Let's Talk About Sex

There, I have your attention. All one need do is mention that word...sex... and you are likely to get a lot of gawkers. Like teens who are hearing the subject for the first time sex is so rarely talked about within the Church that there is almost a prurient sense even to the introduction of the topic. For many they get too embarrassed to have a meaningful discussion on this issue and bringing the subject up can get you shut out of many "proper" conversations within the Church. How did that happen? How did a group of people that are living out a story told in a book that, frankly, talks a lot about sex, gets so completely uncomfortable even mentioning the word?

That is one of the questions Lauren Winner will be asking in her upcoming book, Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity. I have not read it yet so this is not an endorsement or a pre-review. Instead these are some questions driven by Winner's interview in yesterday's NY Times Fashion and Style section. (thanks to Bob for the link)

Discussions of sex by contemporary followers of Jesus, particularly in the West, have so many layers. At least they should. There should be a discussion of our personal past, its impact on how we view God and our preceding understanding of sex as God's creation based on that understanding. If one views God as not interested in our joy then perhaps sex, the thing that flows from God, is something we would approach with a sense of duty or purely to satiate physical needs, devoid of any spiritual significance. If, by contrast, one views God as a permissive parent more interested in some vague notion of therapeutic happiness than of living within the standards of the community of faith then perhaps sex would be viewed by that person as nothing more than a means to become self-actualized. As their "right". It seems to me that the second approach is particularly attractive in a culture where the dominant script is, in the words of Brueggemann, "enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology especially in the liturgy of television (and) promises to make us safe and promises to make us happy."

There should be a discussion, as Brian McLaren has suggested, of the unique challenges faced by individuals in contemporary Western culture in relation to sex. Challenges brought about by radical changes in the economic models of our times and the social structures that have followed those changes. So, when the dominant marital model was arranged marriages of people in their teens, sex outside the bonds of marriage was not as big of an issue. Still a question, but a question interpreted within the standards of the community. They had other issues, mind you. I still can't figure out how all those Patriarchs got away with polygamy. (Don't worry, Lisa, that's not a hint). But it seems to me that the contemporary Church has done little to even introduce this topic. What happens in a culture when the median age for marriage goes up approximately 10% just between 1970 and 1990? *

There should be a discussion of where our standards come from. It should come as no surprise if you have read my writings in the past that I think contemporary American Christians have a false sense of hope in the government as a mean to spread the gospel. We spend so much time and resources on efforts that, I believe, matter little to the heart of God in part because they are only focused on changing the behavior of individuals in relation to themselves or to a single sex partner. The story of God, from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelation, from the earliest recorded interaction with God to the Church of today, is a communal story. The dominant model for understanding moral living in scripture is how it impacts the community. But for too many they seem more concerned with the personal tax code of the State of Massachusetts than they are with the devastation of relationships within the Church.

I'm sure that there are many other questions that layer into the overall discussion of sex, but those are good places to start.

---

* (Age of Marriage Statistics: Female: 1970 - 20.4, 1990 - 22.6; Male: 1970 - 23, 1990 - 24.9. Source, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 9, Supplement, March 22, 1995, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Comments

[rick]

Good thoughts. Women used to be property and the more wives one possessed often served as a symbol of class.

IT would be wonderful to have a healthy conversation about sex. I do think it would be nice to explore sex from a sociological, biological, and anthropological perspective. Taking something as sacred a sex and reducing it to a theological moral code is harmful, as implied. The folks in the church speaking the most about sex are often the people who know very little about sex. Even Jerry Fawell uses sex to sell his message, doesn't he? (I'm being ironic)

Speaking of sex, some "parts" of the church are not nearly as reluctant to discuss sex. As you know, many have embraced the philosophy Brian is espousing for a very long time.

If we are going to dialogue about sex, however, the church, particualry the more evangelical arm of the church, is going to have to come out of the closet about homosexuality. There is a tremendous amount of healing that needs to take place around the issue of homosexuality on both sides of the issue. (Roman Catholics just need to be honest about the sexuality of MANY of their priests.) My point is there are many faithful witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ who are a part of the community of God and the Body of CHrist who just so happen to be in a committed relationship with a same-sex partner. Many of those folks have been devastated by many in the church. I want them to be able to participate in helping define and set the standard about sex.

What do I know, I am a happily married white dude.

[will]

Rick,

First, I like your admission and should have made the same. I am so not the norm - still married to the women I married at 23 when we were both virgins.

To your point about not discussing this as a theological moral code, I agree. People like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson have come into great power through the politics of sex. If, however, you don't see sex as a theological topic (I don't necessarily think you do) I could not disagree more. I wonder if it is because too many in the Church have not seen sex as an inherently theological topic that the Falwells and the Dobsons have been allowed to continue to dominate.

Regarding homosexuality, there needs to be healing. The Church is crying out for healing in this area. There are too many people that do not feel welcome in our congregations. How did that happen when a group of people were seeking to follow someone who said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

[rick luoni]

Thanks Will. Yes you are right, I do see sex as a theological topic (which includes biological etc.) I think sex is one of the most beautiful and sacred gifts that God has given creation. I think there is something spiritual and holy about two people offering themsleves to one another in love and unity. Sex is not just an "act" but an intimate sharing of two person's innermost beings. It closely resembles what God has done for humanity-- it is nearly incarnational and self-emptying. It may be nice to hear a sermon the sharing of one another's lives in sexual union as a way the Divine connects with us versus reducing the sacredness of sex to a moral code. When the sacredness of sex is reduced to a "theological moral" code it becomes "law" and the beauty is robbed from the gift and from the Giver. I was attempting to suggest that sex, as what I believe God intends, is not something that can be reduced to a moral law and all too often in the church the message of love and self-giving is lost in a legalistic code of conduct of conduct.

I think I was agreeing with you. :)

Thanks,
Rick

[Gamma]

I appreciate the post and the comments. Being gracious to those struggling with sexuality is imperative, regardless of orientation.

An observation: it SEEMS to me (and may not be the case) that homosexuality is starting to be addressed as a different-in-nature category of sin. Perhaps neither of you think homosexual activity is a sin; perhaps you do. I sense a move among sophisticated emergent types to treat homosexual sin as a different kind, as in: "Don't focus on the sin, just love. Love! Just freakin' love them." I agree we should be radically loving homosexuals and all who come to Christ. But I also know that our loving Savior said repeatedly, "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." My sense, and it is only a sense, is that this new approach to homosexuals wants to elide that feature of Jesus' message. Almost as a counter-weight to all the hateful condemnations from some Christians. I understand the impetus to flood a maligned community with love and grace; I do not understand eliding the repentance feature from the good news of the Kingdom. ALL are called to repent regardless of their identity, orientation, baggage, struggles and idols. Can't we repeat after Jesus both "Let us love one another," and "Repent"?

[will]

Gamma,

I am in the midst of moving from Baltimore to Kentucky and cautious of the notion of starting a huge firestorm regarding this issue. Having said that, it would be a great disservice to simply let your comment lie. Here is the best response I have time for.

I wish I understood all of the forces behind someone choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle. I don't. Here is what I know - over the last year I have begun to establish relationships with some wonderful people who have chosen to live in that manner AND "decided to follow Jesus", with "no turning back, no turning back" as the old song went. Some of these new friends are even ordained ministers of the gospel. Nothing in my background prepared me for this. They loves Jesus and, by what I know, are living out the words of Christ far more faithfully in both their daily lives and in ministry than am I.

So while you may feel you have a proof-text where Jesus that somehow requires me to call "sinners" to repentance, I am desperately seeking the proof text that requires me to not be in relationship with them.

Implicit in your comments was the belief that homosexuality is a sin. Although I think certain behaviors are destructive, I am more and more inclined to reserve the term "sin" for those categories that the Bible actually talks about - things like "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged".

[backpacks]

The North Face

Burton Snowboards

Patagonia

Mountain Hardwear

outdoor gear

camping tents

hiking shoes

hiking boots

north face jackets

mountain climbing gear

backpacks

skis

fleece jackets

clothing

northface

outdoor reasearch sleeping bags

backpacks

mountain climbing gear

Oakley sunglasses

http://outdoor-gear.innovativeclicks.com/

[Vern Hyndman]

Perfect love conquers all... and I'm working on perfecting love.

[Vern Hyndman]

Perfect love conquers all... and God and I are working on my performance in perfecting love.

Few are condemned into right relationship with God or men. As Miller says in "Blue Like Jazz" no one will listen to you until they know you LIKE them. Adn LIKE is a far cry less than love.

[dh]

"...for those categories that the Bible actually talks about - things like "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged"."

The Bible does talk specifically about this subject. I could bring up many Scriptures and groups that were "dealt with" because of this issue but I won't. It only requires a watered down Bible to not look at the many direct passages regarding this subject. I'm sorry I cannot condone sin nor did Jesus condone. Heck, regarding sex the adulterer was told by Jesus to "go and sin no more". It only serves that this could imply to other sins as well. However, we must minister to these people but not in a way that condones sin. I know many groups that are helping people out of the lifestyle in a non-judgmental way. I would rather support these groups than say the lifestyle is ok.

[Whitewave]

Hi, Will. Again.

I tried to bring this subject up with Bruce's Group about Youth, but it didn't happen. I don't know what the deal is, but if the Church's emergence is going to really break out, then we're gonna have to release the log-jam about sex. Will you email me or post here about Brian's thoughts about sex? I don't know what you're refering to.

I have thoughts of my own that I want to post about but I have other commitments first. This subject is ravishingly important to me also.

I'll just tease for now and say that the pomo vs. poco convo that Brian ran on Wednesday really sealed it for me. "Biblical" sexuality is contexted from within the Jewish and Roman worlds. In a sense, those worlds have colonized us all because of our hermeneutic that this is God's Way and not just the Way of God in those particular contexts. Could American culture be the Old Testament context for Americans? Complete with all its mistakes and glories and horrors and achievments? If so, what is Good News for Americans now concerning sexuality? What is the Way of God now, here? I think this will change everything.

Sorry you got spammed.