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?