Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Home Page
The Rector's Welcome
Worship
Sermons
Music & the Organ
Newsletter
Schedule & Events
History
Programs & Ministries
Tour the Building
Links
Map & Directions
Monthly Calendar
Fr. J. D. Ousley
15 January 2006ICor6/Jn.1“Fornication Reconsidered”
In the Name of God: Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Amen.
Let me begin with some remarks about the title of this sermon.
While the title is "Fornication Reconsidered," I must honestly say that I believe this is the first time I have ever preached on the topic of sex outside of marriage.
But I have put "reconsidered" in the title because I'm talking about a passage from today's Second Lesson, and so I am reconsidering a traditional teaching that has often been repeated in the centuries since it was first written. In the Lesson, St. Paul is addressing the Christians who live in the Greek city of Corinth; he says that these Christians should, among other things, "Shun fornication!"
As so often, Paul doesn't mince words! And because Paul's teaching seems so clear-cut, it has been generally accepted for much of the Church's history. No sex outside of marriage — end of story!
Yet this maxim that all Christians in all circumstances should "shun fornication" seems to me in need of some further thought. In fact, the culture we live in has already reconsidered this moral teaching, our culture seems to allow a good deal of sex outside of marriage without raising an eyebrow.
Granted, many Evangelical churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church continue to adhere publicly to the traditional line that fornication is in all cases to be avoided. I imagine clergy in those churches can look in their files and find numerous sermons on the topic.
But most of the mainline Protestant churches in this country seem to have modified traditional morality going along with the view of our secular culture.
For example, our clergy frequently officiate at the marriages of couples who have been living together. And I suspect that our clergy would refrain from condemning two middle-aged, divorced people who decided to brighten their lives with what is euphemistically called, a "relationship."
And even traditionalist Christians would have to admit that the world has changed since Paul pronounced his view of Christian morality. People today get married in their twenties or thirties — much later than they did in the time of St. Paul. (Christ's mother, Mary, may have been only 13 or 14 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph.) So people have trouble waiting to begin relationships until they get married. That's a fact of life in our contemporary culture.
Even so, I don't know that we Episcopalians can be completely comfortable with this "reality" argument to justify loosening up traditional Christian teaching.
For the new morality has some worrisome consequences of its own. Thus, while teenage experimentation with sex may be common these days, the most tolerant observer would have to admit that this experimentation often makes the participants unhappy. Sometimes, when there is teen-age pregnancy or abortion or date rape, lasting traumas can result.
Indeed, clergy themselves may have been victims of the decline of traditional standards. The terrible scandals in the Roman Catholic church involving pedophile priests may have been made possible in some measure by what sociologists call the "sexualization" of our culture. Because sex is constantly being portrayed in the media, those with predatory urges may have more trouble keeping those urges in check.
So maybe St. Paul's admonition to "Shun fornication!" isn't totally out-of-date. Can those who ignore Paul's warning be sure of a healthy and satisfying approach to human desires?
And what do we as Christians have to contribute to debates about sex outside of marriage?
Here, for what it's worth, is one way I would propose to explain why moral conflict arises and what we might do about it. In this debate, it seems to me, we are trying to hold onto two propositions that contradict each other.
The first proposition is: "we are not our bodies." This is something of a modern view, reflecting the notion that our inner life is what's really us. But It also reflects a view in Christian thought that our real essence as persons resides in our inner self.
Now, if "we" are distinct from our bodies, that seems to imply that "we" aren't much affected by the sexual activity in which our bodies participate. "We" our inner selves apart from our bodies are thus free from strict moral codes. (It's interesting that historically this view has not only been held by free-thinkers and other skeptics but also by members of Christian groups such as Gnostics who believed that they could hold themselves spiritually above anything that might do with their bodies.)
But we also in other ways tend to believe in a contradictory idea. This second proposition says that "We are our bodies."
We are embodied. We can experience the truth of this proposition when our outward behavior affects our inner life, when we mentally profit from good sleep habits, and from exercise, and from such practices as yoga.
It's also interesting to note that this proposition that we are essentially embodied would have been endorsed by St. Paul and by many proponents of traditional Christian morality!
In fact, Paul says in the same lesson we heard earlier that the body is "a temple of the Holy Spirit." Because the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit is a gift from God, Paul says: "... you are not your own ... For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body."
Yet while there seems to be truth in both propositions, they point in opposite directions.
The first proposition reflects the freedom modern people find, the freedom of our inner life.
So Archbishop of Canterbury's diplomat, Terry Waite had an inner life which allowed him to survive years of physical captivity in Lebanon. While he was physically confined, he was still free inwardly to think and to pray — and by thinking and praying, he survived.
Thus the notion that our bodies are temples of the soul can be an exaggeration. Even if embodiment is necessary for persons and we will therefore, as St. Paul taught, have bodies in heaven — bodies we will eventually have will be, as Paul says, "spiritual" bodies, and these bodies will be utterly different from the physical ones we have now.
In other words, our bodies are necessary for life on earth; they are easily misused and abused, but they're not as important as our souls.
Jesus said, "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." That's the right perspective. Worry about the faithfulness of your soul; worry about the generosity of your soul. But also worry about the discipline of your soul because wild behavior can be a sign that control of who you are is slipping away and you're no longer master of your own self.
To me at least, sitting very much on the sidelines of this issue as a married clergyman, but hearing all kinds of sad stories in counseling — to me, at least, that's usually the spiritual issue behind the moral questions. Control.
If people don't have control of their own bodies, they will likely have trouble with their souls — which are even harder to manage!
Finally, mention of "control" should remind us that moral issues are relative in another way. Because we human beings never really have control over ourselves. Because we human beings always need a "higher power" in our lives.
That's the meaning of Paul's reminder to the early Christians that they "were bought with a price." Bought with the sacrifice of Christ's own body, and therefore members of the resurrection community known as "the Body of Christ."
When we remember that, moral issues fall into perspective. We recognize the importance of Christian ethics in helping us to fathom the mystery of being human. And whatever our personal moral standards, we remember that we were bought with a price.
And now unto that same God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be ascribed as is most justly due all might, majesty, power, dominion and praise, now and forever, Amen.