The Old Renunciate Paradigm and the New Morality
FreeChristians

Recommended Reading

Needed: A Continuing Sexual Revolution by James B. Nelson

Transforming Sexuality Changing the Context of Conquest, by Diana Alstad and Joel Kramer

Living in Sin? : A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality
By John Shelby Spong

TEEN PREGNANCY:
REAL CAUSES, REAL PREVENTION
by Anne Neville

The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe

The Christian Church seems torn by two opposing forces, the conservatives and the modernists. Both sides seem dedicated to the same cause: the future survival of Christianity and the betterment of humanity. Sometimes the impression is made that only conservative Christians support the family. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, both conservative and liberal Christians are committed to "family values". They only differ in their approach. Conservative Christians hold to the view that the institution of family can only survive and prosper through good old Puritanism. Liberal Christians on the other hand claim that the key to a healthy family is love. Conservative Christians feel that the institution of family is mainly threatened by sex in the form of adultery, promiscuity, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and sex education. Liberal Christians point out factors that suffocate love, factors like poverty, career ambition, alienation, selfishness, stress, depression, anxiety, anger, frustration, etc. 

I happen to agree more with the liberal point of view, but I still acknowledge that conservative Christians are genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of people and for the nurturing of healthy families. I just think that conservative Christians are barking up the wrong tree. 

So Conservative and Liberal Christians are not that alike. They are on the same side, so to speak. The major difference between conservative and liberal Christians is strategic. The conservatives believe that the Church (and institutions like family) will only survive if people steadfastly hold on to the traditional Christian doctrines while the modernists believe that the Church will only survive if it continually updates its teachings in light of every new bits of knowledge about reality. 

This difference in strategic thinking is most evident in the current worldwide Church divisions and controversies in regards to sexual issues. 

In spite of accusations hurled by each side, they are both sincere in their objectives and they both mean well. I openly acknowledge that I am more sympathetic to the modernist side, and let me explain why. Both the modernist side and the conservative side uphold a basic respect for human life which they consider as sacred. So far so good. Holding human life as sacred is very compatible with the Jesus Ethics. The problem with the conservative camp is that it adds the cultic element of morality as it continues indulging in the "renunciate" mindset. This is evident especially in the way conservative Christians view human sexuality.

Because I believe that the renunciate mindset is other worldly and thus contrary to the Jesus Ethics, I find myself having no choice but to lean on the modernist side. Still, I acknowledge that the conservative side is needed for balance, and more importantly as a watchdog for the interests of society, an important albeit unsavoury role. This somehow compensates for the lack of "filtering" by Liberal Christians who enthusiastically accept everything and anything new, without any qualifications whatsoever. On the other hand, conservative Christians need the "opposition" of Liberal Christians in order to avoid becoming overly conservative. 

The collapsing renunciate paradigm

 In the pages that follow, it will be argued that the time is ripe for Christianity to adopt a purely humanistic basis for Sexual Ethics. A humanistic basis will be more effective and appropriate than the traditional otherworldly sexual morality. What else but otherworldly are some of the teachings of the Church regarding human sexuality? Christian leaders throughout the ages have distorted reality by "demonising" human sexuality. They have conditioned the faithful to a strange puritanical mentality where sexual pleasure is seen as antithetical to spirituality. They have set Sex in opposition to God!

The gist of the argument will be this: If instead of making a priori assumptions about sex Churches only applied the maxim "nothing in itself is impure but anything can become impure when used for evil", they would come closer to a more workable approach to the difficult topic of human sexuality. 

Sex is not something evil or defiling. No one is defiled (in a religious sense) by having sex. But when people use sex to cause harm on themselves or others then we have "sexual abuse". In this regard, sex is like religion/spirituality. In fact, religion should never had been set in opposition to sex. Both sex and religion are perfectly healthy forms of human behaviour as they correspond to real needs. But when they are used for harm, then they are "contaminated". In abusive situations, basic human needs like spiritual thirst and sexuality are used as tools for control and harm. 

Christian Churches are slowly learning to recognise the distinction between real evil and imaginary evil. Real evil is when people are harmed, manipulated, dominated, abused, deceived, denigrated, humiliated, dehumanised, etc. Imaginary evil is when religious codes or ideals of purity are disregarded. At the moment, Churches include both real evil and imaginary evil in their discourses on sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, all the noise they make about imaginary evil is just that, noise. Meaningless noise that obscures the real problems faced by today's world. Churches should "get on with the program" and start making sense in what they have to say to people living in the 21st Century. I argue that their sex-discourse will become more effective and relevant to modern society if they drop their preoccupation imaginary evil and focus only on exposing real evil. 

I recognise that this is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for most Churches to do. But it is worth the try...

The problem is that the Christian Religion traditionally approaches sexual morality from a cultic point of view, promoting an ideal of religious/spiritual "purity". Sexual activity has been viewed as "defilement" of the person/s involved. This is typical of what anthropologists call "renunciate religions". The idea is that God or the gods require from humans to renunciate (give up) carnal pleasures in order to become more spiritual. 

"At the heart of most religions", assert cult experts Kramer and Alstad, "is a morality of self-sacrifice that proceeds from what they call the renunciate world view. This view is authoritarian, they argue, because it claims that being "good" means sacrificing self-interest to some "higher" interest, which the authority conveniently defines. This allows the guru, Church or State to control the followers or citizens...". What the authors of the excellent book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power are calling for, "is a profound change in the basic philosophy of our culture. They argue for a morality that can develop the whole person through integrating and valuing both sides of the divided self, the spiritual and the carnal, the selfless and the self-centered, the compassionate and the egotistic. "The old paradigms," conclude Kramer and Alstad," all have some authority - be it leader, wise man, guru, avatar, representative of god, or prophet - telling the rest of us what life is about and how to lead it ...How to replace the old methodology that we are outgrowing is a major issue facing humanity." (see: The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad reviewed by Sharon Presley)

If people will do all sorts of crazy things in order to satisfy their baser needs like food, sex, security, approval and curiosity, how much more crazy things would they be prepared to do in order to achieve transcendence? The history of religions shows that people will indeed do all sorts of crazy things to satisfy their spiritual needs. All it takes is an expert, that claims to know how to get to God, and people will do whatever they are told, without questioning. They will renounce, not only food and drink or sex, but their very lives. 

Somewhere down the track, some religious experts decided that sex was an obstacle in the way of spiritual enlightenment. They removed God so far from human life that basic human needs and activities were renounced as "profane", as opposed to "the sacred things of God". As they were dividing reality between the sacred and the profane, these god-experts lumped sex in the "profane list". Christianity was one of the religions that adopted this artificial division of reality into sacred and profane. Sex was renounced by several fathers of the early Church as a profane activity, not worthy of God. Some even castrated themselves in order to get closer to God. The crazy things people will do to find God...

Of course there is nothing wrong with people seeking spirituality or transcendence. We are made this way... One way or another, all human beings thirst for transcendence, that sublime feeling of oneness with the universe, or with God. The problem is in the various ideologies and religious systems that hijack this basic human need: "The mystical experience is important, both as a historical factor influencing the perceptions of humanity, and also because of its relevance for individuals. But traditions that made an ideology out of the concept of Oneness created a morality that denigrated or made unreal the individual self with its individual interests. Any worldview that denies either the reality or importance of the individuated self ends up defining virtue as selflessness, which is achieved through self-sacrifice. When renouncing self-interest is the spiritual path, we define the morality as renunciate. Renunciate moralities have neither eliminated nor diminished self-interest, but have often made its expression more hidden and thus corruptible..." (see: Oneness, Enlightenment and the Mystical Experience, from Kramer and Alstad's "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power")

Lest any one get the wrong idea, Alstad and Kramer do not suggest that renunciate morality should be turned on its head that selfishness should be regarded as good and selflessness as evil or that spirituality is purely a product of social stratification. Instead, "they make it clear that self-interest is simply a necessary part of being human: like everything else in life, it is something to be acknowledged and kept in proportion and balance. As for spirituality, "Our indictment is not of the concept of spirituality per se, but rather of the ways it is used to . . . mask authoritarian control," which it does when it is rigidly separated from ordinary experience. "The hidden function of the sacred has been to get people to sacrifice to it." We are so accustomed to the renunciate worldview that we are normally blind to its authoritarian basis. The very construction of a category considered sacred immediately creates the non-sacred. Human experience becomes split, with all that is sacred being automatically unquestionable, protected, and "selfless"; meanwhile the realm of the non-sacred is unclean and unworthy, but more open to the free expression of selfishness and greed..." (see: Beyond Authoritarianism, by Richard Heinberg)

 The central issue is the "self", which people are told that they must deny in order to find God. This causes unnecessary grief. The problem is that selfishness is confused with self-love (see: Selfish - Selfless - Self-Love, by Marie T. Russell)

Even though selfishness can be said to be an obstacle to spiritual progress, there is nothing wrong with loving the self. After all, the self is made in God's image, and if you cannot love yourself how can you love God or anyone else for that matter? Because of this unfortunate confusion between selfishness and love of self, "carnal pleasure" came to be viewed as antithetical to spirituality, since the former gratifies the "self" while the later "transcends" it. This is how ascetism and monasticism came about. Renunciate religions (ie. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) develop strict parameters to contain the expression of carnal pleasure. In the case of sexuality, the parameter set by Christian Churches has traditionally been the institution of marriage where limited sexual pleasure is permitted for the sake of procreation and as a condensation to human weakness (ie "it is better to marry than to burn")

The underlying assumption is that for some unknown reason sexual pleasure is an obstacle to spiritual enlightenment. In order to get closer to God, Christians are told that they should deny or limit carnal pleasure, especially sexual pleasure. Even married Christians are expected to abstain from sex when they seek to get closer to God through "acts of temporary self-deprivation" like prayer and fasting. 

Out of the renunciate paradigm flow the various religious rules and regulations that seek to control human sexuality. Renunciate religions tend to be authoritative, either openly (ie Christianity) or covertly (ie Hinduism). In the case of Christianity, religious rules have been enshrined in sacred scriptures and church canons. These rules have acquired the status of God's eternal laws or commandments.

This "renunciate" assumption about sexuality no longer holds any water. It is ignored or dismissed by most people. Only conservative religious people accept the renunciate approach and the authoritarian control linked to it. It can even be argued that many conservative Christians merely pay lip service to it. For example, even though divorce (for any other reason except adultery) is seen as a direct violation of God's "eternal" commandments, divorce rates  among fundamentalist Christians are much higher from divorce rates among secular people (see: Marriage and Divorce ).

The Church can no longer say to people that such and such behaviour is a defilement (sin) "because the Church says so", "because God says so" or "because the Bible says so". Such claims are not effective any more because they are authoritarian in nature. People living in free/democratic societies demand to be given good reasons when told to act in certain ways. We all dislike being told what to do by would be "superiors" precisely because we have tasted freedom and seen that it is good. Hierarchical structures in Western Societies are now widely seen as problematic. Many organizations are now adopting more "horizontal" models of management. People want to be persuaded, not ordered around! 

Many Churches are beginning to recognise this. They are becoming less authoritative. They still try to control the behaviour of their members by quoting infallible scriptures or church canons, but they also employ rational arguments. As a result we see Christian leaders evaluating human behaviour in terms of its effects. When they want to prove that a certain behaviour is wrong or "sinful" they try to point out any associated negative effects. This is definitely a move towards the right direction, but they still have a long way to go. 

The drawback is that they first make up their minds about what behaviour is "sinful" and then they try to find supporting data (statistics, real life examples, etc) that confirm their views. The same flawed methodology is adopted by opponents of traditional church views (ie. "liberals"). It is an incorrect methodology, whether used by conservatives or liberals. One sided arguments are simply not helpful for improving our understanding of the human condition. 

The problem with Christian churches is that they continue to be very authoritarian and conservative, holding on to unrealistic concepts about sexuality. The ideal sexuality according to Christian Tradition is virginity or celibacy. Christian folklore throughout the ages has idealised and glorified total abstinence from sex in the form of virginity or celibacy. The ideal community of believers, according to the author of the Book of Revelation is a community of celibate males "who have not defiled themselves with women". Like the Gnostics of old, many Christians today still view sex as a "necessary evil", or as something "dirty". The two largest Christian Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, merely tolerate sex within the marriage bond, as a condensation to human weakness and, of course, as a necessary evil for the purpose of procreation. In an early Gnostic gospel (gospel of Thomas) Jesus was made to say that people can only enter the kingdom of God when they become a-sexual, when males would stop being males and when women would stop being women. Perhaps what the Gnostics meant was that for the kingdom of God to fully come, the human race must first go extinct!

Impossible ideals of puritanical perfection do more harm than good. These otherworldly ideals have failed miserably to materialise in the past and will continue to fail in the future. Human beings are sexual beings, and unless they are de-humanised, they cannot deny their sexuality. To say that sexuality is not a necessary aspect of humanity, (like many theologians still claim) is to deny humanity. That many Christian churches now appear to fully endorse or "celebrate" sex within marriage is more of an indication of desperate measures to combat high divorce rates than really accepting sex. They still view sex outside marriage as a defiling act. Thus a person is believed to be defiled by having sex if not married. The word "defilement" is obviously cultic. It has to do with cultic purity. The sexual offender is guilty of defiling himself/herself. This has nothing to do with hurting someone. 

As we mentioned earlier, true morality has to do with how we treat people. This is the essence of the Jesus Ethics. What matters is how we treat others. Our moral duty is to act in a humane manner. Humanistic ethics are very straight forward: If we harm people we do evil, if we benefit people we do good.

On the other hand, religious/cultic morality is essentially self-centred. The cult follower is only concerned on staying "pure" in order to please the deity and avoid punishment or reap rewards. This is the underlying rationale of Christian sexual ethics. In other words, the assumptions behind Christian sexual ethics remain cultic. This is why Christian sexual ethics fail. They put their peculiar brand of sexual ethics before humanity. 

Instead, we need sexual ethics that truly serve humanity. We need humane principles that correspond to reality. We saw in the previous section how the essence of Jesus' teaching perfectly fits the bill. Jesus was more a humanist than a religionist. Whenever he had to choose between keeping religious rules and human needs he chose the later: "Religious rules (ie. Sabbath) were made to serve humans" he said, and not the opposite!

The Jesus of History was not an ascetic! Nor did he have any problem with enjoying the everyday "carnal" pleasures of life. The "son of man" (ie. the human one), enjoyed life to the fullest.  Unfortunately, the Christian religion that was later created in his name, invented an austere, ascetic Jesus, "the Celibate Son of a Virgin Mother". As a result, the Christian religion glorified virginity, ascetism and the "mortification" of the flesh, while it systematically demonised the pleasures of life.

Robert Brinsmead makes a clear distinction between the real Jesus of History (whom he calls Joshua ben Adam) and the mythical "Virgin born Jesus" of Christian tradition. He explains how as a result of inventing this mythical Jesus, Christianity became an ascetic religion: "Christianity was not a hundred years old before it was swept up in a contagion of celibacy. A veritable tidal wave of monkery and nunnery continued unabated for centuries. This was all inspired by the religious devotion to Jesus ben Parthenos (Jesus the son of a Virgin), the celibate son of a sexless mother. The systematic denigration of women and human sexuality among the so-called "early fathers" of the church down to the time of Augustine in the fourth century was absolutely appalling. .. Multitudes of women became perpetual virgins for the faith. Men rushed off to monasteries in droves, some to castrate themselves after the example of Justin, others to flagellate the flesh so as to conquer their natural impulses. ... But we need to ask the question, where did this world-hating, life-denying asceticism spring from? It was the fruit of the veneration of the celibate son of a perpetual virgin. This ideal Christian humanity was more surreal than real... Anyhow, this new heavenly humanity ruled the Church through the frightful vertical authority of a celibate hierarchy. Who else could fitly represent the God who became the celibate son of God’s virginal mother? Joseph Campbell and a host of other scholars have marshalled irrefutable evidence that these Christian claims were in fact old pagan myths which had been recycled for thousands of years. .."

"We can confidently say that Joshua ben Adam didn’t have an ascetic bone in his body. This very social ‘eating and drinking’ man sometimes outraged his male company by his egalitarian interactions with women. There is some evidence, although not conclusive, that Mary Magnalene was either his wife or lover. But even if that cannot be established one thing is certain: Joshua’s view of the essential goodness of the created order was profoundly in the best Jewish tradition. Judaism, it must be remembered was never an ascetical religion which advocated abstinence from "wine, women and song". .. There is an old Rabbinical saying that God will ask us at the end of life, "did you enjoy all the good things the world gave you to enjoy". It would be too bad if we had to answer, "I was too pre-occupied getting my soul to heaven to notice". .. It is quite amusing to compare the old Christian commentaries on the Song of Solomon with the Jewish ones. Thankfully the Church has made progress in its attitudes to the essential goodness of life. Modern Christian commentaries now acknowledge that the Old Testament Song of Solomon is nothing but a celebration of sexual love, something that would have appeared almost pornographic to the poor Jerome, fighting back the tormenting images of dancing virgins during his desert solitude..." (See: R. Brinsmead's "The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, Part 1" & The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam, Part 7)

For two thousand years, the various Church institutions have created a great deal of confusion, and suffering, in issues relating to human sexuality. The Church got away with it in the past, but not anymore... The constant sexual scandals within the Church (not to mention the shameful cover ups...) don't help either, as leaders are exposed to be operating by double standards. While the pious leaders of Churches cover up their paedophile priests or pastors, they spew venom against the world's "sexual depravity". 

 Citizens of the ever growing secular city cannot help but roll their eyes every time they hear about Christian "sexual morals". Are the secular folk wrong? We will see that while they leave a few questions unanswered, those that argue for the secularisation of sexual ethics do make some valid points. We propose that the Jesus Ethics can function as a bridge between secular and religious people. After all, the Jesus Ethics are in a profound way humanistic. 

 While the world is facing so many real problems (poverty, hunger, injustice, exploitation, war, crime, hatred, loneliness, alienation, fear, anxiety, depression, mental illness....) a large sector of the Christian Church seems to be preoccupied with forcing down the throats of people a pre-packaged sexual morality (coined "family values") creating thus the impression that all God cares about is how homo-sapiens use their genitals! 

 These, and many more cases where sex-obsessed Christianity misses the mark in regards human sexuality have backfired in a big way making the Church look like an annoying and irrelevant institution that has been caught up in a time-warp. As a result, public opinion is becoming increasingly put off by Christian Sexual Ethics. 

Confused Voice

The Christian morality Voice is now seen as irrelevant, as ridiculous, as erroneous, as damaging and as hypocritical. The world is no longer intimidated by every new pronouncement by the Vatican, while the constant sexual scandals intensify the rolling of everyone's eyes... Even Catholics ignore what the Pope has to say about human sexuality. And as George Bernard Shaw once said, "Why should we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn’t..." Ha, ha, ha. 

 But Conservative Protestant Christians are in just as much trouble as the Catholics. It is now being widely recognized by Biblical Scholars that Bernard Shaw's smart-alecky comment also applies to the advice given by St. Paul in his epistles. All those sexual references in the epistles of Paul are now seen as the words of a celibate Christian leader, and not as the "infallible" words of God: "A new generation of Scripture scholars is challenging many of the commonplace assumptions about who Paul was and what his teachings meant. Armed with more precise information about the historical Paul and his times, these scholars offer an arresting view of Paul as he saw himself: a Jewish apostle to the gentiles who did not envision the founding of a new religion, a pastor who was more concerned about communal behavior than individual salvation- and a counselor who never expected that his ad hoc advice would become sacred Scripture. Because Christian theology has been shaped so largely by Pauline thought, the tendency has been to argue over every nuance, on the premise that Paul was a systematic theorist setting down doctrinal truth for all time... In fact, his letters are highly situational responses to complex congregational problems... In sum, the new scholarly consensus presents Paul as primarily a pastor whose letters were designed to resolve congregational problems that the roving apostle could not attend to in person. Some of those problems are no longer important to Christians" (Kenneth Woodward, "How to Read Paul, 2000 Years Later" in Newsweek, Feb. 29, 1988, p.65, source: Rescuing God From Religion- Part 2). 

 Don't get me wrong. I love St. Paul's writings which have benefited me greatly. But they are not infallible. They are not God's eternal words. They are Paul's words, sometimes quite inspired (and inspiring), other times full of human weakness. By "demoting" Paul's words from divine to human, we actually honour Paul more, as we recognize the grace of God that can work through everyone, including St. Paul. 

The silence of Jesus on Sex

 In an informative piece by religioustolerance.org (see:  JESUS' ATTITUDES ABOUT SEX ) we read: 

 "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 )..."

After presenting the scant gospel passages on sex, the editors of religioustolerance.org conclude: 

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.

 The above-mentioned "general ethical teachings" of Jesus are what I refer to as the Jesus Ethics. As it turns out, the Jesus Ethics are very close to Humanistic Ethics. Jesus was the supreme humanist! 

Why the Written Tradition of the Church, including the Bible, cannot serve as a blueprint for sexual ethics

 In commenting on the recent bitter divisions within the Church over issues like homosexuality, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley said the following: "anybody brave enough to claim to know the inner mind of God, on the basis of a personal claim to be privy to the only conceivable interpretation of some biblical texts, is guilty of self-delusion. Literary texts are rarely as univocal, clear and distinct as we are sometimes led to believe. The debate itself is testimony to the complexities of the interpretative task... What are most needed right now are honesty and humility, and a willingness to acknowledge the possibility of alternative readings of hotly disputed texts. A civilised and reasoned discussion can be welcomed as a sign of vigorous life..." (Source: "The church needs reasoned debate ", The Age, June 28 2003 , by Archbishop Peter Carnley)

Professor of Christian ethics James B. Nelson asks: "Can we find a clear, consistent and authoritative sexual ethic in Scripture and tradition? At various points the Bible endorses sexual attitudes and practices most of us would now reject: women are regarded as the property of men; menstrual blood and semen are unclean"; intercourse during menstruation is proscribed; and polygamy, levirate marriage, concubinage and prostitution are accepted. On these matters some would argue that the cultic laws of the Old Testament are no longer binding, and they must be distinguished from its moral commandments. But such arguments fail to recognize that Scripture treats most of the sexual mores mentioned above as moral, not cultic, issues...    Nor does the pos-tbiblical Christian tradition provide unambiguous guidance. Selective use of tradition is almost as common as selective use of Scripture... few of us would endorse those elements of tradition that baptize patriarchal oppression, endorse violence against women, oppress lesbians and gays, exalt perpetual virginity as the superior state, or declare that heterosexual rape is a lesser sin than masturbation (on the view that the latter act contradicts nature while the former act, while also sinful, is in accordance with nature) The post-biblical tradition, like Scripture itself, does not provide one coherent, consistent sexual ethic. We are left, whether we like it or not, with unfinished business..."
( Needed: A Continuing Sexual Revolution by James B. Nelson )

Walter Wink ( Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality The Christian Century, November 7, 1979) patiently explains just how Biblical sexual ethics are anything but absolute. He gives plenty of examples: "Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18: 19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be summarily executed (Lev. 18:29, though 15:24 contradicts this). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Are they sinners? The Bible nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults -- a discovery that caused John Calvin no little astonishment. The Song of Songs eulogizes a love affair between two unmarried persons, though even some scholars have conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. For millennia the church has forbidden sex outside of marriage. Today many teen-agers, single adults, the widowed and the divorced are reverting to “biblical” practice, while others continue to believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Which view is right? ..."

"Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Some people may still feel that uncleanness attaches to semen and menstrual blood, but most people who consider themselves “enlightened” regard these fluids as completely natural and only at times “messy, not “unclean.” Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males’ property rights over women.

After giving example after example of the relativity in Bible sex ethics, he concludes: 

"The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period. .." (ibid)

"Approached from the point of view of love, rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. ...Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than of the letter, the question ceases to be “What does Scripture command?” and becomes “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, psychology, genetics, anthropology and biology?”... In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right..." (ibid)

 How "Christian Sexual Morality" is not necessarily better than "Secular Sex Ethics"

The secular mind is not impressed by Christian claims to sexual morality: "I find it interesting that none of them can answer this simple question: Why is sex considered "unclean"?... The problem here is not humanist "immorality", but Christian sexual repression. Christian moderates can usually agree with humanists on matters of human rights, or what classical philosophers described as the "dignity of Man", but they often agree with their fundamentalist peers when it comes to sexuality. Christians tend to view sex as a love of the flesh which draws people away from God and is therefore immoral (since allegiance to God is paramount in their moral code)... What the Hell is so damned bad about sex? Fundamentalists are notoriously narrow-minded, and they tend to assume that their bizarre equation of "sex=immorality" is universal. However, this is completely untrue, even among religions. Not only do atheists uphold sex as natural and beautiful, but Taoists uphold it as part of their religion, and many polytheistic religions even have special gods or goddesses devoted entirely to sexuality! Could it be that the early Israelites knew that in order to build a religion upon a sense of collective guilt for sin, one would have to define sin in such a manner that everyone is guilty? What better "sin" than sex, which is truly natural and truly universal?..."  

"Unlike Biblical value systems, the humanist moral code is utterly unconcerned with "closeness to God". It is concerned only with ethics, not bizarre prohibitions against physical pleasure. Therefore, as long as the acts are consensual and do not involve children, it contains no prohibitions against nudity, sex, kinky sex, enthusiastic sex, sex on Sundays.... And why should it? Is it wrong to enjoy sex, or make a game out of it?.. And must we equate the joy of sex with marital infidelity? Marital infidelity is immoral for either a Christian or a humanist. I promised my wife many years ago that I would be loyal until death do us part, and my word is my bond, as any humanist who understands the importance of integrity will attest (there are also other non-religious reasons to avoid infidelity, but I'm straying a bit off-topic)... If a humanist asks his wife to dress up in a French maid uniform, carry a feather duster, and role-play that old story about the hotel guest and the naughty ... (ahem, perhaps I'll skip the details), he isn't hurting anyone. If a lonely teenager jacks off at night, he isn't hurting anyone (I don't think he should be beaming with pride, but he's not hurting anyone). If two consenting adults are engaged in a relationship and have premarital sex, they aren't hurting anyone. If two people want to talk dirty during sex, or watch porno while they're doing it, or use sex toys... they're not hurting anyone. Try as they might, no Christian can explain what's wrong with any of these things without resorting to Biblical appeals to authority. And what about homosexuals? Isn't that immoral? Again, I would ask why. Even if you're uncomfortable with it, does it really matter to you what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes? The only conceivable harm from non-adulterous sexual relations between consenting adults is the possibility of disease transmission, and if that happens, it would be the fault of Christians, not humanists, because they have been suppressing sex education!..."  (Source: Atheist Morality, Sex )

Notice how for secular thinkers, the determining factor is whether an action is hurting someone or not in order for that action to be morally evaluated. They obviously reject external "infallible" authorities like the Bible: "no Christian can explain what's wrong with any of these things without resorting to Biblical appeals to authority". For them an action is evil, only if it hurts people. In this, they are not at all against the Jesus Ethics. In other words, there can be fruitful debate between Christians and Seculars as long as both sides focus on protecting  and enhancing humanity. The challenge for Christians therefore is to defend human life and values by appealing to sound reason.  

Worldly Standards on Sex (not as bad as some Christians think)

A Conservative Christian admits that Christians make unfair judgments about the morality of non-Christians. He says: There is a tendency for Christians to assume that the world is much more sex-crazed than it actually is. It’s not quite true to say that "everybody is doing it." There remain, of course, some taboos in this area. Pre-marital sex is acceptable only within certain limits...

He then outlines "the limits of sex in the World":

1. Consent. Rape is seen as totally unacceptable...

2. Age. Pedophilia is despised in society generally; very large age gaps between partners are considered odd...

3. Availability. A sexual partner ought ideally to be single or "separated."..

4. Free. There is still a stigma attached to prostitution...

5. Stability. High levels of promiscuity and "bed-hopping" are frowned upon...

6. Safety. Sex ought to be "safe" (barrier methods of contraception should be used) given the risk of disease and pregnancy...

7. Meaning. It is best if sex is "meaningful" in the context of a relationship, unless it is a one-night-stand or infidelity, in which case it ought to be meaningless!...

The Conservative Christian then concludes by stating the extra limits on sex which he believes are set by God Himself: "These limits are widely accepted in society.  That there must be limitations on sexual activity is not at issue; what people object to is more specifically the limit (or context) which God sets for sex: it is only for a heterosexual, monogamous life-long marriage.  Or, we might say, it is God’s wedding present to husband and wife...." ( Source: The Issue of Pre-Marital Sex )

Of course, the argument that society must accept further limits than what it already has "because God said so" is not the kind of argument that would win a debate. Anyone can claim anything about God and His alleged words. The question is, does the Church need to have stricter rules on sex from what society does? If yes, who sets the rules and by what standards? Before Christians rush to adopt a holier than thou approach in regards to sex, they should perhaps be aware of the known psychological fact that such an approach will alienate them from the world they are trying to "save".

I am reminded of St Paul's outrage in one of his epistles about a Christian committing a sexual sin (porneia) "of a  kind that not even the pagans would do". Rather than adopting a "holier than thou" approach to sexuality, Christians are better off promoting with renewed enthusiasm the "Jesus Ethics" leaving the rest to each person to decide for himself/herself.

Sexual Revolution in the Church

  Professor of Christian ethics James B. Nelson declares: "We need a continuing sexual revolution... The sexual revolution is not over. In a deeper sense it has just begun. Beyond our need for a more adequate sexual theology and ethics, numerous specific issues cry out for reassessment, change, revolution...  The sexual theology we need is different from simply a theology about sexuality. The latter tends to be argued in a one-directional way: what do Scripture and tradition say about our sexuality and how ought it to be expressed? This question is important and should never be neglected -- but it is not enough. We need to ask also (after the manner of various liberation theologies): What does our experience as human sexual beings tell us about how we read Scripture, interpret the tradition and attempt to live out the meanings of the gospel? The questioning must move in both directions..."

 He adds: "We must continue to work on developing our sexual theology. A viable Christian sexual theology for our time will affirm that sexuality is always much more than genital expression. Sexuality expresses the mystery of our creation as beings who need to reach out for the physical and spiritual embraces of others. It expresses God’s intention that we find our authentic humanness not in isolation but in relationship. Under such a theology, sexuality will be understood as intrinsic to the divine-human connection, as one of the great arenas for celebrating the Source of Life. Sexuality will enter directly and consciously into our understandings of every major Christian doctrine -- God, human nature, sin, salvation, church, history and eschatology. Our sexuality will be understood as expressing our created destiny for freedom, creativity, joy and shalom (Livezey) It will embrace appropriate vulnerability (Lebacqz) Sexual ethics will affirm only those sexual expressions that are respectful and non-exploitative (Pellauer) , and which treat persons non-stereotypically and with a fundamental commitment to equality (Longwood). Such ethics will evaluate sexual acts and expressions in terms of how they contribute to social justice and the fulfillment of all in community (Moore). We need, too, a more erotic spirituality... Dante found eros in the kind of love that moves the sun and the other stars. Perhaps we, too, will come to see eros as intrinsic to God’s energy, God’s own passion for connection, and hence also as part of our yearning for life-giving communion and relationships of justice... When we move in this direction, we shall embrace a more incarnational theology... Many Christians still learn to fear, despise, trivialize and be ashamed of their bodies. If we do not know the gospel in our bodies, we may not know the gospel. When we find bodily life an embarrassment to so-called high-minded spiritualized religion, we lose our capacity for passionate caring and justice... A continuing sexual revolution is urgently needed. That patriarchies, a fear of sexuality and a desire to control others continue to exist throughout the church is reason enough for a sexual revolution. Positively put, the reason is in the gospel: the Word made flesh, and the Word still becoming flesh (Christ is risen!).." 
(see: Needed: A Continuing Sexual Revolution
by James B. Nelson)

 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.