| In light of the recent debate you
had with Mark Roberts (published in Issue 55/56), I am offering the following
which will, with the help of a decent concordance, present my interpretation
of lust. To begin, lust is defined in my dictionary as "pleasure, delight,
appetite." The first definition is, "A desire to gratify the senses; bodily
appetite." "Sexual desire" is a secondary definition. At base, then, lust
is rooted in a desire for pleasure.
Turning to Scripture, one notes that among the earliest uses of the
word is a positive connotation (Scripture quotations are from the King
James Version). In Deuteronomy 14.26, the context is a party to which God
was calling the Israelites. It was literally a stewardship celebration,
as they turned the tithes of their fields and flocks into money and bought
whatever they desired: "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever
thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong
drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before
the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household." The
same theme is found in Deuteronomy 12.15 and Deuteronomy 12.20-21.
For the most part, however, lust in the Old Testament is a negative
thing. We find the word used in reference to the Israelite's desire for
meat at the beginning of the Exodus. "And the mixed multitude that was
among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again,
and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?...And he called the name of that
place Kibrothhattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted"
(Numbers 11.4 and Numbers 11.34). Psalm 78.18 and Psalm 78.30 refer to
this incident. Psalm 106.13-15, again referring to that lust for meat,
would make a good sermon text: "They soon forgat his works; they waited
not for his counsel: But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted
God in the desert. And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into
their soul."
In Psalm 81.11-12, the lust referred to is the lust for the idols of
foreign nations: "But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel
would have none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and
they walked in their own counsels." Curiously, in the Song of Moses in
Exodus 15, lust is attributed to the defeated and drowned Egyptians regarding
their hunger for victory in battle: "The enemy said, I will pursue, I will
overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them;
I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them" (Exodus 15.9).
As far as I can tell, not until the book of Proverbs, written for the
most part by King Solomon less than 1000 years before Christ, do we find
the concept of lust narrowed to sexual desire, and even then the context
is prostitution: "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light;
and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the
evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not
after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and
the adulteress will hunt for the precious life" (Proverbs 6.23-26).
In the New Testament, however, lust is equated almost exclusively with
illicit sexual desire, stated or implied. Jesus of course laid the foundation
in the Sermon on the Mount, in what is probably the golden text for anyone
against nudity in any form, whether at a nudist resort or in Playboy
magazine:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5.28).
While anyone with a concordance can check out the countless references
to lust in the New Testament ("It's against it!"), I would suggest the
many verses break down into four general categories or definitions:
1. Lust is of the world, rather than of God. "For all
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the
world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of
God abideth for ever" (1 John 2.16-17). Also, "Whereby are given unto us
exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers
of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world
through lust" (2 Peter 1.4).
2. Lust is of the flesh, as opposed to the Spirit. Paul
is very strong on this. In Galatians 5.16-17, a few verses before he lists
the nine fruits of the Spirit, he writes: "This I say then, Walk in the
Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth
against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary
the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Then,
in Galatians 5.24 he writes: "And they that are Christ's have crucified
the flesh with the affections and lusts." He states the same theme in different
words in Romans 13.14.
3. Lust is of the devil himself! Jesus said this in one
of his many confrontations with the religious establishment of his day:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do" (John 8.44).
4. Lust is ultimately doomed. "And the fruits that thy
soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty
and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at
all" (Revelation 18.14).
Granted, then, that lust is worldly, of the flesh, of the devil, and
is doomed, what problems are inherent in lust? What is so bad about it?
Specifically with regard to lusting after a person, male or female:
1. Lust violates the 10th Commandment. "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any
thing that is thy neighbour's" (Exodus 20.17). Paul again touches on this
in his Letter to the Romans: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust,
except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Romans 7.7). There are
at least two problems with covetousness: we may covet — lust after — that
which is not good for us (some modern idol, whatever form that may take),
or, we may covet — lust after — someone who "belongs" to another, as in
a married woman or man.
2. Lust is selfish. As someone else has said, "Behind
the words 'I love you' may be the thought 'I want you because I love me!'"
Jesus, quoting the Levitical law (Leviticus 19.18) stated that the second
greatest commandment was, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Paul
applies this theme to the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5.28-29: "So ought
men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth
himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth
it, even as the Lord the church." We are to treat others as we would be
treated, as we normally treat ourselves. Lust issues in a form of self-gratification,
selfishly ignoring the needs and wants and desires of the other person.
3. Lust objectifies. It treats the other person as an
object to be possessed, rather than a person to be loved and cared for
as Christ would have us do. When lust objectifies, it diminishes the respect
we are called to have for all other individuals. Read the Gospels. No matter
how flagrant the sinner (the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery,
Zacchaeus, even the rich young ruler, just to name a few), Jesus treated
each of them with respect. He cared for and about them.
Now then, what has all this to do with social nudism? Absolutely nothing
— and that's the point. On the other hand, it has everything to do with
how a Christian ought to behave, clothed or unclothed. What Mark Roberts
(and surely many like him) fail to realize is that the temptation to lust
is at least as much of a problem (if not indeed more of a problem!) in
the marketplace or the church office as it is implied to be in a nudist
resort.
I speak from the experience of more than forty years as a parish pastor,
and almost fourteen years as a social nudist. I can frankly say that I
have had far more difficulty with impure thoughts, fantasies and temptations
to lust when meeting, working and socializing with well-proportioned young
mothers in their tight sweaters and blouses than I have ever had in visiting
more than two dozen nudist parks and beaches. Clothing incites the imaginations:
"What would she look like without that sweater?" Lack of clothing leaves
nothing to the imagination, hence provoking neither lust nor fantasies.
Not long ago my wife and I met and visited with a nicely-proportioned,
beautifully-tanned woman of about forty. My thoughts toward her were of
admiration, not lust. It was great that she could look that good with two
young adult sons at home!
Recently I read a book entitled
From the Eye of the Storm by
the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, Senior Pastor of the Methodist Church in Washington,
D.C. where President and Mrs. Clinton frequently worship. He speaks of
his perspective and activity during and after the Monica Lewinsky affair.
With reference to the nation's preoccupation with the salacious contents
of the Starr report, he said this: "Why is it that even so many of those
who are bitterly opposed to pornography seem to want to talk about it so
much, to expose it in such detail? Are they themselves, at some unconscious
level, under the power of sex as a form of idolatry?" (p. 53).
In reading these words I reflected upon Mr. Roberts and his preoccupation
with the alleged problem of lust in a nudist resort. Perhaps at some unconscious
level he is struggling with this problem in his own congregation and is
simply projecting his unresolved feelings upon a situation he cannot comprehend.
In any event, he needs our prayers, even as each of us prays to be delivered
from the temptation to lust — whether we are clothed or not.
Editor's Note: Though the issue of lust had previously been
discussed in Fig Leaf Forum, the need to revisit this important topic was
heightened as a result of the emphasis it was given by Mark Roberts in
the debate published on this Web site and in Issue 55/56 of the newsletter.
This article is from Issue 59 and was written by a Fig Leaf Forum subscriber. |
 |