Pure to the Pure
I read: Titus
I really did want to get back into the OT after reading 1 & 2 Timothy but my copy of The Message here doesn’t have the OT, a problem I intend to remedy soon (by buying a new copy, not gluing pages in). So, I decided to keep on trucking through Paul’s letters to the young church leaders. Titus is a very short book so it almost feels like cheating, but there is good stuff here nonetheless.
What I want to take a gander at is 1:15: “Everything is clean to the clean-minded; nothing is clean to dirty-minded unbelievers. They leave their dirty fingerprints on every thought and act.” I have a vivid recollection of my first encounter with this first in a short essay by John Milton against the censorship of books (yep, they were fighting those fights way back then) and he quoted this first as an argument that those with the hearts and consciences to read what some might consider objectionable should have the right to read it.
I still have yet to figure out if I agree with that statement or if that’s even what Paul intended. Theoretically, could possibly mean that someone of pure enough heart could view pornography and there wouldn’t be a problem with it? I guess the sin in viewing pornography is where the heart and mind go, not the images. The scary part of that is that I know my reaction would be lust but I claim to be a believer and Paul is equating my reaction with that of unbelievers.
I guess there are no conclusions with this post, just questions. Is
posted by Matt Wiggins @ 10:30 AM
3 Comments:
Well, in following Milton's presupposition, we would have to define "clean-minded" - and whether it is actually possible for humans to get there.
However, to keep with your example of pornography, imagine that you are driving down the street and there is a pornographic image publicly visible. It would surprise and disturb you because mentally (not to mention ethically and spiritually) you were not looking for that. It is when you are looking for the image because of its pornographic nature that you have moved away from the clean-minded definition. Mind you, for some, that would be right away because they have conditioned themselves to crave such things.
As for trying to defend pornography as art, that becomes another story. Yes, God created the human form and I would even say that he wants us to derive pleasure from others. However, it should not be the feeling that we are seeking; we should not actively seek pleasure. We should be seeking God. If we are blinded by the pursuit of pleasure, such that we cannot see God, we have become dirty-minded.
Art is a representation of nature, which was created by God and gives glory to Him. Therefore, art should be used to give glory to God. Art that does not attempt to give glory to the Father fails to qualify as art. (I know this is a strong accusation, but it is no different than saying that we should live for God.)
The other thing to bring into question here in talking about pornography is the intent of the picture. A picture of the naked human body could be used for educational or medical purposes. These are quite different from any pornographic image.
Whoo boy. I think that Milton was talking that he, and others, could be clean-minded and that was his defense for reading books that some consider objectionable.
Great points all around but where does the idea that we shouldn't seek pleasure come from?
Rather, that we should seek pleasure in God, not in just the pleasure itself. When we care more about an item and for us, it doesn't reflect God, we've missed the boat.
Post a Comment
<< Home