The Falcon | Volume 83, Issue 53
Published 5/29/13 | Log In
Published: November 14, 2012
Two columns in the Falcon this week had me shaking my head: Melissa Castle’s column promoting BDSM sex and Jack Clinch’s column demanding a homosexuality-affirming language. Both stem from the same assumption, which can be summed up as follows: the only two legitimate constraints for sexual behavior are physical/psychological health and consent.
Now, that this assumption is widespread, I don’t deny. But it isn’t Christian. It’s more like Epicurean ethics than anything else I can think of. If we want to be good Epicureans about these things, then please, please, just admit that we’re perfectly happy being Epicureans with Epicurean restraints and do not accept the lordship of Jesus Christ.
C.S. Lewis accurately observed that Christianity’s least popular ethic is its sexual ethic: absolute monogamy between a husband and wife or nothing. I don’t know anyone, of any inclination, who this comes naturally to. But the fact is that the words of Scripture don’t depend on a poll for their truth, and what God has said about sexuality is as true in Sodom as it is in the New Jerusalem.
If you don’t like this Way, then feel free to get off of it; Jesus’ words were, “If any man would follow me” - this is your choice. If Jesus is Lord, then follow him. If the sentiment of the age is your lord, then follow it. No one can serve two masters. Only one of them promises eternal life.
It occurs to me that perhaps I’m preaching to the choir; perhaps Jack and Melissa make no claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ. If so, I apologize for my frustration. But if they want to convince us to accept their Epicurean constraints as the sole determinants of right behavior, they must first convince us that Jesus Christ is not Lord.