Saturday, June 28, 2014

Sin: What makes something sinful?

Posted by at

***

In a post I wrote recently I introduced you to a factitious character of mine named Timothy. I told you a story his of betrayal by his church when he attempted to reach out for help in sustaining his six month streak in sobriety from pornographic websites and sadomasochistic behaviour. You can read his story here. In a more recent post, located here, I discussed the idea that sin as it is understood in the Christian worldview is logically valid. When I began to place this blogpost on various social-media websites like Facebook and Google+ I mentioned in one comment section that it is important for us Christians to establish the nature of sin before we confidently condemn certain actions as sins. In the post regarding Timothy I explained that he has always believed that his sexual temptations were perverse and sinful and this was despite his attraction to them. Is sadomasochism perverse or morally neutrally diverse? In summation what is the criteria one should put up against an action to determine its morality? I explained in the second article alluded to above that all actions can be slotted into one of three categories: right, wrong (immoral) and morally neutral. However lets narrow the focus to what makes an action immoral thus sinful?
  1. Is it biblical?: Does the Bible speak against the action? For an example Scripture speaks against murder, (cf. Exodus 20:13) and so it isn't a hard sell to suggest that murder is sinful. However there are a fair amount of actions that are not overtly spoken against in Scripture, such as abortion. So is the action of abortion sinful? ANSWER: If you break the aspect of abortion down to its basic essence it is killing a socially innocent human being, thus it is legal-murder; so the answer is yes. 
  2. Is it misrepresentative of God?: Moreover, how about not doing actions that Scripture clearly commands us to do, such as witness? Is someone living in sin if they choose not to make every conversation that they have in a day about Jesus? No, but in everything we do we are to represent Jesus. Is doing something that misrepresents Christ sinful then? Yes. However not everyone believes in Jesus as God. The Christian accuses the Muslim for worshiping a false God but the Muslim accuses the Christian of a sin called Shirk, that "...is to attribute "partners" to God."[i] So if sin is a misrepresentation of God whose God is being misrepresented? As explain in the second article indicated above this is a good question but it's answer cannot be respectfully given in few sentences and thus it is best left for its own post.
  3. Is it harmful to one's personal being and or society?: Let's look at Timothy's sexual predilection: Sadomasochism is defined as: 
"[Sexual] behavior that involves getting pleasure from causing or feeling pain"[ii]. 
In a short 2013 article in 'The Guardian' psychotherapist Pamela Stephenson Connolly tries to justify sadomasochism in the context of consent: She writes:
In BDSM, you must understand the notion of consensuality. If your partner gives you permission to inflict pain in an erotic context, the exact style and degree of that is agreed (understanding that the contract could be renegotiated at any time), and if you use appropriate safety mechanisms such as a "safe word", it is generally considered that consensuality is in place.[iii] 

The first give away that sadomasochism is a sin is the desire to hurt others (sadism) or be hurt by another (masochism) for sexual release or pleasure. However many might argue as Connolly did that it isn't wrong if it is between consensual adults. However Connolly even raises a 'red-flag' even when consent is in certain contexts: She writes:
But consent is brought into question when one has experienced physical, verbal or sexual trauma in the past, if you play under the influence of drugs or alcohol, if either has mental illness, or if permanent damage is likely to be caused. Consent is not just for the submissive person: you are conflicted about your dominant role, which in itself brings your consent into question.[iv]
So if one is under the influence of mind altering chemicals, and or in the possibility of real damage being done and or if there is a mental and or emotional background that will feed a psychosis even with consent sadomasochistic behaviour should be questioned. However she ends with this advise:
Think more carefully about your own limits. Define and express what is and isn't comfortable for you. And beware: dominant partners often experience burnout. Adjust your level of play accordingly.[v]
However lets step back and just look at the desire for pain for sexual pleasure. Irregardless of mental illness or a negative emotional background or a controlled environment to minimize long-lasting physical damage is not the desire to be hurt or to hurt another for sexual release perverse? In my opinion, yes it is definitely perverse, but putting my opinion aside for the moment lets ask the same question but in a significantly different way: "Is not the desire to be hurt or to hurt another for sexual release *objectively* perverse? One has to look at this word 'perverse' in order to answer this question. The word perversion is defined as "something that improperly changes something good"[vi]. So this would demand that a sexuality has a good ontology - a nature that was changed from its 'good-nature'. 

However what if there is no objective standard for sexuality and that the standard is subjective? In the second article alluded above, I discussed that all societies set down and enforce laws; and they also punish persons who violate those laws. If the standard for sexuality is subjective then on what grounds does a society have to outlaw any sexual practice? Opinion? Okay then how is this opinion formed? Laws are laid down as a means of keeping order and societal peace and safety. And therefore sexual predilections like beastility or pedophila are outlawed in practically every country on earth as they are societally and personally harmful. 

Another argument that may be offered is: "In light of the idea that sadomasochism is harmful, should then the government control what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults?" No. A mark of freedom is to be free to be stupid. People should be given the right to practice their sexuality however they see fit; but the permission to be unwise doesn't negate the perversion of sexual practices like sadomasochism. 

Furthermore, sexuality is an expression of love. Is hurting someone an act of love? No. Therefore sadomasochism is a perversion, a sin. However what if someone's sexual satisfaction surrounds sadomasochism would it not then be an act of love for someone to cater to their spouses' sexual desires may they be masochistic or sadistic? Otherwise they may not be sexually satisfied. ANSWER: Which is a true act of love? Catering to the roots that cause sadomasochistic tendencies by either, if possible, professionally discovering and addressing the roots or at least undermining the spirit of the roots with kindness? Or feeding the psychosis by submitting to it by hurting the one you love or allowing to be hurt by the one you love? ANSWER: The former as feeding one's sickness is harmful not helpful.

So to conclude when we as Christians condemn a practice as sinful we should be prepared to explain why its sinful. An act, especially in the realm of sexuality may churn your stomach, but that doesn't mean that the act is wrong. Conversely however an act that you may not see any issues with or even endorse doesn't make it proper.
_______________________

[iv] - Ibid., - accessed June 28, 2014
[v] - Ibid., - accessed June 28, 2014
[vi] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perversion - accessed June 28, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)