Starting Assumptions for Sexual Ethics

Last updated on: January 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm by Richard Dahlstrom

Starting Assumptions for Sexual Ethics 2013-01-03T14:15:16-07:00 Richard Dahlstrom

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This winter I’ll be teaching about sexual ethics and intimacy in the church I lead in Seattle. The sermons and study questions will be available the church website here. It’s an important series for our time and place because cultural factors, both in and outside the church, have conspired to create a sense of what might best be described as sexual and relational anarchy.

Churches that offer a clear ethic for sexuality are often more gnostic than Christian, with the result that young people are taught to fear their sexuality and any sexual expressions. Sexual issues are elevated above other issues in such a way that any failure or disagreement in this arena leads, functionally, to a sort of shaming. This of course often drives sexual addiction and dysfunction underground, both among youth and adults. You can confess your anger, greed, credit card debt, drinking problem. But if you slipped sexually, you keep quiet for fear of repercussions and reputation.

Further, the church has often offered weak rationale for chastity and fidelity, elevating fear of pregnancy, “you’ll feel guilty” and the risk of disease as primary drivers. These reasons miss the mark utterly, at least if we’re trying to understand what our creator has offered us in the Bible as rationale for a sexual ethic. The cocktail of fear and a gnostic distrust of all things physical not only fails to provide a robust and healthy ethic, it does just the opposite – leading to a sort of “sex is dangerous, unhealthy, destructive” mindset. This unhealthy caricature has become the “Christian view” in the eyes of culture, and as a result, the church continues to lose its moral authority in culture. We desperately need to recover a sound and robust sexual ethic that’s pro-body, pro-sex, pro-intimacy, and pro-joy, because our creator is all of that and more.

The world, on the other hand, has reduced humanity to mere animals, whose sexual appetites are amoral, a driving evolutionary force. The evolutionary deconstruction of monogamy reaches its apex in “Sex at Dawn”, a favorite book of local Seattle sexologist Dan Savage who writes: Sex at Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948*.* Want to understand why men married to supermodels cheat? Why so many marriages are sexless? Why paternity tests often reveal that the “father” isn’t? Read Sex at Dawn.

Savage quotes his favorite new authority often as for example in his response to this woman, who wants to commit to her boyfriend, but also sleeps around with both other men, and women. Savage’s “Dawnish” response: “And what are you really into? Variety. And don’t feel bad: You didn’t fail monogamy, monogamy failed you—as it has failed so many others (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Vitter, Ensign, et al.), and will continue to, because monogamy is unrealistic and—this is not a word I toss around lightly—unnatural.”

This all sounds wonderful to those wishing and hoping that all the pleasurable sensations of sex could be available on demand, so to speak, with anyone at anytime, making sex a super form of recreation – like skiing or climbing or tennis, only better! But “Dawn” is, according to the excellent book which deconstructs it’s premises, bad science. Written from a biological, but not a Christian perspective, “Sex at Dusk” agrees with “Dawn’s” premise that the animal kingdom is filled with polygamy and polyamory. But it challenges, with ample documentation, the notion that the polygamous animal kingdom provides sexual bliss for all. Jealousy, competition, winners, losers, and the strong overcoming the weak is much more what the animal kingdom offers (as anyone who’s seen male elk clashing, or watched National Geographic knows). If we’re just animals, then sex is just competition to spread our seed and get laid by the best seed out there. That hardly sounds like an afternoon of tennis to me.

“Dawn” though, isn’t just bad science – it’s terrible theology, and this is what matters for framing our sexual ethics series. Paul’s articulation of sexual ethics in I Corinthians is offered in chapters 6 and 7 especially. These elements come on the heels of his articulation in 3:1 that this particular church was stuck at the “fleshly” level. Though it’s beyond the scope of this post to unpack this fully, the import of what Paul’s saying there can’t be overstated. One translation (I believe it’s the French Bible) translates “men of flesh” in I Corinthians 3:1 as “animal man”. This is the perfect translation in my opinion and brings us to the crux of the issue:

Humans have been given spirits and this makes us, unique among creation, “image bearers”, called to display the character of God in our living, loving, and being. If we’re just animals, “Dusk” (not “Dawn”) is right: we’re destined to sexual struggles in the prowess of our youth, using wealth, seduction, and good looks, to enjoy the pleasures of our sexuality until we slip out of our prime and find ourselves, somewhere in our 30’s cast aside, as suitors in the animal kingdom will always favor youth and beauty. After all, it’s not about love – it’s about evolution.

Thank God we’re not animals. We’re humans, endowed with spirit, and invited into covenant relationships in order to reflect the character of a covenant making, and covenant keeping God. In this construct, sex is a glorious expression of God’s nature as life giver, lover, promise keeper, and nurturer.

The challenge, of course, is that though we’re made in God’s image and thus made for intimacy and covenant relationships, we’re also part of the physical world, which means that there’s an animal drive too, whatever you call it (flesh, instinct, etc.) And that’s where it gets tricky. So the foundational question as I begin teaching on these matters is this: Who am I? Who are we as a species?

God’s answer to that question is pro-sex, but not just pro-sex. God is pro-intimacy, pro-community, pro-covenant. If we miss this foundational truth, we’ll forever fall off the fence, defaulting to either gnostic fear or animal indulgence. Thank God there’s a better way! I hope you’ll join me for periodic posts, and contribute to the discussion of this important topic. I welcome your thoughts.

Uncategorized

intimacy

sexuality

Previous Post

December 28, 2012

Instead of new goals for a new year...try this

Next Post

January 11, 2013 Covenant and Mutuality: Basis for intimacy - foundation of sexuality

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category body bridges church coffee with God Creation exhaling generosity Inhaling intimacy inviting justice leadership life questions Rest and Sabbath Reviews Rule of Life Uncategorized

Select a Month July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 August 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz