West Fork, Matthew 5, and Hypocrisy

I'm home from a long, hot morning 18-miler at my favorite running spot in the whole darned county: the West Fork run near Azusa.  It's a 7.5 mile run on a paved road (closed to cars) up to Cogswell dam; then a nice 1.5 miles of fire road up behind the dam.  It's all uphill the first half, and a gentle downhill the second.  If you're an L.A.  runner looking for a long, paved, mostly shaded road to work on "fast leg turnover" without having to worry about traffic, West Fork is the place to be.  (Perhaps I shouldn't be advertising my favorite routes, but I doubt my enthusiastic endorsement of the location will result in a serious increase in traffic).  We share the path with bikers, but most of them are very polite.  (I am working on overcoming my anti-mountain biker sentiments).  One such biker has put up pics of West Fork (and a map) on his site.

I appreciate the excellent discussion on masturbation going on beneath these twin posts.  Lynn Gazis-Sax has been prolific lately on subjects similar to those I've been addressing.  I enthusiastically recommend this post on sexuality, and these two on divorce.  In the second linked post, she writes:

I think we need a certain caution against accepting too readily our failures to live the ideals that Jesus sets forth. This is especially clear to me when I consider those other teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, about loving your enemies and about turning the other cheek. We can argue about how we actually practically live these teachings, in the flawed world we face. But by the time we get to the point of suggesting a place for torture, or of dismissing the significance of Abu Ghraib, surely we’ve gone too far... If Jesus’ teaching about loving our enemies means anything at all, there has to be something we won’t do to our enemy (and all our enemy’s innocent kin and neighbors) to win.

Similarly, it seems to me that Jesus’ teaching for my personal life ought to sometimes pull me up short, if I’m actually taking it seriously.

Good stuff.  Lynn's a Quaker, and as such is part of the "peace church tradition" that I so enthusiastically embraced during my brief but intense time as a member of Pasadena Mennonite Church.  One of the pieces of literature that was distributed to newcomers at PMC included the statement (and I paraphrase, since I can't find it at the moment), "We believe that Matthew 5 actually describes how we are to live as Christians.  It's not an unattainable ideal; we believe it is a framework for how we are called to treat each other."

I liked that.  As a pacifist, of course, I focused on the bits about "blessed are the peacemakers" and "love your enemies".   (Of course, my pacifism was based as much on personal political conviction as on obedience to the Gospel!)  I liked the radical claims that the Mennonites made; unlike many other Christians, they insisted that these were not just precepts for individual behavior, but rather ought to be the foundations of government policy in  a democratic society.   "Love your neighbor" was a mandate for both armies and individuals, and a call to consistent pacifism.   I wrote enthusiastic letters to the president on the eve of the Iraq war, believing that calling for peace was a small part of what it meant to live out Christ's call in Matthew 5.

At the same time, of course, that I was applying this chapter literally to issues of peace and justice, I was balking at accepting the implication of Jesus' teachings on divorce and remarriage!  I was thrice divorced when I joined PMC and planning to be married again.  For the record, adultery was not an issue in my third divorce; thus I was in "violation", if you will, of the literal meaning of Matthew 5:31-32.  One of the reasons I ended up leaving PMC was because I was unwilling to take the Gospel literally on issues of personal holiness.   (Let me stress that my parting with PMC was very friendly, and I still hold the Mennonite Church in high and loving regard, and adore many of the good folks who worship in that tradition).  Lynn writes that Jesus' teaching for my personal life ought to sometimes pull me up short, if I’m actually taking it seriously.   Without getting into too many specifics, some folks at PMC did "pull me up short" by asking that I consider the consistency of my position on the teachings in Matthew 5.  And though I honored the integrity of their embrace of all aspects of the Gospel, I wasn't prepared to modify my life in order to honor the full implications of Matthew 5:31-32 -- which, at least in the eyes of some, would have meant that if I wished to stay in the church, I ought to remain celibate for the rest of my life.

My sojourn with the Mennonites was humbling. I saw how easy it was for me to demand purity and discipleship from others on issues that were distant from my private life!   I I know I'm not the only religious person who struggles with this.  I'm still committed to the Gospel, still call myself (with absolute sincerity and conviction) a "born-again evangelical", but I've been taught some perspective, and I have been forced to confront my all-too-human hypocrisy.  I've come home to a Christian community (All Saints Pasadena) that offers me countless opportunities to help build the Kingdom, but at the same time, will not demand coherence between my public profession of faith and my private behavior. 

Whether that is for the best remains to be seen.  But as my wedding day approaches (folks, I'll notify everyone of the exact date after the fact, so don't bother asking), I am happier than ever, and more in awe than ever of all that God has done in my life.  Truly, truly, I am blessed beyond all measure, and infinitely more richly than I deserve!

Comments

[John]

but at the same time, will not demand coherence between my public profession of faith and my private behavior.

Is this disconnect a transient state you are getting out of, or a permanent one of which you're rather proud?

[Hugo]

Neither. It is a reality about which I am troubled, and one I am struggling to resolve -- but whether it is transient or not is yet to be determined. I'm proud of my candor, but not of my hypocrisy.

[stanton]

Hugo - I give you props for your willingness to self-reflect. And double props for doing so in the light of day, or rather, under the spotlight of your widely-read blog. I believe we would all be better persons for following your example here, and I am inspired to look for ways that I can do this more effectively in my own life.

[Tony Vila]

So I'm uneducated enough that I have to ask, what does Jesus specifically say about sexuality and masturbation? Not Aquinas's thoughts or what some letter written decades after his death, but what He actually said. He did actually say to turn your cheek, but what was it that He said about masturbation?

[Hugo]

Well, remember Tony, I'm not "anti-masturbation." That said, Jesus does tell us in Matthew 5 that to look with lust at a woman in some sense is to commit adultery. Most folks who masturbate do so with fantasy or pornography or some kind of internal or external visualization (yes, I know, not all of them, but most). Some conservative Christians thus make the argument that given that fantasy is almost inxtricably linked to fantasy, it is logical to assume that Jesus would have had a problem with it. But that's about as close as you can get.

Of course, Jesus never said anything about not killing animals for fur, either. But that doesn't stop many Christian environmentalists/animal rights activists (myself very much included) from considering Jesus an ally! I think it's dangerous to say "Jesus never said anything about X, and if He had opposed it, He would have, therefore X must be okay." On the other hand, it can lead us to conclude that whatever the ethics of masturbation, the subject can't have been of "salvation issue importance" to Him.

[Tony Vila]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get the relevance then. Is that line relevant to the discussions of masturbation (supposedly since you're probably lusting after someone when you practice)? If so, why aren't you anti-M then? And if you believe that you can masturbate without commiting mental adultery, why do you feel any hypocrisy for only following some of Jesus' message?

Clearly we shouldn't use Jesus' limited amount of preaching to grant licentiousness across the board. It just seems so many people get very worked up about issues He didn't personally discuss, and don't spend so much time questioning Christians with respect to violence, intolerance, or a desire to judge (all things He very explicitly mentions).

[Hugo]

Tony, I don't know if it's relevant to masturbation or not.

Where others have certainties, I have doubts, and as so often, I find myself being handicapped by being almost equally convinced of the merits of contradictory arguments on the issue.

[Tony Vila]

Ok, just I guess that wasn't clear.

And I was as much responding to your fundamentalist commenters as to you.