“There is a stark difference between morality and moralism. The problem we face in the conservative church can be seen in treatments of subjects like this one . . . “What about the children?” Let us consider the question this way: Is the book of Leviticus PG-13? Is the Song of Solomon an R? What preconditions had to be fulfilled in order for Christians to start worrying about whether Bible passages were a good influence on their children? Furthermore, do they think that external protection will result in internal innocence? It’s true that the world does not hesitate to bombard your children with lascivious thoughts, images, commercials, and suggestions, but if you successfully hide in the woods for twenty years during their upbringing, their great grandfather Adam will successfully bombard them with all the same things from within. We are called to sexual discipleship, not sexual neutrality, fear, or diffidence . . . We have every right to expect the church to be a moral place; we should shudder at the prospect of it becoming a moralistic place” (For a Glory and a Covering, pp. 144-145).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
So very true. If external protection resulted in internal innocence, one might have expected monasteries and convents to have been the morally purest places on earth. One need read only Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales or Boccaccio’s The Decameron, with their tales of libidinous priests and pregnant nuns, to realize how untrue that notion was recognized to be even centuries ago.
But much of the material in S of S and Leviticus is by euphemism and allegory. Modern preachers love translating this into the literal version, which the Holy Spirit did not see fit to do. (Not to mention, do they get the “translation” right?) Modern preachers are just like modern stage directors, for whom Verdi’s closing bedchamber door is not good enough: they must put the Duke and Gilda into a bed, stage center, complete with creaking springs and groaning.
If the Bible were a film, uncut and uncensored, it would probably be NC-17. Genesis has naked people wandering about, the murder of family members and implied incest (where did the girls come from if Adam and Eve had only sons?). Then you have rampant genocide and slaughter of even pregnant women and infants, the impregnating of two girls by their drunk father (Lot) and the brutal stoning deaths of “undesirables” (such as men who gather wood on the wrong day of the week). Have you ever seen a stoning? Here’s how they do it in the enlightened world… Read more »
James, one might say the same about every life, including yours. If your life was presented uncensored and uncut, every thought and intention revealed as well as every action, would you escape NC-17? Might your current friends not walk out early, shaking their heads, saying “Sad. I thought I knew him!”
James, are you operating on the premise that there’s something wrong with portraying human behavior as it commonly happens? Or that someone here is trying to make you believe that nothing the Bible talks about is outwardly wicked? Or what, exactly, is it that you’re trying to say?
BTW, James seems to be suffering from the common malady also affecting Hollywood that says that in order to portray behavior in its full ugliness, it has to be portrayed in its full graphic detail. One can make it quite clear that people acted in all the ugly ways he describes, and still keep it in PG-13. Just like one can pick up the paper and learn about a horrible crime in a way that accurately portrays the evil of it, without having to see pictures and an exhaustively graphic description of the physical acts and effects of the crime.… Read more »
“There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, with the women, the little ones, and the strangers who were living among them.” ~Joshua 8:35 NKJV