Page 2796 - 1970S

¡-----
THI MISSING DIMINSIDN IN ~mM
-· YAC; SEX REAU.Y NECESSARY?
lr•ltHtt CW«H .... wtlll ,.,postts ~ to s ex in
INMNins - ~rHflelt .W ,.,.,.;._.. .., ...w, 1ft litis.
llttM iftslalueflf, .,..,..•• ~ .,.-.,.: DM~te•li•lf
.,. ,..,._,. telllfy rttffllke ,.. ere.,;., elux?C..,.,'t
G.4 ltaw wwstHI stMte ~~~teans el §e'WHtt#ion
"'"" sttx? And woukln't #he lftarriage Mtd fMftlly
rttlllliottslt"' h happler wiHtout sttx?
by Herbert W. Armstrong
T tt FORMULATORS of early Christian
tbought would .have answered the
ahove two questioos in the affirmative.
Referring 19 these . founders of tradi–
tionalteaching, Gibbon says, in chaprer
XV of his famous book, The Dec/(ne and
Fa// of 1he Roman Empire: "The cb.aste
severity of the fatbers in whatevcr re–
lated to the commerce of tbe sexes
ftowed from tbe same principie - their
abhorrence of every enjoyment which
might gratify the sensual, and degrade
the spiritual nature ofman."
Their favorite opin.jon, continues Gib–
bon, was tbat if there had been no
... ........_,"faUt" A<lam would bave Uved forever
- ,. . lñ a stát'e ' of virgin . puri.ty. i>áradise
might have been peopled, not by "de–
grading" sex, but. by sorne hármless
mo<!e of vegetation.
Apparently God made a terrible mis–
take when He ereated sex, rhat is, in the
"chaste severity" tbinking of those
church fathers!
·•ay tbem," continues Gibbon, ·"the
use of marriage was permitted o¡¡ly to
tbe fallen posterity, as a necessary ex–
pe<lient to continue the human species."
Gibbon speaks of these men, as "un–
willing to approve an institution (mar–
riage] which they were compelled ro
tolerale." And. further. '*since desire was
imputed as a crlffie. and marriagt was
tolerated as a defec~ it was consisten!
with thc same principieS to consider a
state of oelibacy as the nearest approach
to the Divine perfection.» :
Ignoran! ofthe biblical revelation tbat
Go<l (Hebrew, Elohimr is a FAMII.Y -
ignorant of the t ruth of the KtNGDOM OF
Goo - these men condemned the very
Goo-PLANE relationship of the Eterna!!
The frui ts of that teaching have been an
ind~scribably enormous MOUNTAlN of
human woe and misery!
What was wrong with marriage, tbey
reasoned, was not the ceremony or the
state of mariiage - but the use of sex ¡,.
marriage! How much better would mar–
riage bave been without sexl
And that iS the BIG QUESTION lO be
senled once and for all in this last in–
stallment. Was SEX necessary for tbe
God-plane marriage and family rela–
tionships? -Could we not have had the>e
without sEx?
Wuv was sex necessary, anyway?
Wby not sorne intellectual way, free
from passion and sex, of producing olf–
spring?
6
Satanle Origio
This pagan concept ':"as Satan-in–
spired (1 Tim. 4: 1-3). lt simply means
this:
Satan is an individual being. with NO
·POWER TO REPRODUCE HIMSELF. Satan is
deprived of FAMll.YRELATIONSHIP. Go<l.
on the other hand, !S the divine FAMti.Y
- Father, Son. and th~se !>egotten by
the holy spirit and born into it. God has
bestowed oo mankind the privileges of
FAMU.Y and of repro<lucing our kind,
bringing our human ofl'spring into our
human FAMIL!ES.
Satan resents tbis!
·• So Satan palms il!mselfoff as the GOo
of this world (11 Cor. 4:4).
The tme Go<l - the Eterna! CREATOR
- pictures Himself, in His Word, as the
divine FAMtLY and bestows .on man the
privileges of repro<luction and [ami/y
.relationsh.ip. ~atan repre5ents Go<l's sys–
tem of reproduciion as being wrong. He
deceived the world for hundreds of
years into believing marital LOVE
through sex is a corroding. con–
. taminating thing.
The "NewMorality" Concept
To<lay, worldwide REVOLT has set in
against tbe repressive "cbaste severity"
of the "fathers.»
The formulators of the mo<lernistic
perversion see only one thing - that
repression, passively adopted but not
practiced by Protestants, became intol–
erable. The sex-is-evil attitude had 10 go.
The medieval conoept downgraded
the God-plane MARRIAGE and FAMILY
relationships below asceticism.The unew
~porality" tbreatens to abollsh these di–
vine institutions!
lnstead of coming to the true MEAN·
ING and PURPOSES and right USES of sex,
they blindly swung to the opposite ex–
treme of declaring ANY USE OF SEX IS
GOOO - NOT EVIL! Therefore, says the
mo<lern revolt, "Let's usE tT - freely -
in or out of marriage. perverted or
otherwise. Doww WITH A.LL R.ESTRAtNTS! •
Let•s UVE IT UP! !!..
So, in lhe present moral rebeUion, la–
belling tMmorality ihe "new morality,"
marriage has los! whatever meaning or
sanctity Í\ had. lts vcry cxistencc is
threatened.
Now we have seen, in tbe preceding
two instaUments, that there is vital and
deep-rooted MEAN!NG lO tbe MARR!AGE
institution and to the establishment of
HOME and FAMtl.'1 liJe.
But tbe ~IG question is: Was SEX
reaUy necessary for the high and noble
Go<l-plane relationship of tbe marriage
state and tbe institution of borne and
family? Could oot tbese have been more
enjoyablc. more pu.re and cleán. .more
righteous - and better for humanity -
without sex? J
Tbey Are LOVE Rellltlonships
To answer this BtG question about
sex. we need to look further ioto th.e
FAMILY relationship that constitutes tbe
KINGOOM OF Goo and the betrotbal
relationsbip be~ween CH.RIST and !he
CHURCH.
God has given mankind the in–
stitutions of marriage and [ami/y 10 pre–
pare us for an ETERNtTY of happiness
andjoy in Hiskingdom- HisFAMIJ-Y!
Just WHAT, rhen, is the very basis and
foundatiOD of th.e FAM!LY RELATION·
SKIP?
That basis iS LOVE! Of aU the CHARAC·
TER ATTRllltJTES of Go<l, the very first,
greatCcS~ and most important is LOVE!
Above ~- all,. Goo JS LOV.E!
(I John 4:8, 16).
The very first of the attributes of Go<l
- expressed in th~ fruits of His holy
spirit in man - is LOVE (Gal. 5:22).
When this very Go<l-life is infused
within US, by His spirit, it is "the LOVE
OF Goo . .. shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5).
Thus, in first begettiñg us, God in–
fuses within us the divine GtFT of His
/ove. The divine fAMILY R.ELATtONSHlP is
a LOVE relationship. The tie that holds
the divine family together is the tie of
LOVE!
To those thus begouen of Go<l. con–
verted-by His spirit, Christ says through
Job.n: "Behold. what manner of LOVE
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called THE soNs OF
Goo . . .. Beloved, now are we the sons
of Go<l (begot!en], and it doth not yet
appear what we sha/1 be (when born];
but we know that, when he (Christ] shall
appear, we shaJI be like him; for we
shall see him as be-is" (1 John 3: 1-2).
E ven now, converted begotten sons of
Go<l have spiritual FELLOWSiiiP with the
FATHER and with the Son, Christ
(1 Joh'n 1:3) . ·
So the FAMILY relationship, both on
the divine plane and in the human type,
now, is a LOVE ~lationsh.ip - and Goo
implants witbin His begotten children
His dMne /ove to equip them for that
divine LOVE relationship.
Likewise, the betrothal husband-and–
wlfe-to-be relationship between CHRtST
and TKECHURCH is a I.OVE relationship.
Nolice, again. God's teaching that
MARRJAúe o·n thc prcscnt huq1an levcl is
to be a LOVE rélationship, jusi as is
Christ's relationship to His church:
HHusbands, LOVE. your wives, even as
Christ also loved the church, and gave
bimself for it ... that it should be holy
and without blemish. So ought men to
!ove their wives as tbeir own ·bodies....
For this cause shall a man leave his
father and motber, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one
ftesh" (Eph. 5:25-31).
For what cause shall a rilan marry a
wife? For what PURPOSE? For that of
LOVE!·
The betrotbal relationship between
Christ and tbe church - of which mar–
riage between humans is the ·lype - is a
LOVE relationship. Husbands are to !ove
their wives "even as Christ also loved
the church, and gave himselffor it."
But notice again! To Adam and Eve
in the garden in Eden, God gave SEX as
'the cause for marriage - as did Jesus in
Matthew 19; "He ... made tbem ma/e
and fema/e, and said, F'or this cause"
shall a man and woman marry (ver–
ses 4-S). Because of ssx they shall
marry.
So we have tbe two scriptural reasons
for marriage - for LOVE and because of
SEX. These axe not two coptradictory
reasons. They blend into ONE - to ex–
press LOVB tht ough so!
Sex was created. not only as tbe
means of repro<luctioo and bringing
about a FAMILY, but, in humans, as a
means of expressing LOVE in marriage.
So again l ask,just what tS /ove? .
And again 1 answer. the world does
not know!
Three Kinds of Love
There is more than one kind of Jove.
The Greeks h.ad three words for it -
each with a dilferent shade ofmeaning.
. In today's modero wo rld, the meaning
Of LOVE has been all butlost. lt has been
so romanticiud, so confused with I.UST,
that people carelessly call any sex desire
or sex use "!ove." UsuaUy this is LUST.
To<lay nearly all popular soogs are
falsely supposed 10 sing aboutlove. Mo–
tion pictures. television, novels - all
confuse and eroticize "!ove" and induce
society · to accept lust in the name of
"love.t'
The Greeks are more definitely ex~
pressive. They use three words which
define !ove more accurately.
First is agape, which is moral or spiri–
tual !ove. This is the love Goo expresses
toward humanity. lt is the divine, spiri- .
tual !ove, supplied by Go<l's holy spirit.
Tht natural and unconverted man does
not hove this /ove! But God longs 10 f\11
him with it - if he will surrender and
believe!
Second is phi/ia. This is the !ove of
friendsbi p - brotherly love (phila–
delphia) - !oveof paren! or child.
Third is eros, which refers to sexual
!ove between husband and wife. But it
mean:-¡: lqve, not lust. The Oreek lan~
guage uses a differenl word for lust.
Eros. however. is a !ove expressed physi–
cally, not spiritually:
Just what, then, is !ove?
WEEK ENDINO SEPTEMBER 20. 1975