free lunch of point #1, how did the Big Bang singularity remain in organized stasis for eternity, and then all of a sudden change states without being acted upon by an outside force? This is an effect without a cause, and is therefore another violation of scientific law.
3) Mathemtical Probability in Evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge said that the chances of a living cell appearing somewhere in the universe spontaneously are 10 to the 40,000 power (yes, count 'em, 40 THOUSAND!). It is accepted among all mathematicians that anything greater than 10 to the 50th power never occurs. And, the amount of time required would be trillions of billions of years, compared with the scant 12 to 20 billion years currently speculated to be the age of th universe.
4) "Science doesn’t feel the need to get into answering the problem of the origin of the Big Bang Singularity or how the Big Bang actually occurred." "What kind of science is this that arbitrarily stops before answering its main question?"--RC Sproul to Carl Sagan’s position that science doesn’t feel the need to go back that far.
Science, Life, and History
Through the scientific elements of mathematical probability, entropy laws, thermodynamics, & the fossil record, science proves that it would have been utterly impossible for life on earth would be to arise by pure chance. Science tells us that the existence of a Creator God is unavoidable.
History / archaeology has shown that the aforementioned Creator God is Christ, Who was prophesied in the Old Testament, joined Himself to mankind by being born of a woman, died for our sins, was resurrected, and now sits incarnate in heaven ruling His Universe.
The facts of science and history compel us to enter into a covenant relationship with Him and acknowledge Him as King.
1) Something from Nothing?: From where did the Big Bang singularity come into existence? To say it arose purely by chance from nothingness is a violation of scientific law.
2) Inertia: Even granted the free lunch of point #1, how did the Big Bang singularity remain in organized stasis for eternity, and then all of a sudden change states without being acted upon by an outside force? This is an effect without a cause, and is therefore another violation of scientific law.
3) Mathemtical Probability in Evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge said that the chances of a living cell appearing somewhere in the universe spontaneously are 10 to the 40,000 power (yes, count 'em, 40 THOUSAND!). It is accepted among all mathematicians that anything greater than 10 to the 50th power never occurs. And, the amount of time required would be trillions of billions of years, compared with the scant 12 to 20 billion years currently speculated to be the age of th universe.
4) "Science doesn’t feel the need to get into answering the problem of the origin of the Big Bang Singularity or how the Big Bang actually occurred." "What kind of science is this that arbitrarily stops before answering its main question?"--RC Sproul to Carl Sagan’s position that science doesn’t feel the need to go back that far.
Science, Life, and History
Through the scientific elements of mathematical probability, entropy laws, thermodynamics, & the fossil record, science proves that it would have been utterly impossible for life on earth would be to arise by pure chance. Science tells us that the existence of a Creator God is unavoidable.
History / archaeology has shown that the aforementioned Creator God is Christ, Who was prophesied in the Old Testament, joined Himself to mankind by being born of a woman, died for our sins, was resurrected, and now sits incarnate in heaven ruling His Universe.
The facts of science and history compel us to enter into a covenant relationship with Him and acknowledge Him as King.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Against NFP
The intro blurb here is "How to Be Spiritual According to the Bible" by Rev. Mark Horne, Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, www.markhorne.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/how-to-be-spiritual-according-to-the-bible
(in no particular order)
*Drink and eat a lot with family and friends (Dt.14.22-27; Eccl.9.7 ).
*Include strangers, people below your socio-economic status, and characters of ill-repute in these parties–if you notice they aren't being treated in a really welcoming manner, you may need to invite fewer of your religious friends in order to produce the right environment (Dt.16.10-15; Lk.14.12-14; Lk.15.1,2).
*Have frequent sex with your spouse. (TJC: What are these other than direct commands from the Lord to have frequent relations with your wife?)
Eccl.9.9: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.”
Prv.5.15-19: “Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.”
*Enjoy your work (Eccl.9.10).
*Work hard (Eccl.11.6).
*Worship God in public with other people (Ps.100, ad infinitum).
*Sing really violent songs as prayers (The Psalms).
*Loan money without expecting payment in return (Lk.6.35).
*Pursue profit in business–otherwise you are never going to be able to afford to be open handed (Luke 19.20-26; Eph.4.28).
*Enjoy the luxuries you have (Eccl.9.8).
*If it is an especially holy day, and you hear the Law of God and are feeling especially convicted for your many sins, make sure you don't weep but rather go party and share food and fellowship with others (Neh.8).
*Gently restore people you catch in wrongdoing and don't demand payback when you are the victim (Gal.6.1,2).
*Teach your children to be spiritual (Dt.6.1-9).
*Don't care if anyone else judges you or your children as unspiritual; care what God thinks (Rom.2.28,29).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The contraception controversy in the Catholic church is based upon Natural Law: “The purpose of sex is procreation. If any act is separated from it’s purpose, the act becomes a distortion of God’s Creation. Any distorted creation is evil.” According to Catholic teaching, sex under NFP does not violate Natural Law because of a mindset that is “open to procreation.” However, the mindset of “not wanting children” is acceptable in NFP because you are not, supposedly, using a technological device to prevent conception, and therefore, NFP sex remains “natural.” (Though I would argue that there is no substantial/material difference of having sex with a mindset of “not wanting children” using the barrier devices of digital thermometer and scientific chart, versus having sex with a mindset of “not wanting children” using the barrier devices of condom and diaphragm. In other words, you use a digital thermometer and a scientific chart to have sex in the exact same way you use a condom to have sex.)
Question: Which is more natural?
1) The infrequent kissing/cuddling between a husband and wife, which is the inevitable result of using contraceptive technology that is inappropriate / unsuitable for the age (an age of ultra-low infant mortality rates and expensive costs of living).
-or-
2) Frequent physical contact and sex between a husband and wife using the appropriate technology.
My perspective: It seems to me that the former is actually grossly un-natural / artificial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Major Catholic and Protestant Bibles translate the Curse of Gen.3.16 (see below) to include increased conception.
My perspective: One element of the Curse is that contraception would be increased, so God originally intended sex before the fall to be for pleasure and not solely for the production of children. Therefore, contraceptive sex is in keeping with God's original intent, and in that sense it is “natural”, and it is godly. I think that all elements of the Curse are necessary to keep us humble and ensure that the Kingdom continues to advance on Earth, despite our selfish, fallen state; the use of technology may be integral to this redemption and advancement. Is.65.17,20 (ESV): "(17) For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. (20) No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed." (Could this refer to gene and adult stem cell therapies? This verse could also refer to God’s gradual lifting of the Curse as the Kingdom overtakes the Earth to restore Eden as the glorious worldwide garden-city God intended Adam to build it into.)
Douay-Rheims Bible: "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
King James Version: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Celibacy in the Catholic church
Questions:
1) Why does Mary have to be ever-virgin?, and what historical evidence is there to support this view?
2) How are the Marian doctrines squared with the word “until” in Mt.1.25?
3) Why do priests have to be celibate? OT priests had families, why can't NT clergy?
My perspective: 1 Cor.7.1-7 (NAB): “(1) Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," (2) but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. (3) The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. (4) A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. (5) Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. (6) This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. (7) Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”
ESV Commentary on v.67: "There are certain advantages for the work of the Kingdom in remaining unmarried, and so Paul personally can wish that every believer would give his or her life exclusively to the advance of the gospel. But the Apostle realizes that such a situation is not possible for everyone and would only lead many Christians into sexual temptation. Moreover, there are other reasons why one should marry that are not relevant to the present discussion (v.1 note)."
The Catholic view of sexuality (contraception, Marian virginity, clerical celibacy, etc.) was formulated by men who feared sex (see #5 below), and whose fear was rooted in the environment of pre-Christian pagan Greek philosophical asceticism (Plato, Aristotle, etc.). This is the environment in which the early Church was established. From James B. Jordan’s "Liturgy Trap" (paraphrased): We have seen this same thing occurring in modern times. Just think about it: when the gospel comes to an individual and converts him, does he instantly set aside every bit of sinful custom and tradition that he has been taught since infancy? Obviously not. Similarly, it should be obvious that when the gospel comes into a pagan culture, it takes a long time for the pagan elements to be worked out of the people who are converted. We should not be surprised if some pagan thought patterns and mindsets become mixed into the life of the Church. Thus, the Korean churches today are given to tremendous asceticism, because of the Buddhist background and environment. African churches tend to be emotional and oriented toward spirits, because of their animist background. In the eighth century, Islamic influence and an Islamic environment caused many in the Eastern churches to become iconoclastic (against images of any kind, even simple pictures), since Islam forbids all representative art. Evangelicals in the pervasively Unitarian environment of 19th century America in the Northeast soon adopted Unitarian views of alcohol and tobacco, and then that view spread everywhere. Are we so blind as to think that the only exception to this was the early Church? The very fact that the early Church had to wrestle with so many heresies and gnosticisms in her midst shows how powerful the hold of the Greek culture was. On this, we can rejoice that the Church emerged victorious in the controversies concerning main points such as Christ's nature, etc., but we can hardly assume that popular customs were unaffected by these influences. On the contrary: From a Biblical perspective, nothing is more obvious than that the Orthodox and Roman views of the saints and of images, of celibacy and of virginity, of the sacraments and of the stair-step nature of conversion and grace - all these are thoroughly infected with Greek patterns of thought and are utterly foreign to both the presuppositions and the content of the Bible. (end paraphrase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The perpetuity of the modern Roman Catholic church
Question: Do you feel that if a strong case can be made against the anti-contracepts, that it somehow threatens the perpetuity of the Roman Catholic church?
My perspective:
1) According to Rome's interpretation of Mt.16.18, the gates of hell shall not prevail against Rome; its ultimate destruction is impossible, therefore such fear is unfounded.
What if your husband cannot abide NFP for Biblical, well thought-out, and well-intentioned (i.e. Kingdom-oriented, not selfish) reasons? Per 1 Cor.7.5-6 (NAB), abstinence must be by mutual agreement between spouses. This is a command. 2) 2) Are you not then excepted from NFP law? 1 Cor.7.5-6 (NAB): "(5) Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. (6) This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command." This course of action does no violence to the truth or infallibility of Rome on this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) NFP: Ivory Tower Male Chauvinism
My perspective: “[NFP is] a theological attack on women to always require abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives.” – from http://openembrace.com. Do you honestly think this is how God wants you to live? Do it correspond at all with what He has said in His Word about sex? No, anti-contraceptism is a purely theoretical idea concocted, ultimately, by men who:
1) Aren't women, and therefore have no right to make up extra-Biblical rules about women's bodies.
2) Are pretty much ivory tower acadmics living in a largely theoretical world (“nuclear proliferation to destroy Communism is wrong, the war in Iraq is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, etc.”), never knowing or understanding the joys and stresses of living day-to-day with a woman in marriage, and therefore having no clue about the practical impact of their laws in this area of our lives.
Lk.11.46: "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) "Sex & the Early Church" from http://www.torodedesign.com/NEW/article.html
Unpublished essay, Fall 2005, By Sam Torode, author of "Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception" by Sam Torode, Bethany Torode, and J. Budziszewski, March 2002. Reproduced here in its entirety.
TJC note: At the time of this publication, the Torode’s had recently moved from Protestantism into Eastern Orthodoxy.
When most people get engaged, they start looking at rings and reception halls. I started reading books about sex. No, not those books. I mean weighty tomes on marital relations, natural law, and contraception. More than the joy of sex, I wanted to know the theology of it.
Being conservative and rational by temperament, I veered towards Catholic theology because claims the oldest pedigree and uses natural law in a logical, clear-cut moral system. My fiancée and I drank up John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and took a class in natural family planning. A year later, we spit it back out in a little book, Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception. (We’re still rethinking, and have changed our minds somewhat in the five years since.)
Bethany didn’t care so much about tradition—at the time, natural family planning just made intuitive sense to her. But I was inspired, in large part, by wanting to follow the way of the early church.
Why care about what the early Christians thought about sex? In the Baptist church I grew up in, it was assumed that the church fathers were wrong about everything. The years between the Acts of the Apostles and the founding of Pine Crick Baptist Church didn’t command much attention. The Bible was infallible, but any theologian between Bible times and ours was highly suspect.
In college, I lost faith in the notion that the Bible alone, left up to individual interpretation, is a sufficient guide for life. More often than not, Bible reading left me confused. Instead of giving up on Christianity altogether, I turned to authors like Russell Kirk, G. K. Chesterton, and Jaroslav Pelikan, who argued for the importance of tradition. The church fathers, they told me, were just the guides I needed.
My first steps in reading the fathers opened up a whole new world. Writings such as St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation showed that my questions and doubts weren’t anything new; and brilliant theologians like Athanasius had provided compelling answers centuries ago.
This was a couple years before I met Bethany. Later, when we wrote Open Embrace I included quotes from several church fathers against contraception. I didn’t read the actual works they came from--I just pulled the quotes from Catholic apologetics books and Web sites. At the time, I assumed that the church fathers taught the same things about sex and marriage that the Catholic Church proclaims today. When I began looking at their writings in greater depth, I was in for a surprise.
Procreation vs. Pleasure
I was disappointed to discover that the church fathers wrote a great deal about monasticism but very little about marriage, which they often treated as a distant second best. Even when they defended marriage against heretics like the Manichaeans, the church fathers tended to be very uneasy about sex.
They couldn’t condemn sex altogether—there’s no getting past the fact that Jesus and Paul praised marriage as a "one flesh union," and "one flesh" sure sounds a lot like sex. But from the outside looking in, many celibate church fathers saw only two possible reasons for sex: procreation or pleasure. And, in their ascetic mindset, pleasure was a surefire shortcut to hell.
That left only one justifiable reason for sex—and even marriage as a whole. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) put it bluntly: "We Christians marry only to produce children."
"If a man marries in order to have children," Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) added, "he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. . . . He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will."
St. Jerome (342–420) asked, "Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Then he took the procreation vs. pleasure attitude to its logical conclusion: "He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer."
Augustine (354–430) agreed, while leaving some wiggle room for indulgence: "It is one thing to lie together with the sole will of generating: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage, this has venial fault."
Contrary to contemporary Catholic teaching, Augustine condemned the rhythm method (and, by conjecture, Natural Family Planning): "You warn us to watch the time after the purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse. From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust." I could see why I’d never come across this quote in NFP-apologetics literature.
In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) said that if any pleasure was mixed with intercourse, it "transgresses the law of marriage." According to Gregory, pleasure "befouls" intercourse, though, like Augustine, he concluded that this was only a minor sin within marriage. And so, a tradition was firmly established. All sex was suspect, and any non-procreative sex—during infertile times, pregnancy, and old age—was especially sinful.
The denigration of sex paralleled the elevation of virginity. Because sex was tainted (Augustine considered it the vehicle for passing on original sin), priests who already had wives were expected to remain abstinent or even permanently separate. Before long, celibacy became a requirement for the priesthood in the Western Church.
In 386, the monk Jovinian was condemned for heresy in Rome, in part for saying that "virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once passed through the layer of Christ . . . are of equal merit" and "there is one reward in the kingdom of heaven for all who have kept their baptismal vow." Jovinian was denounced as a demon by Jerome, who countered with a tract denigrating marriage to such an extent that even Augustine thought he went too far.
When I first learned all this, about a year after Open Embrace was published, I got quite depressed. So much for the "unbroken tradition" on sexuality often claimed by Catholic apologists. If this was the tradition, I didn’t want any part of it.
The Saint of Sex
After deciding that many of the church fathers were wrong about sex, I wondered—is the Christian tradition hopelessly flawed? Must we sweep aside everything the early church said about sex, and (like the Baptists I grew up with) start from scratch?
Thankfully, I found that Jerome, Augustine, and company didn’t have the last word on sex in the early church. In the East, a more positive vision of sex and marriage was set forth by St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407).
Chrysostom, archbishop of Antioch and Constantinople, was the most celebrated orator of his day, and the liturgy he wrote is still used by the Orthodox Church. He praised married love in terms that scandalized his congregation (and would make many blush even today):
"How do husband and wife become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and returned as a child. But suppose there is no child; do they then remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment."
First and foremost, Chrysostom says, sex is about unifying love. In another sermon, he explicitly rejects the view that the sole (or even main) reason for marriage and sex is procreation:
"These are the two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste, and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. . . . Marriage does not always lead to childbearing, although there is the word of the Lord which says ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’ We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind."
As Chrysostom makes clear elsewhere, "chastity" doesn’t mean sexual abstinence—it means husbands and wives cultivating a passionate love for each other. Reading Chrysostom restored some of my faith in the early church. Still, he seemed outnumbered—a lone beacon of light in a sea of negativity.
Councils & Celibacy
Then I wondered whether I was putting too much stock in the church fathers. After all, the mind of the early church can’t be reduced to the writings of a handful of theologians. As important as they were in defining dogma, their opinions on marriage were just that—opinions. With that in mind, I started searching for statements from church-wide councils.
When the bishops of the early church met and prayed together, I learned, they often defended marriage and sexuality in the strongest terms. The Council of Gangra (325-381) resolved, "If anyone shall condemn marriage, let him be anathema" and "If anyone of those who are living a virgin life for the Lord’s sake should treat the married arrogantly, let him be anathema." (Take that, Jerome.)
During the first ecumenical council at Nicea, a motion was raised for mandatory celibacy among the clergy. But St. Pophanatrus—himself a celibate monk—objected, saying that "marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled," and his words carried the day.
The motion for celibacy at Nicea was proposed by Western bishops, and the celibate priesthood soon became a rule in the West. But in the East, the Greek council of Trullo (692) reaffirmed the earlier tradition:
We know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman church that those who are deemed worthy of the diaconate of priesthood should promise no longer to live with their wives; but we, preserving the ancient and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse.
The council fathers went on to say that forcing married priests to separate from their wives is an injury to marriage, which was "instituted by God and blessed by his presence." Sex within marriage, they said, is pure. It doesn’t disqualify priests from ministering the sacraments. The Council at Trullo concluded: "If anyone dares, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed."
At least a major portion of the early church—not just John Chrysostom—had a fairly healthy handle on sex. My depression was lifting.
Liturgies of Love
The last place I thought to look for the early church’s view of sex and marriage was perhaps the most obvious: wedding liturgies. When reading the negative things certain fathers said about sex, it’s easy to forget that the early church blessed marriage as a sacrament—and sex, becoming one flesh, is what defines marriage).
The oldest wedding liturgies (Byzantine, Egyptian, and Syrian) bless lovemaking without blush or hesitation, even calling for angels to watch over the marriage bed. There are many prayers for fruitfulness, but children are seen as a gift bestowed by God, not a justification for this messy business of marriage and sex.
Even the Western marriage liturgies (Roman Catholic and Anglican), which were developed later, never suggest that non-procreative sex is sinful. Though they include the formula that marriage was instituted "first for the procreation of children," they balance it with two further biblical reasons for marriage—companionship and chastity.
Sacred Sex
My experiences over the last five years have helped qualify my love of tradition. Tradition can be a valuable guide—when it doesn’t conflict with the obvious meaning of the Bible and the experiences of ordinary Christian couples.
Yes, individual church fathers left a lot to be desired when it comes to sex. No, the early church wasn’t perfect. But the early church as a whole—especially in the East—left us a firm foundation for a beautiful, biblical theology of sex and marriage.
When Bethany and I were married using the original Anglican prayer book service, we recited these centuries-old words: "With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee worship." Is there any more beautiful description of sacred sex? That’s the mystery of sacramental marriage: by loving and delighting in each other, spouses worship God.
Sam Torode is coauthor with his wife, Bethany, of Aflame: Ancient Wisdom on Marriage (Eerdmans, 2005), which grew out of the journey described in this article.
AMDG
(in no particular order)
*Drink and eat a lot with family and friends (Dt.14.22-27; Eccl.9.7 ).
*Include strangers, people below your socio-economic status, and characters of ill-repute in these parties–if you notice they aren't being treated in a really welcoming manner, you may need to invite fewer of your religious friends in order to produce the right environment (Dt.16.10-15; Lk.14.12-14; Lk.15.1,2).
*Have frequent sex with your spouse. (TJC: What are these other than direct commands from the Lord to have frequent relations with your wife?)
Eccl.9.9: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.”
Prv.5.15-19: “Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.”
*Enjoy your work (Eccl.9.10).
*Work hard (Eccl.11.6).
*Worship God in public with other people (Ps.100, ad infinitum).
*Sing really violent songs as prayers (The Psalms).
*Loan money without expecting payment in return (Lk.6.35).
*Pursue profit in business–otherwise you are never going to be able to afford to be open handed (Luke 19.20-26; Eph.4.28).
*Enjoy the luxuries you have (Eccl.9.8).
*If it is an especially holy day, and you hear the Law of God and are feeling especially convicted for your many sins, make sure you don't weep but rather go party and share food and fellowship with others (Neh.8).
*Gently restore people you catch in wrongdoing and don't demand payback when you are the victim (Gal.6.1,2).
*Teach your children to be spiritual (Dt.6.1-9).
*Don't care if anyone else judges you or your children as unspiritual; care what God thinks (Rom.2.28,29).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The contraception controversy in the Catholic church is based upon Natural Law: “The purpose of sex is procreation. If any act is separated from it’s purpose, the act becomes a distortion of God’s Creation. Any distorted creation is evil.” According to Catholic teaching, sex under NFP does not violate Natural Law because of a mindset that is “open to procreation.” However, the mindset of “not wanting children” is acceptable in NFP because you are not, supposedly, using a technological device to prevent conception, and therefore, NFP sex remains “natural.” (Though I would argue that there is no substantial/material difference of having sex with a mindset of “not wanting children” using the barrier devices of digital thermometer and scientific chart, versus having sex with a mindset of “not wanting children” using the barrier devices of condom and diaphragm. In other words, you use a digital thermometer and a scientific chart to have sex in the exact same way you use a condom to have sex.)
Question: Which is more natural?
1) The infrequent kissing/cuddling between a husband and wife, which is the inevitable result of using contraceptive technology that is inappropriate / unsuitable for the age (an age of ultra-low infant mortality rates and expensive costs of living).
-or-
2) Frequent physical contact and sex between a husband and wife using the appropriate technology.
My perspective: It seems to me that the former is actually grossly un-natural / artificial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Major Catholic and Protestant Bibles translate the Curse of Gen.3.16 (see below) to include increased conception.
My perspective: One element of the Curse is that contraception would be increased, so God originally intended sex before the fall to be for pleasure and not solely for the production of children. Therefore, contraceptive sex is in keeping with God's original intent, and in that sense it is “natural”, and it is godly. I think that all elements of the Curse are necessary to keep us humble and ensure that the Kingdom continues to advance on Earth, despite our selfish, fallen state; the use of technology may be integral to this redemption and advancement. Is.65.17,20 (ESV): "(17) For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. (20) No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed." (Could this refer to gene and adult stem cell therapies? This verse could also refer to God’s gradual lifting of the Curse as the Kingdom overtakes the Earth to restore Eden as the glorious worldwide garden-city God intended Adam to build it into.)
Douay-Rheims Bible: "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
King James Version: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Celibacy in the Catholic church
Questions:
1) Why does Mary have to be ever-virgin?, and what historical evidence is there to support this view?
2) How are the Marian doctrines squared with the word “until” in Mt.1.25?
3) Why do priests have to be celibate? OT priests had families, why can't NT clergy?
My perspective: 1 Cor.7.1-7 (NAB): “(1) Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," (2) but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. (3) The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. (4) A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. (5) Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. (6) This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. (7) Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”
ESV Commentary on v.67: "There are certain advantages for the work of the Kingdom in remaining unmarried, and so Paul personally can wish that every believer would give his or her life exclusively to the advance of the gospel. But the Apostle realizes that such a situation is not possible for everyone and would only lead many Christians into sexual temptation. Moreover, there are other reasons why one should marry that are not relevant to the present discussion (v.1 note)."
The Catholic view of sexuality (contraception, Marian virginity, clerical celibacy, etc.) was formulated by men who feared sex (see #5 below), and whose fear was rooted in the environment of pre-Christian pagan Greek philosophical asceticism (Plato, Aristotle, etc.). This is the environment in which the early Church was established. From James B. Jordan’s "Liturgy Trap" (paraphrased): We have seen this same thing occurring in modern times. Just think about it: when the gospel comes to an individual and converts him, does he instantly set aside every bit of sinful custom and tradition that he has been taught since infancy? Obviously not. Similarly, it should be obvious that when the gospel comes into a pagan culture, it takes a long time for the pagan elements to be worked out of the people who are converted. We should not be surprised if some pagan thought patterns and mindsets become mixed into the life of the Church. Thus, the Korean churches today are given to tremendous asceticism, because of the Buddhist background and environment. African churches tend to be emotional and oriented toward spirits, because of their animist background. In the eighth century, Islamic influence and an Islamic environment caused many in the Eastern churches to become iconoclastic (against images of any kind, even simple pictures), since Islam forbids all representative art. Evangelicals in the pervasively Unitarian environment of 19th century America in the Northeast soon adopted Unitarian views of alcohol and tobacco, and then that view spread everywhere. Are we so blind as to think that the only exception to this was the early Church? The very fact that the early Church had to wrestle with so many heresies and gnosticisms in her midst shows how powerful the hold of the Greek culture was. On this, we can rejoice that the Church emerged victorious in the controversies concerning main points such as Christ's nature, etc., but we can hardly assume that popular customs were unaffected by these influences. On the contrary: From a Biblical perspective, nothing is more obvious than that the Orthodox and Roman views of the saints and of images, of celibacy and of virginity, of the sacraments and of the stair-step nature of conversion and grace - all these are thoroughly infected with Greek patterns of thought and are utterly foreign to both the presuppositions and the content of the Bible. (end paraphrase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The perpetuity of the modern Roman Catholic church
Question: Do you feel that if a strong case can be made against the anti-contracepts, that it somehow threatens the perpetuity of the Roman Catholic church?
My perspective:
1) According to Rome's interpretation of Mt.16.18, the gates of hell shall not prevail against Rome; its ultimate destruction is impossible, therefore such fear is unfounded.
What if your husband cannot abide NFP for Biblical, well thought-out, and well-intentioned (i.e. Kingdom-oriented, not selfish) reasons? Per 1 Cor.7.5-6 (NAB), abstinence must be by mutual agreement between spouses. This is a command. 2) 2) Are you not then excepted from NFP law? 1 Cor.7.5-6 (NAB): "(5) Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. (6) This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command." This course of action does no violence to the truth or infallibility of Rome on this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) NFP: Ivory Tower Male Chauvinism
My perspective: “[NFP is] a theological attack on women to always require abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives.” – from http://openembrace.com. Do you honestly think this is how God wants you to live? Do it correspond at all with what He has said in His Word about sex? No, anti-contraceptism is a purely theoretical idea concocted, ultimately, by men who:
1) Aren't women, and therefore have no right to make up extra-Biblical rules about women's bodies.
2) Are pretty much ivory tower acadmics living in a largely theoretical world (“nuclear proliferation to destroy Communism is wrong, the war in Iraq is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, etc.”), never knowing or understanding the joys and stresses of living day-to-day with a woman in marriage, and therefore having no clue about the practical impact of their laws in this area of our lives.
Lk.11.46: "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) "Sex & the Early Church" from http://www.torodedesign.com/NEW/article.html
Unpublished essay, Fall 2005, By Sam Torode, author of "Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception" by Sam Torode, Bethany Torode, and J. Budziszewski, March 2002. Reproduced here in its entirety.
TJC note: At the time of this publication, the Torode’s had recently moved from Protestantism into Eastern Orthodoxy.
When most people get engaged, they start looking at rings and reception halls. I started reading books about sex. No, not those books. I mean weighty tomes on marital relations, natural law, and contraception. More than the joy of sex, I wanted to know the theology of it.
Being conservative and rational by temperament, I veered towards Catholic theology because claims the oldest pedigree and uses natural law in a logical, clear-cut moral system. My fiancée and I drank up John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and took a class in natural family planning. A year later, we spit it back out in a little book, Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception. (We’re still rethinking, and have changed our minds somewhat in the five years since.)
Bethany didn’t care so much about tradition—at the time, natural family planning just made intuitive sense to her. But I was inspired, in large part, by wanting to follow the way of the early church.
Why care about what the early Christians thought about sex? In the Baptist church I grew up in, it was assumed that the church fathers were wrong about everything. The years between the Acts of the Apostles and the founding of Pine Crick Baptist Church didn’t command much attention. The Bible was infallible, but any theologian between Bible times and ours was highly suspect.
In college, I lost faith in the notion that the Bible alone, left up to individual interpretation, is a sufficient guide for life. More often than not, Bible reading left me confused. Instead of giving up on Christianity altogether, I turned to authors like Russell Kirk, G. K. Chesterton, and Jaroslav Pelikan, who argued for the importance of tradition. The church fathers, they told me, were just the guides I needed.
My first steps in reading the fathers opened up a whole new world. Writings such as St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation showed that my questions and doubts weren’t anything new; and brilliant theologians like Athanasius had provided compelling answers centuries ago.
This was a couple years before I met Bethany. Later, when we wrote Open Embrace I included quotes from several church fathers against contraception. I didn’t read the actual works they came from--I just pulled the quotes from Catholic apologetics books and Web sites. At the time, I assumed that the church fathers taught the same things about sex and marriage that the Catholic Church proclaims today. When I began looking at their writings in greater depth, I was in for a surprise.
Procreation vs. Pleasure
I was disappointed to discover that the church fathers wrote a great deal about monasticism but very little about marriage, which they often treated as a distant second best. Even when they defended marriage against heretics like the Manichaeans, the church fathers tended to be very uneasy about sex.
They couldn’t condemn sex altogether—there’s no getting past the fact that Jesus and Paul praised marriage as a "one flesh union," and "one flesh" sure sounds a lot like sex. But from the outside looking in, many celibate church fathers saw only two possible reasons for sex: procreation or pleasure. And, in their ascetic mindset, pleasure was a surefire shortcut to hell.
That left only one justifiable reason for sex—and even marriage as a whole. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) put it bluntly: "We Christians marry only to produce children."
"If a man marries in order to have children," Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) added, "he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. . . . He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will."
St. Jerome (342–420) asked, "Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Then he took the procreation vs. pleasure attitude to its logical conclusion: "He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer."
Augustine (354–430) agreed, while leaving some wiggle room for indulgence: "It is one thing to lie together with the sole will of generating: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage, this has venial fault."
Contrary to contemporary Catholic teaching, Augustine condemned the rhythm method (and, by conjecture, Natural Family Planning): "You warn us to watch the time after the purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse. From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust." I could see why I’d never come across this quote in NFP-apologetics literature.
In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) said that if any pleasure was mixed with intercourse, it "transgresses the law of marriage." According to Gregory, pleasure "befouls" intercourse, though, like Augustine, he concluded that this was only a minor sin within marriage. And so, a tradition was firmly established. All sex was suspect, and any non-procreative sex—during infertile times, pregnancy, and old age—was especially sinful.
The denigration of sex paralleled the elevation of virginity. Because sex was tainted (Augustine considered it the vehicle for passing on original sin), priests who already had wives were expected to remain abstinent or even permanently separate. Before long, celibacy became a requirement for the priesthood in the Western Church.
In 386, the monk Jovinian was condemned for heresy in Rome, in part for saying that "virgins, widows, and married women, who have been once passed through the layer of Christ . . . are of equal merit" and "there is one reward in the kingdom of heaven for all who have kept their baptismal vow." Jovinian was denounced as a demon by Jerome, who countered with a tract denigrating marriage to such an extent that even Augustine thought he went too far.
When I first learned all this, about a year after Open Embrace was published, I got quite depressed. So much for the "unbroken tradition" on sexuality often claimed by Catholic apologists. If this was the tradition, I didn’t want any part of it.
The Saint of Sex
After deciding that many of the church fathers were wrong about sex, I wondered—is the Christian tradition hopelessly flawed? Must we sweep aside everything the early church said about sex, and (like the Baptists I grew up with) start from scratch?
Thankfully, I found that Jerome, Augustine, and company didn’t have the last word on sex in the early church. In the East, a more positive vision of sex and marriage was set forth by St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407).
Chrysostom, archbishop of Antioch and Constantinople, was the most celebrated orator of his day, and the liturgy he wrote is still used by the Orthodox Church. He praised married love in terms that scandalized his congregation (and would make many blush even today):
"How do husband and wife become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and returned as a child. But suppose there is no child; do they then remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment."
First and foremost, Chrysostom says, sex is about unifying love. In another sermon, he explicitly rejects the view that the sole (or even main) reason for marriage and sex is procreation:
"These are the two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste, and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. . . . Marriage does not always lead to childbearing, although there is the word of the Lord which says ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’ We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind."
As Chrysostom makes clear elsewhere, "chastity" doesn’t mean sexual abstinence—it means husbands and wives cultivating a passionate love for each other. Reading Chrysostom restored some of my faith in the early church. Still, he seemed outnumbered—a lone beacon of light in a sea of negativity.
Councils & Celibacy
Then I wondered whether I was putting too much stock in the church fathers. After all, the mind of the early church can’t be reduced to the writings of a handful of theologians. As important as they were in defining dogma, their opinions on marriage were just that—opinions. With that in mind, I started searching for statements from church-wide councils.
When the bishops of the early church met and prayed together, I learned, they often defended marriage and sexuality in the strongest terms. The Council of Gangra (325-381) resolved, "If anyone shall condemn marriage, let him be anathema" and "If anyone of those who are living a virgin life for the Lord’s sake should treat the married arrogantly, let him be anathema." (Take that, Jerome.)
During the first ecumenical council at Nicea, a motion was raised for mandatory celibacy among the clergy. But St. Pophanatrus—himself a celibate monk—objected, saying that "marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled," and his words carried the day.
The motion for celibacy at Nicea was proposed by Western bishops, and the celibate priesthood soon became a rule in the West. But in the East, the Greek council of Trullo (692) reaffirmed the earlier tradition:
We know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman church that those who are deemed worthy of the diaconate of priesthood should promise no longer to live with their wives; but we, preserving the ancient and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse.
The council fathers went on to say that forcing married priests to separate from their wives is an injury to marriage, which was "instituted by God and blessed by his presence." Sex within marriage, they said, is pure. It doesn’t disqualify priests from ministering the sacraments. The Council at Trullo concluded: "If anyone dares, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed."
At least a major portion of the early church—not just John Chrysostom—had a fairly healthy handle on sex. My depression was lifting.
Liturgies of Love
The last place I thought to look for the early church’s view of sex and marriage was perhaps the most obvious: wedding liturgies. When reading the negative things certain fathers said about sex, it’s easy to forget that the early church blessed marriage as a sacrament—and sex, becoming one flesh, is what defines marriage).
The oldest wedding liturgies (Byzantine, Egyptian, and Syrian) bless lovemaking without blush or hesitation, even calling for angels to watch over the marriage bed. There are many prayers for fruitfulness, but children are seen as a gift bestowed by God, not a justification for this messy business of marriage and sex.
Even the Western marriage liturgies (Roman Catholic and Anglican), which were developed later, never suggest that non-procreative sex is sinful. Though they include the formula that marriage was instituted "first for the procreation of children," they balance it with two further biblical reasons for marriage—companionship and chastity.
Sacred Sex
My experiences over the last five years have helped qualify my love of tradition. Tradition can be a valuable guide—when it doesn’t conflict with the obvious meaning of the Bible and the experiences of ordinary Christian couples.
Yes, individual church fathers left a lot to be desired when it comes to sex. No, the early church wasn’t perfect. But the early church as a whole—especially in the East—left us a firm foundation for a beautiful, biblical theology of sex and marriage.
When Bethany and I were married using the original Anglican prayer book service, we recited these centuries-old words: "With this ring I thee wed; with my body I thee worship." Is there any more beautiful description of sacred sex? That’s the mystery of sacramental marriage: by loving and delighting in each other, spouses worship God.
Sam Torode is coauthor with his wife, Bethany, of Aflame: Ancient Wisdom on Marriage (Eerdmans, 2005), which grew out of the journey described in this article.
AMDG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
