I have the honor and good pleasure to conduct seven weddings this year. As I have been planning wedding services and conducting pre-marital counseling for seven couples, marriage has been on my mind a lot lately. What follows is a general reflection on the phenomenon of marriage:
As I mentioned in last week's blog post, marriage is a human cultural invention.
God did not command us to get married, he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. God did not conduct a wedding for Adam and Eve, nor did he require them to endure one. God did intend them to be together, for "It is not good that the man [or the woman] should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). Adam and Eve were made out of the same flesh, and so ideally should work toward the reunion of that one flesh. But humans created marriage to mark God's less formal and more primordial intentions.
Marriage is not a commandment of God, but instead simply a human mechanism to help us follow God's more general wishes: 1. that we not be alone 2. that everyone has an equal partner or helper, and 3. that one be able to trust and depend on his or her partner. God never commanded humans to state explicit vows to one another. We require each other to make marriage vows, so that we can rest assured in the explicit intentions of another human being. After all, God made a covenant (a system of bi-directional vows), so why wouldn't a human being make a covenant with his or her partner?
But just as with sex (see last week's blog post: "How Does God Want Us to Have Sex?: In Search of a Biblical Position"), marriage in the Bible is very different form what marriage is today.
Biblically speaking, marriage is intended to be contractual. In the Bible, marriage and sex were a transaction. The man and woman entered a practical, socially binding agreement that gave each party something that they needed. In marriage, men were assured an heir. That's right, men (and not women) got married for the babies. Meanwhile, women were assured socio-economic security. Women could not own property themselves, were not given the freedom to work to support themselves. Women were, generally speaking, weaker and held no rights--not even rights over their own bodies. Thus, women needed a man to provide for them and protect them. The vows of marriage were to ensure that the man and the woman worked together for mutual benefit and didn't try to take advantage of the other.
The Bible, therefore is clear: marriage is not about love. God wanted all of his children to love each other. For our One God there is but one kind of love--the love one human is commanded to show God and every other human being. That love is modeled not on the goddess Venus or her son Eros, but rather is modeled on the one, true God's love for God's creatures. Judeo-Christian love is of one kind: steadfast, non-romantic, and based not on emotion but rather on promises. God's love is not about inter-personal relationship, but about mutual trust and support--providing for the practical needs of survival.
Think of it this way: the only type of love that matters for a Christian is the type of love found and expressed between the Father and the Son, the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Spirit...and so on. There is only one love. It is not sexual. It is not emotional.
There is but one kind of love.
Sex is something else.
Emotion is something else.
Romantic involvement, broadly understood, is something else.
What we, in Christianity today, call marriage is something else.
The New Testament is pretty clear: disciples of Jesus Christ are married to Jesus. One vow, one relationship super-cedes all others--our vow to love God and be in relationship with God alone. Our relationships to everyone else and to everything else are mediated through that one marriage to Jesus Christ (accomplished through the Church). If I love my neighbor, it is only because of my marriage to Jesus Christ and the fact that I relate to my neighbor only through marriage. I have no spouse but Jesus. I have no family but Jesus. I have no friends but Jesus. If I have any enemies, it is because I have made Jesus my enemy first. (Remember, I can only relate to others through Jesus. Therefore, if another person is my enemy, Christ has already become my enemy.)
You see, when one is baptized, that one is made one with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; the person is clothed with Christ, joined to Christ in his dying and rising--not just until death parts them. Baptism is one's marriage to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For this reason, St. Paul and other New Testament writers adamantly preached that Christians should not get married at all. If our nation and culture were truly Christian, marriage and weddings would not exist. Paul wrote that marriage was allowed only for the weak--those who were tempted to have sex and could not avoid their addiction to "the flesh." Marriage, Paul argued, was the only context in which preferential love and sexual expressions of love were even remotely permissible. For Paul, marriage is--at best--a necessary evil. The only thing that marriage is good for is to prevent you from doing other evil things beside getting married.
According to Jesus, the only thing worse than marriage is divorce. Why? Because if you cannot be faithful to another human being with whom you have entered a covenant, then you certainly cannot be faithful to your God. Indeed, dismissing the marriage covenant between you and another human is--by the same stroke and action--dismissing the marriage covenant you have made with God. In the very act of divorcing my spouse, I have divorced God. (No wonder Paul tells us not to get married! The stakes are absolute.)
In sum, the only good marriage is our marriage to God. This statement is most certainly true...if we trust the words of Scripture.
So why is the Church in the business of marrying people to each other at all? For the life of me, I can only think of one reason: the Church is unfaithful to God.
When it comes to marriage as a spiritual--or religious--phenomenon, there is only one marriage allowed: our marriage to God; there is only one wedding allowed: baptism. And the One Marriage is only allowed to be consummated in one way: holy communion. (Some Christian mystics use sex as a metaphor for communing with God, which is a good and helpful enough metaphor. But literally, the only communing we do with God is the Eucharist.)
Marriage to a human spouse is not spiritual, but mundane and practical...not religious but secular. Human marriage is, therefore, a matter of the secular state and not within the purview of the Church.
Marriage between two people is a state matter. Christians, being in the world but not of the world, are justified in seeking a legal marriage in order to obtain the protections, rights and privileges such a relationship offers under and according to the law (worldly law).
Throughout history, marriage has always been more about legality than spirituality. Marriage, remember, is a cultural institution, not a divine one. Marriage was invented as a means for human beings to hold two people accountable to one another--a means for a human being to hold her spouse accountable. Marriage is not about God holding us accountable--we are accountable to God for our promises whether or not there is a formal vow or a public vow or a legally recognized vow creating a legally defined relationship. Marriage is about humans holding humans accountable. Thus, marriage is a state matter.
Faith offers no reason to get married, but every reason to avoid a religious/spiritual marriage.
Meanwhile, human law offers every reason to get married. Tax laws, parentage rights/responsibilities, public validation of social position, inheritance laws, economic provisions, etc. are the only reasons to get married.
In the early Christian Church, weddings simply didn't happen. Marriage was solely a state institution. No wedding liturgy dates back to the early Church. And there is no evidence that Christian Churches were called on or felt obliged to bless civil marriages. Rather, Paul curses marriage and instructed churches to teach the same.
Notice also, that when Paul recommends marriage for those who cannot handle a pure Christian life, he is not sending them to the Church to get married. Paul is sending folks to the state. Although Paul does not make his theology about the role of state governments in the world yet, one can already anticipate in his thought what later theologians would conclude. To wit, God instituted state governments to help curb sinfulness by creating societies of peace and stability. In other words, when Paul suggests that Christians marry, he is, in effect saying, "Since you can't follow the Church, at least the non-Christian state help you avoid as much evil as possible."
But by the Middle Ages, marriage had become an action of the Church. Why? Because in 425 C.E. the Church became the bedfellow of the state because of Emperor Constantine. Since that time, the Church has continually tried to monopolize marriage for one reason: power. By the Middle Ages, the Church was already aiming to hold power in the world. Marriage was one instance of the Church usurping power from the state. Eventually, the state was not allowed to give two people the rights and privileges of being united under the law without the authorization of the Church. The Church wanted as much worldly authority as it could get. The Church wanted power and was given power.
Today, when I conduct a wedding, there is no doubt in my mind that I am acting as a representative of the state more so than the Church. As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ, I can bless all sorts of relationships. But when I marry two people, that marriage is only effective when I sign a legal, government document. And most of the time when two people ask me to marry them, what they want me to do is serve as their public witness and substitute government official to sign off on their legal marriage. In their minds, marriage happens in church. Traditional weddings are officiated by a pastor, not a judge. What couples usually want is a traditional wedding, not necessarily a divine blessing on their marriage.
If it were up to me, I would have the Church quit being involved in marriage. If it were up to me, weddings would be something that people sought from the state alone. All marriages would be conducted by a justice of the peace or some other governmental official vested with the power to marry. Only then, if--and only if--two people desired to hear the Good News that Jesus alone was the foundation of their relationship together, I would have the Church be on hand to bless their civil union and to ask God to help them live together in love, faith, hope, etc.
If it were up to me, I would never be asked to exercise the powers invested in me by the state of Illinois by pronouncing two people to be married.
After all, when I conduct pre-marital counseling, I am not really preparing two people for marriage. I am preparing two people to live as followers of Jesus Christ. The three of us present at those sessions implicitly understand that I am equipping them for Christian behavior within a relationship specifically and completely defined by a worldly institution...the state.
Faith informs a couple's marriage relationship in the same way that faith informs an individual's politics. The Church is forbidden to dictate the latter, why is the Church able to officially determine the former?
[Note: This year, I am doing more weddings than I have ever had the opportunity to do before. Weddings are not my favorite part of ministry, but I am growing to enjoy them more and more. It is not that I dislike performing weddings. Instead, from what history has taught me and from what the Bible teaches, I believe that the Church really has no business performing marriages for the state. The ELCA has orders (liturgies) for blessing homes and new jobs and all sorts of things. I am all for blessing marriages in the context of worship. But the Church has no official capacity or power when it comes to people buying homes or seeking new jobs. We can ask God's blessings on marriage without the Church being a servant of the state. I would prefer just being a servant of Christ's Church. For that reason alone, I will continue to preside as a deputized state official at weddings...because for the time being, my Church asks and expects me to serve in that way.]
Monday, June 16, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
How Does God Want Us to Have Sex?: In Search of a Biblical Position
Sex is biological, but it is also much more than that for humans.
For other animals and for plants, sex remains (with few exceptions) biological.
But what is the "more" that humans find in sex?
I believe that sex is considerably spiritual, and that sex is so infused with power over us and our relationships in such subtle ways that we do not appreciate its effect on us.
By "spiritual," I mean the mysterious nexus of body, mind, emotion and more. "Spiritual" does not refer to something that is simply ephemeral, although it points to that, too. We are spiritual beings, and a part of that spirituality is having physical bodies.
So, if sex is spiritual, we should expect to get some direction from God on matters of sexuality, particularly through the Word of God--Jesus and the Bible. As we hear Jesus preach and read the scriptures, however, we find that God is pretty clear on sex, but clear in a very different way than most Christians assume.
What we learn from Jesus and the Bible is this:
Sex is cultural.
What this means is that sexual ethics and morality are conditioned by culture and not by divine revelation. To be sure, God does reveal some things about sex, and the purpose of this blog is to tease out biblical teachings about what sex is and how we should do it, so to speak. However, if we are going to use biblical models of sexual relationships, then modern humans are really on the wrong track. For example, in many modern cultures in the West, it is important to us that sex be accompanied by love. If we are going to pattern our sexual relationships on the Bible, literally translated, then love is the last thing we would require before sex...and if we did require it before sex, then we would be breaking God's commandments. More on that later.
God is never specific about the relational context in which sex should occur.
Instead of micro-managing, God only gives us some general principles to guide us in our quest for sex: loyalty, fidelity, mutual trust and the benefit of vows (marriage).
What about monogamy? Surely, monogamy is one of God's guiding sexual principles. Well, yes and no. Monogamy is only revealed as the right way in the New Testament (and strict monogamy as a N.T. teaching is still debatable). Meanwhile, many Christians base their sexual ethics on Old Testament commandments. If we are going to listen at all to the Old Testament about sex, then we have to put polygamy, serial monogamy and sex outside of wedlock back on the table.
Issues of monogamy aside, the Bible is clear that if a man or woman is going to be faithful to a partner, it is really helpful to communicate that intention. God never said, "Marry and multiply." God did try to get his human creatures to be good to one another. Marriage was never a commandment, it was a human invention to help us to follow God's design for us: fidelity and mutual trust. Marriage as we know it, therefore, is also a purely cultural construct. Adam and Eve were never married. There was no wedding, no witnesses to any vows made (except God who is always our witness), no formal vows were even made--certainly no vows made in public, as we require today. Humans created marriage so that the promises made by two people could be formal and publicly accountable. We created marriage so that the contract could be enforced, that's all.
But marriage is off topic. We are talking about sex. The evolution of marriage is interesting and complex and deserves its own blog post. Yes, marriage is designed to be the proper relational context of sex. However, the point here is: marriage is not a divine estate (certainly not a sacrament--sorry Romans). Marriage is a cultural institution. Hence, sex is a cultural thing.
Today, many Christians believe that sex is about love. But that goes against everything the Bible tells us about sex.
The first thing God tells us about sex is: "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Genesis 1:28). Not only is this the only thing about sex that we consistently get right, it is the only divine commandment in the entire Bible that we haven't broken. We got this one, so we can move on, right? Let's not be hasty. Please note that the first time God tries to explain to humans why sex is even a thing, God says nothing about what a sexual relationship is supposed to look like. Sex is no more than a biological function. God gives the exact same commandment to the other animals--simply, "Be fruitful and multiply...." God refuses to micromanage the how-to-make-it-happen-responsibily at this point, and simply tells humans, "You need to start having sex." Things were so uncomplicated in Eden.
The rest of Genesis, and indeed most of the rest of the Old Testament, never expands on that one, basic ideal and purpose and context of sex, namely that it is all about biology. Abraham has sex with his slave, Hagar, in order to procreate and obtain an heir. His wife, Sarah, supports this plan (at first) and God does not punish Abraham's extra-marital sexual behavior. Why? Because sex is about biology--procreation--first and foremost. Yes, Sarah eventually changes her mind. We modern romantics tell ourselves that Sarah comes to despise Abraham's sexual relations with Hagar because she is jealous of Abraham and wants him to be true to her. In reality, Sarah changes her mind because she is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael (the child of Abraham and Hagar).
Here we see the first non-biological dynamic associated with sex: power.
Sarah is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael because they are all of a sudden threats to her and her son, Isaac's, claim to prominence in the family and right of inheritance. Sex is no longer merely biological, it is political. What does God do in response? God works to make it apolitical because sex, biblically understood so far, ought not be politicized. God lets Sarah force Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, but then God goes to great measures to support, preserve and bless the exiles. Ishmael would come to inherit a great nation--just like Isaac.
God does not want sex to be about power. If I am having sex to exert power over another person, or I am using sexual relations to gain more power, this is wrong. But notice, it is not wrong because sex-of-power is devoid of love, it is wrong because we humans have made the biology more complicated (inter-personally speaking).
Another biblical story that comes to mind when I think of sex, is the story of Ruth and Boaz (found in the book of the Bible titled: Ruth). In chapter 3, Ruth goes to Boaz resting on the threshing floor and presents herself for him to have sex with her. Now, the modern readers assumes the following and inserts it between the biblical lines: Ruth falls in love with Boaz as soon as she sees him and does everything she can to win his love in return. As it happens, they find that they love each other (only after having sex, BTW) and decide to get married, and they live happily ever after. What really happens? Well, according to the Bible (if you believe the Bible), Ruth's friend Naomi tells her to go and have sex with Boaz because Naomi needs to seek, "...some security for you, so that it may be well with you" (Ruth 3:1). Ruth wasn't in love. She went to lay down with Boaz for reasons of survival and security. After spending an intense night together on the threshing floor, Boaz does decide to marry Ruth. Boaz wasn't in love with Ruth. By presenting herself for sex, Ruth was proposing a contract--I will "take care of you" if you take care of me, if you will. Proving it is a contract, Boaz says that he cannot marry Ruth right away, but must wait to see if another man will exercise his right to claim her as his. All of a sudden, Ruth is owed a debt. She had sex with him as a down payment on marriage. Now he says he can't give her that, so he owes her something. In a show both of good faith and in order to compensate Ruth, Boaz gives her "six measures of barley" so that she does not go back to Naomi "empty-handed" (Ruth 3:15, 17). Boaz does ultimately marry Ruth--and for all the right biblical reasons, none of which are love.
The story of Ruth and Boaz tells us something: sex is about life. Not just the life of the species, but also about life for the individual. Sex is both a tool to propagate the species and a tool used to ensure an individual's abundant life. The latter requires things like trust, security, relationships, and other suchlike things. As far as the Bible tells us, God fully supports and blesses the way that Naomi, Ruth and Boaz use and understand sex. Sex is good and is for the good of God's people.
Imagine with me. What if Boaz refused to have sex with or marry Ruth because he "did not love" her? The Bible and God would have judged him--and not positively. Ruth, whose descendent was going to be King David and therefore also Jesus, needed Boaz to preserve her life and to help her create the life that Israel was waiting for (in and through David and Jesus). If he had said, "I can't. I don't love you." He would have been selfishly putting himself before Ruth and all of Israel. Make no mistake, according to the Bible, Boaz has a duty to Israel and a responsibility to Ruth to forget about his own feelings and have sex...then get married. Compassion for the poor and devotion to nation and countrymen are more important than what Boaz wants or feels. If there is one thing God punishes in the Bible, it is selfishness at the expense of God's needy people.
Again and again, the Bible is clear--God is clear--that sex is not about love or emotion or even spirituality per se. Sex is for procreation. Sex is transactional and contractual--a commodity that can be traded for the goal of economic and social security. Sex is not about inter-personal relationship, it is about contractual agreement. We modern romantics are offended by this, but God condones and blesses it.
For many modern people in the West, sex is spiritual. For us, sex is emotional and mental and relational, and, yes, still physical...specifically, pleasurably physical.
We have sex for reasons other than procreation. We have sex for pleasure.
We have sex for reasons other than ensuring our own lives and livelihoods.
We have sex to express (and to help build or strengthen) meaningful inter-personal relationships--not just for our survival, but for our happiness. The relationships are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. We do not love our partners just so that we have practical support through life, we love them--and have sex with them--just to get happiness being together with them.
None of the reasons why we have sex today are biblical. In fact, the reasons we have sex are downright hedonistically self-indulgent compared to the reasons why people in the Bible had sex.
So, are we wrong for associating sex with love?
Are we wrong for taking pleasure from sex?
Are we wrong to want to build relationship for relationship sake and not just for security in the world?
No, we are not wrong.
Because sexual ethics and morality do not come to us as revelations of God.
Sex--how we view it and how we do it--are cultural constructs.
In biblical times, people viewed sex (and marriage) differently than we do today. They had different rules, methods, taboos and preferences than we do. And that is ok.
Because all God wants us to remember is:
Sex, because it is a part of creation, is good.
-and-
Sex should be somehow grounded in mutual trust, fidelity and the goal of abundant life.
God has not changed his intentions and hopes for us when it comes to sex, and yet the subtext and process of sexual relations in biblical times is foreign to us. Why? Because the culture of and surrounding sex has changed and evolved. God supports and blesses that evolutionary process.
God says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
Culture says, "Here's how we expect you to do that in ways that are healthy for you and society."
Right now, our culture says sex ought to be about love and a deeper inter-personal relationship. Why? Because these things are the best goods that sex can offer society. We do not need to dramatically increase the human population on earth (in fact doing so would be disastrous). We do not need sex-as-social-security because we have come up with better, more generous and dependable corporate systems of preserving individual lives and their socio-economic security. In the past, a woman's social security meant having a man to protect and provide. Today, social security is about protecting each individual's civil liberties and ensuring a healthy society that gives both men and women opportunities to seek life and liberty, and to pursue fulfillment. God's gift of sex is freed from these requirements to give us different benefits and blessings today. Therefore, sex is understood differently today, and cultural expectations surrounding sex are different. Sex can make life good and healthy for us in different ways today than it was able to in biblical times.
In other words: sex has evolved, and the Holy Spirit must guide us toward sexual ethics and morality...biblical examples and models are no longer prescriptive.
And at the end of the day, the only time God disapproves of our approach to sex is when it becomes about something other than or is destructive to abundant life.
God does not want to micro-manage your sex life.
The Church isn't supposed to, either.
So, I put the question: How can Christians be better witnesses of the Good News about sex?
For other animals and for plants, sex remains (with few exceptions) biological.
But what is the "more" that humans find in sex?
I believe that sex is considerably spiritual, and that sex is so infused with power over us and our relationships in such subtle ways that we do not appreciate its effect on us.
By "spiritual," I mean the mysterious nexus of body, mind, emotion and more. "Spiritual" does not refer to something that is simply ephemeral, although it points to that, too. We are spiritual beings, and a part of that spirituality is having physical bodies.
So, if sex is spiritual, we should expect to get some direction from God on matters of sexuality, particularly through the Word of God--Jesus and the Bible. As we hear Jesus preach and read the scriptures, however, we find that God is pretty clear on sex, but clear in a very different way than most Christians assume.
What we learn from Jesus and the Bible is this:
Sex is cultural.
What this means is that sexual ethics and morality are conditioned by culture and not by divine revelation. To be sure, God does reveal some things about sex, and the purpose of this blog is to tease out biblical teachings about what sex is and how we should do it, so to speak. However, if we are going to use biblical models of sexual relationships, then modern humans are really on the wrong track. For example, in many modern cultures in the West, it is important to us that sex be accompanied by love. If we are going to pattern our sexual relationships on the Bible, literally translated, then love is the last thing we would require before sex...and if we did require it before sex, then we would be breaking God's commandments. More on that later.
God is never specific about the relational context in which sex should occur.
Instead of micro-managing, God only gives us some general principles to guide us in our quest for sex: loyalty, fidelity, mutual trust and the benefit of vows (marriage).
What about monogamy? Surely, monogamy is one of God's guiding sexual principles. Well, yes and no. Monogamy is only revealed as the right way in the New Testament (and strict monogamy as a N.T. teaching is still debatable). Meanwhile, many Christians base their sexual ethics on Old Testament commandments. If we are going to listen at all to the Old Testament about sex, then we have to put polygamy, serial monogamy and sex outside of wedlock back on the table.
Issues of monogamy aside, the Bible is clear that if a man or woman is going to be faithful to a partner, it is really helpful to communicate that intention. God never said, "Marry and multiply." God did try to get his human creatures to be good to one another. Marriage was never a commandment, it was a human invention to help us to follow God's design for us: fidelity and mutual trust. Marriage as we know it, therefore, is also a purely cultural construct. Adam and Eve were never married. There was no wedding, no witnesses to any vows made (except God who is always our witness), no formal vows were even made--certainly no vows made in public, as we require today. Humans created marriage so that the promises made by two people could be formal and publicly accountable. We created marriage so that the contract could be enforced, that's all.
But marriage is off topic. We are talking about sex. The evolution of marriage is interesting and complex and deserves its own blog post. Yes, marriage is designed to be the proper relational context of sex. However, the point here is: marriage is not a divine estate (certainly not a sacrament--sorry Romans). Marriage is a cultural institution. Hence, sex is a cultural thing.
Today, many Christians believe that sex is about love. But that goes against everything the Bible tells us about sex.
The first thing God tells us about sex is: "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Genesis 1:28). Not only is this the only thing about sex that we consistently get right, it is the only divine commandment in the entire Bible that we haven't broken. We got this one, so we can move on, right? Let's not be hasty. Please note that the first time God tries to explain to humans why sex is even a thing, God says nothing about what a sexual relationship is supposed to look like. Sex is no more than a biological function. God gives the exact same commandment to the other animals--simply, "Be fruitful and multiply...." God refuses to micromanage the how-to-make-it-happen-responsibily at this point, and simply tells humans, "You need to start having sex." Things were so uncomplicated in Eden.
The rest of Genesis, and indeed most of the rest of the Old Testament, never expands on that one, basic ideal and purpose and context of sex, namely that it is all about biology. Abraham has sex with his slave, Hagar, in order to procreate and obtain an heir. His wife, Sarah, supports this plan (at first) and God does not punish Abraham's extra-marital sexual behavior. Why? Because sex is about biology--procreation--first and foremost. Yes, Sarah eventually changes her mind. We modern romantics tell ourselves that Sarah comes to despise Abraham's sexual relations with Hagar because she is jealous of Abraham and wants him to be true to her. In reality, Sarah changes her mind because she is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael (the child of Abraham and Hagar).
Here we see the first non-biological dynamic associated with sex: power.
Sarah is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael because they are all of a sudden threats to her and her son, Isaac's, claim to prominence in the family and right of inheritance. Sex is no longer merely biological, it is political. What does God do in response? God works to make it apolitical because sex, biblically understood so far, ought not be politicized. God lets Sarah force Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, but then God goes to great measures to support, preserve and bless the exiles. Ishmael would come to inherit a great nation--just like Isaac.
God does not want sex to be about power. If I am having sex to exert power over another person, or I am using sexual relations to gain more power, this is wrong. But notice, it is not wrong because sex-of-power is devoid of love, it is wrong because we humans have made the biology more complicated (inter-personally speaking).
Another biblical story that comes to mind when I think of sex, is the story of Ruth and Boaz (found in the book of the Bible titled: Ruth). In chapter 3, Ruth goes to Boaz resting on the threshing floor and presents herself for him to have sex with her. Now, the modern readers assumes the following and inserts it between the biblical lines: Ruth falls in love with Boaz as soon as she sees him and does everything she can to win his love in return. As it happens, they find that they love each other (only after having sex, BTW) and decide to get married, and they live happily ever after. What really happens? Well, according to the Bible (if you believe the Bible), Ruth's friend Naomi tells her to go and have sex with Boaz because Naomi needs to seek, "...some security for you, so that it may be well with you" (Ruth 3:1). Ruth wasn't in love. She went to lay down with Boaz for reasons of survival and security. After spending an intense night together on the threshing floor, Boaz does decide to marry Ruth. Boaz wasn't in love with Ruth. By presenting herself for sex, Ruth was proposing a contract--I will "take care of you" if you take care of me, if you will. Proving it is a contract, Boaz says that he cannot marry Ruth right away, but must wait to see if another man will exercise his right to claim her as his. All of a sudden, Ruth is owed a debt. She had sex with him as a down payment on marriage. Now he says he can't give her that, so he owes her something. In a show both of good faith and in order to compensate Ruth, Boaz gives her "six measures of barley" so that she does not go back to Naomi "empty-handed" (Ruth 3:15, 17). Boaz does ultimately marry Ruth--and for all the right biblical reasons, none of which are love.
The story of Ruth and Boaz tells us something: sex is about life. Not just the life of the species, but also about life for the individual. Sex is both a tool to propagate the species and a tool used to ensure an individual's abundant life. The latter requires things like trust, security, relationships, and other suchlike things. As far as the Bible tells us, God fully supports and blesses the way that Naomi, Ruth and Boaz use and understand sex. Sex is good and is for the good of God's people.
Imagine with me. What if Boaz refused to have sex with or marry Ruth because he "did not love" her? The Bible and God would have judged him--and not positively. Ruth, whose descendent was going to be King David and therefore also Jesus, needed Boaz to preserve her life and to help her create the life that Israel was waiting for (in and through David and Jesus). If he had said, "I can't. I don't love you." He would have been selfishly putting himself before Ruth and all of Israel. Make no mistake, according to the Bible, Boaz has a duty to Israel and a responsibility to Ruth to forget about his own feelings and have sex...then get married. Compassion for the poor and devotion to nation and countrymen are more important than what Boaz wants or feels. If there is one thing God punishes in the Bible, it is selfishness at the expense of God's needy people.
Again and again, the Bible is clear--God is clear--that sex is not about love or emotion or even spirituality per se. Sex is for procreation. Sex is transactional and contractual--a commodity that can be traded for the goal of economic and social security. Sex is not about inter-personal relationship, it is about contractual agreement. We modern romantics are offended by this, but God condones and blesses it.
For many modern people in the West, sex is spiritual. For us, sex is emotional and mental and relational, and, yes, still physical...specifically, pleasurably physical.
We have sex for reasons other than procreation. We have sex for pleasure.
We have sex for reasons other than ensuring our own lives and livelihoods.
We have sex to express (and to help build or strengthen) meaningful inter-personal relationships--not just for our survival, but for our happiness. The relationships are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. We do not love our partners just so that we have practical support through life, we love them--and have sex with them--just to get happiness being together with them.
None of the reasons why we have sex today are biblical. In fact, the reasons we have sex are downright hedonistically self-indulgent compared to the reasons why people in the Bible had sex.
So, are we wrong for associating sex with love?
Are we wrong for taking pleasure from sex?
Are we wrong to want to build relationship for relationship sake and not just for security in the world?
No, we are not wrong.
Because sexual ethics and morality do not come to us as revelations of God.
Sex--how we view it and how we do it--are cultural constructs.
In biblical times, people viewed sex (and marriage) differently than we do today. They had different rules, methods, taboos and preferences than we do. And that is ok.
Because all God wants us to remember is:
Sex, because it is a part of creation, is good.
-and-
Sex should be somehow grounded in mutual trust, fidelity and the goal of abundant life.
God has not changed his intentions and hopes for us when it comes to sex, and yet the subtext and process of sexual relations in biblical times is foreign to us. Why? Because the culture of and surrounding sex has changed and evolved. God supports and blesses that evolutionary process.
God says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
Culture says, "Here's how we expect you to do that in ways that are healthy for you and society."
Right now, our culture says sex ought to be about love and a deeper inter-personal relationship. Why? Because these things are the best goods that sex can offer society. We do not need to dramatically increase the human population on earth (in fact doing so would be disastrous). We do not need sex-as-social-security because we have come up with better, more generous and dependable corporate systems of preserving individual lives and their socio-economic security. In the past, a woman's social security meant having a man to protect and provide. Today, social security is about protecting each individual's civil liberties and ensuring a healthy society that gives both men and women opportunities to seek life and liberty, and to pursue fulfillment. God's gift of sex is freed from these requirements to give us different benefits and blessings today. Therefore, sex is understood differently today, and cultural expectations surrounding sex are different. Sex can make life good and healthy for us in different ways today than it was able to in biblical times.
In other words: sex has evolved, and the Holy Spirit must guide us toward sexual ethics and morality...biblical examples and models are no longer prescriptive.
And at the end of the day, the only time God disapproves of our approach to sex is when it becomes about something other than or is destructive to abundant life.
God does not want to micro-manage your sex life.
The Church isn't supposed to, either.
So, I put the question: How can Christians be better witnesses of the Good News about sex?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)