- sex is not a big deal
- conservative Christian ethics are irrelevant
- there are bigger fish to fry (see #1)
- sex is a splinter that plank-eyed conservatives are picking at
- every Christian is "of this world" in some way or other
- it's too hard, good thing God has grace on us
Well, it's weird to discuss Christian ethics with a Christian who doesn't interact with the particulars of the Bible. I was thinking of the general reluctance to hearken to Paul among liberals when I read 2 Timothy a few weeks ago, and Paul tells him, Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God...2 Timothy 1:8. So I won't be ashamed of Paul and will quote him some more, 2 Corinthians 6
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."
17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Sexual ethics do seem to be a big deal to Paul. As a conservative believer, I believe that Paul would only write that because it's a big deal to Jesus. According to verse 18, sexual immorality is a separate category of sin, which defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit. That sounds like "big deal" type of stuff. Of course there is grace and forgiveness, but that comes with repentance. Chastity also can be encouraged by good teaching, which Paul does right before these verses, 12"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. 13"Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"--and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Grace makes all things lawful to us, but wisdom teaches us to back away from things that enslave. Our bodies are the Lord's. Denying the effect of our bodies on our spirits is a teaching contrary to Paul and wallows in old Epicurean heresies. If one must appeal to science, Dr. Bradley Wright's book called Christians are Hate-Filled hypocrites..., among many other studies, shows the positive effects of traditional Christian sexual ethics on families who practice them.
It seems to me that sexual ethics are #1 a big deal and #2 relevant to God's people.
Jesus told his hyper-legalistic religious critics in Matthew 23 that everything needs to be submitted to God,
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
In my humble opinion, this warning cuts both ways for conservatives and liberals. Each side values one side of the cup and plate more than the other. Conservatives, generally, value personal piety to the neglect of their neighbor and liberals, generally, value their neighbor to the neglect of their personal piety. Jesus' point, reiterated by the epistle writers, is that they go hand in hand. Thus, #3 and #4 the fish are all about the same size.
Worldliness is most directly expounded on by John in his 1st letter,
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.Paeth uses examples such as owning a car and using the internet as proof that conservatives are worldly, but he's not using John's definition. John exhorts us to disentangle ourselves from lust and pride, proofs of a love for the temporal more than love for eternal God. One might even deduce from John's exhortation, that if one's lusts are not resisted and repented (piety) then perhaps one does not have God's love in him to share with others (neighbors). That's a scary position, and, contrary to #5, means that we are all called to piety, a disentangling from the world.
16 For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world.
17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
Regarding #6, which he doesn't number but is really his concluding statement, we can find multiple celebrations in the New Testament, like in Titus 2
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,God's power to transform our lives is real. His word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and, when engaged with regularly, can convict us and be used by the Holy Spirit to liberate us from our sinful (in this particular discussion, sexually immoral) ways, helping us to love God internally, piously, and externally, with mercy and justice towards our neighbors.
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
I think Dalrymple is discussing both/and, but Paeth argues as either/or, which is so limiting. Why does he put God in a box like that?
Bonus material from the Cyberbrethren Lutheran blog, "Which is to say, the entire life of the Christian, powered by the forgiveness of God, is an ongoing war against the sin that remains in our flesh. There is no peace treaty with that sin because of forgiveness. The exact opposite."