When pastoral gets tricky: Matthew 5.27 - a state of mind?

Having taken the first bite of this cherry I reckon we need to start with the biggest sex organ of all: the brain; for this seems to be, when it comes to matters sexual, the common denominator for ALL areas of concern!

One area I consistently find sexual sin rising from the waves of self-despair and imposted condemnation (if many of those I am engaged by are anything to go on) relates to Matthew chapter five and verses twenty-seven and twenty-eight:

'You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'

One of those who brought this to me came and told me that he had read a website where he had been informed that because he fantasised about a person when engaged in a solo sex act (SSA - nicer than the 'M' word methinks if only because it stops people from sniggering: Mind you the "W' word appears to cause less of a snigger and more offence, so my label of SSA is a more gentle path to labelling the act, innit?) that he was committing adultery and was destined to go directly to hell without even passing 'Go!'

So what pieces of the puzzle do we have on the board:

Adultery - the seventh commandment (Ex 20.14)

Lust - the act of looking upon something with a view to desiring it, or wanting to make it ours, that trumps the plain old coveting of the tenth commandment (ex 20.17). More than just wanting what someone else has: It has a sexual possessive air about it. After all I might covet your fast car but I wouldn't lust after it (unless we'd like to redefine autoeroticism that is!)

I recall a lecture where we were told that what this what this passage really meant contextually was to act in such a way as to get the focus of that lust to lust after them in return. I have seen this where one man has so engaged with a woman that the result was to 'make her fall in love with him and leave her marriage partner and family for him.

Covet is a possessive but lust is possessive that seeks to break bonds and attachments (often it breaks covenanta) to make what they want their own: Oddly those who lust after people often become serial sexual offenders and beget in those they have won over, and subsequently discarded, the same mindset too! It is a cancer that kills stable society and familial relations!

_______________________________________

Now Jesus engages in some really joined up thinking here and brings forth some extremely smart comparisons as He seeks to address the people before Him using adultery as the focus.

Can you imagine it? I can:

'Stand up all those who have never committed adultery,' says Jesus; and up stands all the self-righteous who look down upon the self-acknowledged sinners and sneer.

'Now if you have never lusted after someone sexually, keep standing,' Jesus continues, 'Otherwise sit down with the adulterers!'

'Yeah, so much for the looking down your noses at us, you're just the same as us sinners after all!' cry those already sitting!

Jesus is telling people that before the action is taken there has to be some thought process. This is why, if we follow on with the next couple of verses, that we find Jesus calling us to regard the eye, for this is what sees the object of our potential lust and the hand, which acts once the eye has seen it. Jesus is taking the absolute limit of penalty when He talks about cutting off the dodgy members. He's saying, 'Before you get to the 'chop it off' point, how's about you stop, think, and stop doing it?'

____________________________________

 Let's let Him have the microphone shall we?

'If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.'

The parallel verses of Matthew eighteen adds 'foot' to the mix:

'If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.'

And in the parallel passage (we use the shorthand  // to show it's a parallel - just thought I'd mention it) that is Mark 9. 43-47, we find:

'And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,'

What we have here is Jesus telling people to have some understanding of the elements involved in sin, and here we mean 'lust' in particular, but 'sin' is what we are concerned with and here we develop something quite universal.

Sin comes into being because we 'see' something and then 'move' towards that something so that we might 'touch' it (or have it touch us). Jesus is doing more than just laying down the law; He is trying to get us to think about things!!!

___________________________________

Now if you are not married and you lust after a woman who is not married you are not, under my categories yesterday, committing adultery. How can you be, neither of you are married to another and so the breaking of the covenantal relationship that is part of adultery is missing.

There is potential for someone to be a fornicator here but as they're not having a sexual relationship the label fornicator might also be considered to be wrong too. But Jesus is telling us that doing the act and thinking about the act are one and the same thing so can we make that decision to keep wrong as being limited to the 'act' rather than include the 'thought'?

When I was a Pentecostal there were many pastors around me who would complain about, 'The jolly idiot in the car ahead!'

They would come and sadly tell me that, 'The jolly computer was broken!'

One day I turned to one of them, a really smug and self-satisfied, pious individual, and asked them why the hadn't said that, 'The f***ing computer was broken,' or look at the 'B**tard idiot in the car ahead!'

Their (shocked) response was, 'Oh, but I would never say that, I never swear!'

But of course they did, they just swore in their head and published jolly for public consumption to make them look like they were 'holy'!  Do you, or someone you know, do that I wonder?

__________________________________________

So here is the bottom line: If you think about committing a sin then potentially you are only a short step away from committing it. But if upon reaching that place you decide to distance yourself from an action that would be sin, and to consider Paul's words from Romans 12.2:

'Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

So here's the bottom line with this one:

If you lust after someone, that, like coveting is wrong: It has to be because that's what the Bible says.

If you engage in SSA then you engage in SSA - just like so many people I have encountered - that's obvious really!

BUT if doing that damages a covenant relationship between you and another person then it is wrong.

If it leads you into looking at images or imagining situations that are wrong; if it leads you down a path where thoughts are beginning to lead you to committing stuff. If it is so controlling of you and your thought life and your actions that it is, like most sin, not a release but something that binds you in chains and debilitates you: Stop it.

If it takes your eyes of of the cross and leads you away into places, practices and thoughts that damage others: Stop it.

We are all, generally speaking, sexual people. We have needs and urges and stuff. But if in fulfilling them we damage others, damage relationships or cause ourselves to become someone we would not wish to associate with were it someone else: The wake up and remedy it.

If you believe the idiots out there who tell you that creating an imaginary focus for your sexual releases, don't give them any credence: They are as wrong about that as they are about this 'sexual sin' condemning you immediately to hell!  

Some tips: 

If you find a site which is ready to condemn you to hell at the drop of a hat  - IGNORE it!

If you find a site which is more focussed on sexual sin than it is about being a disciple, assume they have a bigger problem than you with sex, and IGNORE them!

If you are more concerned with hell (and not going there) than you are about being a follower of Jesus, the Christ, then get yourself into a proper fellowship and get yourself in the company of true believers - PICK UP YOUR BIBLE and READ IT, PRAY IT, LIVE IT!

If you struggle with sex and sin and stuff: Join the club, everyone has something they struggle with! Join a church and get yourself sorted by being with people who will love you and care for you and correct you gently. (That;s the Bible way of doing stuff!)

Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good

The answer is probably, 'Quite a bit, but what for this time?'

And the answer is that on a day when Rolf Harris is found guilty of sexual offences against girls it appears that others are coming forward to add to the allegations as Harris, like Savile, crashes and burns and, quite rightly, is brought down.

But what confuses me is a conversation on a radio programme where an 'expert' from some group was talking about the fact that compensation was the key to many of those abused 'finding their healing' - a comment that stopped me in my tracks and brought my full attention to what was being said (it was almost background noise until then).

The speaker continued along the lines that it was act of stripping the abuser of their money and possessions and possessing what had been theirs that brought 'healing' for many. It's not just about justice, it's about 'getting your own back'.

A small voice in the back of my mind reminded me of Romans 12 (17-end):

'Never pay back evil with more evil. 
Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honourable. 
Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.

Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. 
For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the LORD. 

Instead, 
If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. 
In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.

Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good.'

Years back I encountered many who had been abused (and a few who had been abusers) and saw them come to a place of wholeness and healing through the power of God's love. What I saw during that period was that those who sought revenge and harboured bitterness, malice and a desire to inflict pain were brought down by various afflictions in body, mind and spirit. Those who found a place of forgiveness and peace within themselves were the complete opposite, they flourished and grew. Not theory but true, empirical, evidence of the mechanisms that bring healing.

I guess what we are seeing is the fruits of our emerging post-Christian society. A society where (Micah 6) justice and mercy are put aside for revenge and malice (but don't think these two awful traits are not found in Christians or that I'm knocking those who are not Christian. I could take you to the homes of many in the town I inhabit who have these traits sharpened, honed and perfected ;-(  ).

Once more it all comes down to the fact that we always have a choice in the way that we think and behave.

Thought for the Day: ruined? It's your choice!

I saw this and it made me think about the people I have engaged with this week. Those who have allowed people to take the shine off of what otherwise can only be regarded as a great life.

So the choice is yours - people only spoil things if you let them:

Collars? Something to get hot under!

A friend wrote, 'I'm always amazed at how often people get 'hot under the collar' about this issue,' and they were right because I had a few comments* that fit that description, and many that didn't.

Anon writes, 'There are times when I choose to wear my collar and times when I have to wear my collar but generally I don't because I don't want to be labelled or pidgeon holed by people around me because of the job I do. I think you've got it all wrong with what you have said and feel quite attacked and angry by it.'

I think that we all have times when we choose not to wear our collars, that said I find that I probably wear it more than I don't these days because I think the 'Taxi' analogy is valid and so feel that when I'm out with it on am fair game to be stopped and engaged with. The fact that I am stopped and engaged with so much seems to confirm this thinking. But we have, and make, our own choices and unless it says 'don't do it' in the big Black Book (BBB), all are valid.

I wasn't trying to pour burning oil on people's heads, but was merely trying to get some of those I engage with on the journey of exploration of vocations to think about the role being more that just a job and to explain that there are a number of factors (which I listed in the original post) that we need to consider across a number of areas - and the piece of plastic that adorns our necks is just one of them.

Many of those who don't generally wear collars have told me that they wear them when it's appropriate, by which they mean occasional offices, but otherwise they are to be found in the study. Again, this isn't an issue, I wasn't saying you must, or you should, but I was saying what I thought and how this relates to me. Mind you, I have wondered since the 'only  appropriate' comment which places might be deemed to be inappropriate and my weird mind has had a bit of field day - but I'll spare you that.

A few have told me that the collar doesn't work these days, the pick of the crop being:

'In this day and age, the wearing of the clerical collar is outdated and outmoded. To wear it is to invite being ignored and avoided: So I don't and make relationships as me and wait for them to ask about the God side and if they don't then I've won a friend even if not a parishioner.'

And to be honest, I was disturbed by this because as nice as it is to make friends, I was under the perhaps deluded idea that I was to make family; to make disciples who understood and lived in the ways that God, through the Cross, required us to live. It's a bit like the people I met who 'want to be friends, not parents' with their children. Just as I am a parent first and hopefully a friend later, the same is true with the priestly role.

I have many friend who being into New Wine (like me) wear the alternative clerical outfit of check shirt (open-necked), brown shoes, hornrimmed glasses and flannels or cords and have the view that clerical garb of any form is outmoded, popish and to quote one, 'So yesterday!' The problem is that much of the negativity they perceive towards them and their message is towards them and their message rather than the kit they wear. That said, one chap said that by not wearing anything that said 'Vicar' they found they could get closer to people before they rejected them - which I really like!

I think the same applies to wearing of cassock albs and the like during the services. When I started where I am now I decided that I wouldn't wear 'tat' during the service for the first few weeks and see where the congregation wanted to go. I wore a clerical shirt and black trousers and shoes but that was it, opting for cassock alb on feast days, festivals and holidays. After a couple of months I asked the congregation what they wanted and how they felt about the way we did our services and as a response altered what I did. Now I wear the clerical shirt rig until we reach the Eucharist and then, coming as President from the people, I put on the cassock alb and preside. After the Eucharist I take it off again and return to the people - seems to fit what I see as the NT way.

Now I don't expect everyone to like what I do, but it works and seems to fit the bill. This is the same for clerical collars - at the end of the day we do what we do and whilst we may get it wrong at times, that's our prerogative.

So please don't read what I'm writing as a criticism or putdown (unless it is - and you will know when that happens) because it;s not - it's me taking stuff from my brain and putting it somewhere where I, and others, might dialogue with it.

All comments are welcome and for any I may have inadvertently offended - apologies.

Pax










*I am amazed that Blogger appears to be such a tough  place to leave comments - many write to me because they cant successfully leave a comment - something that needs fixing methinks :-)