Why do we believe…that the USA has a special relationship with God or is a “Christian nation?”

Posted on December 14, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

I am beginning with this post because a conversation at Thanksgiving is really what prompted me to take this blog series more seriously than I was planning. A group of BVG members and I got together after Thanksgiving and we were going around saying what we were thankful for. One of my friends said she was thankful that citizens of the USA were under special protection from Jesus Christ, and shared a story illustrating her belief.

In her childhood her parents were missionaries in Hungary. While they lived there a war was ravaging a nearby country (the issues in Bosnia/Herzegovina/Yugoslavia?) and if that war heated up Marines in helicopters would come and extract them to safety. She suggested that the fact that they would be extracted from danger if things got too bad was a sign of God’s special protection unique to US citizens. She also, more sheepishly, related the fact that she had secretly hoped they would need to be extracted; getting a ride in a helicopter with a bunch of Marines would have been quite the experience.

First, let me suggest that the reason her family would have been extracted is a direct consequence of the overall U.S. defense strategy and our foreign policy. We spend billions of tax dollars in the military-industrial complex and have set up military bases all over the world through various agreements with foreign countries. As a result we can project our power, including the ability to evacuate U.S. citizens from dangerous places, over much of the globe. This story illustrates the benefits (for U.S. citizens at least) of decisions made by our government and the spending of our tax dollars. Furthermore, I cannot think of any country that would not extract their citizens from harm given the opportunity. I am sure the government of the belligerents in the war near to Hungary would happily have extracted their non-combatants to somewhere safe if they had somewhere safe to send them to. I am sure many countries would have extracted their citizens from parts of the U.S. to avoid hate-crimes after 9/11 if they had army bases and helicopters on U.S. soil.

Second, while I want to be fair to my friend, who was only a young girl at the time, I think I should be blunt. Only an U.S. citizen could be so pampered and insulated from the realities of this world to actively wish that a war, a war in which people are getting killed and atrocities were being committed, would get worse so that they could get a helicopter ride with U.S. Marines.

My friend is not alone in having this belief; I have heard it and variations of it espoused numerous times and it is this belief, not my friend or her story, that I want to focus on. I have heard this in sermons, news statements and general talk among Christians.

Let me continue to be blunt: the United States of America has never been and is not a Christian nation, we do not have a special relationship with Jesus Christ, nor are we under any special protection or blessing from God. There is no biblical evidence for any of these beliefs.

While I have never heard anyone claim a chapter of verse proves this special relationship between the USA and Jesus Christ most often proponents of this belief have suggested parts of our history have in some way earned or initiated such a relationship. So for the sake of argument, let us consider the history of the U.S. and see if we have done anything that would initiate, earn or maintain a special relationship with Christ.
Our colonial days: Some might suggest that, harkening back to grade-school plays regarding the pilgrims and Native Americans, that we were founded by Christians seeking religious freedom. While some Christians did flee to America to escape religious persecution in Europe (from other “Christians” *eyeroll*), economic gain and the exploitation of the New World was far more central to the initial colonization of the Americas. Colonies were initially high risk-investments and business ventures taken by governments in Europe. As colonization continued and stabilized the promise of new resources up for grabs (such as trees, fish, etc.) that were being rapidly depleted in Europe drove governments to begin seriously investing and protecting their colonial projects.

The early economy in which the colonies were based off of was a triangle of trade that centered around the production of an addictive substance (alcohol) and slavery. Slaves in West Africa were bought and brought to the West Indies and used to harvest cane sugar and produce molasses. Molasses was in turn taken to the colonies and turned into rum. This was sold on the market and used back in West Africa to buy more slaves. Sherman Edwards, a lyricists once wrote, “Shall we dance to the sound of the profitable pound of molasses and rum and slaves” in 1776. In this the colonies were more similar to narco-trafficing states with much more in common with the poor farmers in Afghanistan who farm and sell opium to make it by than the quaint settlements of Christians enjoying religious liberty.


Our Founding: I distinctly remember one Christian man suggesting that it was his sincere belief that God had blessed the USA for decisions our founders made in founding this as a Christian nation. This is not an accurate depiction of our founding. We were founded by deistic slave owners who based our governing documents Secular Humanism, not Christianity. Three basic tenants of Secular Humanism are Naturalism, Rationalism, and Humanism and all are in direct contradiction basic tenants of the Christian faith. Naturalism is the belief that everything in this world is a result of natural forces interacting; the supernatural (such as God, Christ, the incarnation, and the spiritual realm) is completely denied and essentially relegated to the status of superstition where acknowledged at all. Rationalism is the belief that everything has a rational explanation and a logical explanation; this is why reason trumps faith in all workings of our government. Humanism is the belief that humanity is the be all and end all of this world and that human ingenuity and progress will solve the problems of this world; man’s potential, not God, is the hope of this world. Secular Humanisn is the religion-that-is-not-a-religion that is at the core of our government, our culture and the Western world, not Christianity.
Furthermore, how can we even suggest we are a Christian nation when the USA explicitly states and protects freedom of religion? Would not a “Christian nation” have Christianity as our state religion and exclude all others? “Freedom of religion” was not code for “Christian theocracy,” it was code for “freedom from religion.” If all religions are equal in the eyes of the state, no religion is relevant to state business. This desire to escape the confines of religion is clearly evident in Thomas Jefferson’s last letter, where he wrote the following:

May it [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

These are not exactly the words of someone concerned with establishing a religions nation of any sort, let alone a Christian one.

Our conquest of the American continent: Then there was Manifest Destiny and the expansion of the USA across the continent. We (meaning Caucasian US citizens from select countries in Western Europe) had a destiny to civilize the American continent. Religious overtones were often added to this as some preachers suggested that America was the new Promised Land, we the new Israelites, and the Native Americans the new Caananites whose land we were under a divine mandate to take. And take we did. We took the land of the Native Americans and in the process destroyed their cultures, broke several treaties, committed genocide and put the survivors on permanent prisoner of war camps we now call reservations. This video is worth a watch to anyone who wants to see the carnage we left in our wake as we murdered several cultures to take this land and the injustice that still happens today.

I am tempted to go on but I think I have made my point clear. The list of our sins and non-Christian beliefs and practices as a nation is not a short one. We were founded in blood and exploitation and not much has changed. Be it slavery, the treatment of the Native Americans, our current foreign policy, the exploitation of the poor (at home and abroad – of any race or nationality, i.e. the Irish at the turn of the century or Latin American illegals today), the destruction of the environment, the consumption of perishable resources, the use of drugs, our prison system (which incarcerates at five times the rate of any other developed world), the pornography industry, the compromising of the Gospel to secularizing forces from our culture, the massive stockpile of nuclear weapons we have (and the fact that we are the only nation in the world to have used them), or the staggering kill count that we have incurred over the years as the direct result of our wars and “collateral damage,” I do not see much to have earned a relationship with Jesus Christ or His blessing and protection. I see a lot of reasons why the USA should be considered one of the most apostate groups of people on the planet.

We look like a nation that worships Molek, Baal and Ashera, not Jesus Christ.


To be fair, we have done positive things that have contributed to the state of this world but this isn’t a balance sheet and even if it did I am not sure we would come close to breaking even. We cannot exploit thirty developing nation and then send monetary relief (possibly gained through exploitation?) to the most recent earthquake victims and claim that this puts us once again in a position to claim Christ’s name.

The notion itself is also rather ridiculous. If US citizens were under special protection or blessing, that would mean that our borders and our citizenship policies, as defined by human governments, would dictate to God whom He should especially protect and who is just a regular human being. Was God not concerned about Hawaiians or Alaskans until the land they lived on became states? This would put human governments above Jesus. This is the opposite of Christian orthodoxy where human governments are a servant of God (Romans 13). Furthermore, I hope it can be seen how such a belief is inherently prideful, ethnocentric, exclusive, demeaning towards other nations, and ignorant on a number of levels.

Finally, let us suggest, again for the sake of argument, that somehow it could be proved that the USA is the “New Israel” and has some special relationship with God. If this were true we have much to fear. From a recent paper I wrote on Amos, I would argue that the closest time in Israel’s history to the present situation in the U.S.A is during the writing of Amos in the 8th century BCE. In that day Israel was culture marked by affluence, high religious practice (with low religious understanding), confidence in its military strength (as they were fresh from military victories no less), increasing urbanization, and an increasing divide between the poor and rich.  I hope it is plan how this could easily describe Israel in the 8th century the USA.

It did not end well for the Israelites.  Their religious practice, evidenced by their high attendance at shrines and religious sites, was ultimately deemed empty because of the state of their hearts. The new rich in the cities were exploiting the weak and denying them justice. As a result God sent Amos to proclaim a message of judgment over Israel and lead them into exile.

If the USA is a Christian nation, we are a nation ripe for judgment and exile. And this is not a judgment that was earned by and for non-Christians or those other Christians in that church/denomination down the street, this will be a judgment earned by our nation for our nation.

So please, stop acting, thinking, and speaking as if the USA has a special relationship with Jesus Christ and the benefits we enjoy from living in this nation are something we have earned through our behavior or His favor. It is true that we enjoy many freedoms that we take for granted and have it so good compared to everyone else in the world (trust me, this is hitting home as I write from the Philippine Islands). Francis Chan has an amazing sermon on how, even the poorest citizen in the USA is filthy stinking rich. And this wealth and these privileges came from somewhere.

We should seriously question where our vast amounts of wealth and our protection come from and who has really paid (and is paying) for the extravagant and insulated lifestyles we live.

Posted in Personal Commentary, Why do we believe... | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Why do we believe…: Series Introduction

Posted on December 13, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

Recently I posted on my Facebook that I would start a new series entitled “Stupid S&@T Christians believe.” Many Christians responded positively to this suggestion though I do not think some of them knew how far I was planning to go. Another brother called me to account for my use of a fake expletive in the title. While I am unsure of if he was sincere or not it did give me pause to think about what I really would like to accomplish with this series.

My goal with this series of posts is not to shock people with foul language or stir up controversy for the sake of controversy.

My goal is to provide a critique from within. I am a Western Christian and my goal in these posts is to challenge a variety of beliefs and assumptions present in Western Christianity. These beliefs run the gamut from simple truisms about faith and life that are not helpful to serious issues of Christian orthodoxy. Many have no biblical basis but are widely held.

With this series I am calling Christians, especially members of my home church Big Valley Grace Community Church (BVG), to examine several of these beliefs.

Why these beliefs are widely held but never questioned: Many of these beliefs continue to go unexamined simply because they are so widely held. If every Christian around you believes something, it is logical to assume that it is a Christian (biblically based) belief. However, this is really democratic authority, not biblical authority. Mob rule and the approval of some religious leaders, not revelation, is the authority behind many of these beliefs. People who speak up or question the validity of these beliefs run the risk of being ostracized, branded as “non-Christian” or otherwise marginalized by the wider Christian community. To be honest, this is the fear that has kept me quiet for as long as I have been.

Why I am speaking up now: I have been a member of BVG for just under ten years. I was nominally involved in our youth programs during high school, was baptized into the church in 2002, have served on a variety of short term missions trips (to, Mexico, Romania and San Francisco), lead small groups (for college ministries and Celebrate Recovery), volunteered many hours (working at our church or with our local reach partners), and most recently was a local missionary serving under the auspices of CMN with financial support from BVG.  I am not just someone who shows up at BVG for an hour and a half on Sunday and then leaves.

During my involvement  at BVG I have heard many beliefs being taught from the pulpit and affirmed from the pews that I have found no scriptural support for. I have disagreed with major decisions the Church has made because I believed they were based on these mistaken beliefs and yet as a voting member of our congregation I have kept silent. My fear of confronting these issues before has come from that fact that many of the beliefs I wish to challenge are inherent to the dominant culture at BVG: conservative, white, evangelical Protestantism. These beliefs are held by our pastors, our elder board, and the majority of our members; the people in power and the people who put people in power are on-board with many of these beliefs. As such, I am, and have been, an outsider in my home church and to confront these issues publicly I would rather quickly be deserted and left to fend for myself.

Despite this fact I have continued to attend BVG out of my commitment to the local church and love for its members. I realize no church is perfect, no pastor is perfect, no member is perfect, least of me all me, and to leave for “greener pastures” elsewhere would just start a never ending quest for the mythical “Perfect Church”.  You know, the church where the theology and practice are exactly in line with my current beliefs? Searching for the “perfect church” is as futile as hunting for unicorns; a quest destined for failure because we are talking about the local church.  The local church is filled with a bunch of broken and messy people in need of a savior (whether we admit it or not) and we all imperfectly live this Faith as best we can.

I have come to believe it is far better to continue to invest in a local church than to leave for a better church. In part, this means that if we do not believe something in our local congregation church is right, we should bring it up for discussion. If we are wrong we can be shown the error of our ways and if we are right we can force an issue that needs to be dealt with. In this situation I think the best way to love and serve my home Church from afar is by speaking out on these issues. Is it more for me to not rock the boat, avoid hurting anyone’s feelings hurt (and avoid getting ostracized) or push people to reconsider (or possibly think about for the first time) certain beliefs which may or may not be helpful and may or may not be biblical? It is incredibly selfish and cowardly to continue to remain quiet and it is loving to confront problems that I see, even if it means stepping on some toes.

I approach this project with the humility that I once deeply held many of these beliefs to be true, am fallible and might be wrong, might argue for my points ineffectively (though they might be true), and am doing this over the internet from several hundred miles away.

I ask for three things from my readers and those that would respond:

1. Please do not attack me to dodge the issues I bring up. Very specifically I am concerned with how tempting it might be to dismiss me as yet another seminarian who has “lost his faith,” or someone who was filled with strange thoughts in the course of his theological education. But these are not true. First, I have struggled with faith since I was eight; it might be new news to some because I have only recently begun talking about it. Second, I have questioned many of these beliefs since I began studying the Bible in working towards my B.A. in Biblical Studies and in the natural course of experiencing more of life; again it might be new news to some because I have only recently begun voicing my concerns. Focus on the issue and revelation, not me.

2. Consider what I have to say. I do not presume to think that one of my blogs will change the faith of one of my readers forever. I only ask that you truly consider what I have to say and if you cannot come up with a biblical defense of the beliefs you hold, do not stop searching the Bible for what God has to say on the issue. If anything, I hope I encourage others to search for God’s opinion on something as it has been revealed in the Bible, not just stopping at what general Christian consensus around them is on what God’s opinion is on the subject.

3. I will not tolerate parting shots or negative comments that do not contain any discernable argument, nor longer posts on my Facebook page. I am taking time to write these out and I expect the same from those who would respond. If you think I am wrong, explain why. Do not just drop off a negative comment and leave the discussion feeling morally righteous. Also, I would ask that if you have an serious comment you leave it here on my WordPress page, not my Facebook status update. Status update rants are not true conversation on any issue, least of all these. I normally never delete a comment but I will delete (or publicly ridicule) comments that do not abide by these rules.

And my fist post will be…

Why do we believe…that the USA has a special relationship with Jesus and/or is a “Christian nation?”

P.S. Feel free to email me submissions for topics you would like me to address or have questions about.

Posted in Personal Commentary | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Kissing Christians

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

Recently in my Pastoral Care and Sexuality we were fortunate to have a true pioneer speaking to our class in her field of expertise.  Dr. Joyce Penner and her husband Dr. Clifford Penner ended up as Christian sex counselors and educators.  Their careers started when they accepted an invitation to teach on sexuality to a MOPS (mothers of preschooler’s) class.  They were surprised that that sexual lives of the women involved actually changed for the better.  They continued accepting invitations to speak, teach and counsel, after diving into education for their new found role with gusto.  They now teach, speak and write a holistic understanding of sex based on God’s plan for our sexuality.  (http://www.passionatecommitment.com/)

At break somehow the topic of couples refraining from kissing until they were married came up and this exchange happened…

“No kissing before marriage is the most destructive teaching ever.” – Dr. Joyce Penner
“Thank you!” – Kevin Gonzaga

After posting this on Facebook I stirred up a hornets nest so I clarified her statement twice and will try to present the rationale for what she said here.

****

The Penner’s believe that a couple considering marriage should be passionately kissing.  To this end the couple should discuss and mutually set externalized boundaries for this passionately kissing and abide by them, so as to not creep forward in their physical affection beyond what they intend to before marriage.

Before I explain this more I should make it clear that the Penner’s were not advocating that a couple that has just started dating be lip-locking on the second date.  The Penner’s think it is important for a couple that is considering marriage to be passionately kissing.  Passionate kissing also did not mean anything that would leave the participants as “technically virgin” (such as oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, etc.) they meant lip on lip passionate kissing.  This was not a general term for serious physical affection.

The rationale for their statement is two fold:

First, passionate kissing before marriage can expose barriers or problems in the relationship that might otherwise go undetected. Passionately kissing requires communication to establish boundaries, a supportive community to help externalize those boundaries, mutual respect to abide by those boundaries, and intimacy to communicate one’s needs and desires to one’s partners.  In this way passionately kissing provides a check to many aspects of a serious relationship that holding hands, kissing on the cheek or not kissing at all simply do not provide.

Where passionately kissing is absent a couple could get married and only after committing to marriage find out that they should have stayed as friends (because they completely lack physical chemistry), that one or more of them struggle with serious intimacy or sexual dysfunction (possibly from a previously unidentified abuse in their past) or at best simply be incredibly behind the curve when it comes to relating in this one area.

Second, passionate kissing is a way to practice relating physically and develop healthy attitudes towards sexuality.  Dr. Penner put it succinctly that the attitude that “I’m not going to kiss before my wedding night” might as well be phrased, “Sex is really dirty, so I’m going to save it for the one I love.”  We should not seek to deny or devalue our God given sexuality but should practice viewing our sexuality as integrated with our spirituality and our relationship.  To compartmentalize our sexuality and avoid it at all costs is to demonize it.  The Penner’s believe it is better to engage in it in a limited and morally appropriate way than to try to cut it off from ourselves, expecting that at the wedding night two persons who have denied their sexuality at all costs will be able to relate sexually to one another.

In this light a couple that avoids passionate kissing, and for whatever reason avoids any problems that would have been highlighted by that activity before marriage, is starting at zero at best when it comes to relating and possibly have very negative attitudes towards physicality and sexuality that are not going to dissipate anytime soon.

Thoughts?

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Pastoral Care and Sexuality: A Christian Approach to Gender?

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

I greatly appreciated the comments to my last post.  A number of people chimed in and reported their experiences of gender messages in the church.  Combined with over conversations and personal experiences I’ve had it seems that the church in America has a wide spread of messages on this point.

Some felt that men were encouraged to have emotions.  Some felt men were called to be leaders and if a woman was assertive, it was a bad thing. Some felt that wives were called to submit to their husbands (and husbands their wives) and this was a good thing. Some felt that men were taught to be fearful of their sexuality. Some had been taught sexuality was a good gift to be saved for marriage. Some felt men’s ministries were (mis)guided by what was stereotypically “manly” (sports, violence, UFC, etc.).

When we don’t say anything we essentially concede gender and gender roles to the wider culture’s confusion on the subject.  But when we speak up, it seems like we too are adding to the confusion. I think the Church in America is sending out mixed signals on what it means to be a Christian man or a Christian woman.  Some churches in the past and some churches today encourage men to mold to the American male ideal (handsome, aggressive, assertive, physically strong, have no weaknesses, entrepreneurial, breadwinner, etc.) and women to mold to the American female ideal (beautiful, quite, submissive, home-maker, gentle, etc.).  Other churches today mirror the current cultures androgynous attitudes towards people, suggesting men and women can take on any traits and any roles that suit them.

It seems to me that on either end our message on gender are simply a reflection of our culture’s current understanding of gender or a reaction against it (a throw back to the “good old days” as it were).

Is there a distinctly and thoroughly Christian understanding of gender (and maybe even gender roles) that the church can consistently and reliably stand on?

From the comments there are two things I would like to highlight at this point.

First: “I resent one version of American masculinity being sanctified.” – James H.

Growing up I felt I did not fit the American ideals for masculinity in a number of ways.  This was rather discouraging and a source of worry as I grew up.  In church, this ideal was present in a number of ways.  I remember clearly a Men’s breakfast that was centered around Bible and Sports trivia.  I got some of the Bible trivia right, but had no clue about sports.  Guess who felt like less of a man?  This guy.  Thanks church.

Furthermore, the American ideal for masculinity is by no means synonymous with how we are called to live as Christians; the church providing spiritual support for it is a gross error. For example, the rugged individualism celebrated in our culture is not in line with the corporate nature of Christianity.  The pressure to have no weaknesses is not only unrealistic but leads to hiding and shame, and how would it help a sinner come to grace or sanctification?  When we perpetuate American of masculinity we do ourselves and our young men a gross disservice.

Second:

“In some ways there is not a lot of difference between what is expected of the genders.” – Stephanie F.

“I’m more interested in my church teaching me what is means to be a disciple of Christ, regardless of what sex organ happens to lie below my belt.” – James H.

One of my initial reactions to this conversation was rather quite simple.  The revelation of God is aimed at Christians, not at Christian men and Christian women, nor does it explicitly assign gender roles or gender traits.    There are a few verses that certainly speak specifically to either gender and a few that speak exclusively to either gender but for the most part Genesis to Revelation is written to humanity, not males or females.

To bring this to bear on our conversation we are all called to pursue the fruits of the Spirit (Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control), we are all called to be truthful, we are all called to Sabbath, we are all called to be obedient to Christ, even unto death, etc. etc.  In a very real sense men and women are called to the same traits.

Is this basically the end of the debate?  Should the church focus on disciplining Christians and leave gender differentiation, gender roles, and gender traits to be determined by the individual, the family, the schools, the culture, etc?  Should all Christian men and women look the same underneath their clothes and skin? What do you think about this?

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Leave a comment

Pastoral Care and Sexuality: What is Christian masculinity and Christian femininity?

Posted on July 23, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

In my previous post and poll I talked about the fact that gender has been argued to be either a product of biological factors, sociocultural factors or some mix of the two.  I also presented a pair of married Christian authors who suggested God was also involved and use both factors to author human sexuality.

The majority people voted  that gender and sexuality was a net sum or some even balance between the nature and nurture.  Close to that were people who though biological factors were primarily responsible for gender.  Only one person voted that gender was primarily constructed by social influences.  (The poll is still open so these numbers might change.)

Personally, I believe that sociocultural factors do have a significant part to play in gender formation in human beings.  What our culture, our society, our friends, our parents, and our religious communities teach us overtly and covertly about masculinity and femininity inform our self-understanding and the expectations regarding our behavior and thinking.

A very simple example of this is that if I grew up in a culture that celebrates men who are unemotional (labeling them “a man’s man” or a “real mensch”), and chastises men who are emotional (calling them “sissies”, “women” etc.) this encourages me to believe that part of masculinity is being unemotional.  If I believe I am a male, then this means that I should be unemotional and encourages me to live in line with that.

In light of this I believe the church needs to come up with an answer for this question: What is Christian masculinity and Christian femininity?

As part of the sociocultural influence on people, the church has a part to play in its members’ gender formation.  What we communicate about what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman influences those in our pews and in our pulpits.  What’s more is we have a special place in people’s lives as the church, especially to very young children, speak for God himself.

For example the pastor of my home church, Pastor Rick Countryman, is very physically strong and he goes to the gym a lot.  He has occasionally referenced this in his sermons and it is obvious that he is physically fit.  More often than he has talked about working out at the gym he has talked openly about his struggle with depression and asks for prayer for encouragement when he hits a hard time.  He, because he is a male and a leader, is communicating (intentionally or unintentionally) characteristics of Christian masculinity to the congregants. I am grateful that this is a rather balanced portrait overall.

Another example is what the church does when it splits the sexes, such as events planned only for men and events planned only for women.  Men’s retreats (Or as some church now put it “Men’s advances…because men don’t retreat, they advance”) are often centered around sports (such as golf), hiking, fishing or other outdoor activities.  Women’s retreats in contrast are usually much more relational in nature (often involving some speaker and or small group discussion), reflective, and usually have nothing to do with any kind of organized or rigorous physical activity.  This again communicates to everyone what a man or a woman should be or at the very least should be interested in.

Before I would like to start on discussion what the Church should and should not communicate regarding this issue, I would like to know what people currently have experienced from the church. What has the church communicated to you about what a man or a woman should be like?  What are some of the messages you’ve heard from Christians on this issue?  What scripture passages or books were referenced?

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments

Devotional: John 1

Posted on July 23, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

In reading John 1 verses 12 and 13 stood out to me.  God writes, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (NIV)

Many times in my life I have been told that we Christians, or more specifically “Kevin you should…” take your identity in Christ.  This is absolutely true.  The ultimately important identity I have is not in my performance, my ministry, my education, my sports, my blog, etc. etc.  The most important identity I have is that I am an adopted child of God.  And as a child of God that is a status that doesn’t change.  Good son, bad son, I am still a son.  There is no amount of sin that I could do that would make God abandon me.  This is all an incredibly comforting situation…if you believe in Jesus.

However, God reminded me this morning of how these verses, and the exhortation to “take my identity in Christ, not in other things” were very hurtful.  I never felt I had a solid identity in Christ, my self-image was not “I am an adopted son of Jesus who is loved unconditionally” my basic self image (pretty well formed by around the time I was leaving elementary school) was “You are a bad person that doesn’t deserve love; you deserve rejection.”  Furthermore, again my image of Jesus was totally distorted by my childhood experiences.  I believed in a graceless god that I call Bob who I thought was actually Jesus.  Bob was vindictive, punitive, and graceless…so why would I want to be a child of that abusive of a father?  Part of me resisted and could not take my identity in this “Jesus” yet at the same time the Christian community was encouraging me to take my identity in Jesus.

This filtered through my self-image and experiences in life basically just became yet another high standard that I was supposed to live up to but was failing at.  Instead of being a comforting truth to take hold of regarding my unconditional status before the God of the universe who was just and loving, it was yet another sign that I was a failure and I was bad.

Now, as I’ve been inviting Jesus to make His character known to me in a real way I am also slowly sorting out my own understanding of myself.  If God is who He says He is in scripture, and these passages and others in John are true about my adoption by this God, then that does say something about me, and it certainly isn’t my past/current self-image.  It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Posted in Devotional, Recovery Journal | Leave a comment

Pastoral Care and Sexuality: Sexuality- is it pre-ordained or trained?

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

Before I begin I would like for you to take a quick poll.  I just want to see what people believe regarding sexuality and the development of sexuality.  The basic debate is to what extent gender (and by extension sexuality) is determined by biological factors (Nature) and how much is determined by sociocultural factors (Nurture).  In short do you believe men are born men, and women are born women, or are men taught to be men and women are taught to be women, or somewhere in the middle.

Now that we have that out of the way…

In two weeks I start an intensive on Pastoral Care and Sexuality.  To this end I’ve already read three of the four assigned books and started researching for my final paper.  While doing research I picked up a copy of Authentic Sexuality by Jack and Judith Balswick.  In one of the opening chapters they discuss how gender identity is formed that I found to be quite intriguing.  They suggested someone’s sexuality is composed of four different dimensions.

Natal Sex:  This is the physical gender that the person is born with; they either have the female anatomy or the male anatomy.  The vast majority of people are born either male or female though this is not the case for every human individual.

Gender Role:  This is the role that the person is assigned by their wider community to play.  Men and women are taught by their culture, their family, their friends, etc. what is expected of them and how they are expected to behave. This is usually in line with their natal sex but again is not always the case.  A small example of this might be a girl who is encouraged to be very athletic (a stereotypical male trait) because the family always wanted a boy but didn’t get one.

Sexual Identity:  This would be what the person believes themselves to be.  Does the person think they are male or female (or something in between)?  This is usually in line with natal sex but again there are variations, to provide an extreme example I’m sure we’ve heard of someone who has felt “they were a woman trapped in a man’s body…” or vice versa.

Sexual Orientation:  This would be what gender the person is sexually attracted to.  In today’s environment this is usually talked about in terms of someone having a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation.  (I desire to avoid saying “people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual” because it implies all the person is is their sexual orientation…which I do not believe to be true.)

The Balswick’s go into detail and talk about how biological and sociocultural factors influence these various aspects.  Their conclusion is that God uses both Nature  (such as genetic factors and physiological factors), and Nurture (society, culture and family) as to shape human sexuality.  Human sexuality is not exclusively a product of divine action, a social construct, or a biological fact but an interplay between all three.

This spawned another question that I’m sure will produce some heated debate with my next post, but before we get there.

I’m wondering what you think about this?  Do you care to explain your answer to the poll?  Would you change it?  If anyone wants more information from the book just ask.

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Christian Sexual Ethics: Is sex moral when as long as they are monongamous/committed/in love…?

Posted on June 26, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

The last and final Christian sexual ethic I will deal with is the suggestion that sexual intercourse is moral in any relationships that is monogamous and committed, even if the persons have not married.  This argument was “out there” as I did  my research but was not clearly espoused and supported by one particular proponent but I felt I should bring it up as it is important to discuss.

The committed-but-unmarried relationship/”Married in our hearts”/Committed Co-habitation: Some would suggest that sexual intercourse is appropriate where a deep, loving and committed relationship is present.  The boundary for moral sexual ethics is the presence of commitment and love in a relationship.  Therefore, going through an actual ceremony and officially and publicly committing to one another is not necessary to engage in moral sex.

Sometimes I hear this argument with a faint echo of Romanticism – love is celebrated over and above anything else, including scripture.  Love trumps divine revelation.  Sometimes it stems from a place of, “Everyone else is doing it so why can’t we?”  As co-habitation is increasingly accepted in our culture (some stats suggest 66% of marriages include one partner who had co-habitated), it is a new normal that is approved by the wider culture.

More serious arguments often begin with the suggestion that the definition and purpose of marriage and sex have changed since the writing of the Bible.  While the Bible was directly speaking to and directly applicable the Ancient Near Eastern culture, we need to reinterpret it to apply it today because the definitions of and roles for marriage and sex have changed since then.  Through a myriad of exegetical decisions (such as Lebacqz’s use of Genesis 2:25 and the previous proponents interpreting Paul’s condemnation of sexual immorality as actually a condemnation of idolatry) the proponents find ways to approve of sex before marriage but still condemn other sexual sins like rape, prostitution and general promiscuity.

My Critique of non-sacramental/non-covenant marriage: To begin I would suggest two positive admonitions I would give Christians in this type of relationship or considering such a relationship.

First, if two Christians are in love to the point of wanting to engage in such a uniting act, and are in a monogamous and committed relationship, why are they not married or considering marriage?   I do not mean this question in a rhetorical manner.  Some people hover in committed-but-unmarried relationship for various reasons, and the temptation to have sexual intercourse in such a place is high.  Sorting out why marriage is not present or is not being discussed can uncover some core issues that need to be resolved for the sake of the relationship.

Second, if such persons are planning on marriage, I would suggest they abstain from sexual intercourse (as it is immoral), take six months of pre-engagement counseling (to focus exclusively on the relationship, not the wedding ceremony), six months to be engaged (to plan the wedding and put into practice what they learned in counseling) and then get married by the church.

While there is no formula regarding the appropriate amount of time to be engaged and/or dating before marriage, marriage should not be entered into lightly and wisdom and patience should be exercised.  While anecdotes exist of couples moving from meeting to marriage very fast and having very stable marriages I would suggest these are exceptions, not a template.

As for the argument that the presence of commitment and love make sex moral, this is a very subjective and unstable thing to base the morality of sex upon.  The presence of monogamy is performance based. If one partner cheats on the other and then they resume having sexual relationships is the faithful partner now committing a sin, or just the one that cheated? The presence of commitment and love are also highly subjective and fluid. What happens when a couple are going through a tough time and they don’t feel in love, but are still engaging in sex?  Are they now committing sexual sin?  From a purely pragmatic point of view this causes problems.

Furthermore, again I believe that the boundary for moral sexual intercourse that the Bible presents is marriage, and marriages require some sort of official public declaration.  The Bible does not talk about “keeping the committed and loving bed pure”, nor does the Song of Solomon suggest that the people involved in passionate and joyous sexual intercourse were merely monogamous, they were married.  Marriage involves a public declaration and understand of some sort about the commitment and intentions of those involved.  When Christians enter into a such a commitment they enter into marriages specific pains, pleasures, responsibilities and privileges.  While not better than singleness it is different.  Co-habitation and committed-but-unmarried couples try to walk the gray area between the two to their detriment.  Regardless of its cultural acceptance, the vast majority of the statistics regarding co-habitation suggest it is a bad option the relationship to the point where some refer to co-habitation as a “trial-divorce.”

But what about the argument that the definition and purposes of sex have changed and therefore we need reinterpret the scriptural admonitions regarding sex before marriage?  Let me say that I am all for this understanding of cultures and faithful contextualization.  The Bible was written within the Ancient Near Eastern context and where scripture is speaking specifically to that culture we need to interpret it for ours today: this is what I often call faithful contextualization.  However, I believe when we do this for marriage and sexual intercourse we do not arrive at a place that allows for moral pre-marital sex.  This requires a much lengthier discussion to do it justice so I will post this at another time.

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | 4 Comments

Christian Sexual Ethics: Should the church permit pre-marital sex to avoid young-divorce?

Posted on June 20, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

Continuing my series of blogs I will today interact with one of the ethics that was suggested.  In short the argument was that the church should permit singles to be sexually active before marriage because maintaining our current ethic leads to too many young divorces, which is far worse than pre-martial sex.

“It’s better than young divorce”:

This is the introduction to one of the ethics that I interacted with:

It is my humble opinion that the evangelical church has –lightly put- dropped the ball on sexual ethics.  Our party line is sustained by habit, extreme cultural conservativism, and even intimidation and ostracization.  The problem is not well examined.  The prescription is legalistic.  The interpretation of scripture is frequently superficial.  Our collective assumptions on the matter are doubly ignored.  As is clear my opinion on this matter has changed significantly over the last few years.  This is due to a specific ethical framework, reflection on the various romantic relationships I have witnessed, and the general inability to reconcile the evangelical party line with any thorough and thoughtful, hermeneutic.

The consequences of this problem are serious.  We are attempting to maintain the following party line: virginity is intrinsically sacred and thus sex before marriage is intrinsically sinful. In attempting to do so we actually do damage to something far more important: the sacrament of marriage.  This may sound like a contradiction, after all, isn’t it two virgins on a wedding night that which sanctifies marriage?  Such could be the case, but it is also the longevity of a union that sanctifies a marriage.  While trying to maintain the party line, we encourage people to get married before they are ready and thus get divorced very young.  My position is this: Sex before marriage should be tolerated within evangelicalism in order to prevent premature marriages which end in the sin of divorce. In arguing this, I also will place the burden of proof on anyone who holds that virginity is intrinsically sacred.

The argument then unfolds like this…

The proponent stated they were a virtue ethicist.  As such his desire is to cultivate a good character in Christians (such as generosity), not give Christian rules not to break (always tithe 10% or your sinning). Marriage is a sacrament of the church is such a good thing to work towards.  Evangelical Christians have treated virginity as sacred this has caused them to view sex before marriage as sinful.  He refers to these as the “purity dogma” and “sex sin” respectively.  Fear-based tactics have been used to pass on these two beliefs to youths. This teaching has resulted in a negative attitude towards sexuality in general. The solution that is often offered to Christians is to marry young; Christians in love should marry, even marry young when they are young (and unprepared?), lest the Christians burn with lust.  This young marriage often leads to young divorce which is incredibly traumatic.

The proponent then suggests that virginity is not inherently sacred and pre-martial sex does not doom future marriages.  To the first point he suggests a huge cultural context needs to be understood.  Virginity was used in the Ancient Near East as an actual commodity as it ensured bloodlines along which property transferred.  The proponent argues that Paul’s condemnation of adultery is to be understood as actually against idolatry (as sex with cultic prostitutes was what he was addressing) and it should be remembered when he advised people to marry young to avoid burning with lust people were getting married at fifteen.  To the second point he suggests we need to listen to people who are not spiritually approved (those I assuming he means had sex before marriage and were condemned/ostracized).  They and their stories provide ample proof that virginity is not required for a healthy marriage later in life.  Even if people still held onto the purity dogma there is church precedent for allowing for a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil as Aquinas once, while suggesting prostitution was morally wrong, argued to allow it as he realized banning it would one day create more problems than it was worth.

My Critique of pre-marital sex to avoid divorce:  I should first say that I agreed with a number of the problems presented in this proponent’s paper.  Divorce is very bad and common among Christians.  Sexual sin is rated as worse than other sins and the church has done a poor job of extending grace to sexual sinners.  People who engage in pre-marital sin and have a child out of wedlock are at times ostracized or marginalized.  The sexual ethic has at times been taught with fear-based tactics (“Remain pure or the inevitable consequences of sexual sin will catch up with you…”) which results in a weak sexual ethic and can also encourage people to loathe their sexuality in general, not just their sexual sin.  These are all problems that I see that need correcting.

However, I disagree with the suggested solution.  In my critique I will generally try to follow the flow of his paper.

First,  the proponent suggests he is a virtue ethicist so my natural inclination is that, given the scriptures condemnation of sexual immorality and admonition to uphold marriage (such as Heb 13:4), he would seek to encourage chastity (for single persons) and fidelity (for married persons) possibly through a non-fear based approach to teaching scriptural truth regarding chastity and fidelity.  He does quite the opposite and I fail to see how permitting pre-marital sex promotes either of these two values in the lives of Christians.  To flip the anti-war slogan around, this is like launching a pre-emptive strike for peace.  One does not encourage generosity by permitting hoarding and greed.  One does not encourage honesty by permitting lies.  One could teach on generosity, and bear with Christians as they continue to fail to be generous, but this is not the same thing as permitting greed and avarice. While I do not believe sexual sin before marriage categorically precludes someone from a healthy marriage in the future, or that people who are caught in sexual sin before marriage should be shunned or ostracized I fail to see how permitting sex before marriage is a solution to these problems. The solution to these wrongs to me would be Christians in the church extending grace towards one another and a sexual ethic that is taught from scriptures, not anecdotes.

Continuing on, the proponent suggests marriage is good object that should be worked towards.  He writes, “The sacrament of marriage works well within a paradigm of virtue ethics.  Marriage, of course, is a good end to be pursued.”  However, instead of suggesting a sexual ethic where single persons could work towards this good end he highlights how evil and traumatic divorce is.  Because divorce is clearly so bad and traumatic, we should permit for other sin(s) in order to avoid it.  This is inconsistent within the paradigm he presented as he wrote, “Virtue ethics, without fail, always aim at a good as opposed to avoiding evil. The focus of a virtue is to hit the mark –the very opposite of sin.  The emphasis is never on how much evil I must avoid, but rather what good I can do.”  I fail to see how avoiding the sin of divorce by permitting another sin works towards hitting the mark of developing good Christian marriages.  Furthermore, this smacks of the very fear-based tactics he previously condemns.  Where people on one side would say “Pre-marital sex will cause you so many problems don’t do it!” he would say “Divorce is so evil and wrong, do anything you can to avoid it (including allowing pre-marital sex)!”

I hit a wall of confusion on how to write about his main argument until I realized what was present in the paper.  There is not one main argument but two.  The first is basically a teleological argument that divorce is so bad, we should allow for the sin of pre-marital sex to avoid it.  This is the stated argument of the paper.  The second argument, the one that was unstated while representing the bulk of the paper, is the proponent’s argument that pre-marital sex is not sin.  I will treat them separately in an attempt to be as clear as possible in my critique.

To the first argument, that we should allow for sexual sin to avoid the evil of divorce, I couldn’t disagree more.  A friend of mine, Craig Ford, in response to this said simply “No, because one doesn’t always lead to the other and the bible condemns both.”  While simple, these are my basic objections as well.  As stated this argument is primarily teleological in nature; this argument that is it looks at the end without a primary concern for the means.  It is an argument that rests on accurate scales to determine which evil is greater and then goes with the lesser one. It aims to avoid a greater evil by tolerating a lesser evil (again, not in line with the virtue ethics paradigm). For this argument to be true we must know that the sexual ethic presented is being taught in numerous churches, is solely (or primarily) responsible for young marriages, young marriages always (or often enough) end in divorce, and the sin of divorce is tangibly greater than the sin(s) of pre-marital sex.  All or most of these assumptions are not true and are not evidenced in this paper.  Not every young marriage ends in young divorce; some do make it.  People marry, and even marry young, for many different reasons outside of the Evangelical sexual ethic.  I have yet to encounter a couple who has said to me “Kevin, we decided to marry young because we wanted to have good sex and the church encouraged us to marry rather than burn with lust.”  I simply do not see causal relationship between the various factors that are required to make this argument to be convincing to me.

Furthermore, the “ends justify the means” approach to life is not part of scripture.  I nowhere find Jesus suggesting we should accept a lesser sin to avoid a greater sin, nor do I find in scriptures a point value for sins with which we can accurately judge which sins are greater and which sins are lesser.  If we begin to say divorce is a greater sin than pre-martial sex (which we don’t know for sure) this opens up many questions that are unanswered in this paper.  For example, how many instances of pre-marital sexual sin are more offensive to God than one divorce?  Sin is to be avoided as we continue our sanctification, not managed on some man-made ledger.  Any ethic that is based on a teleological management of sin is not Christian and I am not surprised this argument is not sufficiently backed up by sociological data, scriptures or even anecdotes.

The second argument, that pre-martial sex is not sin, is a subtle and unspoken but important shift in the paper.  Originally I believed the proponent still affirmed that pre-martial sex was a sin but divorce was so costly it should be permitted so that the greater sin could be avoided and this was stated as such in the introduction.  In the course of his paper, however, the proponent began attacking the belief that pre-marital sex is sinful.  Maybe the proponent wasn’t even convinced by his own teleological argument that started this paper, and felt the need to shift focus.  But this is of course speculation and probably wrong.

He begins this re-definition of sin with a deconstruction of a straw man argument.  The proponent suggests that the Evangelical church believes, “virginity is intrinsically sacred and thus sex before marriage is intrinsically sinful.” The proponent then argues against this ethic (in my opinion ineffectively) by pointing out the differences in the role of virginity in the Ancient Near East and today and suggesting that at least in one area the scriptures condemnation of sexual immorality (in Paul’s passage in Corinthians) is really about idolatry (as it is concerned with cultic prostitution.)  This causal relationship between the sacredness of virginity and the condemnation of pre-marital sex was a surprise to me as I have never encountered it before in my life.  No one has ever advised me that “Kevin, virginity is so sacred that you should avoid sex before marriage.” Pre-marital sex has been defined as sin because it is condemned in scripture.  Virginity, if anything, was a sign that one had abided by this moral truth despite temptation.  Often though I was thought that while desirable for a marriage, the lack of it was not something that couldn’t be worked through in a marriage.  The condemnation of pre-marital sex that I’ve experienced came from the many scriptures that condemn sexual immorality, not some argument regarding the sacredness of virginity. The proponent seems to be aware of this as he alludes to the “superficial” use of scriptures in his introduction and argues for a re-interpretation of one passage condemning sexual sin (which the church has historically understood as including pre-marital sex.)

While arguing about the cultural relevance of virginity might be somewhat effective in arguing against his straw man argument, where the sacredness of virginity is paramount, it is insufficient in regards to redefining sexual sin.  First, it fails to wrestle with the condemnations of sexual immorality where virginity and marriage are unmentioned.  Apparently sexual immorality was to be avoided and chastity sought after for their own sakes as well.  For his argument to work wholesale one must believe that scripture only condemned pre-marital sex in order to preserve the role virginity played in the cultural context of the Ancient Near East. I do not believe this is the case and have not encountered scholarly works towards that end.  I believe pre-marital sex was and is to be condemned because the boundary for sexual intercourse was and is a man and a woman who have entered into marriage.  The role of virginity in any culture is a moot point.

Overall I think this proponent does not effectively match his problems with his solutions.  Where singles are ostracized for their sexual misconduct grace should abound, but we do not re-define sin to make sure no one ever gets their feelings hurt.  Where fear based tactics have been misused we should replace such a teaching with a holistic teaching from scripture, not a teleological argument with a subjective appeal to “the greater good” or “the lesser of two evils.”  To promote healthier marriages I would assume a better teaching (to singles) on the purposes of the sacrament of marriage and a renewed emphasis on premarital counseling would be more effective.  My home church requires six months of pre-marital counseling (along with many churches in Modesto) in a desire to avoid divorce and has support groups for people struggling with sexual sin and classes that teach financial management skills.  As sex and money are the two biggest things married couples fight about I think my church is doing a lot to work towards the good of marriages.  These methods of solutions make more sense to me and do not require a more permissive (unorthodox) sexual ethic to be espoused from the pulpit.

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Christian Sexual Ethics: Should singles have sex before marriage to make sure they are sexually compatible?

Posted on June 17, 2010 by Speakfaithfully

“Making sure we are compatible…”:  Recently I had a friend explain that his Christian father was a divorced but re-married over twenty years ago.  Before his father and now step-mother were married the two person (both professing Christians) actually made sure that they had sexual intercourse before they got married.  This was done to to make sure they were compatible “in that way”.  They wanted to be certain they would have pleasurable sex in marriage before they committed to a permanent life union.

I also have heard this argument before, primarily from non-Christians.  A friend of mine in high school, balking at my commitment to celibacy before marriage, asked, “What if you marry someone, and they are a bad lay?”  Sex before marriage in her mind was a way to make sure the other person was sexually pleasing to you, something necessary for a long term relationship.  In the movie Fight Club, a creative critique of our culture from within, there is a line that is chillingly similar to the argument of this Christian couple: “A condom is the glass slipper for our generation. You slip one on when you meet a stranger. You dance all night, and then you throw it away.”  The fact that the Christians and non-Christians have argued for the same thing along the same lines makes me suspect that they share some common assumptions about marriage and sexuality.  I believe the couples arguement contains a number of assumptions about marriage and sexuality, in line with the wider culture, of which I would like to highlight two.

First, this couple operated under the assumption that pleasure in sexual intercourse is a binary and permanent result of physical and relational chemistry between two individuals.  A couple will have a specific degree of pleasure in sex based on pre-determined factors that do not change.  If this is the case, then sex, before and forever after in the marriage will be the same and premarital sex could be used as a litmus test for future sexual pleasure in marriage.  If this is not the case, if, for example sex is more of a learned skill between two people and the result of emotional intimacy as well as physical intimacy, the couple would not need to make sure they were compatible as sexual pleasure would naturally increase the more they had sex with each other and the deeper their unity as persons.

Second, the couple was apparently unwilling to get married if they had unpleasing pre-marital sex.  This means that they were assuming the above point, and also that good sex is necessary for a good marriage.  A marriage that was doomed to have bad sex was another divorce in the making and should be avoided.   For the couple in question, this is as far as I can reasonably take my argument without more information on them.  However, I would suggest the wider issue at work here is what is a couple basing their marriage on?  Given that they were unwilling to get married if they did not have “good sex” their marriage was based in part upon sexual fulfillment.  I suspect this couple, and many couples like them, actually base their marriage on their spouses perceived capacity to meet their needs (in things such as finances, sex, security, etc.).  Marriage is about one’s own personal fulfillment or more selflessly a mutual fulfillment by two people who “complete” one another.  This fulfillment is true unspoken basis for many marriage inside and outside the church, but more about this later.

The argument overall goes like this: If a couple has “good sex” before marriage they will have “good sex” the rest of their marriage. “Good sex” is necessary for a healthy marriage and with this now proven they can get married (assuming the other needs are getting met).   If the couple in question had “bad sex” before marriage they will have “bad sex” the rest of their marriage.  “Good sex” is a pillar of a healthy marriage and since they are incapable of “good sex” they should not get married (regardless of if other needs are getting met or not). If the these two assumptions about sex and marriage are true, then what they did made sense, regardless of the morality of their actions.  Given these assumptions, to avoid a divorce making sure you are sexually compatible with your spouse by having sex before marriage would be a prudent thing.  Even if this sex is immoral, some argue that the sin of divorce is greater than the sin of pre-marital sex, and this should be tolerated if not advocated for in the Church.

My Critique of “If the shoe fits…”:  First, this couple engaged in fornication.  The presence of a committed relationship, love, and other mitigating factors does not change what I believe is an objective moral fact: sex before marriage is immoral.  The couple were both Christian adults aware of marriage and marriage’s role in the church and intentionally engaged in fornication for their own reasons.  I believe they sinned with the best of intentions and given these two presuppositions I can even understand why they did what they did.  This does not change the fact that what they did was a sin that Jesus Christ had to die for.  I would argue that both of these presuppositions are wrong and would counsel my church family to think about sexual fulfillment and the basis of marriage differently.

In response to sexual fulfillment being permanent based on the persons involved, I have always been taught that this is not so.  That pleasure in sex is not pre-determined by outside factors never subject to change.  I have been taught by numerous persons that sexual pleasure is variable and can generally speaking increase as marriage goes on.  In a trusting, secure, and communicative  relationship the partners in a marriage can communicate freely their specific likes and dislikes.   Over time the spouses learn the sexual needs and wants of their spouse.  As one Christian put it “You don’t have to be an expert in women to be good in bed, just an expert in woman [your wife].”  One Christian teacher advised our dorm in undergrad to not see our first sexual encounter as the be-all-end-all of our sexual endeavors in marriage.  Comicly she said, “The first time [you have sex] you’ll probably prematurely ejaculate and this is something you’ll laugh about in your marriage in the future.”  I have read statistics that suggest older couples rate their sex life as improving as their relationships mature because they “know what they are doing.” If this is true (and I believe it is) having sex to make sure your compatible is not necessary.  Sexual fulfillment should be expected to increase overtime and your first sexual encounter with a person is not a permanent indicator of the rest of the sex you’ll have with the person.

In regards to the basis of marriages, healthy marriages are marked by relational and sexual fulfillment.  We are often glad to see a couple that compliment each other well and meet each others needs.  It is a good thing for a wife to cure a husbands loneliness, it is a good thing for a husband to be a caring and compassionate ear for his wife’s concerns, it is a good thing for spouses to enjoy each other sexually.  It is good for spouses to meet each others’ needs. However, when these things are the basis of a marriage we are bound for trouble.   If my marriage is based on my wife affirming me (meeting my emotional needs), what should I do when we have a big fight and she is no longer affirming to me ? If a woman marries an honest and hard-working man (he is meeting her financial needs), what should she do when he gets laid off?  If we base a marriage on on the other person’s capacity to fulfill our needs,  divorce and affairs become the obvious solutions to times where our spouse inevitably does not meet those needs.  If Person A is no longer doing what I married them for, then changing Person A for Person B is the simple solution.

I believe that Christian who marry should see their marriages as based upon God, His Kingdom, and the sacrament of marriage; nothing more and nothing less.  Lewis Smedes argues that marriages, families and sexual intercourse are for the Kingdom of God, not personal fulfillment and I am prone to agree.  To look towards a spouse, sex, or children as instrumental in one’s own fulfillment turns such things into an idol and something to be used rather than stewarded for the purposes of God’s work here and now.  I definitely want marriages to be fulfilling to both persons but I do not believe this should be the basis for a marriage.  If we base a marriage on God and the sacrament of a permanent life-union, needs can temporarily go unmet or partially unmet and the couple can work towards resolution still within the safety of a permanent union.  Furthermore, in college on a class on marriage and family I was surprised to learn that a large number of people who have rated their sex life as less than satisfactory still rated their satisfaction with the marriage as very high.  Pleasurable sex is a good thing to work towards in a marriage but good sex is not a requirement for a good marriage.

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments