Part One Part Two
Since Peter commands "abstain from fleshly lust" in 1 Peter 2:11, a believer can know what "fleshly lust" is. Someone can't abstain from something he can't ascertain. God doesn't have a word that is indecipherable. God wants us to know it and do it.
In the first two parts, we have established that "fleshly lust" isn't synonymous with a particular sin, but it is in itself sin. It also leads to further other sins. Someone should abstain from fleshly lust itself as sin, but also abstain for the sake of other sins.
"Fleshly lust," however, must be identified. The command to abstain from fleshly lust must be applied. What I'm writing here is that people are not applying it because they can't, but because they won't -- it is deliberate, convenient ineptitude at applying the lust passages of scripture.
The lust passages need to be applied in a number of different areas, but I'm applying it especially where I am not seeing it applied. The convenience is that people, who very often call themselves Christians, want to keep their pet lusts. They want to be a Christian, but they also want their lust. Are they saved people? Maybe not, and they should be concerned about that. Peter deals with this in 2 Peter, himself concerned about false professions related to lust, to help give assurance to true Christians and not false ones. The chief differentiating factor is lust, the false ones operating on lust and not true faith.
Lust Passages Applied to Music
Lust for professing Christians surfaces in their music and entertainment with the infatuation with pop culture. A better adjective to use to describe either the music or entertainment, when it is characterized by lust, is carnal. Carnal music violates the lust passages of scripture. It is not abstaining from fleshly lust and what is it?
It is the seductive soft rock rhythm, the sensual scooping and sliding voice technique, and the non-resolving chord cadence. It has a sensuous effect, stylistic intimacy with such techniques as sliding, flipping, crooning, scooping, delayed vibrato, and intimate use of the microphone. It has the rock beat, achieved by beat syncopation, a rock feel with a highly syncopated rhythmic pattern, which promotes sensual body movements. It brings a compulsion to move the body. It is the boogie and the blues rhythm, jazzy, dance rhythm.
What I'm describing is popular music, the music of which the world approves. It is worldly. It is carnal. It is fleshly. It is profane. It is rock, rap, blues, jazz, hip-hop, and country western. It isn't for a Christian, because Christians are to abstain from fleshly lust. It is sin of itself and it will lead to sin, essentially dialing a Christian into functioning on a fleshly plane.
I'm not saying the previous paragraph is the best representation of what I'm talking about, but I think it is enough to understand what I'm talking about. Someone can just hear it. This does not represent God. It violates the lust passages. It is fleshly lust.
Sure, the Bible doesn't say "no" to rock, country, hip-hop, over syncopation, sliding, scooping, and everything else I used and described that is like that. The lust passages must be applied. What I'm writing is applying them. I don't think it is difficult to do. People who keep lusting and don't want to stop won't like the application, but that doesn't mean the application isn't true. Churches and church leaders that apply those passages need to keep doing it, despite the opposition. God is the judge, not the pandering churches and the people to whom they pander.
Lust Passages Applied to Entertainment
I don't think it is as hard to apply lust passages to entertainment. Christians will violate most lust passages by participation with almost all modern or popular entertainment in the world today. A lot of carnal music is used in entertainment just to start. That already prohibits the entertainment. However, it is more than that.
Immodesty, nudity, sex, and foul language disobey lust passages. That makes up most entertainment. Today I read professing Christians who advertise all the foul entertainment they are watching, including something like Game of Thrones. Someone is not watching Game of Thrones or anything like it or even much better than it and obeying what scripture prohibits in lust for a Christian.
Almost all television commercials violate lust passages. Some of what appears on the sidelines of NFL football in the way of cheerleaders is prohibited by the lust passages. Those passages do not give the application. They don't list specifics. That is for Christians to do. When they don't, they are disobeying those passages.
Disobedience to the lust passages of scripture characterizes most of evangelicalism today and a growing, if not majority, part of fundamentalism. Violation of the lust passages differentiates fake Chrsitianity from true Christianity. Not conforming to what scripture teaches on lust results in churches reshaping their doctrine and practice to fit the lust. It corrupts their worship. In short time, they have a different God. God doesn't conform to lust.
Evangelicals don't care that they disobey the lust passages of scripture. Fundamentalists say that they aren't sure what to do. The passages don't mention specifics, so they wonder how to enforce the passages. They are intended to be applied, like most of the rest of scripture. Not applying those passages isn't acceptable, it is disobedience to scripture.
2 comments:
The way you write your post, you are making it look like lust is always a bad thing. The Bible makes no such claim. Sure, lust is not always a good thing either. But it's not always a bad thing, like your post seems to say. Take Deuteronomy 12:20, for example.
Anonymous,
It's true that the underlying Hebrew and Greek words translated "lust" can be a good thing. Most of the time, a large amount of the time, it isn't good, especially "fleshly lust," which is what I talk about.
Did you know that sometimes holiness is bad? When female prostitute priestesses are holy to their pagan idol, that's also bad, so if I say holiness is good, you could come in and say, "Not every time," just to be consistent. What point would there be though?
Post a Comment