Be afraid.
(This is related to my last post, The Myth of the Christian Eunuch)
Like virtually every human being who’s ever walked the planet, Christians are insane about sex. Some people would even argue that Christians are particularly insane about sex. My friend Dan is one such person.
“Look at the gay issue,” said Dan to me just the other day while I was trying to get him to either change the subject or pick up the check. “You take Christians out of that arena, and you’ve got no fight at all. Christians don’t seem to worry about anything as much as they do who’s having sex with who.”
“Whom,”I said. “Who’s having sex with whom.”
“They worry about gays having sex,” continued Dan obliviously. “They worry about premarital sex. They’ve got this whole Sexual Purity, ‘I’m saving myself for Daddy’ creepiness happening. Christians’ whole thing seems to be about repressing anything having anything to do with sex. Especially in themselves. And then they act all surprised when people like Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart happen. Do you think I don’t see you inching the bill towards me?”
So I think it’s clear: I need to make new, less observant friends.
But let’s think about this idea that Christians have for so long been so intent on repressing their own and everyone else’s sexuality that what they’ve grown to adapt is a profoundly unhealthy orientation toward sex and sexuality generally.
Well, I think Christians do have a very serious problem with sex, and for a very good reason: Nobody can have sex without utterly losing control of themselves.
For most people, that’s a frightening enough prospect: Everyone prides themselves on the degree of control they keep over their lives and themselves. And sex is the one thing that’s 100% guaranteed, every single solitary time, to … well, cause you to at the very least shudder whilst making funny faces. When you have sex, you really do become an animal—and an exceptionally stupid animal, at that. So everyone’s crazy about sex, because everyone knows that sex is always right there, just waiting for the chance to obliterate the control over their mind and body that they like to think they have over themselves. It’s an extremely terrifying force, that way.
And that’s just the normal, everyday reason for which humans obsess on repressing sexuality. Christians have a humongous additional reason for fearing and repressing sex. As one good Christian commenter on my last blog put that reason: “Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit.”
And there you have it: the reason behind 2,000 years of Christian sexual repression, boiled down to eight words. Christians equate being filled with the Holy Spirit with being Godly in nature and behavior. And being Godly in nature and behavior is the direct opposite of being the humping, grunting, out-of-control animal that every Christian invariably becomes whenever he or she has sex.
So Christians are stuck with this extremely troubling formulation for their existence:
Being sexual = being an animal = not being filled with the Holy Spirit = betraying God. But:
Being human = being sexual. Therefore:
Being human = betraying God.
Yikes! What Christian wants to actively and purposefully betray God? Not one. So what do each of we Christians do? We try to control our sexuality. We try to be bigger than our sexuality. We try, through the exertion of our sheer will, to dominate our sexuality.
And—the vast and lucrative Christian “You Can Rise Above Your Sexuality” industry notwithstanding—we find, in the privacy of our own mind, that we can no sooner repress our lustful, animalistic sexuality than we can control how often we blink every day.
But, ever “faithful” (not to mention spurred on by the terrible guilt that is such an awful part of the Christian experience) we keep on trying to control our sexuality—and we keep on failing at it. And what do we do then? We hide that failure. We pretend we’ve proven victorious in the war against our sexuality. We pretend we’ve risen above it, that we’re past that, that we’re better than that. We pretend we’re more Christ-like than that.
And then we’re living a lie.
Which means we’re then involved in what we should understand as some serious sinning.
Hmmmm.
Now, what was that one big thing that Christ said, again?
Oh, that’s right: “The truth will set you free.”
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
1. 1 Corinthians 7:9 (Whole Chapter)
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
@Kara – hahahahahaha brilliant, should have seen that one coming
@Tim – I have never heard it put so well and and cheering you on from the sidelines. I may be using these arguments myself in future and so thank you for putting into words so precisely what so many people think but cannot express.
@John-
Aw, John. This is just good, clean, geeky Christian fellowship! (Or geeky heresy, depending on how you look at it. My first pastor would probably say the latter.)
@Christine-
I can’t resist cracking this joke, so know my heart.
…and there is no failsafe against these.
Gay sex is a pretty good one. You don’t get much accidental pregnancy there. *grin*
Joking, joking. You raise a good point. I do know there are measures that can be taken to reduce the risk significantly, although you’re right, it will never be zero percent. That’s one reason why I’m against one night stands/sex for sex’s sake. But inside a relationship with another Christian, I don’t think a risk which can be reduced to as little as a tiny fraction of one percent is necessarily a show-stopper, if there would be a family for the child if birth control were to fail. But this is an area where I think it’d have to be personal conviction, and what each person feels about this.
If anyone is still checking this thread, I'll add one more post.
Christine – I think that's a great point. Everyone needs to think about it and decide how large that 2% (I think thats the perfect use failure rate for a condom) is to them. I've heard people say we do things more dangerous than that all the time, but I haven't looked into that, so I'll take no position. I *do* completely agree, to the nth degree, that you need to know what you're getting into, whatever you choose.
Tim – thanks for your thoughtful post. If John ever feels the need to make another post on the topic, I will probably get back into the discussion but for now, I'll just take your post under advisement rather than shoot from the hip in response.
@Kara—
I LOVE the way you roll. That is the Mission statement of the church I work for. If we honestly seek to love God and our neighbor…regardless of any sin or what we classify as sin, we are only in danger of fulfilling all the law and the prophets.
God luv ya!
@newposter—
Maybe I do assume that sexual immorality/illicit sex includes all sex outside of marriage. I believe that its the HEART or spirit of the law that needs more examination rather than the black and white letter of the law. For example, my beliefs about pre-marital sex aren't based on the letter of the law alone, but more importantly the heart of the law. I realize that this sounds Victorian in today's modern society, but I honestly believe that two people rob each other of an intensely richer sexual experience when they don't "save themselves" for their wedding night. Sort of like when kids steal tiny slices from a beautiful cake before the party. How impressive will that cake seem AT the party when everyone sees that its been picked at and half eaten? Maybe that is a poor analogy but in my experiences, the "marital" part of pre-marital often never materializes. If the couple has no REAL intentions of marriage, then calling that sex "pre-marital" is sort of disingenuous IMO.
NOTE: I don't like calling my position "conservative" because that sounds political. I think political stripes have no deserving association alongside His stripes. God is love…so for me, love is the lens that I look through to find the HEART of the law.
To be clear, I drew the illustration of Hebrew marriage in Jesus' day when He is recorded as making the Matthew and Mark statements. I realize that today a daughter is not the "property" of her father. But I think up until legal age, she belongs to, or is under the jurisdiction of her parents. So taking her sexually before the parents have given her (I realize such language makes some people cringe) that boyfriend/fiancee is coveting and stealing—which is a clear violation of the eighth and tenth commandments.*
Regarding your last point, I do think pre-marital sex falls under the Mark 7 categorization of that which defiles from within rather than what goes into your body (contraception; alcohol). The distinction between the ceremonial law (what we put on or in us) and the moral law, what comes from within, clearly gives us direction. Looking at the list I see five things aside from sexual immorality that go hand-in-hand with pre-marital sex.
1. Theft*. As shown in paragraph 3.
2. Deceit. Self deception (If I sleep with him/her that will make him/her want to marry me).
3. Lustful desires. If sex can't wait for marriage…this has already come into play.
4. Pride. The self assurance that its right. Screw convention!
5. Foolishness. Statistics bear out that pre-marital sex is linked to much higher divorce rates after marriage and less than 50% having pre-marital sex will ever get married in the first place.
So on other levels, pre-marital sex comes up as a fail. Most importantly, it betrays a lack of true love, honor and commitment that comes from the heart or spirit of God's love for all of us. I realize I won't change anyone else's position on this subject, but in the most loving way I can, I have to try.
God bless you, newposter.
All right, you three. Get a …. wait. Never mind.
@Kara and newposter – would love to pitch in right about here if I may
My disagreement with premarital sex is not based on the actual words "thou shalt not have sex before thou art wed!" because they aren't there. My belief (and I did a lot of searching with this one but am open to other thoughts on it) came from the societal understanding of then and how it translates to now. Lemme explain:
One of the biggest issues with sex outside of marriage back in the good ole biblical times was the risk of having a child outside of wedlock. If the woman got pregnant she was in for at worst a stoning and at best complete dismissal from her community. The child would have been a bastard and that, in a society that placed all its worth on ancestory and birthright etc, was the worst thing that could happen to a child.
Based on the fact that it was about the family unit and not so much about the individual's choice, I believe that this can be translated in to today's terms. I know there is contraception (not 100% effective though!!) but there are still children without father's/mother's, children having children (youngest recorded mother gave birth yesterday at 9 years old in China), scared mother's having abortions, STD's making people very sick etc……and there is no failsafe against these. You have sex you take it into your own hands. The family unit as we know it is battered and hurting and I am of the personal opinion that this has a lot to do with it. I think what applied then still applies now.
So yeah, that's my opinion and why I don't have sex outside marriage (any more) because I am not sure I would want to handle the consequences if it didn't go according to plan. The bible doesn't say it implicitly but, human nature being what it is, things haven't changed that much
All right, you two. Get a room.
@newposter-
Precisely! And the other thing is, the whole "look at the heart motive/are we treating people right" thing explains WHY it might have been not-okay then, but okay-in-some-circumstances now. Because maybe, back then, there was no way to do it without having a bad heart motive/being unloving. Under a more-patriarchal-than-now society (which wouldn't have even been questioned at the time), maybe there was no way to do it without fully knowing and just-not-caring that you'd be hurting/offending/disrespecting someone else.
Hi Kara-
*high five* I actually really like the second part of your post, since I basically picked at Tim's position rather than saying anything afifrmative. The operative question always being, are we treating people right? I can certainly think of some obviously wrong ways to go about having premarital sex based on that criterion, but I don't think it follows that its always wrong.
I totally mistyped your username, Redlefty. My bad, I apologize.
@newposter-
Hi! I like your post, very much. I didn't see it until after I'd posted. It's better than mine. Thank you for making my point much more eloquently than I could! *high five*
@Tim-
Fornication isn't so clearly defined, though, I don't think. You'd probably say homosexuality falls under that. I don't think it does. Ditto masturbation, fantasizing, etc. So, I mean… I guess it really comes down to personal interpretation of what "illicit sexual activity" entails. No one holds to the legal sexual standards of Biblical times. (Polygamy, uncle/niece marriage, etc.) So obviously some of this is culturally relative. That's where I'm at on this, I guess.
It's like I said upthread. My entire philosophy on sin is simple:
1. Love God with all my heart, strength, and soul.
2. Love my neighbor as myself.
Or to use Micah’s version, “And what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”
So… that's how I roll. (I totally respect alternate interpretations, though. Even ones that might think I'm really wrong and bad and stuff. Cause, y'know, I'm used to that. [I'm not putting words in your mouth, just speaking to hypotheticals, as usual.])
Redfly, I’ve often wondered about that too. The prohibition of premarital sex is almost universally held among major Christian denominations, but the Bible really doesn’t speak to it. I would be interested in hearing other commenters’ thoughts on this, as to why they believe premarital sex is wrong, if they do.
Hi Tim, I'm not Kara, but mind if I jump in? (for reference, I have long held the conservative position but am in the process of re-examining it)
The main problem I have with your points is that it assumes that "sexual immorality" and "illcit sex" include "all sex outside of marriage." Is there any basis for this?
The second issue is that we don't consider daughters to be property of their dads anymore. They are quite capable of making their own decisions.
I'm not trying to change your mind, but I am at least suggesting that there's enough of a case to be made for this position that disagreeing with the mainstream position on premarital sex is not any worse than disagreeing on, for example, whether a husband and wife may use contraception or whethyer or not drinking alcohol is a sin. Many Christians would, I suspect, deny church membership or other church privileges based on differences of opinion in the former one but not the latter two.
@Kara—
Jesus is recorded in Matthew 19:9 saying that fornication was an exceptional reason to divorce. Because of the context of marriage, fornication is thought by some to mean only adultery in that text. But a more honest appraisal of the text makes a distinction between the Greek "porneia" fornication in the first part, and "moichaō". The latter referring to unlawful sex with another person's spouse and the former referring to illicit sexual intercourse in general which does not exclude adultery, but includes basically all sexual relations outside the lawful estate of marriage.
What is ungodly about it? I suppose I would point out that because Jesus names what makes us "unclean" in Mark 7:20-23. The list includes sexual immorality, arrogance and folly which, in a conservative estimation would include sexual relations outside marriage, flouting Mosaic Law (arrogance) and thinking you wouldn't get stoned to death (folly).
Of course the Matt. and Mark texts are predicated on the belief that Jesus is God the Son. There is also back-up in the 10 Commandments. #10 You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife male or female servant, ox, donkey or ANYTHING that is your neighbor's.
In Hebrew marriage, the bride is given. As archaic as it seems, a daughter belongs to, or is under the jurisdiction of the parents. To take the woman and sample the goods in advance, was considered defilement of the bride, and tantamount to theft (Commandment #8).
You don't seem argumentative or badgering at all. Everyone should be this curious and test what they believe or don't believe. Too few bother to question their own faith or philosophy.
I enjoyed trying to clarify at least why I believe what I do.
Kara: Take a look at 1 Corinthians chapters 6 & 7. These may give you some insight on why sex outside of marriage is not in our best interest. Our bodies being the Temple of God and all. If you add Matthew 19:9, Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12 into the mix it may show that sexual relations were intended to be between a man and a wife.
It is also interesting to know that Adam & Eve were considered man and wife in Genesis 2:24-25 and the first reference of Adam knowing
Eve was in Genesis 4:1.
Prior to my Christian days, I was a proponent of pre-marital sex.
Now, as a Christian, I can honestly say I wish I had waited until I had married the Mrs.
My ability to italicize comments is epicly failtastic.
[i]“You guys seem to me, as a general sort of group, to be pretty extremely in every way accept for Redlefty totally well adjusted and healthy.”[/i]
OH NO YOU DIDN’T! IT’S ON NOW!
I agree that premarital sex is emerging as the next natural topic based on these comments. And it’s a fascinating topic to me because the bible is so overwhelmingly silent on the issue.
A divorced friend of mine was wrestling with this issue last year and went to multiple pastors to ask for their thoughts. In general they sorta agreed that as a divorced, not-yet-married-again person he shouldn’t be having sex with his girlfriend, but they couldn’t say why.
I'd love to see that, if you wouldn't mind! Thanks!
I can ask the question as a whole blog post if you'd like. See what people say.
Not a problem at all, Tim!
I guess my next comment in this hypothetical would be, "Okay, so it's not just right because I think it is. But where does God say it's wrong? What's ungodly about it, and where does the Bible say that?"
Sorry if I seem argumentative or badgering, I'm honestly just curious as to what people think on this.
@Kara
Justifications for pre-marital sex such as consensual; loving; part of a serious relationship; with another Christian, all sound well and good. And if we take a verse here or another idea there, its not hard to drag such justification into what seems to be the light of God's tentative approval.
Initially I suppose I would trot out Proverbs 21:2. The New Living Translation puts it, "People may be right in their own eyes, but the Lord examines the heart". Now as dead sure as we are that OUR ways are fine with God, I think He might disagree. Fortunately He is always faithful to eventually speak to our heart and reveal what is what. I believe He does that through the meditation on Scripture and our own honest introspection during prayer time before God.
My own internal line of inquiry would be, if I and another person…even a Christian person, agrees that pre-marital sex is OK with God…does that make it so? I'd hate to think I worship a "wishy-washy-whatever" God that so easily acquiesces to what I, or my mate, thinks is OK. People "consensually" justify stepping out on their spouses or partners all the time. Doesn't make it OK?
To borrow from Forrest Gump, "Loving is as loving does". Is it "loving" to put off committing one's life and all to their beloved in the company of family, friends and the world? Even if that decision is supposedly "consensual"…is it really? Does one person want to avoid that level of commitment a little more or less than the other? Similarly, is it a "serious relationship" if there isn't enough desire to make that commitment? As far as I'm concerned, being "Christian" doesn't make having pre-marital sex any prettier either, but that is what I believe.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Have a great week.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tim! I really appreciate it. In part, here, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because I haven't made up my mind one way or the other.
Say, for example, I were to say this: I don't believe that fornication includes premarital sex, as long as it's consensual, loving, and part of a serious relationship with another Christian.
Pure curiosity, what verse/verses would you point me to?
@Kara—my thoughts run basically concurrent with most minsters, pastors and counselors of the Christian persuasion.
Any sexual relations outside the bounds of what our culture deems as "marriage", is fornication. Common-Law Marriage may qualify, however, that "thing" with one or both parties that just won't permit the commitment spells trouble to me. Now maybe in God's eyes, that couple is married enough. But people who don't marry because they want to play the field sexually? Manwhores, sluts, the lot of 'em! Using pre-marital sex as a litmus test of future sexual compatibility isn't a good enough excuse either. BECOMING sexually compatible is all part of the journey that promotes healthy bonding and sexual communication in a marriage. Now if a couple (intending to marry) gets caught up in the moment and passions of being lost in each other's bliss…I still say its "guilty with an explanation". God knows the heart and the intents of that heart. But I agree with Paul that its better to marry than to burn with passion. And like I've said, if a couple qualifies for de facto marriage, I consider them married and I would hope most people in ministry would concur.
I think the Bible does "speak to it" if you honestly take the whole of Scripture into context. We're all guilty in one point or another. James said whoever stumbles at just one point of the law is as guilty as the one who stumbles at all points. In our modern economy the deed often takes precedence over the thought, but Jesus Himself said the one looking at another lustfully has already committed adultery (Matt.5:28)
@dana111— I wondered if your comment was corollary to mine re: "yielding to the flesh".
My comment was poorly worded and thought through. Of course we "yield to the flesh" all the time and God expects us to. We eat….(yielding)…we sleep…(yielding)….we drink….(yielding)….we eliminate…(yielding)…we see doctors…(yielding)…and God willing, we have a healthy sexual relationship expressing (to our beloved) the symbolic rapture that God contains for each and every one of us.
Losing control, and losing all "self" are two differences that I believe distinctly separate godlessness from godliness. When we give ourselves to our spouse without reservation or notions of reciprocity, I believe we are unconsciously reflecting the unconditional nature of God's passion for us. Of course we will err in even that attempt. But there again, God expects us to err. He knew that before He brought the whole cosmos into being. We expect our own children to err, and no matter how old or wise we may think we've become, we are always God's children.
Christine: Sure, you laugh now. But I have three words for you: Really. Hairy. Back.
Matt: I liked your comment. Slightly condescending, but … I forgive you–my son. (Especially since you threw in a mighty sweet Luther quote. I’m always very happy to read virtually anything he wrote.)
John: it's official, I am scarred for life and having waking nightmares about really hairy backs now………I vote you pay for my counselling…..(momentary visual flash….*shudder*)
Hey, can she do that?! Where are my blog by-laws…
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 1 trackback }