Calvin on Sexual Temptation
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 5:00AM We had a great theology pub on Monday night. The topic of discussion was John Calvin: What's good about Calvin? What's bad? What do we need to learn from Calvin for today?
Speaking of Calvin, I continue to be impressed by how he displays common sense where some may choose to be a little less practical. Take this section on the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Calvin challenges those who choose to stay unmarried, figuring that they can handle the sexual temptation:
And let no man tell me (as many in the present day do) that he can do all things, God helping! The help of God is present with those only who walk in his ways (Ps. 91:14), that is, in his callings from which all withdraw themselves who, omitting the remedies provided by God, vainly and presumptuously strive to struggle with and surmount their natural feelings. That continence is a special gift from God, and of the class of those which are not bestowed indiscriminately on the whole body of the Church, but only on a few of its members, our Lord affirms (Mt. 19:12).
In other words, unless God has given you the gift of celibacy, don't deliberately delay marriage thinking you can handle sexual temptation. You won't succeed, even if you're counting on God's help. Very wise - but not what I would have expected from reading Calvin!
Reader Comments (15)
Gee, this would mean that the desire for sex is one legitimate reason for marriage . But in a society that has no restrictions on sexual activity this will make no sense at all. And in my experience it is making less and less sense to people who call themselves Christian. More Calvin please.
Ken:It reminds me of the recent Christianity Today articles arguing for earlier marriage for similar reasons. Some struggles haven't changed.
With the divorce rate around 50% and a direct correlation between age of marriage and divorce are you sure this is good advice?The Christianity Today article completely ignored almost every article on this, including this CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdfGo to page 5 and see the divorce rates based on age of marriage. If someone gets married between 18-25 the divorce rate is much higher then if they wait unti they're over 25.I understand your morality requires marriage, but in terms of public policy or quality family life this is a disaster at all levels. If we add in Barna research the only thing worse than age for the divorce rate is being religious. Athiests/Agnostics have much lower divorce rates then Evangelical Christians. It then holds that being a young Christian and getting married is even worse for the family unit.Seems to me that younger marriage is a tough argument to make when you looks at the facts, and promoting that in Churches is going to destroy families.Rob
Rob:I'm skeptical of many of the statistics that get thrown around. Barna's stats are not accepted by all. Other studies show that when you factor in church attendance the divorce rate is much lower, compared to those who self-identify as Christians but aren't active participants in a faith community.I wouldn't argue that early marriage is always a good idea, but there are definite problems with going the other way as well.
Should have mentioned the address of the CT article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/august/16.22.html
Don't agree with Calvin on this one, Darryl.Prioritizing a sexual impulse as grounds for marriage does not speak of Christ to me. While all sexual expression is meant to be a demension of love, not all love is sexual in nature.I think celibacy, a grace from God that supports and informs the sacrifice of a man, is meant to teach not only the man engaging with the process, but all men, the truer, deeper nature of love as God would wish us to understand and express the sentiment.God wants us to understand that the fullness of love is transcendant and spiritual in nature. Physical, material expressions of love are a neccessary component to right living as physical creatures in a material world but from the perspective of eternal salvation, these expressions are only Godly if they lead to the transcendant, spiritual understanding.Sex, as part of a means to an end but never an end in of itself.Calvin's response seems defeatist in nature to me and gives too much primacy to that which is only healthy when subordinate to right spiritual understandings of love.
Paul:Calvin does allow that some have the gift of celibacy. I think his argument is that not everyone does, and if so, we had better not be overconfident about our ability to handle sexual temptation. I think he's basing this on 1 Corinthians 7:9, which seems to teach the same thing. "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."I find Calvin's words to be refreshingly realistic about the strength of the sexual drive. It's not enough to just say no. God has provided an avenue for that drive to be expressed that is right and beautiful.
Hey Darryl, I understand and agree with you to a point, particularly with regard to the strength of sexual drive and the concurrant temptations.Still I think God calls us to a deeper more spiritual understanding of love, as a more thorough reading of Corinthians 1&2 indicates. An understanding I believe that will enable all men to better control and rightly prioritize their sexual impulses.We can learn much from celibate men, a deliberate practice/sacrifice of celibacy in our own lives and from women in this regard.
Paul, This text Demonstrates that Calvin wasn't off the mark in the quote Darryl posted. If a couple have trouble controlling their sexual impulses they should get married. 1 Cor. 7:8-9 (ESV) To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. [9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
Hi Ken,I find St. Paul's opinion/directive and Calvin's affirmation troubling . Intentional or otherwise, such directives seem to reduce the marriage covenant to it's biological imperatives. The more nobler, more spiritual "Corinthian" themes of loves patience, loves kindness, loves perserverence seem cheapened and maligned by a contextual foundation of uncontrollable lust. I may be misunderstanding the arguement but what I hear being said then, is that love, at best, becomes a potential outcome of the greater sexual priority and not that sexual pleasure ought to founded on a pre-existing expression of love.I am left wonder also and would be greatful for your insight with regard to the following; why is it a sin for a man to lust in his heart for a woman married and no less a sin for a man to lust in his heart for a woman not? Is lust itself the primary agent of sin or is sin's occurrance more dependant upon the marital status of the woman?If lust, in of itself is sinful, implicit in the Corinthian text, and marriage simply a way to mitigate sin when the person of a man's lust is an unmarried woman, should we not recommend masturbation as a mitigating option when the person is a married woman? Don't the same "self control" and "aflame with passion" arguements apply? Can the arguement even be extended to legitimze the use of pornography? Prostitution?My own personal experience suggests that prioritizing sexual outcomes in my relationships with women, has led to an increase in lustful behavior and appettite. Far from putting flames out, flames were spread.Forgive me for saying but I hear St. Paul and Calvin giving men something of a pass on what is one of the single most challenging behaviors that confront us.God's grace, as I understand it, works optimally when a persons free will co-operates through a self aware surrender to the process. The grace of self control is available to all. We just have to accept it.When we do, we will see ourselves and the women we are called to love in a very different light.PS. Are you the same Ken I met on Monday at Darryl's theology pub?
Paul:Sexual desire is not at all wrong, so for a single person to feel desire is God-given, good, and natural. Paul is arguing that this sexual desire can and should be expressed, and is a legitimate reason why one should get married.I think it's hard for us today to hear because we tend to think of romantic love (which is different from, but not contradictory to, the agape love you mention) as the prime reason to marry. I think it's a good reason, and goes hand in hand with sexual desire, but it isn't the only valid reason. But that's a topic for a different post.Sexual desire does not cheapen a relationship if it is expressed as it should be within marriage.
Hi Darryl,Hope we are not talking past one another...Darryl, I quite agree that sexual desire can be and is, a good and beautiful thing. Further, I also agree that sexual desire does not "cheapen a relationship if it is expressed as it should be within marriage". The perspective I find troubling is the one gleaned from Calvin and St. Paul that seems to offer marriage as a remedy to lust.If that is so, it seems a rather meagre covenant, indeed.
It is certainly different from how we normally think today, isn't it? But when Scripture seems to contradict our culture, I think we can conclude that we need to learn from Scripture.Let's put it a different way. God has given us a desire for companionship at a very deep level. He's also given many of us a desire to have children. And, he's given us sexual desires. All of these are met in marriage.We would not think it strange for someone to express a desire to marry because they long for companionship and have found someone who, in marriage, will meet that need. We understand marriage involves more than companionship; it involves sex and it usually involves reproduction. Yet the desire for companionship leads into these.I think Paul and Calvin are saying that a sexual desire can also be a need that leads one into a relationship that involves companionship and reproduction as well.If you have an appetite for food, then eat. If you have a sexual appetite, Paul says, then there's a way to fill that appetite - in a relationship that ultimately mirrors Christ's relationship with the church; what is to be, at its best, a beautiful and self-giving relationship that reminds people of Christ.
I'll take your interpretation over Calvin's any day! :) As for St.Paul, truly the totality of Corinthians speaks more to a "self-giving relationship that reminds people of Christ" than the criticism I speak of.Still, I don't think it wrong, to state and restate, that a man's moral dignity before God and before women is dependant upon a man being committed to love, and all it's implications, before sex.
I hope my interpretation isn't all that different from Calvin's! Maybe I've just stated what I'm guessing he would also affirm.I like your second paragraph, but we'd have to define love. Most people tend to think of love as a romantic feeling when we talk about marriage, as opposed to self-giving love.