Ask the Monk

You know you need a nap when talking to the girl at the grocery store distracts you so thoroughly that you try to leave with out paying. Yeah… that was a first. Okay, funny stories about sleep deprivation… go! 

I was editing my site and came across this old post I wrote

http://www.thebeautifulkind.com/2006/10/24/what-would-jesus-do/

What do you think about Jesus? What do you think about these lines from the bible? What’s your response?

 -The Beautiful Kind

Dear TBK,

That’s an impressive list of allegations (I guess that’s the right word). I’ll just warn you right off, some of my responses are going to be painfully academic, but I’ll keep it as spiritual as I can without doing the subject injustice.

For those what didn’t visit TBK’s site, the short version is that, using cannon scripture, TBK has put together a 15 point list of Jesus’ short-comings. Now, I’m going to take the defense by the numbers.

#1. (Relevant scripture: Luke 9:59-62) There are people who have actually interpreted this as a command to not bury their dead. This interpretation went out round about the same time as the Black Plague; odd timing, you think? What Jesus asks the two men in this passage is to take on a new life. By saying “Follow me,” Jesus was saying “come away and learn to imitate me. Be as much like me as possible.” Both these guys accepted but wanted to take care of one last thing before hand. They wanted to wrap up their old life before starting their new one. This story is about the transition between Believer and non-believer. To follow Christ must mean an immediate break from your old life. It’s harsh, but considering that Jesus, being God, was responsible for your very existence, it’s not all that unreasonable.

#2. (Luke 6:29b) TBK: “He’d tell you that if someone steals $5 from you, to give them $10. WTF?”

Not exactly, he’d tell you that if someone stole $5, don’t stop him from taking $10. Slight difference. Here’s how the logic works: everything a man has, including his skin and his job, God gave him or allowed him to have. So, and this mostly only applies to God’s followers, if someone steals $5 from you and you actually need that $5 for something, God will provide you with another $5. Therefore, it’s not worth fighting over. God does not want his people fighting in the private sector (cops and soldiers are different because governments are allowed to do some stuff private folk aren’t).

#3. (Luke 6:29a) Sort of. The “smiting on the cheek” thing was actually an ancient Hebrew insult. Sort of like flipping someone off, only way worse and much more to the point. This more about verbal than physical abuse.

#4. (John 2:1-4) I love this story. Water into wine, baby! Anyway… Jesus dissing his Mom. At this point in Jesus’ life, his Mom knows he can perform miracles, which is what she asks him to do. However, he hadn’t started his public ministry yet; timing is a big deal with Jesus. When he says “what have I to do with thee?” the Middle English translates better as “Why are you asking me to get involved?” Which he immediately follows with “My time has not come yet.” Read verse 5, Mary ignores him and tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them to. And what does Jesus do? He does what his Mom wanted him to do.

#5. (Matt. 15:21-28) This is another one of those timing things. Strictly speaking, the religion of the Jews was just for Jews until around 40 A.D. (Acts 10:9-16) There were Gentiles who got in well before that (most notably Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho, and Ruth, the Moabite, who are both great-grandmothers of Jesus), but for the most part, the Gentiles were SOL. This one woman, though, displayed the faith which made her one God’s children; because she was in the family, Jasus healed the daughter.

#6. Yep.

#7. “He’d be sexist. No woman was a disciple and no woman would sit at his table in heaven.”

When Jesus called his disciples it was a “drop what you’re doing and walk around Israel with me for three years.” In that culture, women couldn’t do that. If nothing else, there’s no way people would believe that Jesus wasn’t having sex with these women. There were times when they all slept under the stars, zero privacy. Female disciples would have ham-stringed Jesus’ ministry. It was the culture that was sexist, not Jesus. As for Jesus’ table in Heaven, I direct you to Revelations 19:6-8.

#8. Yep.

#9. (Matt. 17:17) Jesus told his disciples to go around healing people. However, because they doubted his power, they couldn’t heal this one guy. The night before this happened, the disciples saw Jesus “transfigured” and talking to Moses and Elijah. If any Jew wanted proof that Jesus was God’s son, that should’ve done it. So, if he’d done tons of signs and miracles in front of you and you still weren’t convinced; yes, he would get mad and yell at you.

#10. The way that Jesus lived was actually not unusual for a spiritual leader. Prophets had lived this way for centuries and many rabbis did the same. It was a well accepted cultural practice.

#11. (Matt. 21:19-22) This is an object lesson, Jesus was fond of them. The fig tree had leaves and should have been bearing fruit, but it didn’t. Jesus curses the tree then talks about faith. The leaves are like calling yourself a Christian and the fruit is like actually having faith in Christ. If you claim to be a Christian, but don’t actually believe, you get cursed like the fig tree. No posers!

#12. Jesus is God. Real life, created heaven and earth, all-knowing, all-powerful being, God. He decides to make himself human, albeit temporarily, and be subject to human rule so that he could save all humans from Hell. Which part of that doesn’t sound meek? And he had to tell us he was God or we wouldn’t have believed in him, or the salvation of the crucifixion. Jesus actually tried pretty hard to keep his whole lineage under wraps until the time was right (which not too long before he died).

#13. (John 7:2-14) Jesus wasn’t being devious, he just wasn’t telling everyone who he was. He didn’t deny who he was, just didn’t advertise it. Reason #1: the Jews were trying to kill him! He was keeping a low profile because it wasn’t the right time to be executed. Reason #2: He wanted to make a point about his teachings, check out John 7:16-30.

#14. Unfortunately, without specific instances of these traits, I can’t answer them. However, I have read the Gospels through multiple times and can’t think of any times those got exhibited.

#15. Yep.

Send your Jesus, faith and Christianity questions to askthemonkquestions @ gmail.com 

The standing philosophy, as any graduate of a Bible College knows, is that sex has no place at all in the life of the single Christian. The logic being that sex is a marital act and, therefore, has no place outside of a married relationship. Which works as long as all we’re talking about is intercourse. However, the contemporary thought, fearing the sin of lust, is to remove even sex in the abstract from the single’s life. This idea that purity equals naivete. The result of this approach is that Christians too often find themselves totally unprepared for sex when the proper time comes or (and I’m not entirely sure which is worse, for reasons I’ll explain) they are overcome with basic human curiosity and “jump the gun”.

I say I’m not sure which is worse because, in the first case, while there’s no sin in being even abjectly unprepared for your honeymoon, the fall-out is that these Christians bring an element of shame to their marriage bed which further silences them on the subject, damages the marriage (contributing to divorce rates), lends creedance to the belief that multiple partners is nessa to be good in bed (a stumbling block to many), reinforces the stereotype that good sex ends at marriage (yet another big stumbling block), and hamstrings a major part of our understanding of God. Yep. Insufficient sex ed is, in my belief, the #1 root of Christian divorces.

Our culture leaves little to the imagination, so the issue isn’t one of Tab-A-Slot-B. Because our world is saturated in the sweat of the heaving breasts that sell us everything from wonder-bras to web-hosting, a mechanical understanding of sex is not enough for the Christian. I’m talking about a philosophical education, here; attitudes, not anatomy. We are coming to bed with God’s rules and the world’s opinions. To illustrate…

Imagine you’re making dinner for a nine-year-old’s birthday. So, you take free-range, boneless, veinless, etc. chicken breast, wrap it with slices of corn-fed ham smoked and marinated to knee-weakening perfection, topped with a sauce of emmental cheese cultured in the heart of Berne, seasoned evenly with young basil and just a hint of cinnamon; and, on the side, a serving of perfectly ripened macintosh apple circles in an oh-so-lite cherry sauce. It’s a dinner that will (or ought to) make a grown man cry. You present the meal to our nine-year-old and his reply is “I wanted a Happy Meal.” A proper Happy Meal, mind you, none of this ‘healthy alternative’ nonsense. He wants that processed and colored chemical pancake old Ronald calls a hamburger with over-greased, under-salted french fries and a Coke (the devil’s drink). Remember being a kid and wanting Happy Meals? Remember why you wanted them? THE TOY! Culinary choices being made by factors that have no relation with the food itself!

Victoria’s Secret commercials have about as much to do with the real purpose of sex as a Hot Wheels car has with the flavor of your McNuggets. If God’s purpose for sex was a car, physical pleasure would be the doors (I’m picturing a Delorian, here, FYI) and procreation the trunk (hatch-back, if you’re Baptist). Given the current state of popular Christian sex ed, honeymooners are prepared to do little more than climb in the front seat, grab the steering wheel and yell “Vroom” (or whisper “zoom zoom” licentiously, their pick). After they’ve gone hoarse, they may discover there’s a key in the ignition, turn it and, if they are very lucky, teach themselves to drive without totaling their Delorian.

I’ve heard tales of male seminary students calling their mothers on their honeymoon, so ill-equipped were they. That’s not even the worst-case scenario. At least, that guy knew to seek guidance. The truth is that sex must be a part of the Christian single’s life if the Christian’s marriage is to reach maturity. Bad sex doesn’t guarantee divorce, even no sex doesn’t stamp that one. However, those first five years are make or break, statistically speaking. Five years of married sex is not enough to undo twenty years’ bad education. If Christians are to have marriage as God intended it, we have to walk across the threshhold with a redeemed view of sex in our arms.

A friend of mine sent me this note: “I am despaired when I look at Christians who have fallen into the trap completely and end up turning sexuality into taboo, or going the other way and becoming sexually indulgent in the wrong manner. And turning people off in a major way to Christianity. Well, you should write a subblog for Sex Monk “exploring” what it means to embrace the sensuality of our bodies more, as intended by God (I personally believe).” Which means I’m legally bound to do it. (Read that fine print on your blog hoster’s Terms of Service, people!)

Mystic Christianity has long been at odds with sensuality. Which is a lesser evil compared to Carnal Christianity, which has long been at odds with God. (There’s a simple test to determine which you’re practicing. Ask yourself “are you hoping you’ll go to Heaven because you’ve been a good person?” If you laugh, you’re a Mystic.)

The reason for the division is that any Christian who is honest with themselves about their appetites, knows that these natural impulses will lead to sin, if left to themselves. Our natural appetite for food leads us to glutton ourselves upon Chinese buffet; thirst can lead us to drunk-dialing crotchety neighbors; and libido to scanning pictures on the dodgier parts of Craigslist.org. (And, if you don’t believe in abstinence, those personals just scream STD.) Honest appraisals of these appetites, all of which are nessa to survival, has led believers across the world to believe seasonings are sinful, Christians should only drink water, and that the only pure reason to have sex is reproduction.

What I propose covers all of these, especially (and most interestingly) sex. Christians ought to be sensual people, revelers in sensory pleasure. Note that I say we should revel in pleasure, not the senses themselves. Anyone who has seen a nine-year-old go after a full Trick-or-treat bag should be able to see the difference pretty readily. Seriously, watch a little kid take on a candy bar; half the time, you wonder if they need to burp just to taste the thing. When we find a sensual pleasure (especially one that’s new to us), human nature is to go after said pleasure with a ravenousness that would make the bugblatter beat of Traal blush. That ravenous pursuit longs to exercise the sense, rather than revel in the pleasure as, I believe, God intended.

God made sheep tasty, not so that we’d eat them into extinction, but so that we’d savor eating them to the point that we are happy to spend our lives breeding and raising them to a maximum yum-factor. The Sensual Christian has an honest view of their appetites and controls those appetites, not by simply depriving them, but by making themselves work to preserve the pleasure. This could be through savoring, letting the flavor sit on your tongue until it is gone; or it could be through contemplation, lingering on the memory of how good that water tasted after an hour’s hiking in 80-degree heat.

Approaching sex as a connection between souls, rather than just a recreational activity, makes it fairly to see why withholding sex from one’s spouse is a definite ‘no-no’ in Christian thought. It’s a bit like locking your spouse outside without their keys. As a playful tease, it can be a lot of fun (i.e. playing hard to get); but as a tactic in an argument, it’s just mean. Humans wrap up a lot of emotions in being sexually desirable. People who have given up trying to be physically attractive have some pretty deep wounds. It’s tantamount to calling your wife fat or your husband a waste of life. Bullocks if it’s true or not, you just don’t say those things.

That’s my rapid fire stance on using sex as power in another strata. Now for he much more interesting discussion of using power within the sexual strata.

Many spiritual people shy away from the use of personal power in sex. There is an assumption of superiority, which carries ideals about respect, that don’t sync with their sexual paradigm. To these people, I say “lovely”. If it doesn’t get one of you off, there’s no point in bringing it to bed. However, there remains a contingent that find power use in sex (known as the Dom/Sub dynamic) intriguing to really, really hot. Many of these are conflicted because of how many other religious and spiritual people are uninterested or opposed to the Dom/Sub thing.

Let’s clarify some myths. Dom/Sub, Domination/Submission, is the adoption of a static power structure during sex, even if it’s just one session. And it can be just one session, or once a month/week, birthdays… whatever. The terms are kind of scary, yes, and conjure images of the rave scenes from the ‘Matrix’ movies. It dark and dirty and forbidden and there’s a lot of this ‘sin’ mythos surrounding it. In reality, that’s the extreme and largely professional (as in “paid”) world of Dom/Sub. For the every day couple, “amateurs” if you will, there needs be nothing dark or dirty about it. A & B agree that B will do whatever A wants; A is the boss. Now, A gets to pro-actively direct the love-making and B does what they’re told. That’s what it boils down to. Typically, there are penalties for B should A not be obeyed. These don’t have to be scary, either. A quick spank on the rump or temporarily denied orgasm, which are really just healthy tension builders. Note that I didn’t specify genders. Men, being Sub to your wife is nothing to be ashamed of.

I’m not categorically for or against this practice. Under the right circumstances, it is a mutually exciting, bonding time (even when actual bonds aren’t employed). The Dom/Sub I oppose is when it’s an ego thing for the Dom or a form of abuse. I see healthy Dom/Sub as a great picture of the Christian life. If there are any Baptists still reading, put your eyes back in your sockets and pull those jaws back up.Good Dom/Sub has less to do with power than trust and more to do with surrender than authority. When Dom is done right, it is an act of service to the Sub. Gotta love that paradox. The Sub is putting their trust in the Dom and a good Dom will hold that trust as something precious and delicate. The same is true of ministry.

As the believer in the believer/non-believer dynamic, or Zel/Non, it is your responsibility to bring healing, kindness, and love to the dynamic just as much as truth. The only reason to witness is the belief that you have something that will benefit the Non. You are trying to enrich their lives; this is an act of service.

Likewise, being the Dom, you are trying to enrich the pleasure life of your Sub. There are few things more gratifying than finding someone you can trust. Falling blind, knowing you will be caught. It is a liberating surrender. By proving yourself worthy of that trust, you are serving the one who trusts you.

When another surrenders their own strength to you, it makes you stronger. Humans are designed that way, it’s part of the whole community thing. What’s really brilliant, is that when you surrender to another, their strength flows into you. You become two people mutually sharing strength with no deficit. You are now both, roughly, twice as strong. Of course, I’m referring to emotional and spiritual strength, but similar precepts exist in the physical and intellectual realms as well.

This is the real beauty of the Dom/Sub dynamic: it exercises trust and deepens the connection between partners, in addition to fulfilling a fantasy and, hopefully, providing you with REALLY hot sex.

It’s old. I mean, really old. ‘Lysistrata’, quite possibly the funniest piece of theater produced by the Greeks: to end the Poleponnesian war, the women of Greece withhold sex from their husbands until the war is over. It takes a weekend. The Bible makes more than passing references to the controlling power of our sexual appetites. The Apostle Paul warns married couples not to withhold sex from each other because the husband no longer owns his body, his wife does, and vice versa. The pragmatist agrees, as Stephen Colbert said “it’s a hungry dog that turns over the garbage can.”

For several centuries, the Church had an almost gnostic approach to sex. The only legitimate reason for sex was propagation and thus was born the insanely creepy idea of Church-authorized positions. (Which might help explain why there were so many nudes painted in the renaissance.) The Reformation saw this concept laid to rest, but an intense fear still hung over the subject of sex. Only, now it was called “modesty” so no one could question it.

This is the power that our sexual appetites have over us, great enough to inspire this kind of fear. However, by avoiding the subject we are under the appetite’s power as much as if we mindlessly indulged it.  Therefore, we reach for the fine line, the via media, the glorious balance.

In the name of this balance, I’m undertaking to examine sexual practices that go beyond the “vanilla”. Are they acceptable for the believer? Where does God stand? What are the spiritual implications? Here goes…