Sex, Sex, Sex and Jesus and Relevance and Lifechurch.tv

The hot, movie-loving hairdresser wife and I were watching our ABC affiliate waiting for the Oscars when a teaser (hee hee) came on for a report on the local news following the awards. It was about a church in FL where the pastor had issued a 30-day sex challenge. Now, most of you have seen this by now, so I won't bore you with a recap. (If you haven't, here's the link.) This week I finally learn that Craig Groeschel, lead pastor, head pastor, senior pastor, video pastor, satellite pastor, conference speaker pastor, cat-hating pastor, lives in a half-million dollar home pastor, has a new book out. It's called "Going All the Way." According to the Amazon entry it's about preparing for marriage. You can read all the glowing reviews from such egalitarians as Mark Driscoll and Ed Young on the same page. Anyway, the book title uses and obvious allusion to sex, and the cover image, much like the 30-day sex challenge promo material, shows legs touching. Is that supposed to be sexy? Okay, so here's a quick church/marketing meeting about the promo material.

Pastor: We need something sexy to sell this.
Ad Pastor: What about a couple kissing?
Pastor: No. Too overt. We need the promise of sex without sex, just like church camp.
Ad Pastor: How about a woman in like a teddy with a cross on it?
Pastor: That's kind of icky. How 'bout we just show a handholding shot, just the hands?
Ad Pastor: But that could imply many things, like standing in line for a movie.
Pastor: True. What about legs entwined. You know, like they're worked up but not macking (editor's note: hip word) yet.
Ad Pastor: Perfect.

So it probably didn't go exactly that way, but you get the point. Both these endeavors use the same tactic, and it's one I've been accusing Lifechurch.tv of for a long time: exegete the culture, determine what's selling, package a product that appears to promise what's hot, bait and switch at the point of sale, rattle off the same old tired evangelical nonsense. Here we have two churches who are attempting to use the promise of sex to a younger generation with the intent of selling them sexual ethics that most people in their congregations believe but can't practice. And they believe the sexual ethics because they've been told to believe them, and even when they've been incapable of living them out, they've believed them. When they've been nearly destroyed by guilt, when their relationships become pathological because of guilt, and when they've tried and failed to reform, still they believe.

I have an idea. Why not look at sexual ethics from a variety of lenses: history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and physiology? Why is it that churches insist on only the traditional/literalist lens on this one issue? Is it possible that the Bible isn't meant to be a manual of sexual ethics for a modern woman who doesn't want to marry until she's completed a Master's degree (or who doesn't want to marry)? Is it possible that sexual ethics written from within a patriarchal system where 14 year old brides were married off to 30 year old men isn't the best system to turn to in a contemporary context? Is it possible that sexual ethics wherein the woman is not seen as a full partner in the decision making process is a bad system? Is it possible that someone who seems fairly psychotic in his opinions of women and sex (Paul the apostle) shouldn't be dictating how people have sex? No. That's not possible. Y'all stop having sex. Or, if you're going to, feel bad about it. In the meantime, we have these cool posters...

Comments

[cheek]

I've been thinking recently that many of the sexual pathologies we deal with are likely due to the ubiquity of sexually charged media within a relatively repressive society sexually speaking. The media amps up the powerfully selected sexual instinct of our species while societal norms forbid many and discourage even more of the avenues through which that instinct might be satiated. This observation is largely amoral as I've conceived it, but in the context of what you're talking about here, there does seem to be some level of cruelty in an institution that heightens the tension artificially by sqaring both sides of the equation. Good to know that our churches have found a way to sit both sides of this absurd societal hedge.

[Dallas Tim]

In Paul's defense, if some/most men were able to love their wives, in Paul's words, "... as Christ loved the Church..." then we wouldn't have very many unhappy married women.

Paul was speaking to his audience at that time, but the idea of putting your wife ahead of youself can be applied to any cultural setting. That's the things with N.T. marital structure. Forget about 1st century Corinth. What does putting her first now look like to you in the day and age? I haven't heard too many women arguing that they wish their man were less selfish in the relationship. That include decisions, sex, chores and... ugh... dare I say it... the remote.

[aaron c]

This is pretty juvenile of me, but I snickered when I saw, at the bottom of the Relevant Church promo, the words "Deaf interpretation available".

[Dallas Tim]

BTW Greg, your wry "(editor's note: hip word)" made me spill my drink on my desk... thanks!

[bobstevens]

Sexual ethics are tricky. It's hard to find any middle ground that takes the Bible seriously between L. William Countryman (who states that bestiality is probably not much of an ethical concern in his book Dirt, Greed, and Sex) and people trying to repackage and sell what the evangelical church has been telling me for my entire lifetime.

FWIW I'm not being fair to Countryman. I just took the single most controversial sentence in his book and used it to define his resulting ethic. He's written a huge book on the subject and created what he believes to be a Biblically informed sexual ethic. It's more well-reasoned and thought out than anything on the other side of the issue, which never seems to get beyond what is mostly an implication in scripture: one man + one woman for one lifetime. But I can't really embrace Countryman's ethic, at least not yet.

Anyway, if anyone has any reading recommendations on this subject, I'd be glad to hear them. Looking for people who describe a serious sexual ethic that follows from Biblical teaching yet also takes things like culture into consideration.

[Leighton]

I don't know that I've ever cared to look for a Bible-based sexual ethic, but I think I would appreciate one that put sex in the context of everything else that's important in life, and instead of making it central, connected it to the much more explicit, inescapable teachings about social justice and community. I would respect, for instance, a youth program that spent more time training its teens how to identify and reach out to people who were being bullied at their schools than it did wasting their time having married people telling them (1) not to have sex until they're married and (2) not to get married too young. "You'll love it, but unlike me, you can't have it for another 10 years" would be cruel if anyone actually listened to it.

As it is, I think the biggest problem of abstinence-only education is that it trains teens to view adults and authority figures as stupid and irrelevant--not a good situation to put them in when they'll have to rely on authority figures for knowledge about their medical and financial health just a few years down the line. When I was teaching, some of my business calculus students took the attitude of "Well, Mom and Dad said not to max out my credit cards, but they also said my life would collapse if I had sex, and it didn't, so I figured it was just them being fuddy-duddies [editor's note: unhip word] again. It's not a big deal to pay it back, right?"

[bobstevens]

Well, a "sexual ethic" would naturally focus on sex, though the relative importance in the grand scheme of things is something to consider. It's something that concerns me at this point in my life.

Here is a good summary of Countryman's take on the issue. But aside from his conclusions, I'm leaning towards "only have sex in the context of a committed relationship" as a sensible Christian ethic. It's common sense, but it's hard to support with anything that might be considered Christian literature.

[Leighton]

Hm, interesting. That seems to be more the background and foundation for his sexual ethics than an explication of what guidelines he actually advocates for deciding what sexual activity is desirable.

I like the purity/property distinction. I tend to agree that purity has become less of a concern, and properly so. Here's an argument from ignorance: I can't imagine a sexual ethic that imposes any consideration of purity onto a community without treating someone--maybe one gender, maybe one class of people, maybe everyone--more like property than people. That's problematic for me. The counterarguments usually take the form of explaining why it's okay to view some or all people as objects to be controlled rather than people to build uncoercive relationships with. I had this in mind when I said I'd prefer a sexual ethic that doesn't treat sex like a central concern of social existence, like the "This is what makes Christians different from everyone else" talks I got as a teenager. It's important, but I spent way too much time trying to solve the problem in general when what I really wanted to know was, "How can I meet my sexual needs?"

That's a concern I have with even a lot of the more "liberal" Biblical interpretations; a lot of them to be smaller lists of forbidden acts or contexts, without actually addressing sexual needs as positive things that deserve an affirmative answer, not a slightly less scolding response. I still appreciate Niebuhr's and Tillich's approaches, but it's a stretch to call them Biblical.

[bobstevens]

Here's an argument from ignorance: I can't imagine a sexual ethic that imposes any consideration of purity onto a community without treating someone--maybe one gender, maybe one class of people, maybe everyone--more like property than people.

I think this is overstated. I don't see modern day purity concerns like virginity working this way, nor ancient purity concerns such as sex with a menstruating woman. Certainly these ideas have the *potential* to devalue individuals, but I don't see them doing that by default.

Property is a more interesting concern though, specifically when put in this way: any valid modern sexual ethic needs to treat sexual partners with equal respect. With that in mind I can see why you wouldn't want a sexual ethic derived from the highly patriarchal OT Biblical model.

[Leighton]

I think this is overstated. I don't see modern day purity concerns like virginity working this way, nor ancient purity concerns such as sex with a menstruating woman. Certainly these ideas have the *potential* to devalue individuals, but I don't see them doing that by default.

Imposing a metric (purity) onto people by which an aspect of themselves can be commodified seems to me to entail devaluation by default. I see your point about how ancient health/hygiene considerations don't fall under this umbrella, but how is this not the case with contemporary virginity arguments, which rely much more heavily on social disincentives for promiscuity than on providing safe and healthy examples of sexual expression?

I agree that property is the more interesting concept. One of my axioms is that everyone owns their own sexuality (or is the sole primary steward, depending on your perspective), subject to agreements with other people. This ideal is more like Enlightenment social contract than an ancient "community owns everything by default," so yes, I don't think jerry-rigging ex post facto approval from ancient patriarchal documents is particularly important for my purposes.

[bobstevens]

I guess I'm talking about virginity as a personal purity ethic rather than a culturally imposed one. In the culturally imposed case, it's far more likely to be demeaning in some way.

[Joe]

all of sudden there were about ninety or so youth under the age of 18 married last week. Okay, bad joke.

Told my wife about this yesterday and how we should partake in it. She laughed and said "I don't think so Tim"

[Leighton]

As a personal purity ethic it seems to make sense, and it's a shame there's a lot of social counterpressure not to hold that ideal. Both "should, in general" and "shouldn't, in general" seem to have the effect of reducing people's ability to make unconstrained choices for what is legitimately in their best interests.

[sepherim]

Contrary to the overwhelming number of short, soft-cover books aimed at adolescent audiences that try to say something about biblical sexuality,the bible, particularly in the NT, says very little about sex except for references to its role in marriage. Have you ever tried to write a paper or article on a biblical perspective on dating. There is nothing there to base your conclusions on apart from personal opinion and tradition.

Nearly every books I have read that deals with this subject begin with the presuppostion that sex is only permitted in marriage, in spite of the fact that there are many key figures in the bible who had widely varying sexual encounters. Don't forget about the "wisest man in the world" with his hundreds of wives and concubines.

There are some passages that condemn sexual immorality, but they never define what they mean. I suspect that many who feel stongly about a "biblical" view of sexual ethics would say, "I know it when I see it." I remember sitting in an ethics class talking about masturbation. The majority of the class believed that it had to be a sin because you couldn't do it effectively without resorting to some kind of sexual fantasy which obviously was contrary to Jesus teaching about the lust of the heart.

Personally, while I feel very strongly about the proper expression of sex for those who are married is with their marriage partner, I am much more likely to give non-married adults the freedom to make their own choices as long as they are not damaging themselves or others. If you need a bible passage to hang that on, try "Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissable, but not everything is constructive." If consenting adults can find a mutually beneficial and constructive sexual relationship, I don't think god is going to be real upset about it.

[Dallas Tim]

The problem is that you can do lot's of damage without knowing it.

It would be hard to give your spouse an STD if you'd never been with anyone else.

And we have a welfare system full of people who thought that they weren't "Damaging themselves or others."

Biblical marriage eliminates most of this.

[greg]

Tim,

I think seph's version would include responsible precautions for birth control. Besides, in the context of biblical marriage, even polygamy prevents the spread of std's. I don't think David or Solomon died of syphilis, and Jesus never bothered to marry, although it's likely he fell in love with someone--maybe even Mary of Bethany.

[Dallas Tim]

And we trust everyone's ability to choose responsibly? That's the issue. Who gets to decide who's responsible?

David's sin and it's consequences are well documented as are Solomon's issue with women.

Seph also mentioned the sexual relationship that's "mutually beneficial", but again, society is filled with people who THOUGHT their activities were fine, then they got pregnant, or got an STD. It's funny how we always THINK we know what's best and then end up regretting our naive stupidity because we often end up paying for it for the rest of our lives.

I haven't met anyone who said, I'm glad my spouse slept with someone other than me first.

[Leighton]

I haven't met anyone who said, I'm glad my spouse slept with someone other than me first.

I have. I've also never met anyone who said, "I wish my spouse hadn't slept with anyone before meeting me."

Trusting people to make their own decisions is the only way to handle the situation. The alternative is what--legislating fornication as a felony? Systematic shaming of anyone who dares to make a single choice that Tim, personally, doesn't want them to?

[greg]

Tim,

My wife said exactly that. You need to get out more. Your enclave is starting to stunt your perspective on the world. I know dozens of men and women who feel exactly that way.

Second, you offer marriage as if it's some sort of guarantee of healthy sex. After years of counseling people in my pastoral capacity, I assure you that most married couples I met were as pathological as their horndog counterparts.

No, we don't trust everyone to choose responsibly. But the alternative, as Leighton pointed out, is some sort of legislation or perhaps a sex-approval license.

David's sin was with Bathsheba, by the way. Nothing is said of any problems with his other wives. (Please note the plural.) And I'm not sure what Solomon's noted problems were. You have at least one love poem in your Bible allegedly penned by him. Apparently the ancient Jews felt he was a pretty good spokesperson.

[Dallas Tim]

You can't legislate it. That's the point. The Bible (God) makes it clear that handling sexuality in a marriage is the idea way (and safest) to engage in such activity. It doesn't guarantee to be perfect, but it's the best way to reduce the baggage that so many people seem to carry around after they sober/wake up.

And sure grown people can decide for themselves. That's why we have welfare, "(my) baby daddys" and abortion clinics.

[sepherim]

Just where does "The Bible (God) makes it clear that handling sexuality in a marriage is the idea way (and safest) to engage in such activity"? To my knowledge, the bible never addresses the question of sex outside of marriage except in a descriptive way and never addresses the concept of "safe sex" at all. That concept is obviously much too contemporary to be found in the bible.

[Dallas Tim]

I won't argue for a "Thou shalt only have sex in marrige" statement. My view is that when you look at the Bible's positive statement on sex, it always in in the marriage context. Peter says, the "Marriage bed is undefiled." It's always referred to in the marriage context. Sure some men had many wives, but Paul makes it clear that it's one man for one woman.

[greg]

Tim,

Except for Song of Songs. There is no indication they are married. Most likely, they aren't.

[sepherim]

Tim,
I agree with you that the bible makes positive comments about sex in marriage. But I cannot accept the argument from silence that sex outside of marriage is always wrong. I don't see how the statement about keeping the marriage bed pure (which is in Hebrews) addresses that one way or the other. The OT has a very relaxed view of men having sex outside of marriage as long as you weren't taking someone else's property (i.e, wife, daughter, fiance, etc.).

[hi]

The NT mentions if a couple can't restrain from sex it's good to get married. I assume that implys that couples have sex prior to marriage. The OT, is full of God's most righteous, doing bad things. David, known for Psalms, got another man murdered so he could marry his wife. He talks of great sorrow, and also hope. Paul, killed Christians. Peter who did alot of good after Christs death, did some bad too. Starting the first organized denomination, after first teaching going home to home, and now we have expensive church's some with swimming pools, skating rinks, etc. Christians compromised in order not to be killed. That's how steeples, Christmas trees started etc. And the fact is that no man is perfect. And this should be remembered no matter who writes a Christian book, is preaching on TV. I have not read a book or gone to a church that I don't see error. One of the worst, is a church that wanted a bigger building. It became the main focus of the church. One day the preacher got up and quoted a scripture, after that one book that promised wealth was making the church circuit. Then he quotes out of the bible where Micheal says "Lord, we will sell our wood paneled churches and build you a great temple". I looked up the scripture, and the preacher left off the next verse that said "no David, I do not want you to build me a new temple". So, next week, a couple comes down to the stage, for a big announcement. They are selling their half million dollar home, and buying a smaller home, and giving the money to the church to build the new bigger church. They were beaming with their great scarifice. A few people clapped. So, much for giving in private, and letting the Lord reward them. And of course the minister never sold his house. I found a scribbling in the pew one church service, where someone scribbled how evil the church was, and $$$ signs scribbled, and had to agree. Quit going. They convinced a landowner, who allready a deal to sell his property, to them, for a lower price, and how God would Bless him. And since, have sold part of the property, making some money of their good deal. The only time, I recall Jesus getting angry, was when he tied his donkey up. And made a home-made whip, and went into the temple and whipped the money-changers. Once I found a church where some unhappy members decided they were fed up with this, and did the house thing. Only they turned out to be more judgemental, then any church I'd been too. So, notice that even in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, differences. One has a thief being promised to heaven. being saved at the end. One has both thieves not going to heaven. So, don't trust man, but I do believe that many who advice in the bible had important lessons. And do believe in God, and that all things are possible. I can not judge any religion. I do not care for how muslims treat their woman. And don't think there is a religion out there I totally agree with. Common sense. The old testiment was barbaric, and lawless. I do understand Pauls complaining how difficult it is to be good. So, the attitude is never put your trust in a preacher, and feel free to give your opinion. A good preacher, would welcome being critized. I believe in God, and that all things are possible. Lot's of people in the bible changed God's minds, and I have a hard time dealing with some of the suffering some on this earth go through. Sometimes I feel like we are a game being played. And no control. But, we have free will. And maybe that's what the after life is about. Finally heaven. I am a Christian but do not believe that those that don't believe in Christ are going to Hell. But, I need my faith, and it's about loving each other. Trying to make the world better. Sorry for mispelling. I think Proverbs has some good advice. Psalms makes me feel better. Cheating on a spouse or in a relationship causes pain. Even swingers find themselves in an addiction, or one ends up wanting to stop. Paul said, let there be no division, and look at the division. Some churches change their policies. Some break off into cults and isolationists, and bigotry. Just my opinion.