Polygamy's also in the Bible :)
Submitted by Heather on August 04 1999 at 23:29:42
In reply to Re: Depiction of love.....? Submitted by Oliver on August 04 1999 at 22:53:27
|
I think C. S. Lewis has the appropriate passage on this subject: "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 and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, 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: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing." [Mere Christianity] Which brings up three points: 1) In mouth-kissing Jesus Lover, Feisty has either offended against chastity (which seems unlikely at his age, though not entirely out of the question), has shown bad manners through ignorance (which seems possible), or is being uncharitable (which also seems possible; kids love to break rules to embarrass other people). 2) Lewis brings up the question of relaxing the rules, which you're evidently in favor of. This is rather difficult to do, as Lewis points out, without falling into the error of being uncharitable (that is, deliberately offending people by break the rule of propriety current in our society). I faced this difficulty in my teens when I realized that it was just plain silly for me to wear a bra; I eventually compromised by wearing an undershirt, but I know I made a lot of people uncomfortable in the meantime (especially my mother). How to balance charity with individual freedom is always hard. I agree with you that, at the very least, we shouldn't slip backwards (start banning hugs between adults and children). 3) It's one thing to break the rules on one's own; it's another thing to encourage a child to break those rules with you. This may be a subject that sounds faintly familiar. :) Just as a boylover may believe that the current age of consent laws are nonsense but not want to get a boy in trouble by breaking them, Jesus Lover may believe that our society's rules of propriety (no mouth-kissing between males) are nonsense but not want to get a boy in trouble by breaking them. And if he does encourage Feisty to mouth-kiss males . . . Do you know what happens to boys who try to mouth-kiss other boys in school? I'm not saying this is fair; I'm just saying that this is the reality of the society we live in. If Feisty were a little older, he might be mature enough to decide for himself whether he wanted to break these societal rules, but I think that this is the sort of thing he's awfully young to make a decision on. Indeed, at this stage in life, he is probably looking to adults for guidance on how to conduct himself, and part of that guidance will need to be a gradual introduction to the types of issues I mentioned in this post. So perhaps this is a good time to give the "When in Rome" talk, accompanied by the fir st few hints of the "conscientious objection" talk (to be elaborated on as he grows older). Heather |