What is necessary to survival has a value that transcends its relevance as a personal ‘lifestyle choice’. Hundreds of thousands of years of mammalian evolution and millions of years of terrestrial evolution cannot be ‘valuated’ or ‘evaluated’ on its ‘value’ as a ‘lifestyle choice and or option, as presented amongst other categorical similarly defined ‘lifestyles’. Mating, coupling, and raising a family are part of the debt we owe prior generations who gifted us with the possibilities of life by so maintaining themselves in nuclear and extended family relationships. Thus we owe our bit to do our duty for humanity and future generations in as gentile and humane a terms as possible, by coupling and mating in nuclear legally (Religious and Secular) defined families, and maintaining the ties of extended family, including family religious, professional, and community associations. The Southern Black church’s commitment to the traditional family has only been challenged in the post-civil Rights/post sexual revolution era, to the point that now it is being made a mockery of as largely male pastors preach to a largely female congregation of single mothers, struggling with past sexual trauma…but of course to address sexual lifestyle issues at all could be seen to ‘drive’ a largely female congregation away by making public demands on community male and female sexual standards. To this point, contemporary post-modern Black religion has embraced promiscuity and family dysfunction, in the name of embracing ‘freedom’ as a sexual value which transcends all other values, including not just ancient theological traditions and values, but the lives of the very children that are produced from such unholy unions, which oftentimes don’t see the light of day, quite precisely because they are aborted. They aborted as the effect of another quid pro quo the Black church has made with the forces of socialist-atheist LGBTQIA+ social justice liberalism, and the positions of power in the Democrat Party and its Hollywood powerbase of ‘friends’. Ergo Senator Raphael Warnock and ‘Little Girl King’, who as I speak is probably telling me I should keep their names “out of my mouth.” I should “put some spec on they names”, like Birdman cautioned ‘Charlamagne the god’. That shows you how corrupt they are because it is not their names in my mouth, a broke intellectual, writer, preacher, and pastor from the old Bourgeois Black Southwest Atlanta they should be worried about, it is their name in God’s mouth they should wonder and worry about.
But if the Southern Black Church is not promoting the proper religiously denotated and connotated outlet for human mammalian sexual behaviors, activities, proclivities, and procreations, in the form of the family, what is it promoting? And therein lies the problem. The current Black church is standing on nothing but socialist atheist LGBTQIA+ social justice rhetoric in order to defend its sexual liberalism, and its jobs, monies, and perks in White mainstream Democrat politics, and the Hollywood-Corporate world of White mainstream elites. it is destroying the Black church’s witness to a Black community that desperately needs good old fashion public standards and moralities.
We’d Like to Introduce You to New Ministry we called ‘Happy Baby Mamas’ Make Good Wives
In an effort to increase rates of marriage and family amongst Black youth and Black families, we are endeavoring to partner with other faith-based organizations in order to present outlets and means of supporting Black families. This is proper not just for younger generations of impressionable age, but helps older generations as well as family loyalties are developed to which tend towards younger generations willing to care for the aged, which was the old model, until the illusion of big government, fooled everybody into thinking that the family wasn’t necessary to the health and stability of any society.
I’d like to provide an example of some of the resources we provide in order to help African America get a clearer view of the ancient mammalian and religious understandings that underpin traditional notions of the importance of marriage and family. Marriage and family are not just options and lifestyle choices, to be considered as equal to biological, mammalian and traditional religious and social understandings. Believe it is ‘lifestyle choice’ at your own risk! As unhappy as people and children are and filled with anxiety and self-medications of all sorts, as unhappy as senior adults are that have ungrateful children that abandon them, as unhappy as algorithm dating on the internet is making us, and lastly as unhappy as the baby mamma/baby daddy drama is making us in the annals (literally and figuratively) of shows like Paternity Court, and other Talk shows designed to get at the DNA of who some child of God’s father is, because the two people involved in the sex act, act like they have no idea how this baby showed up, nor any idea how they could have been so dumb and unlucky as to have had sex even one time, with the potential mother/father. In the midst of all this public suffering in contemporary Black families, the Black church is still turning a blind eye in the name of its socialist-atheist LGBTQIA+ social justice warrior/lawyer Hollywood Corporate friends! So now let us go to some ancient sources of wisdom to buttress, what clearly the current Black church and its leaders have lost. We will be citing all sorts of ancient wisdom(s) from various faith traditions which will I feel prove to be a greater value to the Southern Black Church, than the current Black Church’s reliance on socialist-atheist-LGBTQIA+ alphabet soup mumbo-jumbo in order to define what its position is on the Black family!
End
Family Values Wisdom From the Rabbinic Tradition (Midrash, Mishnah, and/or Gamara)
Notes from Avos Derabbi Nassan Commentary on the Pirkei Avos Rabbinic Work (Artscroll Schwarz Family Edition)
- On marriage and how God Himself participates in betrothal marriage and gladdens the bride. Pg. 143
When two Torah scholars are sitting and engrossing themselves in Torah study – and a bride passes before them on the way to her wedding…. the rule is as follows:
- If the wedding party has sufficient participation, then the scholars should not interrupt their studies.
- But if there is not sufficient participation, then they should rise from their studies and speak the praises of the bride.
- The Baraisa (Talmudic notes and explanations) continue on the above theme:
- There was an incident involving R’ Yehudah bar Il’ai.
- He was sitting and teaching his students and a bride passed before him. R’ Yehudah recognized that there was some commotion but did not know what it was.
- He said to his students, “What is this?”
- They said to him in reply, “It is a bride and her entourage that has passed.” He said to them, “My sons, arise and participate in the wedding party of this bride. Make the procession joyful! For so we find regarding the Holy One, Blessed is He that He participated in the wedding party of a bride. And if He participated in the wedding party of a bride, then we must certainly do so!”
- And where do we find that the Holy One, Blessed is He, participated in the wedding party of a bride?
- For it says, Then God fashioned the side that He had taken from the man into a woman (Genesis 2:22). Now, this term ‘fashioned’ (vayiven), refers to braiding hair, for in the cities by the sea, they call a braided hairdo a bena’isa.
- We can thus learn from here that the Holy One, Blessed is He, prepared Eve and adorned her a befits a bride and brought her to Adam,
- As it says, and He brought her to Adam (ibid)
NOTE #17: This verse indicates that God brought her to Adam in a beautified state, adorned with all twenty-four types of ornaments associated with a bride (see Isaiah 3;18-24 and Song of Solomon. Also reflected in Kabbala and Gematria.
-For this one time, the Holy One, Blessed is He, acted as the wedding attendant for a man;
NOTE #18: This term (wedding attendant) refers to the individual who accepts the responsibilities that pertain to the wedding, to the match, and to making the wedding a joyous occasion. In the case of Adam, God Himself acted as the wedding attendant. The Gemara in Berachos comments: “Here the Torah teaches us proper conduct, that an important person should make the wedding arrangements even for a person of lower rank, and this should not disturb him.” He should not feel it beneath his dignity, for God did it for man, whose rank is insignificant compared to His.
- From then on, a man must procure a wedding attendant for himself. Similarly, for this one time, a match was made when Eve was taken from the body of Adam and made his wife.
- From then on, a man needs to betroth the daughter of his fellow man.
Glory to God and Lord help the marriages of the Sons and Daughters of Ham
END
From the Midrash
74:5 Text Genesis Midrash when Jacob and his family left the house of his father in law Laban, somewhere around Genesis 31:16-19. It includes Leah and Rachel saying to Jacob in his decision to leave Laban,
“But all the wealth that God has taken away from our father belongs to us and to our children; so now, whatever God has said to you, do.” Jacob arose and lifted his sons and his wives onto the camels. He led away all his livestock and all the wealth that he had amassed – the acquisition of his property that he had amassed in Paddan-aram – to come to his father Isaac, to the land of Canaan. Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole the teraphim that belonged to her father. Genesis 31:16-19.
“BUT, ALL THE WEALTH THAT GOD HAS TAKEN AWAY FROM OUR FAHTER, ETC.”…JACOB AROSE AND LIFTED HIS SONS AND HIS WIVES ONTO THE CAMES.
The Midrash relates a verse from Ecclesiastes to our verse: R’Yochanan said: It is written, A wise man’s mind (tends) to his right, while a fool’s mind (tends) to his left (Ecclesiastes 10:2) R’Yochanan expounds: A wise man’s mind tends to his right, this is an allusion to Jacob, as is stated, Jacob arose and lifted his sons, and only afterward – and his wives; while a fool’s mind tends to his left – this is an allusion to Esau, as is stated, Esau took his wives, and after, and his sons and his daughters (earlier in 36:6).
Family Values Midrash 74 5
Insight A
The Midrash compares, to Esau’s detriment, the attitudes of Esau and Jacob toward their wives and children. Esau placed wives above offspring; Jacob did the opposite. Afikei Yehuda, a disciple of Gra explains that the comparison illustrates a fundamental and significant difference in the way each perceived the purpose of marriage, and, by extension, the very purpose of life itself.
The righteous and unrighteous perform identical physical acts; both eat, both sleep, both marry. Often, what divides them are not the acts themselves, but the intentions that underlie those acts. A righteous person intends his physical activities to serve a higher purpose; one who is unrighteous is motivated solely by the pleasures these activities afford. For example, an unrefined person seeks a mate to indulge his physical desires. A God-fearing man, by contrast, marries to fulfill the obligation to produce righteous offspring pledged to God’s service. For such a man, the union of husband and wife is fundamentally a preparatory act, one necessary to build a family. It is not an end in and of itself. For both the righteous and the unrighteous, the physical act is the same, but in their intentions, they are worlds apart.
These differing views of marriage are made manifest in one’s attitude toward one’s children. If the very purpose of marriage is to raise offspring to serve God, if this is what a person holds most dear, then the family becomes the focus of his existence. His every concern is for the well-being and development of his children; he finds his utmost joy in their success. If, however, the purpose of marriage is nothing more than indulgence, and one’s children are simply the byproduct of that indulgence, then their development is of no concern to him. His attention is reserved entirely for his mate, for it is she who fulfills his desires. He has none to spare for the well-being of his children; he is content to let them wander where they will.
Because these attitudes are accurate indicators of one’s level of righteousness, the Midrash employs the contrasting behavior of Jacob and Esau in this area to illustrate the vast divide between them. Esau lived his life in lustful pursuits; therefore, he most valued his wives, and saw first to their needs. Jacob, by contrast, lived to serve God. His marriage was primarily a means to that end. He, unlike Esau, did not confuse the means and the end, but understood that a primary purpose of the marital union is to produce righteous offspring. This was Jacob’s fondest hope, and the dream that lay closest to his heart. Naturally, then, the needs of his children were uppermost in his mind.
END
The importance of Fathers and Children
Midrash 74-13 – Genesis 31:43-46
The Laban spoke up and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flock is my flock, and all that you see is mine. Yet to my daughters – what could I do to them this day? Or to their children who they have born! So now, come, let us make a covenant, I and you, and He shall be a witness between me and you.” The Jacob took a stone and raised it up as a monument. And Jacob said to his brethren, “Gather stones!” So they took stones and made a mound, and they ate there on the mound.
The midrash starts at this section:
..THEN JACOB TOOK A STONE, ETC. AND RAISED IT UP AS A MONUMENT..AND JACOB SAID TO HIS ‘BRETHEREN’, “GATHER STONES!”
The Midrash seeks to identify Jacob’s brethren. How many brothers did Jacob have? Only one Esau, and would that Jacob would have buried him! Who, then are Jacob’s brethren of our verse? – Rather, these are his sons, whom one calls his brethren in the Holy Tongue. R Huna said in explanation of this implied similarity. Jacob’s sons were mighty ones like him and righteous ones like him. – Furthermore, R’Yudan said: If a person wore his father’s clothing, he is like his father.
Note 129 – In the Holy Tongue, “brotherhood” is used as an expression of similarity.
INSIGHT A
Why indeed did Jacob command his children to gather the stones? Did he not have many servants who could have done this menial task? And why indeed does specifically this verse characterize Jacob’s “sons” as his “brothers”?
The Netziv explains that Jacob wished to instill in his children a great lesson in how to interact with people – even with difficult and contentious people.
Laban had come to confront Jacob, and Laban’s remarks were full of provocation. There was no hint of anything conciliatory. Even his final comment was that everything in sight was actually his. Nonetheless, Jacob ignored the provocation and the insults and sought peace above all. He wished to gather stones on which he would share a meal with Laban and his men. Jacob would take the high road. He would seek to mollify his antagonist and draw him closer.
To this end, Jacob had his children, not his servants, gather and pile the stones for this purpose. He had them involve themselves personally in building the pile – and the resulting bridge – to those who would be antagonistic. He taught them the surpassing value of peace and conciliation.
But the Torah reveals to us that Jacob instructed them to do so as “brothers,” not as “sons”. Jacob did not wish for his children to build this bridge to peace simply out of filial obedience and respect. He wished them to participate in this activity as equals, so that they learn and internalize the great lesson he was teaching them. They – and the nation of their descendants – would learn the value of peaceful interaction with all.
In a similar vein, R’Elyah Meir Bloch sees here a profound principle of education. Children and students should always feel that they are not simply students absorbing the teachings of their parents and teachers. They must also be allowed to actively participate as equals, in a sense, in the ideals and principles of their educators. This may indeed be another aspect of the famous statement of our Sages that is found at the conclusion of Tractate Berachos (64a), as well as sever other tractates of the Talmud: “Do not call them (Torah scholars) your children, but your builders.” One’s children and disciples should be builders and partners in the grand edifice of Chinuch (raising God fearing observant children).
Note 131 to the phrase stated by R’ Yudan where he said: “If a person wore his father’s clothing, he is like his father.
I.e., if a son has grown in physical stature to the point where his father’s clothing fits him, he is considered equal to his father in a sense, and may be called his brother. Thus, Jacob’s sons were called his brethren on account of their having reached his height despite their relative youth. Alternatively, clothing is used here as a metaphor for one’s ways and character traits. Thus, Jacob and his like-minded sons are described as brethren because of their connection and similarity.
END
Notes on the Sex and Marriage from Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (1903-1993) in the book ‘And from there you shall seek’. p. 115-117
Neither Greek philosophy (nor much of the New Testament ‘Catholic philosophy’ that proceeded from it) grasped the moral and metaphysical aspects of sexual intercourse. Jewish Halakhah gives this act a solid basis in religious life; the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28) is the first one in the Torah! Marital life is pure and blessed! The life of a bachelor, even if he has never sinned, runs contrary to the view of the Halakhah. One who is not married has no joy, no blessing, and no Torah (Yevamot 62b). The Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself engages in matchmaking (Gen. Rabbah 68:3-4). The joy of the bride and groom is very important, and anyone who participates in it receives a great reward (Berakhot 6b). A husband is required to have relations with his wife at regular intervals, according to his physical ability and the conditions of his work (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Marriage 14:1; etc.,). the Halakhah’s laws of sexual intercourse, which are based on psychological principles and sexual hygiene, are marvelous for their clear-headedness and “modernity.” How much concern, along with the delicate and intimate understanding, is found in these laws. The same iron-clad Halakhah that forbids sexual intercourse when the wife is menstruating and establishes preventive measures around this restriction, also imposes an absolute duty upon man to have intercourse with his wife periodically out of love and affection. The Halakhah established the concept of “intercourse which fulfills a commandment.”
Man worships his Creator with his body, his eating, and his sexual activity, and this worship is preferable to worship even through prayer! Look and see how much is written in the Torah and the Talmud about the laws of forbidden sexual relations and forbidden foods, and how little is written about the laws of prayer. Many people who gorge themselves on food like a predatory animal in its lair and defile their sexual love life are able to pray to God on bent knee, but not many can eat in the presence of God and sanctify themselves while under attack by the sexual drive. Wherever there is a possibility of sexual activity, the Torah enjoins sanctity. Maimonides (Rambam) calls his compilation of the laws of forbidden sexual relations and forbidden foods by the name “The Book of Holiness.” Sexual relations reflect the image of the human being as differentiating himself from the beasts and (while still in his body) soaring to the heights. Socratic/Platonic metaphysics, which has had such a great influence on Catholic Christianity, insists that the spirit rises upwards while the body goes downward, that man is crowned with a garland of reason and has the power to soar up to the world of the Logos by devoting himself to a spiritual and intellectual calling that does not involve his real animal existence. Judaism (and the Christianity of the early church) declare in contrast that man earns eternal life by transforming his purposeless, animalistic, temporal existence into the holy life of the man of God. The former speaks about the continuing existence of the general (collective soul), while the latter insists on individual immortality and the reawakening of the dead. The body will emerge from the grave in all its glory.
Physiological drives are sanctified through the moral commandments, which are not intended to subdue this world, but rather to place upon it the crown of royalty. The Halakhah allows the creature of nature to break through to pellucid radiant expanses and new skies. It is not only the spirit but also the beast in man that worships the Creator. The Shekinah (Holy Ghost) hovers over the abyss of lust and man’s animalistic, instinctual essence, and sanctifies them. Even in the toilet (according to Judaism and Islam), man must sanctify himself in the presence of his Creator.
Man worship God even when he is sitting on the toilet, a simple enough to understand natural activity. And therein lies the greatness. By sanctifying body, even in mundane acts like evacuation and the physical act of sex, it creates one whole unit of psychosomatic man who worships God with his spirit and his body and elevates the beast (in him) to the eternal heavens.
END
Note from – Tomer Devorah – Section on Emulating God pg. 10
Note from – Tomer Devorah – Section on Emulating God pg. 10
An animal’s sole motivation in life is to satisfy its physical needs and urges, and much of humanity unfortunately exhibits the same behavior(s). Rather than contenting ourselves with being dragged along by the body’s drives and its hunger for material and sensual pleasures, we can live with meaning, devoting ourselves to what truly matters and developing nobility of character. By modeling our behavior on the ways of God, we become ever closer to Him, and doing so makes us truly worthy of his blessings.
END
Midrash Rabbah Koheles (Ecclesiastes/Proverbs)
Parasha 9:7
Scripture
“Choose Life with the wife you love through all the fleeting days of your life that He has granted you beneath the sun, all of your futile existence; for that is your compensation in life and in your toil that you exert beneath the sun. (9:9)
…Pursuant to its first exposition of our verse as saying that one should acquire a livelihood, the Midrash cites another teaching in this regard:
- It was taught in a Baraisa: The following are the commandments that a father is obligated to perform with his son: – to circumcise him and to redeem him if he is a firstborn; – and also to teach him Torah, to teach him a livelihood (trade), and to take a wife for him.
- And some say: He is also obligated to teach him to swim in a river.
The Midrash provides Scriptural sources for each of these obligations:
“To circumcise him”: – from where is this known? – For it is stated, At the age of eight days every male among you shall be circumcised (Genesis 17:12).
Note 170: Given that an eight-day old child is incapable of circumcising himself, perforce the Torah is placing this obligation upon the father.
“To redeem him if he is firstborn” – from where is this known? – For it is stated, And you shall redeem every human firstborn among your sons (Exodus 13:13)
“To teach him Torah” – from where is this known? For it is stated, You shall teach them to your children (Deuteronomy 11:19).
- “To teach him a livelihood” from where is this known? – For it is stated, And you shall choose life, so that you will live, you and your offspring (Deuteronomy 11:19).
Note 172: And the expression “life” refers to a livelihood. Thus, by concluding, so that you live, you and your offspring, the verse is teaching us that one must ensure that (not only he but even) his offspring will have a livelihood. In addition, the presumption is that having a viable livelihood reduces the chances one or one’s children has to beg or steal to survive, which often involve manifest sins.
- “To take a wife for him” – from where is this known? – For it is stated, Take wives and beget sons and daughters; take wives for your sons (Jeremiah 29:6)
- “To enable him to swim in a river” – from where is this known? – For it is stated, And you shall choose life, so that you will live, you and your offspring.
Note 173: The expression “life” can allude to one’s ability to swim, for one’s life may at times become contingent on this skill, e.g., if he falls into a river.
The Midrash cites a teaching in connection with the plain meaning of our verse, according to which the wife you love refers to one’s actual wife: 174
- And whoever does not have a wife lives without goodness, without help, without happiness, without blessing, and without atonement.
- -Without goodness”
Notes 175: Referring to the possession of all those things considered “good” in this world; e.g. health, children, and matters that are spiritually beneficial
- “Without goodness”. – from where is this known? – For it is stated, It is not “good” that man be alone (Genesis 2:18)
Note 176: The Midrash interprets this verse to mean that when he is alone (i.e. without a wife), he has no goodness.
- “Without help” – from where is this known? – For it is stated subsequently, I will make him a helper corresponding to him (Genesis 2:18)
Note 177: A wife assists her husband by improving his work and putting it to practical use; e.g. a man brings home wheat and his wife grinds it; a man brings home flax and his wife makes it into linen from which she fashions garments. (Yevamos 63a)
“Without happiness” – from where is this known? – For it is stated And you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deuteronomy 14:26).
Note 178-179: As R’ Akiva said, “The joy of one’s heart is a wife”. This is primarily because he can unburden his heart by sharing all his secrets with her. By contrast, when he is single, all his private concerns and worries fester in his heart and he is constantly perturbed. In these verses, the Midrash interprets (“household” or “home” to mean one’s wife, for Scripture often uses home/household as a euphemism for one’s wife, as she is the mainstay of his household. This verse thus implies that only with a wife at his side can one truly rejoice.
- “Without blessing” – from where is this known? – For it is it is stated, To bring a blessing to rest upon your household (Ezekiel 44:30)
Note 180. This blessing refers to an increase of one’s material assets. Marrying a woman can make one’s home blessed, as stated in Sotah 17a, “If a husband-and-wife merit, the Divine Presence is present with them” (which in turn brings material blessings). This is also true in a practical sense, as she tends to needs of his home he may not recognize.
- For it is it is stated, To bring a blessing to rest upon your household (Ezekiel 44:30)
Note 181: From which we see that blessing can be attained only through one’s “household” (i.e. his wife; see note 178)
- “Without atonement”
Note 182: When a man gets married, the knowledge that his wife makes him a complete person, together with his commitments to her, cause him to reject the desires of his untethered youth and repent. However, this does not mean that an unmarried man cannot repent and achieve atonement; it means only that he lacks one of the primary avenues of repentance and atonement.
- (without atonement) – from where is this known? – For it is stated, And he shall provide atonement for himself and for his household (Leviticus 16:6)
Note 183: The Sages infer from this verse that the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) cannot effect atonement unless he has a wife. Thus, since the absence of a wife prevents the Kohen Gadol’s atonement on Yom Kippur, it follows that the same is true for all men who have no wives.
R’ Yehoshua ben Levi says: An unmarried man is also without life.
Note 184: Married men tend to live longer than unmarried men.
- As it states in our verse, “Choose life with the wife you love”; – and with-out peace, as it is stated, Peace be upon you, peace be upon your household.
- R’ Chiya bar Gamda says: An unmarried man is also not a complete person, – as it is stated, He created them male and female, and He blessed them and called their name Man (Genesis 5:2), – which indicates that only when the two of them are together are they called “man,”
- But when the two of them are not together they are not called “Man.”
- And some say that a man who remains unmarried also reduces the likeness of God’s image in the world,
- As it is stated, For in the image of God He made man
Note 185: And the next verse states, And you, be fruitful and multiply. Since human beings are made in God’s image, one who remains unmarried, and as a result, does not beget children, decreases the likeness of God’s image.
END
Citing the Biography written by Author Eric Metaxas of Martin Luther concerning Luther’s marriage and general attitude towards sex:
…we know that Luther truly found the physical act of sexual union within the context of marriage to be something beautiful and holy. It really was a return to Eden, where God approved and sanctified all we did and where the idea of something being sinful or dirty was not even possible. So in this (one of Luther’s private letters), we have evidence that in his own life Luther lived what he preached and taught. This world, as well as every physical thing in it, was to be redeemed through Christ. We were not to wall it off from the spiritual but to redeem it, to drag it into the sanctified world of the spiritual, to imbue it with the real presence of Christ so that whatever it was, bread or wine or the sexual act, it was all suffused with the presence of God and made new and beautiful again.
Luther’s view of the material world and especially of the sexual sphere stands in stark opposition to the dualistic, Gnostic, anti-materialist view of those who would over-spiritualize everything by eschewing sex and marriage and anything “non-spiritual.” The otherworldly glassy eyed look of cult members bespeaks this perspective, as though they were not really here, except in their bodies, which they have already mostly transcended, according to their logic.
Paradoxically, the modern materialistic view of the world does the same thing, albeit in the opposite direction. Instead of saying the spiritual is superior to the material – and therefore we must transcend the material or depart from it as much as possible, if not entirely – it says the spiritual is a fiction and the only thing that is “real” is the material. This failed project, rather than slap away the material as something to be completely avoided, slaps away the spiritual as something invented and actually nonexistent. It holds that the reason sexual relations are not “dirty” is that there is no such thing as “dirty.” Thus our ideas of shame are mere social constructs. Indeed our ideas of sin and even our ideas of what is good and true and beautiful are merely social constructs and inventions. So we have a purely materialist view of sex and the human person which holds that we are not spiritual beings – capable of falling away from God or being redeemed back into his presence – but purely physical beings for whom God is either a convenient fiction or an inconvenient fiction. According to this view, we must embrace the physical in such a way that we avoid any spiritual implications, so the sexual act is no longer shameful, but not because we have reentered Eden via the shed blood of Christ, rather because we have declared shame and sin and God to be religious fictions. We will therefore move forward purely as corporeal beings and will drown any flickers of shame or uncomfortableness as vestiges of our more primitive selves.
What Luther had done was something else entirely. Far from saying there is only this material world, he said God originally created this material world as good and had suffused it with his presence, but in Eden we fell away from that union with God. Thus the split between the “material” and the “spiritual” is the wound at the heart of the universe, and only Jesus can heal it. Therefore let us now allow him to do so by inviting him into the world. He came to Bethlehem and died on Calvary, but we must invite him into our hearts and must accept him so that he can do in our lives what he came to do. When we do this, everything is restored. So whatever we do in our humble, daily lives – whether having sex with our spouses, or raising children, or working at our jobs – we may now do unto God’s glory and may therefore redeem in him.
Luther was saying that for people who live like this, there is no longer a world in which officially religious and spiritual people only do religious and spiritual things. There is now a new world in which everyone can partake of God’s goodness, in which every person is a “priest,” in which every person can live fully loved and approved of by God, in which everyone can take the bread and the wine both at Communion.
END