This is the third post in the Christianity and Sexual Ethics series. Part One is here, part Two here. A fourth post will appear in the next week with suggestions for further reading.
I blog as a self-described evangelical Christian feminist. I blog about my relationship with Christ, and I also blog in favor of same-sex unions and, in this series, in favor of a sexual ethic that is justice-centered more than law-centered. This means that I get lots of email from readers, who worry that I apparently haven’t read my bible. At least once a week, and often more frequently when I’ve posted on one of these subjects, I get an email in this vein:
“I enjoy your blog but I think you need to look at Scripture again. The Bible prohibits sexual immorality. You are a teacher and a youth minister and you ought to be teaching young people about the importance of purity instead of encouraging them to defile themselves with sin. Please look at the attached passages and see the error of your ways.”
Back in the early days of my blogging career, I got into email arguments with these folks. And of course, I got sucked into the disastrous “proof-texting wars.” Proof-texting, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the bad habit of taking a single passage of the Bible out of context and citing it as “proof” that your particular position is the only legitimate one that a believing Christian can hold. Whatever the subject: pacifism; dietary laws; abortion; the role of women; the possibility of free will or sexuality itself, “proof-texters” from across the ideological and theological spectrum can find quotes that they imagine will serve as their “gotcha” lines.
I’m not a theologian, of course, though I do have an academic background in Christian philosophy. (Thanks in particular to Marilyn Adams, who was on my dissertation committee and literally and figuratively held my hand while leading me through Duns Scotus.) In this post, I’m not going to marshall a series of passages from the Bible to support my position that God’s intent for human sexuality allows for genital expression outside of heterosexual marriage. I’d be quoting out of context, doing the exact same thing that my theological opponents are apt to do. It’s a fun game, but frankly, I’m getting too old to play that. I will, however, use a single passage to frame a short discussion of how it is I think we ought to see Scripture.
In John 16, Jesus says to his disciples:
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”
Bold emphasis mine.
It’s such a pivotal thing He says here. The broader context of John 16 is Jesus preparing His disciples to accept the working of the great “Counselor”, the Holy Spirit, into their lives. He makes it clear that they are not ready to hear all that is in His plan, but that at some point — and who knows when that point will be — the Spirit will come and give guidance. It’s not a misreading of the text to suggest that Jesus is making it clear that even His words, as spoken in first-century Palestine, are not final. Jesus is Lord, yes, but Jesus will continue to speak long after the Bible will be compiled. And what He speaks will not always be entirely congruent with what went before — hence the reference that what will be said in the future is “more than you can now bear.” Jesus does this time and again, reminding His followers that they have heard one thing, but He teaches another. (Think, for example, about His teaching on divorce.)
Any serious discussion of contemporary Christian ethics needs to be rooted in the sense that Spirit is active in the church. This doesn’t mean that the Spirit merely encourages the faithful to believe what has always been believed. Rather, the Spirit comes into our lives to share with us what could not be shared at earlier periods. Christians are a people who believe in narrative, who believe that God’s love endures but His people’s capacity to comprehend that message grows greater with each passing generation. What was taught to our ancestors, because of their “hardness of heart”, may no longer apply to us. We were once under the Law, the Scripture teaches, and now we are under Grace. And though Grace doesn’t permit everything, our understanding of what it does allow is subject to periodic updates from the Spirit. (Sorry, I don’t mean to make the third person of the Trinity sound like a major software company.)
Where once women were excluded from ministry, churches across the theological spectrum — from the Unitarians on the left to the Nazarenes on the right — now accept women as pastors. The Holy Spirit has, within a little more than a century, guided millions of Christians to a new understanding of Scriptural teaching on the role of women. Passages that were once regularly cited in defense of slavery (Philemon, Ephesians 6), are now seen as applying only to a specific time and place. The Spirit never changes, God never changes, but our understanding of God’s plan for our lives is subject to ongoing revelation from the Spirit. Jesus promised that it would be so.
From this perspective, it seems plausible, sensible, and most importantly, faithful to conclude that traditional notions of sexuality do not necessarily represent the full picture of God’s intent for our lives. There is perhaps no greater and more insistent theme in both Old and New Testaments than the call to “do justice”. As vital as the Law is, we are reminded again and again that rigid adherence to the Law is not the same as fidelity to God. Justice and mercy are more important. As I argued in my first post in this series, a concern for “doing justice” means an interest in “doing each other justly.” That’s not a vulgar misappropriation of an important biblical concept! It’s the idea that neither a legal framework nor societal approval are essential preconditions for blessed sexual activity. What is a necessary precondition is an intense concern not only for individual pleasure but for mutual emotional, sensual, even spiritual fulfillment. We are accountable to God for our sexual behavior, but what makes that behavior good or bad is the degree to which we are truly accountable to those with whom we are sexual. “Just accountability” doesn’t mean allowing another to exercise control, but it does mean a commitment to be with our sexual partners as they process through the various consequences, anticipated or not, that arise from our expressions of intimacy.
Theologian Gary Comstock writes that we need to move from seeing Scripture as a “parent” to seeing it as a “friend” with whom we are in conversation. Jesus, of course, tells his disciples in John 15 that he no longer thinks of them as His servants, but as His friends. Seeing Scripture as a friend with which to dialogue is not a liberal fancy — it’s a theologically sound way of engaging the Bible. The Bible is relevant for our lives. It is essential part of our Christian experience. But we must remember that there were Christians who lived and died faithfully before the Bible as we know it was put together. A saving faith in Christ is older than Scripture itself, and as John 16 makes clear, the Holy Spirit is engaged in a process of ongoing revelation that goes beyond what was ever recorded in these sacred chapters and verses. And so, while it is important to ask “What does the Bible say?” when it comes to matters of sexual ethics, we do well to remember that Scripture is only one corner of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that so many of us find so useful in determining how to live as faithful Christians. Reason, Experience, and Tradition matter as well. Traditions change, as well we know — and reason and experience are subject to the ongoing work of the Spirit in our lives. Our sexual ethics, I think, need to reflect that.
(Think, for example, about His teaching on divorce.)
You mean where he tightens the stricture and says it’s unacceptable?
He also says that as people interpret the Spirit in days to come, that we are to judge the rightness of their interpretation by the fruits of their work. The denominations that are following the lines of thought you find just are fragmenting, losing membership, schisming, and falling apart. Meanwhile the old traditionalists grow and grow and grow.
My own past sexual sins are worse than simple homosexuality; I cannot stand in judgment of anyone for their actions - not my job, not my pay grade. I’m gladdened that I’ve been forgiven, and that “they” will be too. But I don’t sit around spinning justifications for why my behavior was really OK. It wasn’t.
Jesus binds and Jesus loosens, Robert — He also violates Pharisee law on touching women when He alllows Himself to be anointed, caressed, cried over.
Numeric growth isn’t necessarily evidence of divine blessing. Christians who say that end up making the case that Islam is God’s favorite religion, as its growth trajectory far outstrips that of most Christian denominations. And most Christians consider Mormons theologically suspect, but the Mormons are growing by leaps and bounds compared to simple old hardline Calvinists and other “traditional” conservatives.
I don’t think sin is a good thing. Sex that is dishonest, manipulative, abusive and exploitative is sinful. Unjust sex is sin. That can happen in and out of marriage. I too repent of my sins, and am glad that I have been forgiven. But the loveless and often angry sex I had with, say, my first wife was far more sinful than the loving and committed sex I had with she who is now my wife while the latter and I were still dating.
Sex that is dishonest, manipulative, abusive and exploitative is sinful. Unjust sex is sin.
I follow you on this, but how do we measure dishonest, manipulative, abusive, and/or unjust sex? You’re right on when it comes to defining good sex, but how you define bad sex is a little murkier. For example, when talking with teenagers, I still believe it’s best to advocate to waiting to have sex until you’re out of high school. I don’t believe in abstinence-only education, of course, because if you’re going to do it, then you should know how to use condoms and such. Yet, I am uncomfortable with the contemporary liberal-feminist defense of “hook-up” culture. I believe hooking up, as it is currently defined, IS selfish. Liberals, it seems, are afraid to deem any particular behavior wrong. When you ask them to define what is wrong, they’ll say something that’s selfish. But what is selfish and what isn’t? Could one partner in a sexual relationship be selfish at the expensive of another, while the other partner sees the sexual act differently? I just don’t understand what you use as a yardstick to measure “bad sex,” if there is one. And I think there should be.
Mermade, rejecting a “one-size fits all” standard doesn’t mean that one must embrace a random hook-up culture as the best vehicle for adolescent happiness!
Justice-based sex requires good communication, more or less by definition. And again, bad communication happens IN MARRIAGE ALL THE TIME. A wedding ring is not now nor has it ever been a panacea against heartbreak,selfishness, misunderstanding, or abuse. Mind you, a wedding ring doesn’t cause those things either. The truth is, we’re not ready to be sexual with another person until we’re ready to be honest with them — and ready to be available to them as they process through the consequences of what has been done together. Most high school kids aren’t ready for that, I agree. Some are. I’ve worked with hundreds (by now, thousands) of ‘em as a mentor — and one thing is clear, sixteen is not sixteen is not sixteen.
I realize that bad communication happens in marriage all the time, but I am bothered by a “no-size-fits-all” approach to human sexuality as much as I am bothered by the True Love Waits, “one-size-fits-all” approach. I am not saying that you are advocating anything bad, of course, but I would like to see you address hook-up culture in a future post. At Feministing and other liberal feminist blogs, I’ve read posts bordering on defense of hook-up culture. It’s as if sex means nothing at all. Again, I’m not saying that you believe that, because you clearly don’t, can I say, as a feminist, that hooking-up is usually, if not always, bad? I can say that as a Christian, but as a feminist? I’m mulling over this…
I think if you’ve been reading this series, the whole point is that I am flatly rejecting the “no-size fits all” approach. If I haven’t made that point, then I have been expending a lot of useless effort on three posts about justice!
I did write about hook-ups a while ago:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/02/14/roback-morse-gets-it-really-really-wrong/
I believe wholeheartedly in the narrative aspect of the Christian faith; I accept that Jesus himself expanded on, and challenged some of the teaching that had come before. But, to me, there is a huge disconnect between, say, the women in ministry discussion and the homosexual discussion. In the first, one could make the case that the “new teaching” was already found in scripture and in God’s original intent. Those who support women in ministry don’t usually say “this is a new teaching!” Instead, they say “Look how Jesus himself affirmed women in his ministry. Look how Paul affirms Junia as an apostle. Look at the hints in 1 Corinthians that seem to say there were women in ministry in the early church.” Those who affirm women in full ministry (I proudly count myself as one (a supporter, not a woman. . .)) point out that within scripture itself you can make the case for full inclusion of women. But with the issue of homosexuality, and sexuality in general, you can’t make that case. Scripture teaches at least this consistently: sexuality was created for, and is intended for, the confines of a married relationship between males and females. Sex outside of that context is never condoned, same-gender sexual relations are never mentioned in a positive light. From Genesis 1, through the OT, into the teaching of Jesus and Paul, into Revelation, there is at least that one consistent ethic - sexual contact belongs in the context of a two-gender marriage. So I can accept that the Spirit leads us to see things new, to open up new ideas and understandings of God’s work to bring Shalom to the earth. I can accept that we’ve been wrong on how we interpret scripture. I can accept there are nebulous passages that need extra “light” to understand. But on this issue, I don’t think your Jesus quote can apply, because you are saying that the Spirit will lead us to truth in direct contradiction to everything God has said before.
Given the record of old testament extra-marital sexual behavior (multiple wives, Hagar and Sarah, etce., etc.) it’s difficult to argue that from Genesis 1 forward monogamous heterosexual marriage has always been God’s intent. Even within the time period covered by Scripture, we see a huge evolution in what is permitted regarding marriage — from plural marriage to divorce, from the sexual abuse of handmaidens and so forth. What once was unthinkable becomes commonplace.
The whole story of Jesus’ ministry can just about be summed up by his most common phrase:
“You have heard that….
…but I say to you…”
He is still speaking new things.
You know that I have enjoyed your last three posts on this. I guess I am hungry for more structure in my life regarding my sexuality. I’ve been on the “one size fits all” fence with True Love Waits, and now, well, you know how crazy my life is regarding boys at the moment. I find myself, once again, longing for a sure answer to my issues, and there isn’t one, hence my discomfort with ambiguity.
I will read your post on hooking up.
Re: Dan’s post, Scripture is silent on the morality of same-sex, monogamous relationships between consenting adults, because no such model for gay relationships existed in Biblical times. References to same-sex activity in a handful of passages nearly all refer to temple prostitution or rape as a tool of conquest (the Sodom story and arguably the passage in Leviticus as well). As for St. Paul’s distaste for Greco-Roman male partnerships, these typically involved an adult man and a young boy - not two adults getting married. In Romans 1, moreover, Paul’s assumption is that male-male and female-female sex is “contrary to nature” whereas science and psychology are revealing the opposite (and not just for the human species). Paul is making a contingent factual assumption, not a doctrinal point on which the validity of the gospel stands or falls.
A good analysis of this issue, which goes back to the original language and historical context of the “clobber verses”, is Samuel Kader’s “Openly Gay, Openly Christian”.
More generally, Hugo, I say “cheers!” to your Spirit-led hermeneutic. The Bible is all about God doing new things and humans taking way too long to catch on.
mermade–i guess all i can really say is that these things are ultimately up to you to figure out. there are virtually no easy answers provided anywhere.
i can say that in my experience, what feels right and wrong for us sometimes changes over the course of our lives and i think that’s part of one’s personal journey. there was a time, when i was much younger that although i wasn’t religious at all, i personally felt that for me, casual sex was wrong, or more simply that i just wasn’t wired that way even if some people were. it took a few years of me still feeling somehow guilty after a hook-up before i finally shook it off. when i finally did just have what was mutually regarded as a total one-night stand without wanting anything more to do with the guy afterward, i had a huge wave of “is that all there is?” (a la peggy lee).
the outcome wasn’t that i started banging every boy on the block, but that i had to revise my own notions about myself and what was “right” for me to account for the fact that at least at some period in my life, casual sex was indeed what i was interested in and i didn’t feel bad about it in the slightest. i’m not saying you’ll have a similar revelation, just that part of growing up i think is realizing that what you want one day may not be what you want later on and that that’s ok.
Hugo - do you realize you’re just riding around the circular logic track in reverse; you’re quoting scripture to demonstrate that what scripture says doesn’t matter….
No, Gonz, I never said Scripture “doesn’t matter’” I said that Scripture deserves respect, and it is one voice among many — but that Scripture itself contains within it the reminder that it is not the Final Word.
I’m kind of confused about why people keep bringing up hook-ups and casual sex in your line of posts on this topic, Hugo, because it seems to me that you keep referencing committed relationships that aren’t married couples - for example, a gay couple who, by law, can’t get married. I don’t see you advocating or really saying anything about hook-ups but rather people in a non-married relationship who are also having a sexual relationship. I think conversations about sex between people who aren’t yet married or who choose to not get married for whatever reason would use the ideas in these posts better than talking about people who sleep with everything that moves.
Jesus does this time and again, reminding His followers that they have heard one thing, but He teaches another. (Think, for example, about His teaching on divorce.)
My remarks about these statements may be a footnote to the discussion, but the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) “antitheses” in the Sermon on the Mount can be used by anti-Semitic individuals and groups to dismiss Judaism as an “inferior” religion and, in the extreme, to persecute Jews.
I don’t know all of the details, so someone here who is more knowledgeable of the development of the rabbinical tradition within Judaism may want to offer more. However, if I understand the history correctly, this form of teaching that Jesus used (”You have heard it said…but I tell you…”) was a fairly established teaching method among the rabbis as the rabbinical tradition emerged within the first century A.D.
Even if my historical understanding is faulty–and please make corrections so I will learn more about it–I read Jesus as inviting his listeners to look more deeply into the teachings of the Law and to pursue even higher levels of conduct, even more sublime justice and mercy, and an even more powerful love of God, self, and neighbor.
Thus, while Jesus’ teaching is technically new, it really is more a further development of traditional Jewish morality, a pointer to the fulfillment of the Law, if you will.
Again, this is probably a footnote, but I am sensitive to these concerns so I make the point. Peace.
B, not to derail too much, but you are aware that hook-ups occur between people who do not “sleep with everything that moves”?
Hugo, Thank you for this post. I’ve was unfamiliar with the term “proof-texting,” although I’m very aware of the practice of distorting and twisting scriptures to control and manipulate others. I would call that spiritual abuse. I believe there are websites and books that deal with spiritual abuse in its many forms and not all those are limited to the Christian faith. It is probably a huge contributing factor as to why, as Robert notes above, that demoninations are fragmenting, losing membership, schisming, and falling apart. I really cannot comment about his observation that “…the old traditionalists grow and grow and grow.” I have no intention of adding to their growth. I do believe that in uncertain times people often retreat to the security of what is familiar and what they know, even if it isn’t a healthy choice.
had to leave for a week so didn’t have a chance to follow-up; not even sure if you want the conversation to continue, but. . .
I didn’t say “monogamous.” You added that part to my post. I said a married (i.e. lifelong-committed) relationship between male and female. While some of the details of how that works do, indeed, change across the pages of scripture, the broad male-female committed pattern does not change.
I also agree Jesus said a lot of “you have heard it said that. . .but I say to you. . .” but within this issue, he himself says “Moses allowed you to divorce, but God’s designed intent was a man and woman leaving family and home behind to cling together in marriage.” So on this one, you cannot make the case he broadens it you. Instead, when given a chance, he actually cinches down harder.