A call to purity

It is not that I disagree with your stance on the importance of sexual purity: I endorse the call to live a holy lifestyle and believe that it is an integral part in the over-all holy-living -equation. Your newsletter, Sexual Chastity in the Twenty-first Century, contained an admonishment to live accordingly - tendered in light of your own personal experience and in accordance with what God apparently laid upon your heart to share – and written, I sense, in brotherly love. It certainly goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway), that God, who wants the very best for our lives, certainly deserves the very best from our lives. To those who, under God’s great auspice of grace, “get it” (read understand) - the significance of living as such - we realize that apart from God transforming our heart, and through the yielding of our will, we cannot live a life such as the Bible calls us to live: at least I don’t think I could . But when our heart is changed something wonderful happens: a very gracious God uses the very weaknesses, limitations, and past that weigh us down most in, above all things, His ministry and for His purpose: we are allowed to minister to others who struggle in the very areas we have found grace most abundant ourselves. That’s when, I think, one is qualified to offer insight and admonition as you offered. For it is then, that our words are seasoned by a humble heart and gentle spirit, knowing first-hand the depths of God’s love and the great cost He paid to demonstrate it.

With that said, let me now take issue with Peter Kreeft’s article: “The Liberal Arts and Sexual Morality.” It is not the subject of sexual purity I have a problem with – for that is not the message I got from reading this article. What I got from Peter Kreeft’s article was a one-sided view of right and wrong - albeit cleverly disguised and wrapped up in the ruse of Christianity; but a narrow perspective of one man and his idea of morality, none the less. In Mr. Kreeft’s world, it seems there are but two sides to every issue: his side and the wrong side. His article demonstrates that scripture can, when peppered into just the right context, be used as an offensive weapon to club people into submission: for what bothers me most about Mr. Kreeft’s article is that he uses Christianity to bring legitimacy to ideals he endorses: maintaining that there is but one group in society (dare I say conservatives) who maintain Biblical principles and standards; which, of course is but foolishness: there is no “one” who is the Christian anchor in a sea of immorality, save Christ. For all the virtues Mr. Kreeft purportedly embraces, where in his article - in word, example, sentence, or paragraph - does one sense the love of Christ? True, I may not sense the love of Christ urging me onward to be more Christ like in most things I read; but then again, I don’t usually have to spend so much time going down another’s view of righteousness to arrive at that conclusion. Would it not be more honest to leave out the Biblical reference and just condemn that which he does not agree with? If but for the sake of those who are not saved – let’s not hang our own views on the cross and pronounce them as coming from God. You see, to me, without the love of God who compels us to consider the cost and the ramifications of what we do, what we say, and how we live - we are all condemned under the Law – and that would then make some of us just moralistic finger pointing legalists; thanks, but I'll leave that to others who seem to enjoy it.

• Re(1): A call to purity - By Samuel Ooi June 10, 2003 at 10:54:34 AM
  • Re(2): A call to purity - By Eric June 11, 2003 at 08:30:44 PM
    • Re(3): A call to purity - By Samuel June 13, 2003 at 08:58:14 PM
    • Re(3): A call to purity - By Linda June 13, 2003 at 02:50:49 PM
      • Re(4): A call to purity - By Eric June 13, 2003 at 02:57:53 PM