A Ramble About Humiliation

"You learn humility only by accepting humiliations. And you will meet humiliation all through your life. The greatest humiliation is to know that you are nothing. This you come to know when you face God in prayer. Often a deep and fervent look at Christ is the best prayer: I look at Him and He looks at me. When you come face to face with God, you cannot but know that you are nothing, that you have nothing." - Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta

Mother St. Theresa is someone I deeply, deeply admire and respect. Every day she proved what she said she believed through her actions and her life, and she proved the truth of what she believed in them as well. After her death, it was revealed that she had deeply dark moments in her own faith as well where she felt that God might have abandoned her, and yet in spite of this she persisted and finally finished the race so well, God moved the nation of India, mostly polytheistic, to throw her a State funeral. So, when she says something about Christian practice and faith I tend to pay attention.

I don't like being or feeling humiliated. When I am, either intentionally or unintentionally, it hurts and it hurts deeply. Part of this is due to my own childhood woes and insecurities, and part of it is due to the insecure and positive attention loving ego which developed out of them. I wish this wasn't true about myself, but it is and it is something with which I struggle.

I find myself consistently feeling humiliated in one way or another, and have throughout my life. I am sure that part of this is my own fault for asking God to humble me earlier in my life (knowing my own ego and pride), but that does not make it any easier. To feel less than, to feel cast aside, to watch while all of your friends and acquaintances move on successfully in life while it seems like everything you try your hand at somehow gets stopped or malfunctions in some way, all of these things are humiliating.

It makes you want to run. It makes you want to escape or bury yourself in order to numb the pain. It makes you just want to quit trying and walk away from all of it, though you aren't allowed to. And no matter what happens, in the blink of an eye, and just for an instant you are called back to service in some small capacity, and then it fades again.

Jesus Christ was humiliated as well all through his life. He was accused of being an illegitimate child. He became, by his own account, homeless. During his ministry, he lived off the means of three women. This is not to mention his constant belittlement by the religious gatekeepers and his abhorrent execution. The Apostles as well suffered humiliation after humiliation as they attempted to serve and walk their own journey of faith.

I think that somehow we romanticize these humiliations and hardships. We take them and hold them up as shining examples of the faith without going into the dirty details of what it actually felt like. We tend to put rose colored glasses over the fact that the reality was vicious, hurtful, and extremely painful.

It is hard to find peace in being humiliated, especially when you can't see the outcome of it all. And it gets harder to trust that outcome when it continues to seem so far off in the distance. A shield of faith which is continuously bombarded with flaming arrows can eventually show the scars and splinters of intense bombardment in combat. This is also not something Sunday School teachers, caught up in the imagery of Ephesians 6, will tell you about. Though any soldier who has seen combat will tell you of the damage projectiles can do to armor. And I think there must be a kind of fatigue which comes with intense and unrelenting spiritual combat.

To be nothing, the goal of humiliation, there is both an attraction and a repulsion to it. It is something for which to strive, and yet it is also something which the ego desperately wishes to escape from. On the one hand, it means union with God through Christ, but on the other hand it means more painful humiliations and suffering. That suffering, ultimately is caused by attachments to things, people, ideas, etc. All of which are stripped away in humiliation. It is easy to say "Yes, Lord! Bring it on!" (as I did in my youth), but it is a far different thing to experience it. Eventually, you find yourself saying, "Please! No more! I can't take any more!" Even as you know that more humiliations are what is needed to finally destroy the ego which is pleading for the very idea of its existence.

I know I must trust God's process with me. No one needs to explain this or make it any more clear to me than it already is. Everything He does, including when He humiliates me, is because He loves me, not because He doesn't, and because He knows what will best achieve that goal He has for me. But it will never be without costing everything.

Yet Another Ramble About Discipleship...

Not long ago, I purchased a new original language Bible. Since then, I have been reading back through different New Testament books, transferring notes from my old Greek New Testament. The book I have been going through most recently is Matthew. Several weeks ago, I went through Matthew 10, and after making some notes and a Facebook comment, I moved on, but I find myself continuing to come back to it in my mind.

There were two things which stood out most to me then. The first was that this was more than just Jesus prepping his twelve disciples for a missionary road trip. This was their formal consecration as Apostles. The rules they were given by Jesus here weren't just for the immediate journey, but they were a rule of religious life which the Apostles were to continue following for the rest of their lives. Virtually the same rules were laid down for the seventy disciples who were sent out as well in Luke 10:1-11.

The second observation flows from the first, and this is that voluntary poverty was a part of their religious practice from this point in time onward(vs. 9-10), and appears to have been a mandated requirement to be one of Jesus's disciples. Jesus Himself lays this requirement on the rich young ruler, the only thing he lacked was to sell everything he had, give the proceeds to the destitute, then come and follow him in Matthew 19:21. Jesus was also clear that He Himself was homeless, and becoming His disciple meant following Him into homelessness in Matthew 8:20 (compare with the instructions to the Apostles in v. 11-14). His Apostles in the gospels also reiterated that they had given up everything to follow Him (Luke 18:28, Matthew 19:27). Jesus's admonishment towards voluntary, absolute poverty, homelessness, and detachment from earthly relationships for His disciples was strong, repeated, and consistent throughout the gospels (Luke 14:26-33, Matthew 10:37-39; 16:24-26). And it appears to have carried over into the practice of the Apostolic Church immediately before and after Pentecost in Acts 1-2.

Finally, He was also clear that those who didn't follow these conditions couldn't be His disciples. He said this over and over again. This is what keeps running through my mind. How can we reconcile the modern, western, materialistic life with being a disciple of Jesus Christ? And yet those most guilty of this at times are those professing to be “Christians”. About the only Christian populations today that continue to maintain these conditions of discipleship are some, though not all, religious and monastic orders.

One of the things that strikes me most about the conditions of discipleship is how similar this life was to the practice of the Buddha and his bhikkus (bhikku is “disciple” in Pali) as described in the Gospel of Buddha. They too were expected to renounce, or at least detach from all earthly relationships. They were expected to renounce or detach from all material possessions and enter a state of voluntary, near absolute poverty. And they too were expected to enter into homelessness. They were also expected to remain chaste and/or celibate.

Where this last part is concerned, the Jewish law already expected this in that only heterosexual marriage was permitted, and celibacy was expected otherwise on pain of death or forced marriage according to the Mosaic Law. And it is clear from, not only what Jesus taught, but also the letters of the Apostles in the rest of the New Testament that chastity was expected of Jesus's disciples both before and after Pentecost with the only exception being a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, the disciple was expected to remain celibate.

Another example I keep coming back to is that of several of the recognized Saints. One such example is that of Saint Theresa of Calcutta (she'll be fully canonized this year). I recently watched the movie, "The Letters" again, which is about her life and work. As a nun, she assumed voluntary poverty and chastity to begin with. But in going out from her security in her convent to live and work with Calcutta's poorest of the poor, she also, in a way, went forward into homelessness as well. Other examples may be St. Francis of Assisi, or St. Ignatius of Loyola. It occurs to me that, according to the writings and biographies of the Saints for the last two thousand years, the power and presence of Christ is most apparent and most active in those who adhere to the conditions of discipleship that He Himself laid out.

What does that look like with a spouse? With a family? What does that look like with responsibilities within society? And yet weren’t these questions that the Apostles and the seventy also had to wrestle with? St. Paul mentions that St. Peter had a wife that went with him, and the gospel writers also allude to his wife when they mention his mother-in-law with a fever.

I think there is a great deal of soul searching that needs to be done by those today that profess themselves to be His disciples. Do we despise the homeless, or do we join them as He did? Do we look down on those in poverty, or do we sell everything we have and give the proceeds to them as He taught? Do we indulge our sensual desires, or do we remain chaste as He did? And what would, and what did Jesus do and teach? What did He say we must do in order to truly be His disciples? If we don’t ask these questions and be honest with ourselves about the answers, how can we seriously even begin to call ourselves by His name?

Thoughts While Laying Awake at Night

God is on my mind tonight.

I don't like being asked the question “Do you believe in God?” For most this seems like a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But for me, the image that comes to my mind is of the titular character in “Evan Almighty” when he's naively told that he needs to shave after he'd spent hours that morning struggling to remove a beard that refused to die, “You have no idea!” However, in most conversations, I can't really say that as a response because the questioner really does have no idea what he's asking or the absurdity of the question and would be offended if I pointed this out, or like many would try to analyze me and figure me out which then becomes awkward and throws up more barriers.

Another response which goes through my head is, “Are you kidding me?” And this too would probably be either threatening to the questioner, or mark me as someone who tries to artificially spiritualize everything to make myself sound more religious than I really am. This is why I rarely talk about what I believe anymore to people I'm not certain share the same faith. I've learned the hard way that if my actions don't match what I say I believe then it's best to stay silent. I'd rather let my actions share Christ than let my mouth embarrass Him.

For a long time now I've been trying to come up with a realistic picture of God given all available data. While what I've got so far works for me, I know it doesn't work for everyone. That's fine. It doesn't matter if it does, because that doesn't change the reality of His existence. It's like trying to put a face to a familiar voice, a familiar touch that you've never seen because you're blind. You don't even know where to begin. And it's only every so often that you get a glimmer of the reality behind the Presence because when you do it's overwhelming and you're left almost unable to process.

I understand where people start from, where the existence of God might be questioned when there is no basis of a relationship or communication. But at this point in my life, questioning His existence is more ludicrous than questioning my own. We have too much of a history together. It is true that He sees no need to prove His existence to anyone. But this shouldn't surprise anyone. There is a saying, small dogs bark the loudest. The opposite is also true. Alphas have no need to prove themselves. The inferior members of the pack vie for their attention, not the Alpha for theirs. So it is with God, you either submit and accept Him as a starting point of a relationship, or you don't. It is not a relationship of equals. Don't be arrogant enough to demand it. This is what the small dog does.

The "picture" I have of God now, I've tried to understand and explain, and I think my hypothesis fits the data. When I truly sit and try to meditate on it, it overwhelms me and can move me to terrified trembling and tears while at the same time realizing I continue to exist only because of His lovingkindness and mercy. I can't think if the term "I Am" anymore without it provoking some kind of a response in this vein.

It takes real work to cultivate a relationship with Him. Just like it does with anyone. It takes communication, trying to listen, making mistakes, learning about each other and taking leaps of faith. None of this happens overnight. Sure, He might briefly take control of you for something with your cooperation, but that's one experience. One experience does not a solid relationship make for anyone. Salvation is a result of this relationship, both in this life and beyond, and God's no fool. He knows who His friends are, and who they aren't. He loves you but He's not going to acknowledge a relationship that doesn't exist. Relationships are two way not one way.

Just my thoughts before bed.

Thoughts on the Divine Nature of Energy

Thoughts on the Divine Nature of Energy.

I don't remember what started me thinking along these lines the other day, but for one reason or another, I started thinking about the heat death of the universe, and then the line of reasoning took some interesting turns. The heat death of the universe is also known as maximum entropy, and I will start this from there.

Maximum entropy is when the water grows completely still and there are no more ripples in the pond. This isn't to say that the water is no more, it has simply achieved equilibrium and is able to be at rest. The same is true of all the energy in the universe. What we call the heat death of the universe would be all the energy achieving equilibrium so that it is evenly spread out. In other words, energy in its natural, undisturbed state is static. It wants to stop moving and be at rest.

Another thing about energy is that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. And, according to modern physics, all of the manifest creation boils down to energy in one form or another.

Perhaps the reason why energy can be neither created nor destroyed is because it is God Himself.

Perhaps energy is the "physical" being of God Himself.

So, here is my thought. To describe energy as the "physical" being of God (for lack of a better description) at first sounds bad because I'm equating God with a created thing. Except that the first law of thermodynamics explicitly states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can change forms from energy to matter and back, but you will never have more energy or less energy in existence than you will at any given point in time. This, by necessity, means that energy is eternal. It has no beginning and no end. It is therefore uncreated.

To say that energy itself is inanimate is paradoxical and problematic at best. The presence of energy causes animation. That which is without energy is dead. How is it possible that an inanimate "object" is the cause and source of all life and animation?

There is nowhere energy does not exist because all matter is also energy in a different form, and energy transfers from point to point in waves in various forms. Because all matter is energy in a different form, if energy itself were intelligent, it would be in full contact with everything and everyone at the foundational level of existence, thereby making it omniscient. And an omnipresent intelligent energy would by its very nature be omnipotent. Also, energy itself must, by nature, be omnidimensional and extend outside of our own spacetime. If God is the foundation of all existence, and if He is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and completely transcendent and yet imminent with His creation at the same time, then doesn't energy itself meet all of these criteria?

Furthermore, consider the metaphors used to describe Him in Sacred Scripture, "God is light", "God is a consuming fire" and so on. Consider Moses who spent so much time in the manifest presence of God that his face glowed so bright he had to wear a veil. Most of the encounters with the manifested presence of God involved some kind of description of a manifestation of energy in some way.

What if energy itself was intelligent, compassionate, and personal?

Is it so hard to conceive that energy itself is intelligent, personal, and also compassionate/empathetic towards everything that is comprised of it? We ourselves are also made of energy, and our intelligence is comprised largely of pulses of energy moving through organic circuitry that at its very foundational level is itself also energy. All matter is formed from energy becoming particles out of seemingly nothing at all, and it can be reasonably said that matter is simply a multidimensional disturbance of energy.

Perhaps it isn't entirely accurate to say that energy is God Himself (and certainly not comfortable), at least not in His totality. But, perhaps energy is the "surface" of God like the surface of a pond. You can see the surface of a pond, but unless the water is crystal clear, you cannot see how deep it is or what is under that surface.

These are only a series of thoughts that on the surface appear relatively logical, but they beg for even more profound questions to be asked if the basic premise is to be given as true. I leave that for you the reader to ponder and reflect on further.

A Ramble About God

While there are many theological hypotheses and models to describe God, I have found this one to be the most useful for my own personal understanding. Is it absolutely necessary to one's salvation to understand God in this way? No, of course not. But it does take all available data into account, and in my opinion has great explanatory power, which is what a good hypothesis should do.

First, we start with “In the beginning God created...” Scripture teaches us that God created the heavens and the Earth from nothing. If we are to understand this as absolute nothing, then this is impossible. Absolute nothing in the strictest sense is an impossibility because prior to creation God was all that existed. It is therefore impossible for God to create from absolute nothing if absolute nothing does not exist. Therefore we must understand “nothing”, not in the absolute sense, but in the sense of “no other created thing.” This frees us to understand that during the creation event, God used His own existence as the foundation for all created existence.

How is this possible?

Modern theoretical physics tells us that all matter and energy in existence are essentially one dimensional energy strings vibrating at a certain frequency and with a certain spin. The differences in frequency and spin determine which particle the string becomes. Those vibrations are waves.

Here's the thing, in order for any kind of a wave to exist, it must pass through a medium as the wave is actually just a rhythmic disturbance moving through the medium in question. For example, a sound wave must have air in order to exist; an ocean wave must have an ocean in order to form, a ripple in a pond must have a pond, etc.

Therefore, it isn't too much of a leap to suggest that the medium in which all “particles” of creation vibrate in order to achieve their “form” is God Himself. This automatically gives us the divine attributes of Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence. He is literally everywhere and is in full “physical” contact with everything and everyone, thus He is fully aware of everything that has happened and as it is happening, and furthermore because of His relationship to the creation, nothing is outside the scope of His power in terms of modifying that creation in any way He sees fit.

This explanation also fulfills the requirement that God be transcendent. That is, God is unlike any created thing. He is completely “other”. It also explains why no one has seen God (in terms of God the Father) at any time. It is physically impossible for a created being to observe God the Father in His “natural” state as that natural state encompasses the observer's own existence.

The consequence of this is that He knows everything every human being knows, and feels everything every spiritual being, human being, animal, and plant (i.e. every living thing) feels at all times. This direct, constant contact with those thoughts and feelings would immediately result in absolute compassion and understanding for those beings. What affects us affects Him.

The Scriptures are also clear that God is Eternal, without beginning and without end. The first part of this is satisfied by the fact of His absolute mono existence prior to the creation event. God is all that existed prior to the existence of space and time.

Modern theoretical physics teaches us that space and time are not separate entities but merely four related dimensions among eleven. We know that all of creation moves along at least these four dimensions, but prior to creation, those dimensions could not have existed because God was all that existed. Therefore, God is not bound by this dimensionality, and does not move through it, rather these dimensions and everything existing along them move through Him. Therefore, even if space and time should cease their movement and cease to exist, this can in no wise affect the existence of God.

This also leads to the requirement that God be immutable. That is, He does not change. Change requires movement of position from one point to another, whether it is a point in time or a point in space. As was previously stated, time and space move through Him. Therefore, He remains static and motionless while the creation moves through Him.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is three persons or hypostases in one being or existence. The description I have given covers the first person of the Trinity, that is, God the Father.

The second person of the Trinity, God the Son, is, for lack of a better way of saying it, God's avatar which He uses to allow His creation to interact with Him on their terms. Ultimately this avatar was incarnated into a union of God and human being, the God-Man Jesus Christ, for the purpose of delivering humanity from their inherited malfunction.

The third person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit, proceeding from God the Father, is what is seen as the movement of God within His creation. The best way I can explain this is by observing the sun. It appears to be in motion across the sky, when in fact, relative to the Earth, the sun is stationary and the Earth is in motion. Therefore, what we perceive as His motion is in fact our motion as we interact with Him through space and time.

For me, this model fulfills all the theological requirements taught in the Christian faith about the “what” of God. It also builds a picture of a God who cannot truly be understood or contained by the human mind, but who is immanently near and can fully understand and empathize with us. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But as I stated at the beginning, it is useful for my own personal understanding as something my mind can at least work with in getting to know Him. I hope it helps whoever reads this as well.

A Ramble About the Forsaken

It's been some time since I wrote anything on this blog. The truth is that, after spending most of the year working in Special Education, writing five novellas and two full novels, as well as helping out a project for Wycliffe Associates by checking the English text of a translation against the Greek, I've been taking a break from pretty much everything except my nine dollar an hour summer job and waiting until my regular twenty dollar an hour rest of the year job resumes in a couple of weeks.

And I've been playing World of Warcraft all summer.

It started out being just me, but eventually my whole family got into it and so my wife, son, daughters and I have been running through the Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor seeing new sights, killing monsters, going on quests together, and, in some ways, running the ultimate family summer vacation road trip without ever having to leave the house.

Up until now, I've created human characters, night elves, blood elves, orcs, Tauren, Dreinei and dwarves. Most of the time I've played either Paladins or priests, warriors or hunters depending on the race. I've identified more with the Paladins and priests than any of the others, but I've found that all the races have interesting and engaging histories and story lines. I've felt like I could empathize and come to understand the position and situation of all of them.

All of the races, that is, except one.

Up until today, I've been steadfastly avoiding the Forsaken or creating a Forsaken character. Let me explain why. The Forsaken are undead. For all intents and purposes they are a nation of zombies a la “The Walking Dead” except retaining all of their intelligence and personality. They look like rotting corpses. They excel in dark shadow magic, and most of the quests that I had encountered previously where they were involved seemed atrocious and dishonorable. I had absolutely no desire to be involved with them unless they were on the receiving end of my holy attacks.

But, after several months of playing very similar characters and seeing the same terrain over and over again, I decided to go ahead and try one; just to see what their starting area was like if nothing else.

It turns out that the Forsaken are, essentially, the people who got caught in a devastating plague during the events of Warcraft 3 and were left behind to suffer the plague's effects. They were transformed from living breathing husbands, wives, sons, daughters, farmers, soldiers, and loyal citizens of their kingdom into almost mindless zombies enslaved to the Scourge, a demonic, brutal faction that is a mutual enemy to both the Horde (orcs, trolls, Tauren, Blood Elves, and Forsaken) and the Alliance (humans, night elves, dwarves, Dreinei, and gnomes).

The undead who became the Forsaken were able to free themselves from their enslavement, and began to fight against the Scourge like everyone else, but found themselves rejected and hunted by the friends, family, and nations to which they had formerly once belonged. They are a broken people, angry and in pain on many, many levels, and unable to get any kind of relief. Even the relief which death was supposed to bring.

I've found, in the story lines of the starting quests, a woman who just wants a blanket to keep warm because she's always too cold now. Another woman wants to bring peace to the soul of her friend by making sure her husband is buried in the grave next to hers. Still others just want justice for what has happened to them; something which always seems just out of reach. And yes, there are others who are so angry and in pain that they want to take their revenge by seeing all of those who are still living and breathing either become like them, or dead.

As I played through the first few levels of my undead priest, I couldn't help but think about all the very real people I have encountered and know about who, on first glance seem equally twisted and atrocious; the kind of people whom I would just normally try to avoid. How many of them are also that way because of a “scourge” to which they were just innocent bystanders? How many of them are now equally as broken, hurt, and angry and have become “forsaken” by all the “good” people, that is, those who claim to represent the light? How many of them are just trying to put their lives back together the best way they can, even if it's not the “right” way, because that's all they can do? And how many of us condemn them for it when it doesn't live up to our standards of “the right thing to do”? How many times has such an attitude driven them even further into anger, revenge, and shadow?

Warcraft is just a game. But the attitudes and story lines it presents are something of a reflection of real world problems like self-righteousness, racism, intolerance and pride and the damage all of these can wreak on both the least significant of families and the world as a whole.

I plan on returning to writing and reflecting more here in the near future. I think my time binging in Azeroth is coming to a close, although I think I will still visit from time to time. But, as with everything, I think it will have been worth it if I can learn from the lessons those stories try to teach.

With Regards to Same Sex Marriage and the Church

I originally wrote this as a series of comments on a Facebook thread. Now that Same Sex marriage is legal in all fifty United States, it seemed appropriate to repost it again here on my blog. It's nothing I haven't said before.

The truth is that Christian practice in the United States and the modern world in general has fallen so far from the original, that we honestly don't know which end is up. It's about love, but not romantic or sexual love. We must love those who are homosexual, as Christ taught, but Biblical love is neither homosexual nor heterosexual. There is nothing sexual or romantic about the love which Christ and His Apostles taught. The love which he taught is the choice to sacrifice one's self and self-interests in favor of the other person.

"I need to be careful as to how I word this. If following Jesus Christ were about being "true to your own heart and mind", then I would agree with you and with this article. But it isn't, and it never has been except to be realistic with oneself in that one, being human, is not sinless. To be true to one's heart is to subject oneself to the whims and passions which come and go like the waves on the beach, relentlessly and constantly, and thus to be unstable in one's faith and practice. The foundation of Christian practice is the sacrifice and abandonment of one's own passions and desires. "If anyone wants to come behind Me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow Me." To what gender one is physically attracted is not necessarily a choice. On this, I believe we agree. It is determined by many factors, including brain chemistry. The practical expression of that physical attraction is, however, ultimately a choice. In the Scriptures, sexual intercourse is forbidden in Christian practice (Acts 15:9). It doesn't matter if it is homosexual intercourse, or heterosexual intercourse. Both are forbidden by the Apostles, and every Bishop since has reaffirmed this prohibition within the Christian religious rule since the first century, regardless of schism.

The one glaring exception (which also happens to be the practical, not the theological, norm) is heterosexual marriage, which is, theologically, a special dispensation. This was permitted for two reasons. 1)and primarily, because otherwise there would be no offspring, and 2)as a mercy, because not everyone has the capacity for total celibacy. Modern "Disney" notions of romantic love never entered into the equation.

Marriage itself is a Sacrament because both parties, in the practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ, receive Grace by dying to themselves in sacrificial service to their spouse. Following Jesus Christ is about choosing Jesus Christ over everything else in your life, including what gender you may be romantically attracted to, and it also means sacrificing those things and dying to them in pursuit of Christ alone. This fundamental truth about the Christian faith has not changed since Jesus and His Apostles taught it no matter who has tried to do so. Your choices are between you and the Lord, but I would be irresponsible and more concerned with myself and what you and other people think of me than with you if I didn't point this out.

I have no intentions of discriminating against anyone. This subject is a very sensitive, confused and misunderstood topic from all sides. I have spent a great deal of time trying to understand this issue in light of all of what Holy Scripture teaches, as well as what the understanding of the ancient Church was on the subject, and not just a few passages which support the position I might want them too. The goal of Christian faith and practice is union with God through Jesus Christ. We move towards that goal in this life by obedience to Him and letting go of those things which impede and distract us from Him. The Christian life is, foundationally, a life lived according to a certain religious rule with this in mind. The regulation of sexual practice is a part of that religious rule, and always has been. That hasn't changed just because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. Christian practice has always been both inconvenient and uncomfortable to one's personal desires and passions, and was never intended to be otherwise as the Pattern for that practice led a very uncomfortable life, and even worse death. The Apostles followed suit as well."