Steve Hays and the Protestants on Self Abuse

Protestantism often makes the claim that "Scripture Alone" determines for them how they will live or what they will believe in regards to morality. Some Protestants hold to Scripture in a very literal sense, abiding by what is only explicitly mentioned in the pages of Scripture. Others apply principles that are in Scripture to help them determine what moral actions are right or wrong that may not be directly addressed. There seems to be no standard method of practicing "Sola Scriptura" when it comes to determining what is and what is not a moral act. Eventually each person becomes his or her own arbiter over Scripture to determine what they will or will not consider to be moral or immoral actions. This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, where Christ delivers a moral teaching through the Church, which is proclaimed to be the authentic moral teaching on a particular matter. The Church of course does this by interpreting and passing on God's Divine Revelation, which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, within the revealed Natural Law. This is how God's Church is able to address modern moral dilemmas that are not directly addressed in Scripture or Tradition per se.

One of the most important moral issues throughout the ages has been sexual morality. We must ask the following questions to those who proclaim that Scripture is their only rule of faith concerning morality. What is considered to be a moral or immoral act concerning the use of the sexual organs? Does Scripture address all possibilities in regards to this important subject? If something is not directly addressed in Scripture, does that mean that Christians do not have to worry about it? Is the Christian obligated to pull moral principles from Scripture and apply them to specific situations that are not addressed explicitly in Scripture? Is the Protestant obligated to go by their forefather's consistent interpretations on a particular Biblical verse, or can they override their own traditions at their own discretion?

One area of controversy in Protestantism over the last 70 years or so has been over the morality concerning contraception and sexual self abuse. There many conflicting opinions regarding both of these areas of sexual morality over the many denominations of the Protesters. These divisions however are not even drawn between denominational lines. Many "pastors" in the same denominations will disagree on these important moral questions. Lets look at some Protestant opinions concerning the morality of sexual self abuse and see what arguments they are putting forward on the matter.

Lets look at a Calvinist's opinion on this subject, by the name of Steve Hays. He has a blog called Tiablogue, where he frequently posts his opinions on matters concerning his Calvinist faith. Below is his assessment of self abuse. His text is in red. In between his text, I have inserted my thoughts on the matter, which are in bold black text.

Source-9. Masturbation

This once went under the quaint name of Onanism. How it came to be associated with sin of Onan is puzzling. If you read the Biblical account, Onan achieved a state of sexual climax by having sexual relations with a woman, which is hardly the textbook meaning of masturbation.

If we read the text of Genesis 38, we see that it is Onan's use of the sexual faculties outside of intercourse with the women is what he was condemned for. So applying this text to self abuse is not a stretch in applying the Biblical principle that is laid out. For instance traditional Judaism directly related this act to Genesis 38, "Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh'cha'tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina."   Read my post concerning Onanism for more detail.

At most, this would be a prooftext against contraception, but in that case we’d have to say that contraception is a sin, but polygamy is not. The account is really about Levirate marriage.

It is a fact that this text is not about Levirate marriage. Hay's argument is not a tenable one for we know by Scripture itself that the penalty for violating the Lavirate marriage laws did not carry the penalty of death, as Onan's sin did. This is often the excuse used to avoid the reality that contraception is also being condemned in this passage.

Traditionally, the church has frowned upon masturbation. One reason is the relation between masturbation and lust. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, lust is also aggravated by the absence of a sexual outlet. That is, indeed, in the nature of sexual tension, of a tension between sexual desire and sexual release. Unrelieved sexual tension only builds.

How Steve came to this logical fallacy is anyone's guess. By his reasoning, anyone who is not married and having sex, must be in some sort of a sexually repressed state in which they must find some sexual outlet, as if they were irrational animals with no self control. We can see where he is going with all of this, keep following along.

Another objection is the view that sexual activity is illicit outside the context of procreation. Yet if sex were impermissible outside of procreation, we would expect Scripture to forbid sexual relations with a barren, pregnant or postmenopausal woman.

Steve here cannot see the difference between intentionally disrupting the sexual act for the sole purpose of avoiding procreation, to the the unavoidable circumstances of pregnancy, or the postmenopausal women. This is almost like comparing murder to self defense. The sexual act that happens with your pregnant wife is not the same as dreaming up lustful thoughts about someone and committing self abuse. Self abuse has the selfish disposition of self gratification and cannot be rationally compared with to having sex with your pregnant wife. This poor argument is dismissed for the logical fallacy it is, a false analogy.

The Bible does not directly address this issue. The Bible has general prohibitions against the sin of lust, but this takes external subjects, such as homosexual lust, incestuous lust, or adulterous lust, where a particular individual and a particular relation are in view.

One has to wonder what someone would have to think about in his or her mind to arrive at committing the act of self abuse. To willingly project your thoughts onto an idea or image to complete the act of self abuse would fall directly into the condemnations of Scripture concerning lust. Scripture never says that lust has to be over a specific person that you know on a day to day basis. It gives a general principle that one is not to lust in a manner that leads to a sexual act outside of marriage. We have only to look at the full context Jesus is speaking in the Gospel of Matthew. If one were to conjure up a sexual image of a man or a women to bring his or herself to the point of self abuse, then that is lust. It is a sexual act committed for none other than one's own personal satisfaction. One is self worship, the other is self giving.

It is striking that the Bible is silent on the subject of masturbation—striking, both because the Bible is quite specific and explicit about a number of other sexual sins, and because masturbation is extremely widespread. The argument from silence is always a bit tricky, but if masturbation were intrinsically evil, you’d expect of find a warning to that effect somewhere in Scripture.

I find it alarming that one would dismiss all of the principles laid out in Scripture that address sexual morality, and would think that self abuse was not addressed in Scripture. For instance, St. Paul condemns homosexuality. Why does God determine that the act is immoral? Is it just a rule made by God to ensure that procreation would continue? This may possibly be part of the reason, but we must look at the basic principles laid out for us. There is a principle here that God lays out in Scripture that is very plain. If we look with the eyes of faith, we see God giving us a principle that condemns any sexual act outside of marriage. It does not take a genius to figure this out. Whenever Scripture speaks on a sexual immorality, it does so on the basis that the sexual act is not being carried out in the marriage covenant between a man and women, with both components of the sexual act being carried out. This means that if one uses contraception, the procreative act of giving oneself totally to the other is intentionally not taking place, hence the Catholic Church's condemnation of contraception and self abuse.

Since the Bible doesn’t address the question, either directly or by necessary inference, we cannot be dogmatic one way or another. So a few suggestions are in order:

The above statement is simply not true. We can say with great confidence that God condemns any sexual act committed outside of the marriage covenant, or in a state of lust, which includes the act of self abuse. 

i) Since we are responsible for the revealed will of God, and he has not disclosed his will on this particular subject, I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice.

We can see Steve now heading down that road dismissing every moral principle laid out in Scripture that deals with sexual impurity. According to Steve, no worries for anyone who does this! If you want to gamble with your spiritual life based on this guy's analysis of the subject, so be it. But just to give you fair warning, he tells you this, while by his own admission he says that he doesn't know for sure whether its immoral or not! Keep reading folks. This is the danger of Protestantism in a nutshell. Since Steve can't add 2 + 2, so he invents his own answer. Then later he tells you his own answer may be wrong!

ii) On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime.

You see for Steve, self abuse becomes a safety net, not an immoral act. It only gets worse from here folks. Hang on to your hats!

iii) Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night.

I can't even begin to address this comment! I mean, he is comparing this immoral act of lust to going to the gym! One has to wonder if he would be willing to buy blow up dolls for his entire youth group at his church!  After all, they are only in training! I am being dramatic here, but you can see where the slippery slope gets you when you play around with God's Word? I am sure that a guy's future wife would be glad to know that her new husband was trained well by all those times he dwelt on imaginative thoughts of other women as he abused himself! One can only shake their head when we see such foolishness.

iv) But, by the same token, it is generally illicit for married men—except for periods of prolonged physical separation. Likewise, it should not become a permanent alternative to marriage, unless marriage is not an option.

Steve here continues on in his moral blindness now telling husbands that if they are going to be away from their wives for a while they can engage in self abuse. I am sure their wives would be thrilled to know that! Even if the husband was thinking about his wife during the act, would that make it OK? The fact remains that a sexual act is happening without the participation of their spouse. They are using the sexual act for only their own personal gratification, and not the reason God created the act, which is for procreation and the mutual bonding of the spouses. This is truly unbelievable. All Steve is doing is trying to justify one's lack of self control.

v) As with any appetite, it runs the risk of becoming addictive or sinful if wrongly directed.

As we can see, it is always wrongly directed when it is self abuse! 

So I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.

After telling everyone that it is OK to do the act, comparing it to training at the gym for young men, he now says he can't determine for sure whether it is right or wrong!  It certainly  amazes me that Steve is going to play fast and loose in the public square with people's moral choices concerning sexual immorality! He on the one hand sees nothing wrong with it, and even suggests that young people engage in self abuse; he also tells married men that if they are going to be away from their wives for awhile, to go ahead, indulge yourself! Yet on the other hand, he doesn't know for sure whether it is right or wrong! Where is the clarity of Scripture for him? It is clear for the Catholic Church, don't do it! It was clear for John Calvin, don't do it!



Now I quickly want to look at a couple Protestants who condemned that act of self abuse and all sexual acts outside the marriage covenant. It is a fact that Protestant endorsement of contraception and self abuse has changed dramatically since the 1930s. Yet we know that God's commandments do not change.

John Calvin wrote, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Commentary on Gen. 38:8-10

John Wesley wrote, Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord -- And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls. Commentary on Gen. 38:7

I also think that it is worth noting that the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures (Gen38 in particular) regarding sexual immorality falls closely in line with the teaching of Catholicism. 

"Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan's act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh'cha'tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina...The issue is somewhat less clear for women. Obviously, spilling the seed is not going to happen in female masturbation, and there is no explicit Torah prohibition against female masturbation. Nevertheless, Judaism generally frowns upon female masturbation as "impure thoughts." Source-

Although the above passage is not as strongly worded as the Catholic Church's teaching on this issue, the basic principles are also followed in traditional Judaism regarding sexual acts committed outside the marital covenant. We can come to the conclusion that the Protestant use of Scripture concerning these particular acts does not have a good track record in recent years. I welcome comments here as long they stay on the topic.