Well, I’m back in town and the honeymoon was fantastic. It’s going to take me a few days to get my bearings, then I’ll be writing again.
In the meantime, I recommend Kyle Butt’s latest article over at Apologetics Press: God Always Thinks Ahead. It’s a short (and sweet) read.
I recently published an essay in response to Jeff Sharlet’s article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young & The Sexless. Within a few days I had a response from one of the girls in the article (Anna) and Jeff Sharlet himself. The discourse that took place in the comment section turned out to be more interesting than the essay itself.
Jeff took issue with a number of things I said, including his and Rolling Stone’s motivation in publishing the article. I know that Sharlet isn’t associated with Rolling Stone, so I probably shouldn’t have lumped them together as I did; however, the issue remains that Rolling Stone has no interest in featuring Christianity as a positive cultural influence. It would simply be working against the identity they’ve developed from the start.
Sharlet questions my “scripture history”, though, and I thought his statements deserved a response beyond the comment section. I know that Jeff isn’t really one to debate, but I also know that he will, so his responses to my criticism are certainly welcome. Here’s what he said:
Your scripture history — oy. First, Christ didn’t “say” anything in Matthew — Matthew wrote that Gospel well after Christ died. Secondly, nobody started practicing chastity because Christ said so — Jews already practiced chastity, at least in theory. Love Christ all you want, but he didn’t invent chastity. Finally, all historical evidence points to the contrary of your assertion. A few early communities of followers of Christ (remember, they weren’t “Christians” until later) did start practicing radical chastity as an interpretation of Christ’s, and Paul’s, message — so radical, in fact, that they left their families. As the historian Peter Brown — acknowledged by believing and non-believing biblical scholars as the authority on this subject — points out, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was designed to DISCOURAGE such radical chastity, on the grounds that it was upsetting the social order.
Thereafter, chastity became a fairly minor part of the Christian program for several centuries. Very few Christians would have practiced it, even before marriage. There have been revivals of such morality, but they’ve been brief. Take the most famous American examples, the Puritans and the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. During both periods, out of wedlock birth rates were anywhere from 10 to 20%. And those are just the pregnancies.
I’m not arguing against chastity — not here, anyway — but rather, the self-righteous assumption that most Christians really practice it.
My first impression when reading this was “this guy is regurgitating things he has been told about the Bible by someone else who had been told something about the Bible. It certainly doesn’t come across as someone who has taken a look inside for himself.
First of all, you’re right on something; Matthew recorded what Christ said in his gospel. I never explicitly said that Christ “invented” chastity; in fact, I specifically said he was reiterating the place for sex as it was set forth “from the beginning” (Matthew 19; Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 22). If we go with an strict interpretation of the scriptures, John 1 explains that Christ was integral from the very beginning. So I suppose you’re wrong; Christ did invent chastity.
Secondly, you say that “all historical evidence points to the contrary of [my] assertion”, yet you provide no such evidence. What evidence do you reference when asserting that followers of Christ weren’t called “Christians” until later? Luke records in Acts 11:26 that “…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” This is well within the first century AD. This is really beside the point, though.
Chastity was not new to Christians, nor did it become increasingly “radical” as you purport. We know that the Mosaic law forbade any form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage (this includes heterosexual, homosexual and even bestial) [See Deuteronomy 22 and following]. These concepts are simply restated in the New Testament, and logically this resulted in adherence, not a “radical interpretation.” In fact, there never has been much room for interpretation. Luke writes to abstain from fornication (Acts 15:29; 21:25), and Paul is clear on the subject (Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18), emphasizing that young virgins should marry to avoid it (1 Corinthians 7:2). See also Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4 and Revelation 2:20-22.
Peter Brown may be respected, but I know of nothing more authoritative than the text itself.
Jeff, your claim that chastity became a “minor part of the Christian program” is hard to believe, not only because you provide no evidence. Christians (being humans, after all) have fallen short of purity on a variety of moral issues (see Romans 3:23). However, I challenge you to provide any historical verification that chastity was ever downplayed by the church. That just doesn’t jive.
Consider this:
The Apostolic Fathers: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd Century, AD) all quoted Christ and the Apostles, and reiterated with statements of their own, exhorting readers to abstain from fleshly lusts, particularly fornication and adultery. Theophilus doesn’t make it sound “fairly minor”, in my opinion:
And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man’s wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: ‘Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet.’ And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ ‘And he that marrieth,’ says [the Gospel], ‘her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.’ Because Solomon says: ‘Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.’” (Chapter XIII, of Chastity)
Or, St. Augustine (AD 397):
The mists of passion steamed up out of the puddly concupiscence of the flesh, and the hot imagination of puberty, and they so obscured and overcast my heart that I was unable to distinguish pure affection from unholy desire.
…If only there had been someone to regulate my disorder and turn to my profit the fleeting beauties of the things around me, and to fix a bound to their sweetness, so that the tides of my youth might have spent themselves upon the shore of marriage!” (Confessions, Book II.ii)
…and so on for centuries, yes, until now.
I urge you to provide the “historical evidence” for any of the claims you’ve made. Please, for if I am wrong, am I ready to admit it. I am particularly interested in seeing some evidence (from you, or Peter Brown) that Paul was discouraging sexual purity in any way. I have a feeling Timothy understood Paul differently.
