The Christian Digest, Presents: CHRISTIANITY AND SEX--PART 2
VOLUME 1, ISSUE 22.
DFO
Copyright August 1995, The Family, Zurich, Switzerland.
SEX IS HOLY!
by Paul Williams
A historical and contemporary overview of diverse opinions expressed by various Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians and other writers concerning Christian sexual conduct and attitudes.
With special thanks to Ivan Himmelhoch for his help in researching this topic.
THE CHRISTIAN DIGEST IS A STRICTLY NON-PROFIT PUBLICATION. THIS BOOKLET IS PRIVATELY PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED WITHOUT COST.
Table of Contents:
A Sexual Reformation or a Decadent New Dark Age?
2
The Voices of Dissent
3
Bringing Body and Spirit Back Together
4
Holy Sex!
5
Sex Education Begins at Home--And by Example!
6
Sex Education Must Begin with the Very Young
7
"Touch Me! Feel Me! I'm a Christian."
8
Self-stimulation: Sin or Sacrament?
9
Sex Is a Holy Sacrament
12
Divine Orgasms
12
Eros and Agape--How Different Are They?
13
Can Sexual Passion Be Used to Revive Christian Churches?
14
Adultery
15
Traditional "Morality"--A Myth?
16
Tough Questions for Christians--Just Where Do We Draw the Line?
18
Sodomy
18
The Law of Love
19
The Bible--Relic, Anti-sex Handbook or X-rated Reading?
20
Conclusion
21
Note to the Reader: This is a resource publication containing quotations from various contemporary writers, scholars, theologians and clergy on the subject of Christianity and Sex. Although the author is a member of the missionary movement known as the Family, this article is not intended to express Family doctrine, and it is not meant to be definitive as regards to Family thinking; the author leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions or make comparisons with Family publications and practices. Hopefully this material will provide the reader with a broadened perspective and appreciation of some of the more controversial themes published in the writings of the Family's founder, the late David Brandt Berg.
A SEXUAL REFORMATION OR A DECADENT NEW DARK AGE?
Serious cracks are forming in the moral retaining walls that have for so long stood for what was assumed right and wrong in sexual matters. Social and sexual storms of the nineties have left much of Christendom in a quandary. Faced with a growing disparity between official policy and actual practices, Church policymakers are increasingly forced to rule on issues unthinkable only a few decades back[1], having to accept or reject sexual teachings and practices that at best will divide and at worst will alter or destroy their church as they know it. Few denominations remain aloof from this battle, as evidenced by the volume of sex-related articles, public debate and open dissension and disagreement that can readily be found in many mainstream Christian publications and public forums. Even the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, a prestigious religious publishing house presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has many senior clerics upset over its publishing of Dr. Adrian Thatcher's book, Liberating Sex, which calls for a wider acceptance of sex outside marriage, the right to remarry, and the recognition of homosexual unions by Christians. Dr. Thatcher feels it is time for the Church to "rethink" its sexual teaching and recognize that the Bible was written in a different culture, one where most marriages took place at a very young age.
Some Christians react to the sexual changes taking place by lapsing into an inflexible anti-sex siege mentality, wishing they could somehow turn back the clock to former times and sexual customs they were more comfortable with. Some keep hoping that divine intervention will perhaps suddenly pull them off the planet before "things get any worse." Other Christians unite, organize, take action, picket, protest, lobby to change laws, and fight to win back Christian political control of local and national government. Some face the sexual storms of change boldly, searching for realistic and positive solutions. Others simply run with the winds of "anything goes" sexual theology.
The Voices of Dissent
Until the twentieth century, [much of] Christianity and much of the Western world in general have demonstrated for nearly 2,000 years an otherworldly, ascetic spirituality in which materiality, and especially sexuality, were suspicious, if not actually sinful. Present inroads on the tradition insist that:
1) Bodily experiences can reveal the divine.
2) Affectivity is as essential as rationality to true Christian love.
3) Christian love exists not to bind autonomous selves, but as the proper form of connection between beings who become human persons in relation.
4) The experience of body pleasure is important in creating the ability to trust and love others, including God (Gudorf, 1994: 217-218).
Sex-negative teachings have been blamed for driving many sincere and searching individuals away from Christian churches, wearying the faithful as well as the clergy with needless sexual concerns, shame, guilt, confusion, loneliness and frustration. Many church-originated sex-negative teachings are now being ignored, challenged, re-evaluated and even blamed for the growing apostasy and antipathy to Christianity in society. Christianity as an institution is now suffering in part for having accepted the Gnostic teachings that human sexuality is basically bad.
The churches have tried to tame our bodies and put us in pews(Rev. Matthew Fox cited by Wright, 1993: 209).
Matthew Fox is a Dominican priest of international renown, founder of the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College in Oakland, California, and author of several books. For making such pronouncements, as quoted above, he was "officially silenced" in late 1988 by his church for a period of one year. Back on the offensive and alluding to Martin Luther and others who spoke out for reform, Fox wryly comments: "The Roman Catholic Church's track record on silencing its most prophetic voices is not impressive!" (op. cit., 205).
Fox teaches that instead of trying to maintain control, Christians should practice letting go, allowing themselves to participate in the natural ecstasies of the universe--including sexual pleasures. In Fox's theology, eros and even lust are celebrated.
Lust is a great, awesome, and wonderful beast, a stallion that can run away with people, driving them mad, jealous, or cynical, or deaden their souls if ignored. Yet once bridled, it ushers in to lover and progeny alike all the promise of the universe, all the beauty of the cosmic history, earthly, sexual adventure. . . . Two people riding the great horse of lust can indeed ride more deeply and swiftly into one another's souls (op. cit., 214.)
Although Fox's wording is provocative in imagery, the essence of what he is saying is being voiced by many other theologians within his church. The Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) declares that "sexuality is the Creator's ingenious way of calling people constantly out of themselves into relationship with others." [2]
Fox derides his church's obsession with sex, sin and celibacy, preferring to speak of God as a pleasure-seeker and Jesus as an earthly sensualist. When reading authors like Fox, it is important to understand the doctrines of the traditional church teachings that they are lashing out at. By directly linking "original sin" with sexual intercourse initiated by Eve under the influence of Satan, second to fourth century theologians opened the door to a dreadful attitude toward sex and women. These two agents, sex and women, became the chief culprits that cost humanity its immortality and to be cut off from God and brought the curse of disease, toil and death into the world. Logically then, if sex and woman were such evil devices of Satan, then presumably by renouncing them both, men (and women following the same example) might earn some measure of favor with God, and begin to undo the curse upon them (Brown, 1988: 86).
In his book, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, Fox writes:
If I were asked to name in one word the message I have received from my religion regarding sexuality I would answer regret. I believe that the Western church, following in the spirit of St. Augustine, basically regrets the fact that we are sexual, sensual creatures. "If only sexuality would go away," the message goes, "we could get on with important issues of faith."
The sooner the churches put distance between themselves and Augustine's . . . put-down of women and sexuality, the sooner original sin will find its proper and very minor role in theology (Fox, 1988: 163).
To the question, "Did Jesus have sex?" Fox responds:
[The sexual revolution of the sixties] did not stop at the monastery door. Some of the greatest monks and priests also had relationships. Remember that, except perhaps for John, all of the disciples of Jesus were married. And of course, Jesus Himself was certainly a fully sexual human being. . . . He was biologically developed as any other human being. He had energy, He had vitality, He had passion--that's all sexual energy. As to whom He made love with, or if He did, we don't know, but I feel this: because He was Jewish, I don't know how He could be celibate. Celibacy is not a part of Jewish tradition. . . . Obviously He knew a lot about women, and they were attracted to Him, not just sexually but politically. He broke all the taboos toward women in His culture, and I think it had a lot to do with His crucifixion (Fox cited by Wright, 1993: 214).
And what does this outspoken Dominican priest say about the celibate life?
I don't recommend to healthy young men that they go into the priesthood as it is currently constituted. You realize that celibacy was invented by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century because priests were illiterate and the church wanted to teach them to read [aided by the discipline of abstinence] (op. cit., 211).
BRINGING BODY AND SPIRIT BACK TOGETHER
It is generally acknowledged that there is a sexual awakening taking place in Judeo-Christianity, so much so that even those of other faiths are beginning to notice and applaud, saying, "What took you so long?" In an article for East West called, "Massaging the Spirit," writer Mirka Knaster, commenting from an Eastern religious perspective, enthusiastically observes that religious leaders from Catholic priests to Jewish rabbis are attempting to bring body and spirit back together again:
Our attitude toward the mind-body connection has come a long way in the last two decades, but resolving the body-spirit split has lagged. Acceptance is now growing, with the help of people like Fox and [Sister Rosalind] Gefre [a massage-promoting nun in the Order of St. Joseph of Carondelet], in mainstream religion. Catholic priests, sisters and brothers, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, and lay persons with a theological background now openly support bodywork [massage] or are directly involved in it (Knaster, 1990: 50).
Father Theodore Tracey, a Jesuit involved in retreat work and spiritual guidance, is another Christian exponent of a "body-positive" perspective of theology. In his 1987 essay in Weavings, a journal of the Christian spiritual life, Father Tracey refers to St. Paul's words that our bodies are in truth living temples of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6:19-20), and notes that our bodies as well as spirits are the foundation for salvation. The physical body being important enough that God chose to manifest Himself in human flesh through Jesus (ibid).
Fathers Tracey and Fox point out that accepting the teachings of the Greeks and others led to a distortion of the original Judeo-Christian attitude toward the body. Fox says:
Jewish thinking takes for granted that the sensual is a blessing and that there is no [spiritual] life without it (ibid).
HOLY SEX!
Georg Feuerstein, from an eastern religious perspective, notes in his book Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality:
[Fox] envisions a renaissance of sexual mysticism, and in his book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, he offers one of the finest commentaries on Solomon's Song of Songs, with a wholehearted endorsement of an erotic spirituality. . . . Fox is not alone in protesting an antiquated theology and moral teaching. There are a growing number of Christian notables who do not hide behind dogma but are considering, questioning, and voicing their opposition against current Church attitudes. Sexuality is now generally viewed as an area where genuine love and mutual delight can be expressed (Feuerstein, 1989: 8).
An increasing number of respected religious writers are turning out in force to challenge the notion that Christianity and erotic sexuality are incompatible. They also challenge the assumption that all Christians regard sex as something evil and alien to the Christian way of life.
... the kiss of peace is sexual. Any worship that is true worship is sexual. It's all the same energy. . . . I use sexual energy as a resource . . . (Woman pastor cited by Lebracqz and Barton in Sex in The Parish, 1991: 25).
Sexual intimacy can be a means of grace, a resource for healing and transformation in our lives (Rebecca Parker, "Making Love as a Means of Grace: Women's Reflections," Open Hands, vol. 3, no. 3, Winter 1988: 9-12).
James B. Nelson, author of Between Two Gardens and Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology, takes the perspective that sexuality is the base on which our capacity to enter into life-enhancing and life-enriching relationships is built. Through one's sexuality, one has the possibility to become what God wants them to be: fulfilled, integrated, sharing, and free recipients of divine love.
I was feeling unmistakably sexually aroused [during prayer]. My entire body was longing for the Divine (Nelson, Between Two Gardens: Reflections on Sexuality and Religious Experience, 1983: 4).
Sex Is Holy is the title of a thought-provoking book co-authored by respected Catholic writers Mary Rousseau and Father Charles Gallagher. The original impetus for the book came from a task force initiated by the American Catholic Bishops to study the questions of human intimacy, love and sexuality. Sex Is Holy is only one of many similar serious publications done in the last decade by respectable theologians, writers and publishers. It has been well received by church membership and given excellent reviews by mainstream critics.
Dr. Mary Rousseau is a professor and mother as well as chairperson of a special committee established by the Catholic Philosophical Society. Father Charles Gallagher is the founder of Marriage Encounter, an ecumenic Christian program engaged in meeting concerns of Catholic couples. These two authors not only leap courageously into the Christian sexual fray, but even laud as uniquely Catholic the view that having sex is not only a way to closer human intimacy, but a way to greater intimacy with God:
The view of sex as a way to intimacy with other human beings, and into intimacy with the Father, Son and Spirit is a distinctively Catholic view (Rousseau and Gallagher, 1986: 112). (Emphasis added.)
SEX EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME--AND BY EXAMPLE!
Prior to World War II, procreation was the sole purpose and only justification for sexual intercourse in Catholic teaching. Vatican II fostered a kinder and gentler view of humanity and the God-given sexual side of marriage. Tossing off the last vestiges of any lingering concerns that marital sex may be hazardous to one's spiritual health, Rousseau and Gallagher write:
We can absolutely guarantee that growing up in an atmosphere of sexual intimacy is, next to life itself, the most precious gift that parents can give to their children.
Likewise, one who is confused, inhibited and unhappy in his or her sexuality will be confused, inhibited and unhappy as a person. Sexual identity and personal identity go together. The passion of parents automatically gives children the most important message about sex that they need to hear: that sex is not just intercourse, but intimacy . . . that sex also has a strong positive redemptive power (op. cit., 100, 113).
These learned Catholic authors even boldly tackle the question of conduct and moments of intimate affection between parents while in the presence of children:
The sexual intimacy of parents is the power base of their children's identities, including their sexual identities. It grounds their emotional health and maturity, their overall enjoyment of life, and their faith in God, Who is Love.
When a child sees his father give his mother an affectionate pat on the behind and she pushes him away with a look of disgust, the child draws an immediate conclusion. The conclusion is not what we might think--"Mommy doesn't like sex,"--but, rather, "I am not lovable." And the reverse is also true: a child who sees his parent give and exchange eager little signs of passionate affection gets the message "I am loved, because Mommy and Daddy love each other."
Sexual intercourse should have its due privacy, then, but the sexual intimacy which is the couple's way of life is very much their children's business. It is the source of their children's identity, and children have an absolute right to have that intimacy displayed before them in a forthright and exciting fashion (op. cit., 101, 110, 115).
Why do the youth of today have problems forming wholesome and positive sexual attitudes? Rousseau and Gallagher lay some of the blame on parental inhibitions about sex which cause children to turn to more vulgar and perverse sources of information that distort the image of a loving sexuality. The reader is well aware of the type of unwholesome "sex" message found in the lyrics of many youth-oriented songs, particularly hard rock and gangster rap.
Rousseau and Gallagher offer the following explanation:
Parents hesitate to speak to their children about sex, just as much as their children hesitate to speak to them. As a result, most teenagers get their sexual values from their popular culture. But the picture of sex that our culture presents is an especially tawdry one. Sex is vulgarized in rock music, commercialized on television, trivialized in the movies. As a result, the adolescents of our day have very few sources from which they might learn that sex is awesomely beautiful, powerfully joyous, deeply redemptive, sacramentally holy. In fact, if we were to tell a group of teenagers that sex is holy, we would be met by guffaws of laughter and/or met by stiffened expectations of a moralistic lecture (op. cit., 112). (Emphasis added.)
SEX EDUCATION MUST BEGIN WITH THE VERY YOUNG
Rousseau and Gallagher also realize that sex education, while being a process that is especially crucial when young adolescents first experience the powerful surges of sexual feelings, to be effective must begin long before that.
If we do not put restraints on their curiosity, and do not put them down for asking questions, three-year-olds will ask about love and death, about God, and yes, about sex. And it is a basic law of educational psychology that human beings learn best when their natural curiosity makes them ready to listen. The deepest kind of sex education, the kind that communicates values and meaning, not just information, begins almost the moment a baby is born. Like the deepest kind of religious education, this kind of sex education is caught, not taught. It is communicated by the way parents look at each other, speak to each other, touch each other--and the ways in which they look at, speak to and touch their children. Passionate parents communicate passion, love and intimacy in ways that cannot be captured in textbooks and dictionaries (Rousseau and Gallagher, 1986: 111-112). (Emphasis added.)
[Sexual] intimacy is meant to function as a sacrament, to be the medium in which the message of the gospel is preached. This message is, basically, that love and joy are real, that we must trust each other and enjoy life together for, in St. John's words, God is love, and he who lives in love, lives in God, and God lives in him. Sexual intimacy, when it gets that message across, does much more than promote the mental health and maturity of children (op. cit., 116).
For if children cannot trust a human love that they do see, how will they ever trust the divine love that they do not see? But passionate parents reveal to their children in a vivid and credible way the love and joy that circulate among Father, Son and Spirit, in the inner life of God. They proclaim the gospel message loud and clear: the message that all of us are loved passionately and enthusiastically, just for being who we are. Sexual intimacy is one of the clearest places we know of where the medium is, indeed, the message (op. cit., 118).
"TOUCH ME! FEEL ME! I'M A CHRISTIAN."
History does not reveal the precise date that touch-phobia crept into Christianity, since it was more a process than a policy to begin with. However, in 397, when the "Agapae" love feasts seemed to be getting a little too "tactile" for the celibate rulers, the Council of Carthage made a decree severely limiting all show of physical intimacies in church--other than to kiss the priest (Taylor, 1970: 262). In earlier times, Christians had been known for their love, warm embracing and affectionate greetings. In recent years, Catholic and Protestant congregations alike have from time to time timidly tried to restore some sort of touch exchange during religious services.
Dallas Landrum, a Presbyterian interim pastor and massage therapist in Baltimore, Maryland, explains why some Christians are so slow to accept and enjoy one of the universal and fundamental pleasures of life, human touching:
Many conservative Christians are afraid of their bodies and touch of any kind, because they have never come to terms with their own sexuality! (Knaster, 1990: 50).[3]
Rousseau and Gallagher make this comment about negative attitudes towards touching:
Our sense of touch is extremely important. It is, in fact, our chief way of knowing that we love and are loved. . . . Even a small but direct contact has an effect on people. For example, students checking books out of the library were questioned by psychologists about how they perceived the library--as a warm and accepting place, where they felt comfortable, or as cold and forbidding. Those who found it warm and comfortable had been touched ever so slightly by the librarians when they checked their books out. The others had not been so touched. Psychologists have also proven, beyond any doubt, that babies who are cuddled and fondled a lot actually develop a greater number of brain cells than those who are left alone in their cribs for long periods of time. But adults need cuddling and hugging too. The sense of touch gives us a powerful, primitive reassurance about our own goodness and worth and about the goodness of the world (Rousseau and Gallagher, 1986: 51).
Christine E. Gudorf, author of Body, Sex, and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics, adds:
Sex is pleasurable in many different ways. Mere body touch is pleasurable. Another person's touch on our skin normally releases chemical compounds called endorphins, which function as pain-killing anesthetics. . . . We actually seem to need the pleasure of touch. Infants denied physical touch do not thrive. They do not grow, do not eat or sleep well. They do not develop normally intellectually and emotionally. . . .[4] Elderly persons who are touched affectionately often retain their health and their alertness much longer, and complain of pain less than those deprived of touch.[5] The therapeutic aspect of touch is one reason for the popularity of massage (Gudorf, 1994: 103).
There have been a lot of wrong views and misconceptions about the value of touching, and not just among Christians.
Throughout Western society, parents, teachers, doctors, child-care attendants, workmates, and even close friends often find themselves in "touch retreat." And new barriers to physical intimacy are being put up daily: frightening updates on the AIDS epidemic, the sexual polarization of society as male and female "take sides" in the "sex wars" of the nineties. Sadly, everyone loses--and children lose the most--as home life disintegrates and loving, warm reassuring teachers, pastors and parents are driven out of business.
SELF-STIMULATION: SIN OR SACRAMENT?
In 1969, Dr. William Masters told me about a survey of 200 celibates [Catholic priests], the results of which revealed that 198 of them reported having masturbated at least once during the previous year. Of the other two, Dr. Masters said, "I don't think they understood the question!" (Sipe, 1990: 139).
Christianity has come to many sexual crossroads, and the morality of masturbation is one frequently encountered. A quiet revolution has raged for centuries, a war for common sense and sexual autonomy in this intimately private area of life to gain free access rights to experience the pleasures of one's own body without reproach. Throughout Christendom one finds a complete range of opinions. Historically, while medieval painter Hans Baldrung Grien was creating his--now considered shocking--portrait of the Holy Family showing Jesus' grandmother, St. Anne, "stimulating" the genitals of the infant Jesus while Mary and Joseph look on approvingly,[6] others in the church were busy making up long lists of punishments and penance for those who "touch themselves in unclean ways." St. Thomas Aquinas, who included a talk on masturbation in his Summa Theologica, considered it even worse than outright fornication, since it is blatantly non-reproductive and non-unitive.
This official church position is gradually giving way. In Body, Sex, and Pleasure (1994), Gudorf presents the exact opposite position:
Traditional condemnations of masturbation as serious sin [should have] been abandoned upon recognition that infants begin self-stimulation of the genitals soon after birth. . . . many infants of one or two years successfully stimulate themselves to orgasm. . . . This self-stimulation of the genitals does not end in infancy, but accelerates at puberty. By the age of 20 at least 92% of males report masturbating, and about two-thirds of females[7]. . . . research shows that the practice of masturbation does not prevent men and women from seeking sexual partners. In fact, it has become clear that women who have masturbated are more likely to experience general sexual pleasure and, in particular, orgasm in partnered sex than are women who have not masturbated[8] (Gudorf, 1994: 91-92).
While Christianity long taught masturbation as sinful, today many Christians are rethinking the grounds for that prohibition. . . . Nor do we understand the story of Onan in Genesis 38 to support an understanding of wasting seed. Onan died not because he wasted seed on the ground, but because, out of greed, he failed to fulfill Yahweh's will that he raise up a son to carry on his brother's name and lineage. [The argument that] masturbation encourages ipsation, an inward turning that cuts individuals off from others . . . [is not valid. Research shows that] virtually all males masturbate as youths, yet virtually all drift to partnered sex by adulthood.[9] Very low levels of adolescent masturbation are more linked to low levels of sexual interest, and thus to low incidence of partnered sex, than to higher levels of partnered sex[10] (op. cit., 104-105).
Well-known sexological writer David A. Schulz and Catholic Dominic S. Raphael (writing under a pseudonym since masturbation for self pleasure is still officially forbidden by his church) in their article, "Christ and Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation," make several interesting observations and outline the value and spiritual virtues of "self-pleasuring" (masturbating):
Western society as a whole suffers from a blind spot in the area of sexuality for which the issue of masturbation is symptomatic (Raphael cited in Feuerstein, 1989: 215).
Christian adolescents have traditionally been traumatized by threats of impending woe ranging from pimples, to short life and insanity if their "self-abuse" persisted. Schulz warns that a negative conflict between church and self results when religion assumes a sex-negative repressive role:
To be told as an adolescent that one form of sexual pleasure over which one has some degree of control was inherently sinful was to place the immediate positive experience of pleasure in direct conflict with the Church's teaching. The individual loses, whatever conclusion is drawn. Either the Church is wrong because the experience feels so right, or the experience must be wrong in spite of the pleasure it provides (op. cit., 222).
Schulz and Raphael prefer to use the term "self-pleasuring" over the centuries-old pejorative "masturbation" which literally means "to defile by hand." Dominic Raphael not only very much approves of masturbation, but even contends that erotic delight can transmute genital orgasm into whole-body bliss resulting in better communion with God .
The more we accept the original blessing that we humans are alive with God's own lifebreath (Genesis 2:7), the more we will be ready for both the mystical experience and primal [self] sexuality--indeed for the possibility of mystical rapture through primal sexuality (op. cit., 233).
Schulz contends that:
Self-pleasuring is a genuine form of sexual liberation--a freeing of the human spirit for more creative, caring involvement in the world. As such, it is genuinely Christian--though not yet recognized as such (op. cit., 238).
Dominic Raphael adds:
The need for training of this kind is especially urgent during adolescence and in celibate life. This calls for developing methods, which in Western society are still almost completely lacking. Not only have we failed to raise sexuality methodically to higher spiritual levels; we have instead multiplied prohibitions that inhibit this development. . . . Because autosexuality remains a pivot of psychological oppression, it must be the concern of Christians whom Christ has set free and whom St. Paul alerts: "Stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1b). And because autosexuality is the starting point, if we want "to connect the genitals to the heart, to bring sex and love together," it must be a concern of every religious person (op. cit., 238). (Emphasis added.)
Schulz and Raphael both agree that official church sex dogma limps far behind actual sex practice. Simple observation tells us that this gap is widening in some churches and disappearing in others. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (1993) shows that 63 percent of Protestants, 67 percent of Catholics, 75 percent of the Jewish faith agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "Masturbation is a natural part of life and continues on in marriage." One-quarter of American men and one-tenth of American woman involved in the study either masturbated daily or several times weekly, 53 percent of the men compared to 25 percent of the women began during ages 11 to 13 (Janus, 1993: 243, 77).
SEX IS A HOLY SACRAMENT
If there is any doubt that joyful sex should be an inherent part of Christian marital life, writers Rousseau and Gallagher certainly try to remove that doubt.
Love-making and falling in love--these are two especially clear moments of sacramental sex.
Sex should be to a couple what prayer is to a contemplative religious [person] or the Eucharist is to a priest (Rousseau and Gallagher, 1986: 46, 54).
These same authors also provide us with a very refreshing portrayal of how sex play is a reflection of God and the Holy Trinity. (In the Family, the Holy Spirit is thought of as female, which, in my thinking makes more sense than trying to reconcile the image of three traditionally male aspects of God having "love play" together.)
And so in love play we can get some glimpse of what God does all day. The three divine persons, Father, Son and Spirit, play--play in love. Our moments of play are the high points of our days, are they not? We play when our work is done, when there are no more needs to be met, no services to be performed, no tasks or duties to be done at least for a while. And so we simply relax and enjoy each other, enjoy the good that we see in each other, enjoy the life that we share with each other. And sexual ecstasy is a high point of play--more intense and vivid than any other kind. In our best sexual moments, all cares fall away, we gasp in realization of the person before us, we shriek in ecstasy at the realization that we two, wonderful as we are, belong to each other. That sexual moment, that moment of love play, deserves to be counted as one of our seven sacraments. It is most fitting, truly, right and just that sexual intimacy should be, a symbol--a causal symbol--of our intimacy with the three divine persons. Human love play is one clear and powerful way for human beings to take part in the love play of the Trinity (op. cit., 23).
DIVINE ORGASMS
Many Christians, Catholic and Protestant, are now saying that loving sexual involvement with another person has the potential to transcend the physical act and become a spiritual union, even a holy sacrament. Rousseau and Gallagher are assuming a very sex-positive stance, hoping to help redirect their church's attitude towards sex and reassure their congregations that human sexuality and pleasure are all right after all. Almost daily, more Christian leaders and writers join the movement to shift the sexual emphasis in Christianity from "sex is sin" to "sex is celebration."
Rousseau and Gallagher, citing well-known psychologist Eric Berne's book Sex and Human Loving add:
As Catholics we can see a special value, a special reason for the Church to "put so much emphasis on sex." For the "Wow!" of orgasm is a "Wow!" to divine life.[11] Sex is a sacramental power, not just a human action. It is the power to cause God's own life in us, to draw us into the love play of the Trinity. An orgasm as the high point of sexual love is also one of love's most powerful divine moments (op. cit., 43-44).
They assure us that this sexual force has always been at work and appreciated in the Church.
In fact, it was common among Renaissance painters to emphasize the genitals of the Infant Jesus, and of the Risen Christ as well. It was their way of saying, "Yes, look! He really did have what it takes to give life to human beings. Let's celebrate that fact" (op. cit., 44).
EROS AND AGAPE--HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?
Philip Sherrard, formerly Assistant Director of the British School of Athens, Lecturer in the History of the Orthodox Church at London University, in his book, Christianity and Eros, touches on the fact that no great distinction needs to be made between Christian love involving sex and non-sexual Christian love:
We tend to distinguish between the love of God and the love of one person for another--to distinguish between agape and eros--and to regard the second as a rather debasing form of the first and only indulged at the expense of the first. In a sexualized sacramental love there is no such distinction (Sherrard, 1976: 2).
Welsh-born writer and Anglican priest David Thomas, presents a spiritual view of sex not unlike that found in certain of David Brandt Berg's writings. In his book, Partners with God: A Celebration of Human Sexuality, which serves as a manual used in sexual appreciation sessions, Thomas writes:
If sex is an expression of love, then Christians, above all people, should take a special delight in it. Unfortunately this is not the case. We need, rather, to develop attitudes that can make our sexuality the enriching thing of great beauty that it was intended to be. Used properly [our body] is a miracle of creation, an instrument of love. Its display can be a glorious psalm of praise to a wise and feeling Creator. The person who keeps a sexually alert body in tune with positive, loving thoughts and a soul open to the touch of God is in symphonic accord with creation and Creator alike. Only those who have understood the principle of sharing in the ways of love have discovered the quality of growth that has lifted their relationships to the very gates of heaven. Indeed, our lovemaking is intended to be a celebration of life, of joy, of compassion and of God. Our sexuality is a sharing in creation, designed for us from the beginning of measurable time. Because it is of God, it is best fulfilled when it reflects the nature of God--in giving, in caring, in nurturing. In that spirit, we can use our sexuality to fulfill our own existence and to enrich the being of those whose lives we touch. And in the same spirit, we can make our special love relationship a Christian joyful and erotic glimpse of God's creative presence. To love with generosity and understanding is to proclaim with our bodies the essence of Christ. Whether or not Jesus had any explicitly sexual experiences--and the mere suggestion is enough to rend many pious Christians apoplectic--there is no doubt in my mind that He enhanced other's perception of their sexuality. He didn't deny that gift of God, He heightened it (Thomas, 1986: 29, 33, 35, 39, 50, 57, 60, 90).
Even the "missionary position" is falling out of favor among Christians according to the Janus Report. Forty-percent of "very religious" people in the study indicated that they agree, even strongly agree, that "a large variety of sex techniques is a must for maximum pleasure." And 77 percent of "very religious" and 84 percent of "religious" people even rated "oral sex" as ranging from "all right to very normal" (Janus, 1993: 244, 245, 254).
CAN SEXUAL PASSION BE USED TO REVIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES?
Even sexual intercourse can turn into a ministry, a favor that one does for the other (Rousseau and Gallagher, 1986: 47).
Passionate couples, who become transformed from being strangers into being intimates, help all the rest of us strangers become each other's intimates, too. They do so by making Love credible, so that we can believe in it. And once we believe, we can begin to live it. Then all of us strangers begin to be each others intimates, and we are the Church (op. cit., 124).
Professor Rousseau and Father Gallagher put forth a position on Christian sexual expression that if taken one step further, beyond the context of marital sex, closely resembles David Brandt Berg's proposition of the divine role that sex can play in attracting and winning souls to the Kingdom of God:
Some parishes stand out for being progressive in their liturgy, others for being oriented toward social justice. But what if a parish were outstanding for the passion of its couples? If Catholics were known everywhere for sexual intimacy, the church would certainly not look like just one organization among many. She would be a clear light in the darkness of ordinary lives. Her light would so shine before men that people who never heard a professional missionary will be drawn to her--for the right reason. Converts haven't flocked to us because of our moral righteousness or our organizational genius. But converts would certainly flock to us if we showed in action the deeply incarnational truth that human sexuality is a genuine and powerful way to Holiness. When we say that sex is not evil, that it is quite permissible in certain circumstances, we take but one very tiny step in the right direction. We need to proclaim from the housetops that sex is Holy. The passion of couples is part of the church's inheritance, a pearl of great price, a light that should not be hidden under a bushel (op. cit., 131).
Rousseau and Gallagher even take the point further by saying:
Now imagine another world, one in which Catholic couples were noted for their passion and intimacy, a passion which transfigured them into living symbols of the living flame of divine love--the gospel would seem relevant to everyday life because it would be relevant. People would fall over themselves to join such a church. Few people who know of Jesus question His goodness. What many do question though is His relevance to them and their daily lives. Sexual love is central to the lives of most people, but what they usually fear from the church are prohibitions and inhibitions on sexual love. And so their enthusiasm for the rest of the message is chilled. But if we, who know the power of sex to tenderize hearts, would celebrate that gift, the gospel would be relevant indeed. People would be drawn to the church like flies to honey (op. cit., 133-134). (Emphasis added.)
ADULTERY
The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in the US in 1993, was described as "the first broad-scale scientific national survey since Kinsey." That report revealed that forty-four percent of "very religious" people and fifty percent of "religious" people, and fifty-nine percent of "slightly religious" people admitted they had sex before marriage. "Very religious" people slightly outscored "religious" people fifty-seven percent to fifty-six percent in their personal agreement with the statement, "Sensually, I feel that sex is deliciously sensuous" (Janus, 1993: 252, 255). Another surprising discovery made by these scientists was in response to the question "I've had extramarital affairs." Thirty-one percent of people in the "very religious" category indicated they had at least one affair, whereas only twenty-six percent of those people who thought of themselves as simply "religious" said they had been involved in extra-marital sex. Forty-four percent of the "non-religious" responders admitted to extramarital sex (op. cit., 249).
It is said that the French reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564), was particularly preoccupied with adultery, and made references to it in almost every matter he discussed. G. Rattray Taylor, commenting on this characteristic in Sex in History, generalizes that "Since repression always stimulates what it sets out to repress, one is not surprised to learn that his [Calvin's] sister-in-law was taken in adultery in 1557 and that his daughter suffered a like fate five years later" (Taylor, 1970: 164).
It seems that Episcopalian Rev. Leo Booth could not agree more. In his book, When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse 1991), Booth points to Eric Fromm's theory that sexual taboos create sexual obsessiveness and perversions. He also notes:
Jimmy Swaggart preached some of his most scathing sermons against sex immediately following his liaisons with prostitutes (Booth, 1991: 72).
Although I do not agree with Rev. Leo Booth when he labels most Bible-quoting, Jesus-preaching Christians as being "God addicts," I can still agree with some of his views on sex and sexuality.
I believe that God created sex and made it pleasurable to us for a reason; not just to procreate, but as a means of physically expressing spiritual unity. To insist that it is dirty is an abuse of God's gift, and from that abuse springs more abuse: guilt, shame, humiliation, fear (op. cit., 75).
Booth is of course not alone among the outspoken clergy within the Episcopal church. Bishop John Shelby Spong is another very notable player in the unfolding sex-and-spirituality Christian conundrum. Bishop Spong receives praise even in the respected National Catholic Reporter, a respected Roman Catholic publication. In reviewing Bishop Spong's book Living in Sin?, they conceded that "John Shelby Spong is a brave churchman. He has the guts to tell it like it is!"--And what is it that the Episcopal Bishop Spong is telling the world that is so significant and takes so much courage?
Bishop Spong suggests that there is much ambiguity in the Bible concerning sex. To take just one example, adultery in the Bible was defined as sex with a married woman. The marital status of the man was irrelevant. If the woman was not married, then having sexual relations with her was not adulterous. Women, Spong points out, were considered the possessions of the primary male in their lives and he quotes the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis chapter 38 and the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges chapter 19.
TRADITIONAL "MORALITY" --A MYTH?
Bishop Spong notes that in the Bible the prevailing marital pattern of the times was not monogamy but polygamy. In fact, moral patterns ascribed to Bible times actually were never the way those who call us to reaffirm "traditional morality" think they were. In his book Living in Sin?, also favorably reviewed in Time magazine, Spong brings this fact out clearly. Marriage, for example, was not ever universally required to legitimize sexual activity even in western Christian society. It was not until the Council of Trent in 1565, that the Church declared that a Christian ceremony was necessary in order to have a valid marriage. He adds:
Marriage does not make sex Holy, the quality of the relationship does (Spong, 1989: 65).
The Bible's view on relationships and sex is further demonstrated in the passages which mention how the patriarch Abraham on two occasions in order to save his own life offered his wife Sarah, first to the Pharaoh (Genesis chapter 12) and later to King Abemelech (Genesis chapter 20). His son Isaac, following in his footsteps, later offered his wife Rebecca to the same or similarly named Philistine king (Genesis chapter 26)! Spong mentions that in some nations of the western world, older and sexually experienced women were expected to initiate young post-pubescent boys into the mysteries of love-making. This would prepare a young man to be a gentle and effective lover with his virgin bride.
In his book Beyond Moralism, Spong protests:
The original prohibition against adulterous relationships came from a people who continued to practice polygamy for many years after their covenant at Sinai. Monogamous marriage is not the original context of the injunction. This commandment was presumed to have been given in the wilderness around the year 1250 B.C.E. Yet 300 years later Solomon, with his 300 wives and 700 concubines, reigned as king in the land whose law proclaimed, "You shall not commit adultery." [In Living in Sin?, Spong adds: "What does adultery mean when one man (Solomon) can possess an unlimited number of women for his own amusement? How can an injunction based on these premises be used to define morality today?"]
The patriarchal society in which this law was both interpreted and applied did not regard sexual intercourse between married men and unmarried women as an adulterous offense. A story in chapter 38 of Genesis told of Judah's affair with Hirah, an Adullamite who was described only as a friend, even after he had had three children by her. In chapter 21 of Judges, the men of Benjamin seduced first and married second. A man was found guilty of adultery only if he took another man's wife. Adultery was primarily an offense against another man's marriage, not against his own. . . . If a married man avoided married women, he could have as many sexual affairs as he wished and still not violate this commandment. . . . [Also] Sexual behavior with foreign women encountered while traveling or captured in war . . . was not governed by these laws (Spong, 1986: 89-90).
Eric Fuchs, is a Swiss Protestant pastor. He has been director of the Protestant Study Center in Geneva and is now head of the ethics department of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. In his book, Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and Marriage, he devotes almost ninety pages to a chapter entitled, "Christianity and Sexuality: An Ambiguous History." One point he makes is that some sexual conduct can be very very harmful and hurtful. The Old Testament certainly does not hide these dangers. Improper sexual conduct can lead to murderous violence as told in the astonishing story of Judges chapters 19-21, where the inhabitants of Gibeah abused the concubine of the Levite from Ephraim. Since that incident transgressed the most sacred laws of hospitality, of heterosexuality and of respect for even the concubine of one's neighbor, it led to collective violence and destruction of almost the entire tribe of Benjamin.
Fortunately, the Old Testament also contains an abundance of beautiful examples of the creative use of human sexuality being wonderfully used for the good of God's people. As Eric Fuchs puts it:
The exemplary couples amongst the patriarchs demonstrate how sexuality, ordained as a benediction of God on life, becomes creative with regard to history and love (Fuchs, 1983).
There is the story of Esther who captured the heart of a heathen king and saved her people from destruction. Then there was Ruth, the Moabite widow who wooed the wealthy Boaz and became an ancestor of Jesus. And of course there was the stunning beauty of Abraham's half-sister and wife, Sarah, that more than once was used to save the life of that revered patriarch. Or the love of Joseph for Mary his young pregnant-by-another, wife to be, to cite a few examples.
TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS -- JUST WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
In, Beyond Moralism, Bishop Spong poses numerous sexually challenging questions for Christians to answer:
What is the basis for sexual morality for Christians in this age? Is there an area between the ideal and the immoral where sexual relations between consenting unmarried adults could be viewed in some way other than as destructive or wrong?
Can sexual activity apart from the context of marriage ever be more positive than negative?
Is abstinence the only choice a Christian ethic can tolerate for widows, widowers, unmarried adults, or divorced people?
Half the population in our culture is engaged in serial polygamy--several marriages over the course of a lifetime with one partner at a time and numerous children related to one another by step-parents and half parents. More than forty percent of the households in America are now single-parent or single-person households. . . . How can the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" be approached within the actualities of the twentieth century?
If fullness of life is the goal of the Christian gospel, sexual abstinence may not always serve that goal. . . . Are some sexual relationships beautiful, life-giving, beneficial, even though they are not lived out inside the marital bond? Surely the answer . . . is yes (Spong 1986: 96, 99, Preface p. xi, 97, 104). (Emphasis added.)
SODOMY
Christian churches in general are increasingly split over demands for official recognition and acceptance of homosexuality. However, for a large number of concerned Christians, the homosexual question remains "non-negotiable" in spite of the increase in homosexual acceptance[12] and growing support for this lifestyle in society. Politics and media promotion is not sufficient to overturn moral concerns that rise from Scriptural admonitions specifically opposing it (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:27).
The Family is considered somewhat liberal in certain sexual views, yet highly traditional in others as evidenced by the following view expressed by David Brandt Berg, founder of the Family:
You don't find the Bible condemning sex anywhere, only the wrong kind of sex. So what's the wrong kind of sex? Well, the Bible makes it very clear the wrong kind of sex is: "men with men doing that which is evil" (Romans 1:27), homosexuality, sodomy, the misuse of women, the misuse of sexual organs, evil sex, perversion, masochism, unloving sex, sex that hurts somebody, sex without love. Sex in the wrong way, perverted sex, sex that hurts and damages and destroys the body, selfish sex! (Letter no. 2475, September, 1988).
THE LAW OF LOVE
Whatever position on the sexual spectrum other Christians may take, they likely can agree that
(1) Christianity is in for a very rough ride in the days ahead as society at large becomes increasingly decadent and anti-Christian; and
(2) that as Christians, we do need some guidelines to govern our sexual behavior, especially any that would be hurtful or harmful.
In his writings, David Brandt Berg has put forth a simple rule to govern sexual conduct, in fact all conduct. Based on the teachings of Jesus, this principle is referred to as the Law of Love. Simply put, this "Law" says that Jesus' commandment to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves should be the guiding principle in all our dealings with others. All other rules and laws should be subservient to--in fact fulfilled by--this one. God will not condemn us if love and concern for others is our main motive, even in sexual matters. This general Law of Love principle can be found in one form or another among the teachings of most Christian churches.
In October, 1993, the Department for Studies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America issued a first draft of a proposed social statement entitled The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective. The more controversial sexual aspects of the document received predictably mixed reactions from church members. That document, in my opinion, contained an excellent summary of what "love of neighbor" is all about, very much like the Family's Law of Love.
Paul also understood the Law to be completed in Christ (Romans 10:4). Through Christ's redemption, we are made right with God and called to love the neighbor. All the commandments are summed up in "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:8-10; see also Galatians 5:14). Love of neighbor takes precedence over purity concerns, since nothing is unclean of itself (Romans 14:14; see also Mark 7:14-15). Christians are freed from the requirement to observe numerous cultic and purity laws. Instead, we are called to the more challenging task of discerning what it means to love God and the neighbor in particular situations (as Paul illustrates in Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians). This discernment occurs as the Spirit works through the Gospel in the community of the baptized (The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective, a draft proposal, 1993).
Bishop John Shelby Spong (whose overall sexual liberality in some areas of his general teachings far exceeds what the Family considers the scripturally allowable boundaries) does, however, express the underpinning principles of the Law of Love as follows:
Sex is still powerful. Where sex enhances life I am prepared to call it good. Where sex destroys or diminishes life, I am prepared to call it evil. I seek a pattern in which sex can be Holy for the mature post-married adult (Spong, 1989).
THE BIBLE -- RELIC, ANTI-SEX HANDBOOK OR X-RATED READING?
L. William Countryman prefaces his book Dirt, Greed and Sex with the following comment:
Controversy over sexual ethics have pervaded the Western world in our century, and the Bible has been an important factor in them. Some voices invoke its authority; others attack it as a baleful influence. Some hold that it lays down a clear-cut sexual ethic; others hear in it a multiplicity of messages not always in agreement with one another. Whichever may ultimately be right, we have at least learned that interpreters of Scripture do not all agree with one another and that people can invoke the Bible on behalf of a variety of contemporary ethical positions. Such a situation calls for a fresh and careful reading of the Scriptures. . . . I began looking into the Biblical texts on this subject [sex] with several quite definite presuppositions. . . . I expected to find no more than scattered and independent moral pronouncements on sexual issues. . . . [and] that the biblical authors as a whole were negative toward sex and regarded it as something to be avoided in general and indulged, reluctantly, only under narrowly defined circumstances. In both cases, I have found that close study of these texts has modified my understanding of the matter sharply and in directions that I could not have predicted (Countryman, 1988: 1).
Many Christians are tempted to abandon their confidence in the Bible because they don't see how it can or does apply to "real" life in our times. David Brandt Berg was firmly convinced that the Scriptures can be just as alive, joyful, liberating, meaningful and applicable in today's world as they have ever been, and that the universal principles set down in God's Word will most certainly survive this present troubled world. Part of the mission of the Family has been to help others rediscover that wonderful path to Jesus, joy and freedom that is laid down in the Scriptures.
Many liberal theologians suggest we now set aside our Bibles as antiquated artifacts, no longer needed in the present stage of human spirituality. The very liberal Bishop Spong is known for making some very strong pronouncements about the Bible's validity, or lack of it, in today's world. Still, although critical of anyone taking too literal an interpretation or application of Scripture--which he believes needs to be considered more in the context of the time in which they were written--he still admits that for Christianity to survive, somehow our perception of Scripture and our human sexuality need to be brought more into perceivable harmony, for a house divided against itself simply cannot stand.
I do believe that there is a spirit beneath the letter that brings the Bible forward in time with integrity. That spirit must be sought with diligence. Without it the Bible will not be for our times a source of life or a guide in the area of sexual ethics (attributed to Bishop Spong).
CONCLUSION
Is sexual repression one reason why so many Christians are "falling away" from traditional churches? Are people finding sexual and spiritual fulfillment more attractive outside mainstream Christianity and finding themselves more and more in conflict with church teachings and traditions? Are they distancing themselves from what they perceive as aging Christian institutions?
Catholic priests McMahon and Campbel argue that for spirituality to be authentic and conducive to personal growth it must be firmly anchored in our bodily existence:
Our experience as two Catholic priest-psychologists active in ministry for nearly twenty-five years leads us to recognize that a significant number of those drifting away from institutional churches are responsible, mature, and developing adults. They are by no means self-indulgent individuals looking for an excuse to live a licentious life. In far too many instances, these are people who are profoundly concerned about spiritual matters, and who are totally undernourished by their church and therefore look elsewhere for resources to support growth (cited in Feuerstein, 1989: 55).
Bishop Spong puts forth the following provocative thoughts in his book, Beyond Moralism:
Many troubled people find healing, loving alternatives that are clearly short of the ideal but also short of the immoral. Life conspires to move us all out of a moralistic legalism into more loving and compassionate attempts to discover the best alternatives for both the individual and the community in a broken, imperfect world. It is our conviction that Christianity itself compels us to reject any rigid system that applies rules indiscriminately to human beings. No one would distribute shoes to people without first checking for size. Surely the moral code whose purpose it is to support and improve life can not be dispensed without a similar size and fit.
Christianity can be separated from the repressive legalism of yesterday, a legalism that is neither biblical nor essential in the realities of the twentieth century. Christianity, however, does have standards and norms that need to be heard in the midst of the hedonistic revolution of today. These principles are not so crisp or clear as the old prohibitions, but they are more loving and do spring from the sacredness of human life.
"Ye shall not commit adultery." This ancient commandment invites us to look at the depth of personhood, the depth of relationships, the sacredness of bodies, the fact that sex is powerful, and then decide how love, life, and being can be expressed so as to glorify the Creator in the sexual acts of the creature. Christians of the twentieth century are called to bear witness in word and deed in the arena of human sexuality (Spong, 1986: 106). (Emphasis added.)
Although the Family would not fully agree with all aspects of the sweeping sexual tolerance embraced by Bishop Spong and many other sexually liberal theologians, we can agree on the universal need for Christianity to make more loving moves forward in restoring sex to its rightful place of celebration, respect, testimony, joy and pleasure in Christian life. For nearly three decades our Christian missionary movement has not only carried the message of God's love and salvation through Jesus into all the world but we have also encouraged our fellow Christians to re-evaluate their attitudes towards sexuality. Our Family has weathered many storms of criticism and persecution arising from our sex-affirmative approach to life in the context of Christian growth and spiritual development.
As a member of the Family I strongly affirm the wonderful and needed place Scripture has in my life. Although certain Scriptures do seem to appear sexually restrictive, I believe that a comprehensive study of Scripture allows much greater sexual freedoms than traditional Christian sexual customs seem to permit. I would never suggest that the Scriptures must now be tossed aside as irreconcilable with present sexual realities, or as irrelevant and a hindrance to the dawning of a new liberating Christian sexual era. To presume in this most critical moment in Christian history that we have outgrown the need for the Bible, God's recorded words of guidance, I would consider total folly. I firmly believe that Christian sexuality and Scripture will yet join together in the wonderful unity and celebration God intended.
Dr. L. William Countryman in his book Dirt, Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today, carefully examines all the things he felt the sexual ethic of the New Testament seems to forbid. Still he does attempt to have us look at these in a whole new context. I will leave you with his well-balanced concluding remarks, made after a most exhaustive study of the matter.
The Bible takes sex more or less for granted and does not explicitly lay out a theology or philosophical understanding of it.
The New Testament's positive account of sex is that it is an integral part of the human person, particularly joining us to one another, and therefore has a right to be included in the spiritual transformation which follows upon our hearing of the gospel. The gospel, as it permeates every aspect of life, will and must permeate sexuality as well. If Christian teaching appears to flinch from sex, as something dirty or suspect, it is falsely Christian. . . . Sexuality, like every other aspect of human life, should be related to the center goal of that life, the reign of God.
Sex, therefore, is to be received with delight and thankfulness. It is a gift of God in creation which reflects for us the joy of God's self-giving in grace and the perfect openness of true human life in the age to come.
If I make satisfaction of sexual desire the overarching goal of my life, I have put the part in place of the whole and thereby lost perspective on its real value. . . . Sex is not the final goal of the creation.
The world begins in God's free act of creation and concludes in God's free act of grace--or rather in the rejoicing to which it gives rise. Prudery, narrowness, self-confident respectability will be no preparation for the life of the age of rejoicing. It is not surprising that Jesus alienated those who practiced such "virtues."
As marriage and family could not be the final goal for the first-century Christian, sexuality and self cannot be today. The Christian will find it very difficult to live in an intimate relation with one who does not understand or accept the kind of demands which God's calling makes. . . . The Christian must also retain a certain freedom to respond to God's call loyally in critical times.
The measure of a sexuality that accords with the New Testament is simply this: the degree to which it rejoices in the whole creation, in what is given to others as well as to each of us, while enabling us always to leave the final word to God, who is the Beginning and End of all things (Countryman, 1988: 265-267).
Sex is created and commanded by God for your enjoyment, unity, fellowship, procreation, and a type of His own relationship with us in the Spirit. God uses sex as a tool to keep man and woman together in beautiful harmony and having children and families and a happy, loving home. He wants you to have sex not only for your own physical enjoyment and satisfaction, but also to produce human beings, immortal souls for the Kingdom of God!
God in His wisdom has created this sexual union, this husband and wife relationship, this lover and loved intercourse to be a marvelous picture, an illustration in the physical of your spiritual relationship with Him and your union with your Heavenly Bridegroom. The sexual relationships and its fruits are symbolic of His own holy relationships with us, His Bride. He blessed it, empowered it, used it, and referred to it constantly throughout His Word as the greatest physical experience and relationship of man and woman with the most essential results: Procreation of the race!
Sex is the greatest proof of Love and God's existence, and the greatest loving experience that creates new life and new immortal souls for the Eternal Kingdom of God!--by David Brandt Berg (compiled quotes, Daily Might 2:196).
BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND BIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Booth, Father Leo
When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse. Jeremy P. Thacher, Inc. Los Angeles, 1991. Father Leo Booth is the vicar of St. George Episcopal church in Hawthorne, California. He specializes in recovery-treatment programs, and is the author of Meditations for Compulsive People, Say Yes to Life, and Spirituality and Recovery. He lives in Long Beach, California.
Countryman, L. William
Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. Fortress Press (USA), 1988.
L. William Countryman is Professor of New Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkeley, California.
Feuerstein, Georg
Enlightened Sexuality: Essays on Body-Positive Spirituality. The Crossing Press, Freedom, California, 1989.
Georg Feuerstein has published a dozen books, including Structures of Consciousness, Integral Publishing, 1987. He did postgraduate research in Indian philosophy at old University of Durham, England. He is a recipient of awards from the British Academy, editor of Spectrum Review, and general editor of the Paragon Living Traditions series of dictionaries.
Foucault, Michel
The History of Sexuality Volume I: An Introduction. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley, Penguin Books, 1978.
Fox, Matthew
The Coming of the Cosmic Christ. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1988.
Fuchs, Eric
Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and Marriage. New York: Seabury Press, 1983.
Eric Fuchs is a Swiss Protestant pastor. He has been director of the Protestant Study Center in Geneva and is now head of the ethics department of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. In his book, Sexual Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and Marriage, he devotes almost ninety pages to a chapter entitled, "Christianity and Sexuality: An Ambiguous History."
Gudorf, Christine E.
Body, Sex, and Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics. The Pilgrim Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.
Janus, Samuel S., and Cythia L. Janus
The Janus Report: Sexual Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1993.
Dr. Samuel S. Janus is a respected researcher in human sexual behavior and related issues and the author of The Death of Innocence and A Sexual Profile of Men in Power. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Sexology, a Board-certified sex counselor, and a Fellow of the American Institute for Psycho-therapy and Psychoanalysis.
Dr. Cynthia Janus has written and lectured widely on subjects in radiology and obstetrics and gynecology. She was formerly an executive board member of The Women's Medical Association of New York City.
Knaster, Mirka
"Massaging the Spirit: Bodywork." East West Magazine, July, 1990, v20 p. 50(3) n7.
Lebacqz, Karen and Ronald G. Barton
Sex in the Parish. Westminister/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991.
Karen Lebacqz is Professor of Christian Ethics, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California.
Ronald Barton is Associate Conference Minister, Northern California Conference, United Church of Christ, San Francisco.
Moss, Rachel
God's Yes to Sexuality: The report of a working group appointed by the British Council of Churches. Collins Fount Paperbacks, London, 1981.
Nelson, James B.
Between Two Gardens: Reflections on Sexuality and Religious Experience. New York, Pilgrim Press, 1983.
Raphael, Dominic S.
Dominic Raphael is a widely published and pastorally active Roman Catholic author writing here under a pseudonym. He feels that both his church and society need healing ideas in the area of sexual ethics. He feels it best to avoid personal controversy and confrontation but to quietly promote objective discussions.
Rousseau, Dr. Mary and Father Charles Gallagher
Sex Is Holy. Element Books Limited, Longmead, Shaftesbury, Dorset, 1991.
Professor of Philosophy at Marquette University. Dr. Rousseau, is a mother and chairperson of a special committee established by the Catholic Philosophical Society.
Father Gallagher is the founder of Worldwide Marriage Encounter, an ecumenical Christian program engaged in the concerns of married couples.
Schulz, David A.
David Schulz is a part-time professor, Episcopal priest, wood sculptor, residing in California. He is the author of Human Sexuality: The Changing Family, and other books on human relationships. He has taught seminars on sexuality and sexual harassment.
Sherrard, Philip
Christianity and Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sex and Love. SPCK Holy Trinity Church, London, 1976.
Philip Sherrard, formerly Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, is Lecturer in the History of the Orthodox Church at London University. He is the author of many books and articles on Orthodox, Byzantine, and Greek themes.
Sipe, A.W. Richard
A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy. Brunner/Mazel, Inc., New York, 1990.
Richard Sipe is an ordained Roman Catholic priest, now retired from the active ministry, who lives in Maryland, where he is a psychotherapist in private practice. He also lectures in family therapy at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, where he has held an appointment since 1972.
Smali, Dwight Hervey
Christian: Celebrate Your Sexuality. Fleming H. Revell Company, New Jersey, 1974.
Dwight Smali is a member of the faculty at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.
Spong, John Shelby and Denise G. Haines
Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments. Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1986.
Bishop John Shelby Spong's home-base is St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia.
Denise G. Haines is a female Episcopal priest, ordained by Bishop Spong in 1977. By 1983 she was a staff member of the Diocese of Newark serving as an archdeacon, thus becoming the highest-ranking woman-priest in the ecclesiastical structures of the Anglican communion. She is a wife and mother and is musically talented.
Spong, John Shelby (Bishop)
Living in Sin?: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality. Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1989.
Taylor, G. Rattray
Sex in History: The Story of Society's Changing Attitudes to Sex Throughout the Ages. The Vanguard Press, Inc., New York, 1970.
Gordon Rattray Taylor brings his broad training in both biological and social sciences to bear on the subject of sex and its historical affect on people.
Thomas, Gordon
Desire and Denial: Celibacy and the Church. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1986.
Gordon Thomas is the author and co-author of twenty-four books. Total sales exceed thirty-four million copies in thirty-six countries. Four have been made into successful motion pictures. He has reported on the papacy since the closing months of Pope John XXIII's pontificate in 1963. He covered the election of Pope Paul VI and had several private audiences with the pontiff during his fifteen-year reign, which ended with his death in 1978. He commented on the thirty-three-day pontificate and funeral of Pope Paul's successor, the first Pope John Paul, and the end to the 455 years of Italian domination of the papacy with the emergence of Poland's Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II. He has continued to monitor the workings of the Vatican and the Church without interruption, co-authoring two best-sellers, Pontiff and The Year of Armageddon. Desire and Denial has been sold as a major film production.
Wright, Lawrence
Saints and Sinners. Alfred A. Knope, New York, 1993.
Lawrence Wright grew up in Dallas, graduated from Tulane University, and spent a year at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. He has written two previous books, City children, Country Summer: A Story of Ghetto Children Among the Amish, and In the New World: Growing Up with America, 1960-1984. His articles have appeared in many places, including Texas Monthly, Rolling Stone, and The New York Times Magazine. He is a staff writer for The New Yorker. He lives with his wife and two children in Austin, Texas.
NOTES
[1] On Tuesday, June 6, 1995, a Church of England report, the first major study of the family by Britain's state religion for 20 years, was made public by the Church's Board of Social Responsibility, chaired by Bishop Alan Moorage. The report said that, "Living in sin" should no longer be regarded as sinful and the phrase should be dropped given the number of people who now live together before getting married. It also warned against judgmental attitudes about cohabitation and fornication, the report estimated that four in five couples will live together before they marry by the year 2000. The report also said the Church should resist the temptation to look back to a "golden age of the family" and help people build strong, committed and faithful relationships. The Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, leader of the Church of England, welcomed the report as a "rich resource in a continuing process of debate and soul searching," but he said it was not the Church's authoritative teaching. The report's recommendations are likely to go before a decision-making general synod of the Church of England. (Reuters, London.)
[2] Anthony Kosnik et al. (The Catholic Theological Society of America), Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, New York: Paulist Press, 1977: 85. Cited by Labacqz and Barton in Sex in the Parish, 1991: 35.
[3] Sister Kristen, a Franciscan nun who is a masseuse at the Jesuit Renewal Center in Milford, Ohio, had her initial invitations to her Christian "Massage Parlor" thrown back in her face by frightened Christians. However, she and her fellow nuns persisted and now operate several massage centers. Sister Kristen says: "I think people are really hungry for the healing effects of touch" (Knaster, 1990: 50).
[4] B. Myers, "Mother-Infant Bonding: Status of This Critical-Period Hypothesis," Developmental Review 4, 1984: 240-274; Robert Crooks and Karla Baur, Our Sexuality, 303; Jessie Potter, "the Touch Film."
[5] S. Rice and J. Kelly, "Love and Intimacy Needs of the Elderly," Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 5, 1987: 89-96.
[6] Alan Shestack et. al., Hans Baldung Grien: Prints and Drawings. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1981: 131.
[7] William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson, and Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 4th ed., New York: HarperCollins, 1992: 339.
[8] Jeffrey S. Turner and Laura Robinson, Contemporary Human Sexuality, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993: 425-426,429.
[9] Crooks and Baur, Our Sexuality, 480, 562-563.
[10] Citing author Margo Woods in Masturbation, Tantra, and Self Love, Burlingame, California: Down There Press, 1988: 102.
[11] We don't need a lot of words when we make love--four will do. These words are "please," "thank you," "ugh" and "wow!" The "wow!" is the one that counts, the one that all the others lead up to (Eric Berne, Sex and Human Loving).
[12] The Janus Report found that 22 percent of men and 17 percent of women in the study had had a homosexual experience. Of those, only 39 percent of the males (8.5 percent of the sample population) and 27 percent of the females (4.5 percent of the sample population) were actively involved in regular homosexual relations and only 4 percent of the men and 2 percent of the women polled actually considered themselves to be homosexuals. (Janus, 1993: 69,70).
[End]