At last, we come to the part of Mere Christianity where C.S. Lewis specifically discusses sexual morality. Admittedly, there are some points on which he is more sound than many modern Christians have ever been, but the incomplete and erroneous claims he makes about sexuality and Christian theology are all the more blatant because of it. One case of the former is that he does not even attempt to shy away from the fact that Christian/Biblical morality does not condemn the exposure of the body even to the point that someone is wearing almost nothing at all. He actually gives a hypothetical example that would shock many evangelicals even today! How ironic it is that one of the only things Lewis gets completely right is that there is no Biblical command for all people to cover themselves to a certain extent:
"We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed . . . while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies . . ." (94)
At least Lewis does not prescribe a standard of "modest" clothing, and he is right to distinguish social norms from Biblical obligations. Modesty is a social construct that has nothing to do with Biblical morality [1]. It follows that modesty is therefore not obligatory or of any moral concern to a rational person, and Lewis still treats it as if arbitrary, conflicting social constructs need to be heeded for morality's sake. Of course, he predictably uses only a woman as an example here, which is perfectly consistent with his almost exclusively male examples of individuals who experience sexual desires--as if the male body is not an object of beauty just like the female body and as if women are not visually attracted to the male body!
1 Timothy 2:9-10 addresses showing opulence in clothing with illicit motives, something which is sinful for both men and women, so it is irrelevant to the actual stances of legalists who insist that the human body--or sometimes just the female body--be covered to some random degree. Deuteronomy 4:2 says not to add to Yahweh's moral commands, and modesty teachings do exactly that: the Bible does not oppose even the intentionally sensual display of the male or female body in scant clothing or a state of total nudity. Moreover, Biblical theology is directly, inescapably contrary to prudery (Genesis 2:25, Isaiah 20:1-6).
C.S. Lewis comes far closer to realizing or admitting these things than many other evangelicals, and it is a rare occurrence for any other Christian apologist to elaborate on the issue of modesty at all. This is one of the few times where I will commend Lewis. All the same, if the above quote signifies as far as he went regarding modesty, he did not go nearly far enough. He even fails to affirm the vile nature of sexual legalism and the Biblically innocent nature of many types of sexual thoughts and behaviors. Just on the page after he mentions modesty in particular, he conveys the typically distorted evangelical summary of Biblical sexual ethics. Not once does he clarify what the Bible actually does or does not say, much less refer to any particular verses from the Bible:
"Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.' Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong." (95)
What Lewis does not acknowledge, and predictably so, is that there are far more Biblically valid ways to experience and express sexuality than monogamous marriage. Yes, acts like adultery, incest, prostitution, rape, bestiality (which is itself a subset of rape), and homosexual behaviors are condemned [2], and sinful interpersonal sex acts are often capital offenses in Mosaic Law. Lust--coveting a married person [3]--is also sinful (Matthew 5:28), but this does not at all refer to mere sexual attraction or fantasizing! Everything from sexual introspection to simple masturbation to masturbating while looking at or thinking of specific, attractive members of the opposite gender is nonsinful unless it is somehow tainted by the aforementioned kinds of sexual immorality, not that masturbating to someone of the opposite gender is necessarily motivated by sexual attraction in the first place.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-impossibility-of-lusting-after.html
No comments:
Post a Comment