Speakfaithfully

The first proponent I will interact with argued that sexual intercourse between singles was not inherently immoral.  According to her, the morality of any sexual encounter (between married persons, unmarried persons, homosexuasl, heterosexuals, etc.) is to be determined by the presence of “appropriate vulnerability” in a relationship.

Appropriate Vulnerability:  Karen Lebaqcz in her article “Appropriate Vulnerability: A Sexual Ethic for Singles” (http://alturl.com/7nrn)  argues for a more permissive sexual ethic that is more just and fair to singles.  Singles, in her mind, have been treated as second class citizens in the church. For a Christian to choose to remain single and not be “on the market’ invites suspicion that one is asexual, hyper-sexual or hypo-sexual.  Married persons dominate church leadership and therefore essentially run things.  Single persons do no’t have a seat at the table and this is an injustice to single persons who are marginalized because they are unmarried.  Given the examples of voluntary singleness in scripture (such as Paul and Jesus) churches should treat single adults as equal persons within the church.  I would agree with Lebacqz this far.

Lebacqz believes that part of the injustice done to singles is that churches (again dominated by married persons) reserve sexual intercourse for marriage.  To correct this injustice she believes churches need an “adequate” sexual ethic, that “doesn’t require celibacy” for singles.  This is where I depart from Lebacqz.  Lebacqz’s argues for a selectively permissive sexual ethic; while not abandoning the concept of sexual sin wholesale Lebacqz re-defines sexual sin to exclude pre-marital sex in some circumstances.  Lebacqz’s arguement goes something like this…

Lebacqz affirms that union and procreation are two purposes for sexual intercourse but argues for a third (previously undiscovered) purpose of sex: appropriate vulnerability.  Focusing on Genesis 2:25, which reads “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame,” Lebacqz asserts that “naked” in the Hebrew carries the connotation of “vulnerability” and “felt no shame/knew no shame” in the Hebrew carries the connotation of “appropriateness.”  Genesis 2:25 should then be interpreted as “The man and his wife experienced appropriate vulnerability.”  Lebacqz continues writing,  “‘Appropriate vulnerability’ may describe the basic intention for human life – which may be experienced in part through the gift of sexuality.” (italics mine)

Sexual intercourse is moral when appropriate vulnerability is present in a relationship.  Appropriate vulnerability can exist inside or outside of a marriage, therefore marriage is no longer the clear unambiguous boundary marker for moral sexual intercourse.

Lebacqz believes that sexual sin does exist, but it is when appropriate vulnerability is absent, not when scripture condemns it.  Lebacqz writes, “any exercise of sexuality that violates appropriate vulnerability is wrong.” Lebacqz still condemns certain sexual behaviors categorically (with no concern for the presence of appropriate vulnerability) but it is important to understand why she does so. Rape, promiscuity, and prostitution are condemned not because the Bible forbids these things but because they violate her principle of appropriate vulnerability. For example, “Rape is wrong not only because it violates the vulnerability of the one raped, but the rapist guards his own power and refuses to be vulnerable.”

To be fair, Lebaqcz is not calling for uncritical promiscuity among singles or even uncritical engagement in sexual intercourse in relationships that are appropriately vulnerable.  Lebacqz expresses concern that this side of the Fall human sexuality can be very painful and marriage affords some protection that single persons do not have.  In closing Lebacqz calls for a “theology of vulnerability,” presumably from which to guide this sexual ethic more clearly.

My Critique of Appropriate Vulnerability:   Lebacqz views and arguments represent a capitulation to the pressures of gospel of Secular Humanism.  I believe this because a number of basic assumptions in Lebacqz work come from Western culture and not from any orthodox Christian tradition I am currently familiar with.  As such, Lebacqz is quite possibly the worst possible type of Christian theologian: one that contorts Christian scripture to support beliefs from another religion.  Lebacqz dresses up Secular Humanistic beliefs with Christian verses in an attempt to pass of theses beliefs as “Christian”.  I believe Lebacqz’s beliefs have been formed by her surroundings (she is a member of the United Church of Christ and a religion professor in Berkley, CA) not from a reasoned interpretation of the scriptures.  I see Lebacqz’s argument as primarily eisesgeis (she is reading into scripture her beliefs instead of developing her beliefs from reading scripture). Instead of being transformed from the pattern of this world (Romans 12:2) Lebacqz is encouraging Christians to conform to the pattern of this world.  Lebacqz, at least in regards to her sexual ethic, is a false teacher and should be confronted and corrected.  Some Christian authors simply writer her off outright, but this is a disservice to the wider community.  Without seriously interacting with her view and crediting or discrediting her opinions from a scriptural argument we allow her opinion an air of mystique and authority that might seduce the young in the faith or let those who believe like her remain unchallenged in their thinking.  I will attempt to treat Lebacqz’s argument respectfully as I back up what I have just said about her and her ethic.

First, from Lebacqz’s beliefs that the church is being unjust towards singles by denying them sexual expression it seems clear that Lebacqz believes sexual expression is a basic human right (such as a right to food, water and shelter).  This smells more of Secular Humanism’s celebration of individual autonomy and rights over and against moral and ethical codes than any scriptural beliefs regarding sexuality.  I am hard pressed to find a place where sexual expression is a guaranteed right in Christian tradition and even secular culture has limits on sexual expression (such as age of consent). I would suggest that, if we are to talk about it rights language, it would be correct to say that the specific joys, pains and responsibilities of sexual intercourse are a right that is earned by entering into the Sacrament of Marriage, not an inherent human right.

Second, Lebacqz argues singleness is a viable Christian option; not everyone must marry or have sexual intercourse to be a human or a Christian.  This is true but she fails to connect singleness to celibacy.  Lebacqz brings up Paul and Jesus as examples of Christians who were voluntarily single but conveniently ignores the fact that they were also celibate.  Unless Lebacqz is willing to argue that Paul and/or Jesus engaged in unmarried sexual intercourse Lebacqz is simply ignoring the facts.  Scripture and Christian tradition support the fact that both of these men remained celibate in their singleness. While singleness is a legitimate and viable option for Christians singleness also goes hand and hand with celibacy.

Third, procreation and union are the two basic purposes of sexual intercourse that have been traditionally affirmed by the church.  To suggest that experiencing “appropriate vulnerability” is the purpose of human existence and and a third previously undiscovered purpose for sexual intercourse is dubious at best and heretical at worse.  This is a radical re-writing of Church tradition regarding human sexuality coming from one verse in scripture.  While tradition is imperfect and needs to be critiqued by the scriptures this single verse is not sufficient evidence to change a widely attested and long-held church tradition.  For the sake of argument, let’s say that Lebacqz is right and this is a third basic purpose for sexuality.  Her argument is still filled with problems.

Textually and linguistically speaking I believe a case can be made for her beliefs that “naked” has the connotation of vulnerable and “were not ashamed” has the connotation of appropriateness. However, Lebacqz proceeds to interpret this passage highly selectively to arrive at a pre-determined point. This is a passage of a “man and his wife“.  The fact that this relationship is heterosexual and apparently in the contexts of a marriage covenant is conveniently ignored as she affirms both homosexual and extramarital sexual intercourse.  Lebacqz assumes that “naked” also also carries the connotation of “sexual intercourse,” an assumption that Lebacqz offers no exegetical proof to support.  To modern readers two people being naked might immediately carry the connotation of sexual intercourse, this is not the case in a Hebrew narrative about a pre-Fall reality.  The scriptures are at times bashful or otherwise indirect about describing sexual intercourse and use euphemisms for genital body parts but in Genesis sexual intercourse is described with the Hebrew word that means “to know” (4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…KJV).  Without proving that Genesis 2:25 is about sexual intercourse one simply cannot suggest that it is revealing a previously undiscovered purpose about sexual intercourse.

Finally and most importantly, Lebaqcz still affirms some sexual sin (rape, promiscuity, unloving sexual intercourse, etc.) as they violate her third purpose of sexual intercourse.  The assumption required for both condemning certain types of sexual intercourse but not pre-marital sex where appropriate vulnerability is this: sexual intercourse is immoral when it violates a purpose of sexual intercourse.  What then of the first two purposes of sexual intercourse?  Is any sexual intercourse that fails to produce offspring then sinful? (Lebacqz denies this explicitly in her article)  Is any sexual intercourse that doesn’t increase or represent permanent union sinful? (Lebacqz would probably disagree with this as she doesn’t think permanent union is required to have moral sex).  Lebacqz effectively raises her third purpose for sexuality over the other two traditionally affirmed ones.  Lebacqz calls the first two “incomplete” not “inferior” but in reality she is forced to make an unspoken assumption that her third purpose is the dominant purpose of sex to preserve her argument.

Conclusion: Lebacqz clearly had a goal in mind before she even opened the Bible and she all but states as much when she says that the church needs a new adequate sexual ethic for singles that doesn’t require celibacy.  Lebacqz goal was to develop this ethic, not to read the scriptures and practice what ethic she found in scripture. Using a single verse that is not clearly about sexual intercourse she partially affirmed a cultural value: the right to sexual expression unrestrained by religion.  The fact that she is performing an elaborate work of eisegesis is evidenced by inconsistencies in her argument, unspoken assumptions that are not supported by scripture and her need to skip over certain facts (such as “the man and his wife” and the celibacy of Paul and Jesus).  Lebacqz’s work is therefore not legitimate and is not a convincing argument for changing the church’s sexual ethic.

Every proponent that I interacted with clearly brought with them certain unspoken assumptions about life, Christianity, ethics and sexuality that, while not clearly stated, directly influenced or were even foundational to their ethic.  These unspoken assumptions can be reasonably interpreted from their arguments and it is with these unspoken assumptions are the root of my disagreements with them. While I’ve stated the ethic I believe in and am ultimately arguing for, I should make clear certain beliefs I have as well in regards to developing a public Christian ethic.

First and foremost I strive to be loyal to the Christian God in all areas of my life (though I know I do so imperfectly).  While God is continually active among sons and daughters through the work of the Holy Spirit, His revelation in scripture is a public, widely affirmed, and an objective source of God’s revelation to humanity.  I cannot say with certainty what the Holy Spirit has said to someone else, but I can say with certainty what is written in the Bible.   To be loyal to the Christian God in developing a Christian ethic it is clear that this ethic must be based upon and critiqued by a legitimate exegesis of God’s revelation in the Bible.  By legitimate exegesis I am appealing to a broad consensus of what is deemed scholarly sound and unsound when approaching the Bible.  For example, reading Verse A in isolation of its context or ignoring a myriad of other verses that refute my interpretation of Verse A is seen as illegitimate.  Likewise, if I go on a “verse hunt” to “proof” one of my beliefs is also seen as illegitimate as one should interpret the bible and develop ones beliefs from there not the other way around.  One cannot base a Christian ethic on anecdotes, hypothetical situations, individual experiences, “What the Holy Spirit said to me…”, extenuating circumstances, other religious writings, “What Oprah said was…”, personal beliefs or other highly subjective rationale.

Second, I greatly value church tradition.  Broadly speaking this means the time-honored practices and beliefs of the church regarding all areas of the faith (including ethics).  For example, if Christians have read Verse A as meaning “X” and have consequently believed “X”, “X” would be a traditional belief of the church.  Church tradition, unlike scripture, is fallible as it is a construct of humanity and needs to be critiqued through the scriptures.  There have been and are Church traditions that were or are wrong and need to be changed.  That being said the wider the belief (across cultures and across church traditions) and the longer such a belief has been held (throughout the centuries) the more it seems such a belief is trustworthy.  An example of such a belief that has become actually part of orthodoxy would be the doctrine of the Trinity; while not explicitly spelled out in scriptures it has been so widely believed for so long it is a hallmark of Christian faith.  My loyalty to church tradition makes me hesitant to advocate for any change to a long lasting ethic or moral code. Anyone suggesting a change church tradition (such as the church’s definition of pre-marital sex as immoral) has the burden of proof, as it were.  Because of my loyalty to the Christian God, this burden of proof must be based on a legitimate exegesis of scripture.

Finally, I see the incredible pressure that the wider culture exerts on the church as a grave threat to Christian orthodoxy (right belief) and Christian orthopraxy (right action/practice).  Secular Humanism is the religion of Western culture.  The tenants of this religion (rationalism, naturalism and humanism) are deeply woven into our daily lives and are for the most part unexamined.  This religion has its own gospel that contains these tenants and other beliefs, such as the celebration of individual rights, personal autonomy, and personal fulfillment over and against anything (including Scripture).  This gospel is carried at times very explicitly when it was encoded into our founding documents (“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”), is taught by the public education system or in the narratives that play out in the movies and on TV.  Other times this gospel is carried in more nuanced, but no less effective ways, such as a comment about the nature of things that is not explained but is still widely affirmed.  Where the church is lax in teaching a biblical worldview, the pervasive gospel of our culture will fill in the gaps – and often times because of the enormous amount of pressure out there it doesn’t even wait for gaps.  This secular gospel has influenced our churches greatly and it is my belief that the vast majority of Christians in the United States (myself included) actually have a syncretistic faith: they believe bits and pieces of Christianity and bits and pieces of Secular Humanism.  What we believe greatly influences how we live our lives or put another way “we do what we think” and this has significant impact on our development of Christian ethics.

And now to interact with some of the other ethics in question…

Recently I did a paper on Christian Sexual Ethics. The main question of the paper was “Is it ever moral for Christian singles to engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse?”  The second larger question was “How should the Christian church advise its congregants in this regard and in their sexuality in general?” Thinking over a myriad of scriptures condemning sexual sins, such as adultery, fornication and sexual immorality, it seemed than the obvious answer to the first question was “No.” (Proverbs 5:17-23, Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8. etc.) Jesus himself confronted people in relationships where sexual intercourse was going on where no marriage was present. (John 4:18 and John 8:11) and taught that we should seek to avoid things, places, and people that provoke our lust and lead us down the road towards sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:27-30) However, to fully do due diligence I examined four Christians and their proposed sexual ethics.

All four proponents had many things in common.  They were all Christians, all appealed to the Bible for their rational and all were trying to be helpful to single Christians.  They also all affirmed a number of things about human sexuality.  First, human sexuality as a good thing though it had been corrupted by the Fall and sexual intercourse had certain boundaries.  Second they all agreed that sexual intercourse had at least two main purposes: union and procreation. Third, church tradition had historically confined sexual intercourse to marriage and all sexual intercourse outside of marriage was sexual sin. However, two number of them, using interesting anecdotes, hypothetical relationships and not-so-hypothetical relationships, as well as some innovative interpretations of scripture, called for a new more permissive sexual ethic.  Essentially they argued that pre-marital sex was not a sin when “appropriate vulnerability” was present and the second argued that pre-marital sin should be tolerated to avoid the greater evil of young divorce.

In the next several posts I will examine these and other interesting arguments for people who want the church to accept sexual intercourse before marriage being.  But first a bit of a disclaimer and my clear answers to the two questions:

Disclaimer: I have committed more sexual sin than anyone else I know.  I am not bragging.  I say this to my shame.  For eleven years I was an unrepentant pornography addict.  I was incredibly brazen with it at times but was never caught.  While I knew it was a sin and hated myself for my addiction I could not stop.  In November 2008 the pain of staying the same was greater than the pain of change and I entered Celebrate Recovery at my local church.  I have been clean from hardcore pornography since September 2009 and am continuing to sort out my sexual sobriety and recovery in a SAA group here in Pasadena.

Question1: I say all of this to properly context my next statement: Sexual intercourse is only moral in a marriage between a man and a woman.  Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse outside of that relationship is committing a sexual sin. This, to me, is self-evident from scripture, is a textually sound interpretation of the various passages, languages and words involved, and has been the position of various churches, across cultures and throughout the centuries.  Those who engage in sexual intercourse, regardless of their reasons, their intentions, the presence of love, the commitments present in their hearts, or any other extenuating circumstances is irrelevant and does not change this objective moral fact.  They are committing a sin that Jesus Christ had to die for on the cross.  People who do not think this is a sin or unrepentantly engage in it are in need of more discipleship and theological training and/or church discipline from those in authority over them.

I do not say this from any moral high ground, primarily because I have none due to my years of sexual sin.  I do not hate people who engage in sexual intercourse before marriage, I do not think Christ can’t or won’t forgive them. I do have compassion and love for them, as I do all sinners (because that’s everyone).  As one of my professors says when he talks about the church, “There is no plan B.  Just us, missing the mark, broken, messy sinful people to do God’s work.”  Everyone needs forgiveness at the foot of the cross and I would hope that I am gracious and patient with all (as I hope all are gracious and patient with me) but this doesn’t mean Christianity is devoid of clear ethics and morals.

Question 2: The church should be aggressive in teaching a biblical worldview to its congregants.  This would include the nature, purpose and boundaries of human sexuality, sexual intercourse and marriage.  Where this is not aggressively taught the pervasive secular humanistic gospel of our culture will supplant Christian beliefs with cultural ones.  Our congregants will not be faithful Christians but practically live out a mixed bag of the Gospel and “the pattern of this world.”

We should teach that human sexuality as God-authored is good but was corrupted by the fall and has boundaries.  To demonize sex on one hand (to avoid sexual sin) or to uncritically celebrate its gifts (to avoid demonizing it) are two extremes certain churches have fallen into and both are wrong.

Sexual intercourse, as part of human sexuality, is very similar in that is good but it has a boundary: the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.  Its two main purposes or procreation and union and this, in part, explains why God confines it to marriage.

The Sacrament of Marriage should be taught as just that; a sacrament of the church.  Marriage is a culturally defined construct and can vary from culture to culture and year to year.  The Sacrament of Marriage is a public declaration of a permanent life union between a man and a woman and is therefore an appropriate place for procreation and union.  Furthermore, such a declaration invites new standards on the two people involved and they invite the counsel, scrutiny and admonishment of the wider church body that they did not have previously while they were single, dating or even engaged.

This is my sexual ethic and will poke through at times while I critique some of the other arguments I encountered along the way.  To begin I will explore Karen Lebacqz’s views regarding “appropriate vulnerability” in my next post…