Jul 26, 2013
by Shea Davis
“The way we treat our sexuality makes a statement of its own.”
Unfortunately,
I can’t remember the name of the brilliant person who shared this with me;
nevertheless, it has made a huge impact on the way I think about sexuality —
specifically how to be a sexual being within the confines of Christianity. I
found his statement to be so thought provoking because my sexuality (and the
way I choose to live it out) is always an interesting topic with my friends at
home. Sometimes it seems to make them almost uncomfortable that I chose to go
from being in a sexually intimate relationship to living a celibate life unless
I get married one day. The idea of me abstaining from sex seems to be a
completely foreign, ridiculous concept. As Christians, we have something that
can clearly make us different or “set apart” — and not in the way we have been
set apart before, by making sexuality a shameful part of our lives.
We have an opportunity to show
the blessings in sexuality. We have something to celebrate; God has given us a beautiful gift
that helps us relate to Him, others and ourselves.
Thus, I
want to change the word I was using to describe my current standing: as
sexuality in the confines of Christianity. By knowing the truth about the purpose of our sexuality and living it out we know we will experience freedom instead of confinement, because the truth will set us free (John 8:31-32). We do have a couple options, of course. We are able to view and use our sexuality either in
ways that honor our relationships or in ways that destroy them.
So far I
have done a decent job using my sexuality to harm relationships. I have
separated myself from God because I felt guilty (and many other reasons). I
have hurt my relationship with others because I have objectified them or they
have objectified me. I have also broken the relationship to trust myself
because I went against what I knew was right in order to please others and
satisfy my desires. As I turn away from a lifestyle of sexual impurity, I am
now looking for some type of guidance that allows me to love my entire self, and not feel like a second class Christian for not
figuring that out until now.
The
Church needs a fresh perspective. It starts with having decent communication
within the Church and then Christians deciding to walk away from the
double-lives we live. It’s hard though; we live in an ultra-sexualized society.
Why not take what I want? Well, I have seen the brokenness that comes from sex
outside marriage, I have felt the condemnation from other Christians, I have
heard the whispers of what she or he did last night, and I have seen the double
standards that all cultures set.
Most
importantly, God clearly calls us to lives of sexual holiness. But as
Christians, as well as being humans, we
have to make that practical. We can’t just look at our brother and sister
and condemn them for their failings or tell them to go pray about it. We need
to walk with one another; we need to be people who accept the brokenness of one
another, who push one another closer to Jesus and other people who are working
towards fulfillment in their sexuality. Sexuality has been a very uncomfortable
topic in the Church, but it isn’t something we can avoid any longer.
So I ask
you: What are practical steps to helping the Church preach a message of sexual holiness
but also of sexuality as a blessing?
Sorry, but it seems that "sexual holiness" is an oxymoron in the context of the New Testament. At least the Old Testament seems to deal with sex to some extent - where in the New Testament, sexuality should be avoided.
ReplyDeleteFor instance:
Matthew 5:27-29 (NASB)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Whew! he said nothing about looking at a man with lust for him.)
In Romans, the author says: 13 Let us [a]behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and SENSUALITY, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make NO PROVISION for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
In Matthew 19:11-12 Jesus is recorded to have said, "All men CANNOT receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Writings attributed to Paul seem to described marriage as a social obligation that has the potential of distracting from Christ. For him, celibacy was the single life, free from such distraction, not a life of saintly denial. Paul encouraged both celibate and marital lifestyles among the members of the Corinthian congregation, regarding celibacy as the more preferable of the two:
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: IT IS GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. . . . But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, let them marry: for it is better to MARRY THAN TO BURN.
I do not think that Paul thought there was anything "holy" about sex (except, perhaps for procreation), but simply the lesser of an evil.
This view is also entirely consistent with the earliest recorded church history. Celibacy as a virtue was taught from the earliest ancient church. According to the Jerome, celibacy is a moral virtue, consisting of not living in the flesh but outside the flesh (vivere in carne praeter carnem). Celibacy excludes not only libidinous acts, but also sinful thoughts or desires of the flesh. Jerome referred to marriage prohibition for priests when he argued in Against Jovinianus that Peter and the other apostles had been married before they were called, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE UP THEIR MARTIAL RELATIONS. Of course, we do not know if this is true, but the earliest Christians certainly believed it.
ReplyDeleteIn the early Church higher clerics, even if they lived in marriages, were supposed to abstain permanently from sexual intercourse with their wives. In the early 3rd century the Canons of the Apostolic Constitutions decreed that only lower clerics might still marry after their ordination, but marriage of bishops, priests, and deacons were not allowed. The Paphnutius legend in the first half of the fifth century called the marriage prohibition an ancient ecclesiastical tradition. Remember, this is also around the time that the books of New Testament were being selected and canonized.
The first Conciliar document on celibacy of the Western Christian Church (Canon 33 of the Synod of Elvira, c. AD 305) states that the discipline of celibacy is to refrain from the use of marriage, i.e. refrain from having carnal contact with your spouse.
My point is that the "Church" has never said that sex is a good thing - except where one simply does not have the willpower to avoid a "larger" sin. Although obviously, necessary to its survival, the early Church - including Jesus and Paul seem to have regarding those who practice sex as second class Christians.
Can we really expect less from the Modern Church? Should we?
Great history lesson, thank you! Anyways, can we expect the Modern Church to change? Well, yes. The Church has come a long way since the 3rd century, but we have a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteYou also brought up verses and ideas about sexuality being avoided, and also about Paul and the obligation of marriage, I don't believe that the way you read them is in the correct context of the entirety of Scripture. In my view the entirety of Scripture, from Genesis through the New Testament describes the union of a married couple as something that is "good". I can go verse by verse with you if you'd like, but I think you should also check the context of some of those verses. Maybe think, why was Paul saying this? Why is this written in the book of Matthew? Who is the passage being written to? Why? I also think you should look at the symbols that are very present in the New Testament, Jesus and his Bride (The Church). You should look at how Jesus calls husbands and wives to love each other. It's not just this obligation to have children and procreate. It is really this beautiful sacrificial, submission, and united love.
If I didn't hit all your points, feel free to ask more questions. I want to make it very clear that I absolutely believe that our Church culture can change, because I don't think it's really a reflection of who Jesus was on this earth. And it's hard to become a healthy Christian, when the place that's teaching you how to do so isn't always doing it correctly. Thank the Lord for His grace and mercy upon us, because though He gives us his Word we still do not follow it nor do we truly understand all of it.
Hi Shea:
DeleteThank you for your thoughtful response. Although it is not often, the church has certainly made changes in the past. I doubt, for instance, that there any churches who still believe in slavery. In the U.S. at least, I also doubt if many churches openly discriminate based on race. So, there certainly is hope that the “church” can change. Thank you for your efforts.
Regarding your other points, I appreciate your comments, but I still have questions regarding either what your said or your logic.
For instance, you wrote: “I don't believe that the way you read them is in the correct context of the entirety of Scripture. In my view the entirety of Scripture, from Genesis through the New Testament describes the union of a married couple as something that is "good".
I agree that there are passages that may describe the union between a man and a woman as something good. However, I do not believe that view can be supported by an “entirety of Scripture” argument. In fact, believe that statement is contrary to most of the writings now complied as the Bible.
Actually, I am not sure how one can understand anything from the “entirety of Scripture.” As I am sure you are aware, the “Bible” is a collection of individual documents spanning over 1500 years written by at least 50 authors. Furthermore, the final inclusion of “canonical” books was made under duress because Constantine was simply tired of the literal fighting among fourth century Christians and thought that forcing consensus on a canon would ease some of the fighting. In fact, there is still no agreement on what is “Scripture” because the Catholic Church includes books that most Protestants do not. But, I digress into a history lesson again.
From my experience when one reads Scripture as a whole or in its entirety, they are really doing no more than gathering a group of scriptures that supports one’s proposition. I will admit that this is a popular exercise and is performed almost every Sunday in almost every church, but that does not make it correct or logical when one is trying to find the truth (as opposed to preach it).
Because of the variety of what we call the Scriptures, there really is no “whole” or “entirety of the Scriptures.” So, I really question the “taking scriptures as a whole” exercise because this type of exercise can support almost any proposition. In my mind it is somewhat analogous to using an encyclopedia or dictionary to support ones position. All that is required is a Biblical concordance or a good search engine.
To continue . . .
DeleteYou also wrote that “. . . I think you should also check the context of some of those verses. Maybe think, why was Paul saying this? Why is this written in the book of Matthew? Who is the passage being written to? Why?” That is a logical approach – except I do not think it can be done – at least from my experience. In most cases, scholars cannot understand the context because we simply do not know the context. Except for the Gospel of Thomas, we do not have any other first century writings (for purposes of this post, I will assume that you believe these are first century writings).
What we do have are much later writings of so called Church Fathers, like Eusebius. Eusebius is often called the first church historian and tried to put context to many of the new testament writings from what are essentially legends that he heard. Many of the situations discussed in Eusebius have been then passed from one Bible commentator to another. Thus, a lot of what we think we know of Why is this written? Who was the passage being written to?, etc. really comes from legend codified by a very prejudice church official writing at least 200 years after the events were supposed to take place.
That is a little like a current day Mormon church official writing about what happen to Joseph Smith (except with a lot less documentation).
Generally speaking “in its entirety,” in most of the Old Testament, women were objectified and sex was either for pleasure or procreation. The New Testament, on the other hand, seems to have been influenced by groups such as the Essences – who as I am sure you know, preferred communal life dedicated to asceticism, voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and abstinence from worldly pleasures, including (for some groups) celibacy. (Many separate but related religious groups of that era shared similar mystic, eschatological, messianic, and ascetic beliefs. These groups are collectively referred to by various scholars as the "Essenes." Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers, and thousands lived throughout Roman Judæa.).
On top of these two predominate themes, there are a few love poems thrown into the mix. This is not really surprising given the span and variety of authors. Of course, the most famous of the poems is the Song of Solomon. Arguably this is more about lust, than love. Furthermore, if any of this writing can actually be attributed to the time of Solomon, then remember that he had over 700 wives.
Probably, the second most famous Biblical “love” poem is Corinthians 13. However, read Corinthians 12, then read Corinthians 14. Doesn’t Corinthians 13 seem out of place to you. Well, it seems out of place to most serious biblical scholars who do not believe that it was original. In any event, Corinthians 13 seems to deal with a more “spiritual love” – not the baser love between a man and a woman (or between a man and a man, women and a women, etc.).
I will sum up by saying that I stand by my original post. However, if you can present specific arguments, I will be happy to discuss them. Again, I really appreciate your time in this regard.
Anonymous,
DeleteI'm sorry for the late reply. I hope you also don't find the brevity of this reply to your dismay, but I just want to touch on one thing you said for right now. You said so much, and it's all good stuff to talk about, but for now, I want to get to a theme you seem to have on the negativity of sex. This makes me very sad; I'm concerned you don't see the pleasures of sex as something to be called good and blessed by God.
Do me a favor, please. Go watch this video. These are two dear friends of mine, and they're very wise but also very candid and loving. Listen to some of the things they say, and let me know what you think.
http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2013/09/privacy-male-bodies-and-sex.html
All my love and compassion,
Atticus
Atticus, thanks for your concern. I think you misread my posts. So, to sum: My first reply simply discussed the historic attitudes of the "orthodox" Christian Church regarding sex which had extremely ancient origins. In fact, the remnants these attitudes are still continued today in the Catholic Church (priests, monks, and nuns).
DeleteI then responded to Shea's response that ", I don't believe that the way you read them is in the correct context of the entirety of Scripture. In my view the entirety of Scripture, from Genesis through the New Testament describes the union of a married couple as something that is "good". I just disagree with Shea and explained what I believe are the themes presented in the "entirety of Scripture" and historic context (to the extent that is possible to determine the historic context).
I think the historic roots of the Christian Church regarding sexuality are relevant to Shea's post because one learns from the past. My personal view was not expressed at all.