Sex!

Hi all!  We've been a little quiet this past week (thanks Dan for your provocative "examination of conscience" post) as my family arrived back from California late last night.  We had a good time, thank you very much for asking, learning things like that a San Diego Padres/ Philadelphia Phillies game in the middle of a pennant race draws an equal number of Phillies fans, despite a continent separating the two cities.  Who knew?

While we were gone, Tim A. drew lots of interest with his "let's talk about sex" post, and it certainly says that more rather than less talk about sex would be a wise thing.  Thanks Tim and thanks to all you commenters!

If I can speak generally about the subject, I wonder if we're served by a distinction a few of us here have chatted about before: thinking of faith as a "doctor's prescription" rather than a "job description."  This comes from Jesus calling himself a doctor who came only for people who regarded themselves as sick.  And this is in contrast to how Jesus seemed to think most people, from all religious traditions, regarded faith--as a job description that we undertake in order to get the goods from the god in question.  The job-description world is one of rules, of figuring out what the minimum amount of work is to get the paycheck, of low-to-high-level resentment that so much is demanded of us. 

Jesus appeared to agree that job-description-land is horrible and is the very thing everyone hates when they talk bitterly about "religion." 

But what, he seems to ask, if he's offering something entirely different?  What if anything God asks us to do isn't something we need to do so that the box is checked and we get the credit for having clocked in on the job in that area, but is a doctor's prescription targeted at our health?  In that sense, there's no "tsk tsking" if we don't do this or that thing that many religious people regard as some important thing to do.  Instead there's just rooting that we're achieving the kind of health that comes both from a life that seems to work well for us and from an ever-deeper connection with God.

That's a long preamble to my very general thoughts on how we might think about the Bible's take on sex.  "No sex before marriage" has certainly been the hallmark of many a rigid church's teaching on sex, and that's often gone with a general distrust of sexuality.  That seems bad to me.

And, as we often talk about in Seek, the Bible's teachings on sex come in a context (as several of you pointed out) in which people married way, way younger than the average American does now.  The 14-year-old girl who had sex outside of marriage in the kind of clan culture described in the Bible could certainly count on some pretty harsh consequences.  How does that apply to the 38-year-old unmarried man or woman today? 

The people I've known who've navigated this in ways that, to this outside observer, have seemed to get them both to a place of closeness with God, little bitterness, and continuing hope seem to have a few things in common.  (Clearly I speak as a middle-aged married man.  Though I was pushing 30, at least, when I married.  And I do talk with a fair amount of folks about such intimate things.  Okay, enough qualifying...) 

They worked as best as they could with the scriptures in question, not wanting to toss them aside as outdated too quickly, for fear that they'd be tossing aside some central doctor's prescriptions for their health.  They've given themselves deeply to an ongoing, connected, intimate relationship with God.  (Friends of mine of that age who have lost that ongoing connection have often become bitter about their situation in life in general and Christendom's repressive attitudes towards sexuality in specific.)  They haven't become particularly monofocused on sexual perfection.   (To be perhaps too specific: I know many a single male friend who's become concerned about a porn addiction, and rightly so.  I also know many a single male friend who doesn't unduly concern themselves about occasional masturbation, seeing it as something--to use religious lingo--to confess to God [and perhaps others] and move on from.)  They're usually in supportive communities, often small groups or close Jesus-based friendships, that talk about this stuff openly and pray for each other liberally.  If they're troubled about their sexuality, they often find additional resourcing (thanks Christopher for your comments about that). 

One of my friends was a super-into-it Christian as a teen.  He's my only friend who, on his own initiative, did evangelistic street preaching as a teen.  On his own initiative!  He was pretty into it.

And he ended up reacting against the strict teachings on sex he heard from his church, having a significant handful of sexual relationships in his 20s.  But it wasn't that he stopped doing his best to stay close to God.  As he prepared to be married, he felt bad about his sexual past.  He--and I'll just let him speak for himself--felt he'd been reactive to what he took as a sexual job description from his church (so we might put him in Stage 3 on the terms we sometimes use here) and felt he'd done himself no favors--not to mention whatever the impact might be on the women in question and his wife-to-be.  He actually ended up looking up whichever of the women he could find whom he felt would appreciate contact from him.  And he apologized to them and asked if he could pray for blessing of whatever long-term relationship they were in or would someday be in.  And he felt very encouraged by that process.

What encourages me about that story is that, from my friend's perspective, there was mess in his sexual experience.  But he felt that that wasn't the end of the world--that's life and God was certainly interested in being his guide along the way.  But he also was pretty bold in responding to how God spoke to him along the way.

That puts me in the wishy-washy pastoral position of saying to people regarding their sexual choices: Well...do your best.  You're adults.

But as you do your best, it seems to me to be wise to stick as closely as possible to God along the way. 

I'm not infrequently in conversations with folks who are frustrated or bitter about their sense of "no sex before marriage."  And I find myself at least feeling if not saying, "Well then by all means do what's on your heart.  You're, again, an adult, and living in long-term bitterness about something like this seems very damaging."  

Now in my deepest heart, do I think that that choice will serve to bring them closer to God and to the life they're hoping to live?  I don't.  But it's their life.  And I have my friend's story to encourage me--because at the very least I don't think he became bitter towards God along the way.

And, just to say, I do have many, many examples where my conversation partner didn't in fact have sex with the person in question and they later broke up--with my friend saying, "Wow, thank GOD we didn't have sex!  That person was a really wounded person who was no good for me!"  

So, long answer.  Doctor's prescription is better than job description--about all things, but this not least.  As adults, everyone needs to navigate this as best as they can.  Staying close to God and others along the way seems desirable. 

What think you?

Comments

[Vinceation]

Dave, it's fascinating to me comparing your description of how you pastor folks concerning such an issue to just about all other conventional pastoring wisdom I've come into contact with. Your description strikes me as completely consistent with your centered-set philosophy, so the question is are you the only one crazy enough to pastor every issue in a centered-set way or are you the only one courageous enough to pastor every issue in a centered-set way? This is definitely one of those "before God, figure out your tolerance for risk" things (thanks for that suggestion at the summit; It has felt very relevant to me).

[Jeff]

This is helpful. I do still thin, though- you are mainly still talking about boundaries. Which is great- but I think what struck me about the discussion following Tim's post is this question of whether there is a more positive way to talk about sex itself.

Song of Songs seems to be history's greatest try. It seems like most other attempts either get politicized or pornographied. Rob Bell made an effort, but I can't say I found it very interesting.

[Dave Schmelzer]

Hmm... I'm not sold I'm talking about boundaries. to my mind, I'm talking about prescriptions. My son had an asthma attack this week. He got prescribed a steroid. There are all sorts of reasons not to take a steroid (as baseball players have made clear recently). So maybe we shouldn't have him take it. On the other hand, he's having real trouble breathing and it's possible it won't get better except by way of the steroid. The steroid, to my mind, is not a "boundary." It's a prescription which we can take or not take, with consequences either way. Thus it is, it seems to me, with all biblical faith, the sex teachings included. Hence my saying to some folks, "If you want to have sex with [fill in x], by all means do." What tends to give people pause is wondering if there might be negative consequences, despite their strong aversion to moralistic bible teaching. If it's an arbitrary boundary, blow through it. If it's an actual prescription for health, that might be worth consideration.

On the other hand, of course we could be talking about two different things. I'm not willing to be categorized as setting up a boundary. You're wanting a different conversation altogether. And so it goes.

[Bill Sergott]

Yeah, I don't see a lot of boundary-setting here. I see your argument, Dave, as being quite consistent with the centered-set philosophy. It is all about being invitational. "Look, you do whatever you want. In fact, if I tell you what you MUST do or not do, I will unintentionally drive you to the very thing I want you to avoid. Look, in my experience working with people, this is what I have seen yield the best results. That is what I would prescribe for you."

I think that approach is excellent. It is the one I usually take. Like Vince was saying, though, it does involve quite a bit of risk tolerance, because we will be automatically labeled as being "soft on sin".

One thing that has been on my mind, however, is that I often wonder if we might be bordering on the philosophical error of Descartes from time to time. He wanted to start from scratch with his understanding of human knowing. "I think, therefore I am", was his base statement, free of presumption and any requirement of apriori knowledge. However, if you look at his statement, there are all kinds of presumptions at work. For example, just saying "I" presumes existence. It is a trap. I wonder if, as we rid ourselves of all boundaries and definitions, especially in the area of sex, if we aren't, in the process, defining ourselves. To say that we are all about Jesus and everything else is open to discussion still has some presumption on our part. This is all such a unique undertaking in the language of the Western Church, that I wonder how we can avoid the trap of boxing ourselves in. Or, perhaps I am over-thinking it. :)

[Jeff]

Yeah, that's fair. I guess what I'm interested in is how to talk about sex, or 'get prescriptions' about sex beyond the initial choice of "should I have sex". If the answer is yes or no, are there further pointers that would make the having or not having of sex richer or more valuable. Does that make sense?

[Dave Schmelzer]

1) It does make sense. And (2) I see a guest post in your (hopefully near?) future!

[Eric L'Esperance]

I imagine it's always beneficial to keep your ear to the ground to what God is saying/doing in the conversation as well. I appreciate giving the person in conversation the freedom to do what they want. I think that when that freedom is given, it can really moves a person to consider their motives behind the desire (especially if they are just reacting to rules). When there are no more rules, some good soul searching can take place because people are free to think.

[Dave Schmelzer]

Just to note--on the basis of a very small sample: It's interesting that both you and Vince note the loosey-goosiness of this. Perhaps unjustly rephrasing you, the liberalness of this. Jeff's first instinct is to note that it's still, however dressed up, the same old conservatism. And I can wonder if there's some stage 4-ness in that. It does, if it's working, feel different than stage 2. But it doesn't throw out all inherited wisdom. Anyway, just to note.

[Titi]

My question is how do you translate all of this when talking about sex with people who are not, in fact, adults? Teens have varying degrees of maturity and critical thinking capabilities, but a pretty consistently high degree of sexual drive. And given the trend of sexual activity happening earlier and earlier, we could well be having these discussions with pre-teens who aren't even basing their decisions on hormones so much as social pressures.

On the one hand, the prescription approach has the benefit of having more emotional appeal than the job description as it invokes the larger sense of ultimate well-being. But on the other hand, how many of us have in our youth (and beyond!) disregarded things which we knew to be short-term gains but long-term losses?

And if we resolve ourselves to the high likelihood of failure in shepherding pre-adults to handle adult decisions well, do we act to mitigate the consequences (such as promoting birth control)?

[Jane]

I’d like to offer two statements for consideration as to about what constitutes Christian sexual practice that is “Stage 4.”

(1) There is no such thing as premarital sex.

All sex is marital. That is the Biblical view. When Adam “knew” Eve, they became husband and wife. Paul warns us not to join with a prostitute because we will become one flesh (1 Cor 6:16). Sexual intimacy is what sets marriage apart from all other relationships. It is the threshold; it defines the relationship as set aside. I don’t mean a single act of intercourse, but a uniting of souls that is completed in physical expression. Anything less is a misuse of the gift.

(2) A wedding does not create a marriage.

As helpful as weddings are in celebrating new marriage relationships and rallying community support for the couple, the wedding ceremony does not create the marriage (a committed relationship that appropriately includes sexual intimacy does). And just as we would never celebrate the baptism of a person who didn’t have a relationship with Jesus but wanted to, we should not marry people who do not have a marriage relationship with each other yet, no matter how attractive they find each other or how much each professes faith. In a centered set way, they should be oriented toward each other. This may seem obvious, but the current abstinent way of evangelical dating makes NOT being close the major accomplishment of courtship.

If the wedding creates the marriage, then the institutional church is in charge of it. This is Stage 2 thinking. It is a set bounded by the timing of the wedding.

The Bible does not require weddings; they are merely described. It simply says, if you are married, act like it. (And also, if you are acting married, you are married, so make it public 1 Cor 7:9) Throughout most of history, weddings were only performed for the rich. Most people were “married” by moving in together.

Practically speaking, sexual practice should fit the relationship, and the level of commitment should fit the relationship. There are decision points in relationships, but relationships grow gradually. A sign that a couple is ready to be intimate is that they are able to talk about this and reach a sound decision together. Of course not every couple that has sex will get married, but those who treat it as sacred ground will wait longer and recover better.

And abstinence does not necessarily lead to a satisfying married sex life. Those who are most adamant about abstaining may be avoiding what they can’t handle.

[amyjknight@yahoo.com]

Agreed on a lot of your post but I think that cultural customs and following state laws must be looked at. It is not the custom now to be married just by living together. My witness is destroyed with those around me if I were to move in with someone before I am married. I can't allow anything I do to damage my ability to witness to others. Your thoughts?

[Jane]

You seem to be captive to their Stage 2-ness. What exactly are you witnessing to? Your acquiescence to the authority of the church? I think that's what they see.

When we are outside of the box, we need to explain ourselves more.

I'm not advocating that people just move in together. Rather, that they view sexual intimacy and cohabitation as a sacred commitment. Supporting these with a wedding is what we do in our society and all to the good. I'm just saying that nothing mystical happens as a result of the ceremony.