Skip to main content

Self-indulgence, self-control, and being truly human

In our previous post, we talked about the modern problem of sexual essentialism - that is, making sexual expression essential to being human. So, if I can't have sex, I'm "asexual" and miserable and life is meaningless and I might as well die.

In contrast, we asserted that real humanity comes through being Christian - being forgiven by Christ, by being in relationship with God through him.

Self control is not a-sexuality - it's just controlling those urges, managing them. Self-control is an expression of our humanity - of our dignity and power. We are not slaves to our appetites; we are powerful, intelligent beings, in the image of God himself (Gen 1:26-27).

We know self-control is good and healthy because Jesus did it. Jesus managed his appetites - even when the appetite, in itself, was actually a good one - when he knew that appetite was being used by the devil to try and get him to sin.

In Matthew ch 4, Jesus is combating the devil in the wilderness.
Verse 2: "After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." That's a perfectly normal human response. It shows Jesus was fully human - he had an appetite for food. Usually, there'd be nothing wrong with satisfying this appetite - with eating.
Verse 3: "The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." The devil tried to use a normal, healthy human appetite to get Jesus to obey him. That's what the devil does - he uses good things to try and trick us, to suck us into following him.
Verse 4: "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"" Jesus was more interested in obeying God than filling his appetite - even when the appetite was, in itself, good and normal and healthy.

Sex is good. God created it. But he meant it to be used by one man and one woman, for life. Anything else is the devil, using an appetite that is, in itself, good and normal and healthy, trying to trick us into following him, instead of God.

I've applied this reasoning to sex - but it's much broader than sex.

Think about anger. Let's say we're angry with someone because they've spread lies and gossip about us, and have turned some of our friends against us. That's a good and healthy desire for righteousness, for truth.

But what can we do with that desire? Well, we could plot revenge; we could go scream and yell at them and have a punch-up; we could spread gossip and slander about them... or, we could love our enemies, do good to them and pray for them (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35); we could conciously give up on revenge (Rom 12:19); and thus, in our anger, we would not sin (Psalm 4:4; Eph 4:26).

That's difficult. It takes self-control. But, that's what Jesus did. What did Jesus say on the cross? Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" - he prayed for his enemies. Self-control is an expression of true humanity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...