Sex & the Jesus Ethics

FreeChristians

The Old Moral Order Is Passing Away!
But what do we do in the meantime?

Nothing excites preachers more than what they perceive as the "collapse of morality" in our "decadent" Western society. They see this as a sign of the end, since, as they reason, God's wrath is about to erupt any moment to punish modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

No doubt, our Western society is experiencing a kind of moral confusion, but as the authors of "The Guru Papers" Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad explain, this is not necessarily a negative thing:

"such breakdown is necessary during periods of transition and is part of the impetus leading ideally to the creation of new values, forms, and consciousness that will enable us to survive... At this time in history, the foundations of the old moral order are breaking down. When this occurs, two predictable and opposing forces accelerate the rift in the old order. They are:

1. Powerful movements that attempt to re-establish the strength of the old moral order. The essential stance here is that our basic problems are a function of having strayed too far from the verities of old. The solution given is the necessity to return to them with even more fervor. The increase in popularity and strength of fundamentalist perspectives, worldwide, is the most obvious example of this.

2. The searching for and experimenting with different forms of human interaction... This involves a recognition that new ways to problem-solve are needed to deal with the ...dilemmas brought about by human abuse the old moral order has not been able to contain... Within this point of view one hears from many different directions the need for a basic paradigm shift..." (The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, Frog, Ltd. Berkeley, California, 1993, p. 39 & 159)

It is all too easy to discern the two opposing forces that are "accelerating the rift in the old order". The first is the Conservative/Fundamentalist camp. The second one is the Modernist/Liberal camp.

Fundamentalists and Modernists are currently "locked in a worldwide battle for minds". This very visible conflict "is between old values and structures and a new reality that doesn't yet have a distinct shape or an appropriate moral structure to fit it. The current rise of fundamentalism over the entire planet is predictable in that when the fabric of society, including its moral underpinnings, begins to break down, the desire to return to the familiar and secure is inevitable... (ibid, p. 163)

The frail, ailing leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Cardinals backing him, are obviously aware of the dynamics of transitional periods like the one we are living in. They represent the fundamentalist perspective. The Pope, "a staunch traditionalist in practice and doctrine", recently told off the leader of the Anglican Church (Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams) about the ordination of an openly gay Anglican bishop in the US. The Pope made it explicitly clear that he considers the Anglican position on homosexuality as immoral. Taking the Pope's cue, Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen, who has been outspoken in his opposition to actively gay clergy, re-affirmed "the necessity to return" to the good old morals of the Church "with even more fervor". He said: "The Pope's words to Dr Williams are a reminder that the vast majority of Christian leaders teach, as they have always taught, that the endorsement of sex outside marriage is inconsistent with Christian leadership..."

The Vicar-General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Monsignor Les Tomlinson, made it clear that it is all about keeping the old moral order: "Some Anglican churches are departing from what we would understand was a moral position..." ("Pope warns of gay threat to Christian unity", by Barney Zwartz, The Age, October 6, 2003)

The Pope's position (homosexuality of course is but one of the many issues in question) is not as unpopular as some Liberal segments of the media may wish to think. In fact, a lot of Catholics, and other Christians, support the Pontiff's conservative outlook. It is almost automatic. In times of uncertainty people tend to long for absolutes, for strong leadership and for certainty, no matter where it comes from or what form it takes.

But the Old Moral Order, even though it is so valiantly defended by the conservative camp, is dying a sure death. It is falling apart because it cannot possibly deal with the challenges facing humanity in the 3rd Millennium. The old assumptions, on which the Old Moral Order has been based for millennia, are not holding water any more. The future demands radically new approaches. It demands a New Moral Order.

The problem for those "Modernists" or "Liberals" being on the side of the "new" is that "it is more difficult to make pronouncements with the total surety that those who back the old moral order are able to assume. Anything really new lacks the history of articulation that lends strength and credibility to its insights. Those seeking new forms are usually splintered into many factions of somewhat differing points of view. Consequently, it is difficult to get the alignment that traditionalists can muster because they come from an established 'known' that worked (to the extent that it did) for a long period (thousands of years). As a result, the forces wanting to revive the old are more certain, self-righteous, and morally accusative; while the forces seeking new solutions are often more tentative, sometimes apologetic, and often find themselves on the moral defensive..."

"The conundrum humanity faces is this: We are on a sinking ship, but the only materials we have to build a ship that will float come from the ship itself. The problem is that we must tear down the old ship before it sinks, rebuilding it at the same time without destroying the needed parts..." (The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power, pp. 160-161)

New Sex Ethics based on Jesus Ethics

In what follows, I will attempt to take the challenge posed by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. I will endeavor to examine the thorny issue of Sex & Religion from the standpoint of the Jesus Ethics. Without apology, I will lay aside all traditional Christian teaching on the topic of sex and re-examine afresh human sexuality under the searching light of the Jesus Ethics. During this process, I will try to determine which, if any, elements of traditional dogma can be re-affirmed, this time not as rules, but as helpful insights. It is my conviction that the "old sinking ship" contains all the necessary "good" materials to rebuild a new basis for sexual ethics, that will actually work.

Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad make an excellent point when they describe the Liberal Christian's work as much harder (compared to fundamentalists) because on the one hand he/she seeks to maintain the essence of Christ's teachings while letting go of all authoritarian thinking. There is no room for arrogance, certainty or absolutes here. As a Liberal Christian I fully understand the difficulty. Yet, I dare to go ahead and try to articulate a workable new sexual ethic.

I believe that it is in society's interest that the Christian Church, with all its faults, remains an important watchdog for morality. People, Christian or otherwise, look to the various Church institutions and denominations for guidance and advice in times of uncertainty and change. I believe that beneath all the religious faults, prejudices and errors, lies a treasure in the heart of the Church. This treasure is the Spirit of Jesus. Others call it the Essence of Jesus. But this treasure gets buried by the legalistic and authoritarian attitude of most Churches. The world needs this Spirit of Jesus for guidance and inspiration. For this to happen, the Church will need to be freed from "the written code which kills" and release once again the Essence of Jesus, "the Spirit which gives life"... By putting aside the written code of Church Tradition, we can discover anew the life-giving essence/spirit of Jesus.

I am curious to see, where the Spirit of Jesus, in the form of the Jesus Ethics, may lead us in regards to evaluating and understanding human sexual behaviour. So far, the leading figures of Liberal Christianity, to whom we are all largely indebted for currently preserving the Essence of Christianity, have all suggested that we adopt this Essence in the way we live out our lives. But this is too general and "vague" for some people who long for more concrete answers to life's problems. The Church too, if it is to embrace the principles of Liberal Christianity, must first see them in action bearing good fruit.

The main reason Liberal Christianity has been so much misunderstood by Conservative Christians is because the messages they receive from it are too vague and confusing. Liberal Christians do not resonate with the moral certitude conservative Christians are known by. In other words, for Liberal Christianity to prove itself as a viable option for the Church, it must first pass the real tests of life. Can the principles of Liberal Christianity apply as a recognizable standard by which people may make their way through the complexities of life? The wider Church wants to know for instance, if Liberal Christianity can empower and inspire a parent to raise his/her children as sexually healthy and responsible adults.

People want to know: Can we see less hurt people, less sexual exploitation, less unwanted pregnancy & abortion, less dysfunctional relationships, less broken families, less irresponsibility, less immaturity, less dehumanizing sex-industries, less sexual violence, less loneliness, less alienation, less suicidal teenagers, and less sexual disorders by applying the principles of Liberal Christianity?

What is the Jesus Ethic?

The answer to the question "What is the Jesus Ethic" is surprisingly simple and elegant.

The Jesus Ethic is not a code of ethics but an attitude. I sum it up as "be a nice person".

Others sum it up as "be kind and caring for others", "do not hurt anyone", "love your fellow human like yourself", or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or even, "do everything in love". Everyone can give his/her own definition of the Jesus Ethic. This is the beauty about it! No one has monopoly on it, there is no copyright on it and one does not need to be a religious person to understand it or practice it.

By far, Liberal Christians have come closest to understanding the Essence/Spirit of Jesus. Being free from the straitjacket of literalism, Liberal Christians have been able to grasp the gist of what Jesus was all about. By doing this they discover the Jesus Ethics. Here are some examples:

1. ReligiousTolerance.Org

In an informative piece by Canadian human rights watchdog ReligiousTolerance.org (see: JESUS' ATTITUDES ABOUT SEX ) we read that the best way to figure out Jesus' attitudes about sex is to simply apply the essence of His teachings:

"Many faith groups discuss what the Bible has to say about sexual behavior. But there are few biblical passages that reveal Jesus' beliefs on these matters. In fact, a case can be made that he did not directly discuss sexual matters at all. One source claims that the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) records 298 suggestions, recommendations and instructions by Jesus on how we should behave and believe. (We have not been able to verify this number.) Since he is recorded as mentioning sexual behavior only 0 to 3 times, he obviously did not give it great emphasis. The record is totally silent about his attitudes towards the main sexually-related religious controversies of the present day (ie homosexuality, birth control, sex before marriage, etc )... So, a case can be made that Jesus was totally silent on sexual matters! If an individual wants to match Jesus' expectations, then he/she will have to fall back on his general ethical teachings:

to treat and value one's neighbor as one would wish to be treated.
to not be exploitive, dominating, manipulative, controlling, violent, or abusive towards others.
to, above all, not abuse children.
Of course one could add to the above list of "Jesus Ethics", but the point that the editors of religioustolerance.org are trying to make is crystal clear. Everyone that has come to know Jesus can do the same.

2. Spong

Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong defines the Essence of Jesus as "loving totally, living fully, and being all that he can be". Out of this essence flow all the answers to the ethical dilemmas (including sexual) of our complicated age. But what does Spong mean by "loving totally, living fully, and being all that he can be"? How did he get all that?

About "loving totally", Spong says: "The experience of Jesus was an experience of love. This love was a powerful life-affirming reality. It was love that broke every human barrier and that swept over every human prejudice. It was love that would not be confined by the Jewish limits in which it was born. It embraced the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Samaritan. It was love that put human life before religious rules (The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath). It was love that transcended the religious definitions of what was thought to be clean and unclean. Not only gentiles but lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, and thieves were transformed with the power of that love..."

"No barriers could be erected around that love of God that was seen in the life of Jesus. It was a terrifying, barrier-free love that rendered our religious security systems no longer operative. Such a love called for profound changes in the human psyche. Such love called for openness, for the death of prejudice, for the radical insecurity of a fully accessible humanity, for the end of any human isolation. Such love could not be tolerated, rather, it had to be eliminated. The cross was a necessity of human life that was unwilling to be opened this widely, and human life was, in the first century, quite unwilling to be made so vulnerable..."

"Human life still is unwilling to be so vulnerable... We cannot, however, escape the power of the fact that Jesus means love-divine, penetrating, opening, life-giving, ecstatic love. Such love is the very essence of what we mean by God. God is love. Jesus is love. God was in Christ. This was the experience that sought to find verbal forms in such creedal concepts as the holy trinity, the incarnation, the virgin birth. It is not the creedal words that are sacred but the reality of the experience that lies behind the words, that is where holiness is met. The God who is love cannot be approached in worship except through the experience of living out that unconditional quality of love... When the love of God is contained inside human barriers it dies. It ceases to be demanding, searing, opening love of God. It has become instead the perfume of human respectability, sprinkled on the cesspools of human negativity. Perfume will never last into another generation. A contained, curtailed, domesticated, tamed love of God will never lead to the cross of Calvary. Jesus is the love of God that opens us and makes us vulnerable. The power of this Jesus can be met and known in every age. I have experienced this Christ when I've walked the edges of the ecclesiastical world and opened myself to the victims of the rejection of those who claim to be the church of God. On those edges Jesus is still present. He is powerful, alive, loving, probing, embracing. There is an eternal reality about the love of God that is present in the historic crucified life of Jesus of Nazareth. Behind the words of Scripture that love is seen...."

Spong correctly views sex as an expression of vulnerability. He makes the excellent point that without that, sexual expression can be destructive. The key is to acknowledge the vulnerability involved in the sex act:

Sex and Vulnerability
 (Spong's five points of sex advice)

 1. The sexual relationship between single adults must be just that-a relationship between single adults. It must not be a violation of either person's marital bond. If one's marital vow is broken by a sexual affair, that affair becomes an expression of dishonesty and will finally be destructive to both the marriage and the character of the violating person. 
 2. A sexual relationship between single adults must be a union of love and caring, not just a union of convenience or desire. 
 3. A sexual relationship does not appropriately initiate a relationship. Rather, a sexual relationship must grow out of the bond that two people build together over a period of time. Sex is not properly shared until many other things are shared, such as time, values, life stories, friendship, communication, and a sense of deep trust and responsibility. In other words, sex is not appropriate until there is a structure that will protect each person's vulnerability. 
 4. Intimacy is by its nature an intensely private and discreet human activity. Appropriate vulnerability requires that it must be kept that way. If both partners are not willing to protect the vulnerability of the other, the relationship becomes hurtful, hateful, and destructive. The sacred exclusive quality of these special moments cannot be compromised by gossip, by indiscretion, or even after the relationship has come to an end, by an expression of one person's anger. The unwillingness to make this commitment, or to carry through on it once made, would argue that the relationship was built on the power of ego needs and are the vulnerably of Personhood. 
 5. The relationship in which sex is shared by single adults needs to be exclusive. It may not turn out to be eternal, but while it is active it does need to be exclusive. Multiple sex partners at the same time is a violation of vulnerability, commitment, honesty, and the reality of caring... (John Spong, Living In Sin, page 214)

About "living fully", Spong says:
 "The experience of Jesus was also an experience of life, by which I mean whole life. Jesus was alive. Jesus was present with those whom he engaged. There was, in the words of Paul Tillich, an "eternal now" about his life. People around him felt engage by him. He was alive to the woman of the street who interrupted dinner in the house of Simon the Pharisee to wash Jesus' feet with her tears and to dry them her hair (Luke 7:36ff). He was also present to the woman whose only desire was to touch the hem of his garment (Luke 8:43ff). He was present to the crowds who covered his path with palm branches (Mark 11:1ff), as well as to the soldiers who drive the nails of crucifixion (Luke 23:34). He was present to the penitent thief and to his grieving mother (John 19:26ff) even as his life force was being emptied. Jesus showed the meaning of life so deeply, so richly, and so completely that the very source of life seemed to be present in him..."

 "...Behind the words, the parables, the stories of Jesus in Scripture, there is a life that is appealing, transcendent, open, full, and free. It is the portrait of a life that is in touch with a reality so powerful that is has escaped all human limits. It is a picture of life so deeply loved that it has expanded to the point where it presses against every human limitation... Jesus was alive, totally alive, and to that vibrant, vital life God was experienced. This God was perceived in Scripture and creed as a human form who lived just beyond the sky, who manipulated life by entering it and by withdrawing from it. That limited view has faded. This God is now perceived as the presence of life that animates the universe, that reaches self consciousness in Homo Sapiens, and that breaks open to the essence of transcendence in Jesus of Nazareth. In the fullness of this life we enter the same experience of God that marked the life of Jesus. We worship this God and acknowledge the saving power of this Jesus when we dare to live openly, fully completely-affirming the life of God that is within us, the God whom Paul asserted was in Christ is also in those of us who acknowledge that presence with a commitment to live..."

 About "being all that one can be", Spong says:   "...the experience of Jesus was an experience of Being. If God is the Ground of Being, how does that which is relate to the ground of all? This is the ultimate religious question. How does one worship the God who is Being?... How did Jesus reflect this ground of being, which caused people to see in this life the very Being of God? The biblical record reveals a Jesus who had the courage to be himself. It is the portrait of one who did not need flattery. He could endure the ultimate abuse of having his life taken from him, but his "being" remained intact. His being did not seem to waver, regardless of the external circumstances. Somehow in a unique way Jesus was what God created him to be. In Jesus the full meaning of creation seemed to break forth. He both lived out the meaning of the Ground of Being in his own life and through his love gave to others the capacity to enter their own being at deeper and deeper levels. He still does this, for the Christ-power we meet in Jesus is an eternal presence of the Holy God..."

 "...To be a Christian, said Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his letters from prison, is not to be religious-it is just "to be." Religion is but one more mask that insecure people put on to cover their sense of personal inadequacy. The call to Christ is an eternal call to the affirmation of that which is. In the words of the popular commercial, it is a call to be all that one can be... To have the courage to be oneself, to claim the ability to define oneself, to live one's life in freedom and with power is the essence of the human experience. "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly," said the Christ of the Fourth Gospel (John 10:10). True Christianity ultimately issues in a deeper humanism. That is why any attitude that kills the being of another person is an affront to the meaning of Christ. To be a humanist is to affirm the sacredness of life. Jesus touched the depth of being, and the Christ experience is nothing less than our call to be who we are, inside the love of God. I worship this Jesus when I claim my own being and live it out courageously and in the process call others to have the courage to be themselves..."

Spong then challenges us: "It is scary to be a follower of Jesus. It even elicits great anger form the religious establishment. It loosens the power of religious institutions to control behavior. It opens one to the immensity of human life, to new dimensions of consciousness and transcendence. To follow Jesus is to be called to walk into the very being of God..."

 This is how Spong sees the Jesus Ethics in action:  "Jesus reveals God in loving totally, living fully, and being all that he can be. I worship the God I meet in Jesus by risking love, by daring to live, and by having the courage to be myself-my best, deepest, and holiest self. As I walk to the edges of life and bump into the meaning of transcendence, I find God over, under, around, and through all that I know and all that I am. So the call of Christ to me is an eternal call to love, to live, and to be. It is an invitation to work for those things that create life and to oppose those people, those attitudes, and those systems that distort life. It is to become aware of the freeing, exhilarating, consciousness raising experience of the Holy God. That God calls me into every-new possibilities. I have never met God by retreating form life. I seem to meet God only when I enter deeply into life. That is the God that I confront when I look deeply at Jesus of Nazareth... I commit myself anew to live "in Christ," as Paul would say, by living, loving, and being, as one who has been transformed by the infinite and eternal presence of God. Christianity becomes for me not an empty and outdated set of scriptural and creedal concepts but a new adventure in living..." (Who is Christ for Us? by John Shelby Spong)

In the pages to follow we shall examine just how "the call of Christ... is an eternal call to love, to live, and to be", and more importantly how "to work for those things that create life and to oppose those people, those attitudes, and those systems that distort life", especially in relation to human sexuality. 

3. Brinsmead

 Australian essayist R. Brinsmead has also grasped the essence of Jesus. He concludes that there is really only one evil, and that's the failure to act in a humane way: 

"...Joshua ben Adam's (i.e. the historical Jesus) sayings and parables exposed human evil in a devastating way. Yet he rarely used the word sin. It was not a normal part of his vocabulary as it was with his contemporaries and the early Christians. .. Sin belongs to the vocabulary of religion. Religion is pre-occupied with sin, and so are all religious people.

...Many people at the bottom or on the margins of Joshua's society could not avoid "sin" because they were ignorant of the Torah (the religious rules). If they were also sick and destitute this was regarded as a sign of God's displeasure. They were then trapped in double guilt. .. The more privileged people spent a lot of effort observing the purity code to avoid defilement. This pre-occupation with religion and sin blinded them to how inhuman they were. Their whole value system was distorted. As Joshua said, they strained at gnats and swallowed camels ("unclean" animals). A speck of sawdust in a brother's eye was deemed a greater offence than a log in their own eye. Whilst they fussed over the minutia of religious sin, they neglected the big issues of human existence like justice, equality (love your neighbor as yourself), forgiveness and compassion.

 "...Real evil, according to Joshua, has nothing to do with the religious icons whether they are foods, rituals, garments, days, places or anything else. Evil has to do with the way we treat people, nothing more and nothing less. The living God has given us a living icon or image of himself and it is people. Nothing else matters! ...religious affiliations, practices and belief systems don't really count. The only thing which matters is doing the human thing.... There is only one evil, and that's the failure to be human. .." ( see: No Sin - Except by R. Brinsmead)

4. Nolan

After analyzing the tradition of sayings attributed to Jesus, Catholic author and social activist Fr. Albert Nolan concludes that Jesus was all about promoting true humanity: "What then is required or demanded? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. God would only inspire you and assist you to be more human. That is all. Simply love, share, and do not dominate anyone else. Try to be more like God- loving and generous. Treat all others as you would want them to treat you, as a free equal. Follow the example of true humanity that we see in the life of Joshua..." ( "Jesus Before Christianity", by Albert Nolan, p.48, source: Joshua Versus Jesus).

Again, the emphasis is on acting in a humane way. As far as sex is concerned, we can evaluate our behavior and the behavior of others as pro-human or anti-human. Sexual behavior can be seen as pro-human when it enhances and enriches life and anti-human when it crushes, dominates or violates life. These timeless principles can be applied in every situation we seek to understand and evaluate.

I could list several more examples, but I think that I have made my point clear. There is nothing mysterious or difficult to understand about the Jesus Ethics. Every human being has access to the Spirit of Jesus "the human one". We do not need a Pope, a Televangelist or a Patriarch to tell us what is good and what is evil in regards to our sexual behavior. We simply have to ask ourselves: "Am I being a nice person? Am I doing the humane thing?"

Disclaimer: This site is not intended to be a substitute for proper medical, professional or spiritual advice for those who suffer from the type of problems that the site covers. The site or its editors cannot take any legal or other responsibility for visitors and readers' responses to the site. It is the responsibility of visitors whether they choose to read the features and articles, and whether they choose to follow any advice therein. The site and the articles are intended to be helpful and positive. Also please note that we cannot take any responsibility for the quality or nature of the external links to other web sites which are found on this site.