Monday, January 08, 2007

Sexuality, textuality, and contextuality

Exegesis ordinarily involves such elements as determining the import of the original words, both generally and within a particular sentence, the sociohistorical setting of the author and audience, the genre of the document, the flow of the argument or narrative strategy, its literary allusions, and so on.

One of the problems with the debate over a text like Mt 5:28 is that precious little of discussion has anything to do with exegesis in the usual sense.

Take a word like “lust.” The debate isn’t settled by consulting a lexicon. Indeed, you’ll notice that none of the commenters on this thread has referenced a Greek lexicon.

Instead, the modern reader is apt to simply and instantly access his own experience and masculine (or feminine) psychology. That, for him, supplies the meaning. His experience is the lexicon. He then signs the name of Christ beneath his self-projection.

The problem is that a text like Mt 5:28 deals with the subject of sexual temptation, and temptation is a psychological phenomenon. Yet the text doesn’t *describe* the psychology of temptation.

So it’s easy to turn the text into a blank slate on which we simply inscribe our own experience. Our own affections and passions.

For example, our emotional and psychological reaction to the opposite sex can range along a continuum of intensity—from sex appeal or sexual attraction to sexual longing or carnal desire to sexual arousal or sexual fantasizing.

At what point does a natural, sexual impulse cross the line into sin? The text itself doesn’t necessarily draw these emotional or psychological distinctions.

Even at the stronger end of the spectrum, there are further distinctions. Honestly now, what teenage boy hasn’t fantasized about his favorite movie star?

But sexual fantasizes are not equally explicit. He may merely daydream about dating his favorite movie star. Picking her up in his sports care. His sports care is part of the fantasy, too. Taking her to the prom—like a prince and princess. Savoring the envious reaction of the other students—who are suddenly outclassed at his triumphal entrance.

Not every romantic fantasy is sexual. And where, again, do we draw the line? If a boy imagines dancing with her, is that immoral? What about a goodnight kiss?

This reminds me of the old fundamentalist ban on movie-going or ballroom dancing. Is it immoral to watch a classic Hollywood musical like Top Hat, An American in Paris, or The King and I?

What about pair skating or ice dancing? Is that immoral? Either to do or to watch?

When we get on the subject of sex, the tendency of the reader is to throw exegesis out the window and automatically assume that we know exactly what the text is referring to, when—in fact—our interpretation is a classic case of mirror-reading.

Too many of the commenters sound as if they’re Amish. Is that their ideal?

We need to make a conscious and conscientious effort to stand back a few paces, putting some distance between what the text really says or leaves unsaid, and what we are filling in with our own, ample imagination. This tinted lens of what we’ve felt or seen or done can overpower the text, and color it with refractive shades and hues that impinge and rebound on the text, rather than allowing ourselves to see or hear what is actually stated or implied in the wording or setting or literary allusions.

10 comments:

  1. Preach it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. And the people said:

    "AMEN BROTHER STEVE!!! GLORY!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This reminds me of the old fundamentalist ban on movie-going or ballroom dancing. Is it immoral to watch a classic Hollywood musical like Top Hat, An American in Paris, or The King and I?

    What about pair skating or ice dancing? Is that immoral? Either to do or to watch?"

    This is a good point, and one that sort of criss-crosses with this issue. I remember hearing a fundamentalist saying that Christians shouldn't watch popular movies, listen to secular music, etc., because these things "don't glorify God". And yet, such things aren't expressly forbidden either, so it can be a tricky to determine a proper response to a complaint like that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mathetes said:
    ---
    I remember hearing a fundamentalist saying that Christians shouldn't watch popular movies, listen to secular music, etc., because these things "don't glorify God".
    ---

    I like how the fundamentalist gets to decide what glorifies God and what doesn't on issues that God hasn't said anything about.

    Of course, such a naive statement by the fundamentalist is also counteracted by the fact that God works all things for good, and therefore all things will, in the end, glorify Him too (even the damned in Hell will do so). So his standard is unworkable.

    I do have to agree with Steve that on issues such as this one, many Christians have a knee-jerk traditional response to the text without ever having thought about it in context. We assume because "that's the way it's always been taught." But such a view is dangerous not only because it can lead to a false piety on the part of the believer, but also because it can lead to false condemnation of something God doesn't consider immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah,

    It reminds me of what's called the "house rules", like "don't smoke drink or chew or go with girls that do"! The thing is, these churches usually boost these legalisms over the revealed moral law found in scripture or ignore it all together.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is a bit of a different subject, but what is everyone's opinions of listening to secular music? I know that secular art is broader than music, but music is particularly relevant to me because I enjoy it and I am exposed to a lot of it. When I was a fundamentalist in high school and in my first year or two in college, I refused to listen to any music other than contemporary christian music or some kind of traditional or southern gospel music because I thought it was wrong to listen to secular music. I am obviously of a different opinion now, but I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Craig wrote:
    ---
    This is a bit of a different subject, but what is everyone's opinions of listening to secular music?
    ---

    Firstly, I would ask you to define the term "secular music." :-)

    Is secular music music made by secular people? Or can Christians make secular music too (e.g. music that doesn't have "Christian" lyrics)? How does one decide when dealing with music that has no lyrics, such as classical music? Is Mozart secular, but Bach sacred? Where do we draw the line there?

    Of course, ultimately I must ask, since the secular artist must presuppose the existence of God in order to do anything in the first place, is there even such a thing as any actual "secular" music? The secular artist glorifies God despite his intention.

    All these questions demonstrate that the fundamentalist ban on "secular music", as it is commonly expressed, isn't very coherent as it lacks necessary definitions to begin with.

    On the other hand, we are not left in a state of anarchy without any guidelines whatsoever. For instance, if a piece of music causes you to sin, then you ought not listen to it. However, you ought to still examine yourself to see if the music is really the cause of the sin. After all, you might have a personal problem that causes you to sin when faced with a perfectly benign, non-sinful artistic format.

    Anyway, I might have more thoughts on that later, but for now I must run.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good one, Calvindude. ;)

    Let's analyze a random example. When is it wrong (or is it wrong) for a Christian to listen to a non-Christian band such as, say, Rage Against the Machine? Or a more popular example, Metallica?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Craig Sowder said:
    This is a bit of a different subject, but what is everyone's opinions of listening to secular music? I know that secular art is broader than music, but music is particularly relevant to me because I enjoy it and I am exposed to a lot of it. When I was a fundamentalist in high school and in my first year or two in college, I refused to listen to any music other than contemporary christian music or some kind of traditional or southern gospel music because I thought it was wrong to listen to secular music. I am obviously of a different opinion now, but I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.

    *****************************************

    1. I'd distinguish between good music and bad, not between secular and profane.

    2. I'd distinguish between music which exemplifies common grace values, even if it isn't consciously Christian, and music which is self-consciously anti-Christian.

    3. I'd also extend the sacred to include the celebration of natural goods generally, as they come from the hand of the Creator of all.

    4. There is also music which bears witness to sin and well as grace.

    Here we need to exercise discretion, but sin is real, and there's nothing inherently wrong with art that documents the reality of our fallen condition, whether as believers or unbelievers.

    ReplyDelete