The Situation Today
(The Adults Only Sex Page)

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

---

Conservatives Vs Liberals...

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. 

We need a humane morality

A humane morality would have 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 believe that 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 Confused Church

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. 

The Catholic Church will have to apologize again, this time in regards to Sex

 In the modern era, "the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have maintained most of their traditional stances regarding sex and marriage, including their strictures regarding marriage and clergy. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65), however, significantly moderated the traditional Roman Catholic emphasis upon procreation as the sole purpose of intercourse as it recognized marital companionship as important also. Yet the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (1969) reaffirmed the rejection of all but "natural" birth control, and the current pope has been steadfast in refusing to countenance married priests. Thus sex has been a key zone of controversy upon both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches in modern societies..." (See: Our Sexual Inheritance, by John G. Stackhouse Jr.

 While science is recognizing that human life is so complex and diverse that there can be no "absolute" code of sexual ethics, the Roman Catholic Church is still blowing the trumpet of infallible moral codes. It is obvious that an "always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" Catholic Church is setting itself up for yet another humiliating defeat by Science. In the past it was Cosmology, Medicine,  Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Anthropology, Biology and Psychiatry. This time it will be Sexology. Already many sexologists are warning the public about sexual pathologies caused by repressed sexuality due to religious indoctrination. Just like the Pope was forced to admit that the Church got it wrong with scientists like Galileo and Darwin, we are not far from the day the Vatican will issue a statement admitting errors in its teachings on sexuality (ie birth control, enforced celibacy, artificial insemination, equality of women, homosexuality, premarital sex, divorce, etc.)

The Birth Control Quagmire

The Vatican is in big trouble regarding the issue of Birth Control. On the one hand, the Pope cannot endorse Birth Control because he will undermine the Church's "infallible" authority. Catholics will then reason: "If the Church got it wrong on Birth Control, what makes us sure it doesn't get it wrong on other sexual issues?". 

On the other hand, the Pope cannot continue rejecting Birth Control because such a position has become increasingly ridiculous in the eyes of modern society. The Vatican's "Crusade Against Condoms" is a source for great embarrassment:

"...For some reason, the Church has a particular aversion to condoms over all other methods of birth control. While it teaches that a wife may passively submit to sex with her husband knowing that he will practice coitus interruptus, especially if she anticipate death or a severe beating should she not do so; the same passive submission is not allowed in the case of the use of condoms. In 1916, the Vatican declared that if the husband uses a condom, the wife must resist him "as she would a rapist."... This is further elaborated by the Belgian theologian Arthur Vermeersch (d.1936). He taught that the wife is obliged to resist her husband if he wants to use a condom during intercourse. She must resist him with all her might, until she is physically overpowered or sacrifices "a fair equivalent to life." She must also be prepared, by her righteous actions, for the unhappy consequences such as the loss of familial happiness, breakdown of the marriage, separation, desertion or even divorce. All these she must endure in order to prevent her husband from using a condom. If any suggestion is made as to the magnitude of sacrifice the woman must make, Vermeersch answer was "Why should one find it terrible that marital chastity, like all Christian virtues, demands its martyrs?"..."

"...This aversion to the condom is brought to its logical conclusion by the ruling of Pope John Paul II during the International Congress of Moral Theologians in Rome in 1988. According to the pope a hemophiliac with AIDS cannot use condoms to have intercourse with his wife. Condom is a method of contraception and "no reason, however grave" will allow its use. The fact that a condom can help reduce substantially the risk of the hemophiliac infecting his wife with the HIV virus is irrelevant. The unfortunate man therefore cannot experience normal marital relations with his wife. And if he cannot abstain, it is better for him to infect his wife than to use a condom... As Ranke-Heinemann remarked: "If the pope weren't the pope, his position might put him at odds with the state penal code."... The position of Roman Catholicism on birth control shows the Church for what it is now and what it has always been throughout its history: a morally bankrupt institution..." (The Catholic Church and Contraception)

But let us have a quick look at the historical background of the Vatican's ridiculous "war on condoms": 

The ridiculous story of the Vatican's opposition to birth control highlights the basic problem of credibility that it faces, at least in regard to sexual issues. The root of the problem is the historical Christian opposition to sexual pleasure. From earliest times, Christian leaders denounced the pleasures of the flesh, including sexual pleasure, and defined the sex act as "a necessary evil" for procreation. This was a sad mistake, as they set God and spirituality in opposition to pleasure, enjoyment and sex. This Gnostic dualism (pleasure is the opposite to spirituality) has plagued the Church for centuries, and as it seems, will continue to do so. 

Such was the early Church's opposition to contraception that the celebrated saint John Chrysostom (c345-407), called contraception "something worse than murder"!

This madness continued for centuries: "Up to the beginning of the twentieth century all Christian churches, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, were anti-contraception. Since then, thanks to the development of liberal theology and modernism, the mainstream non-fundamentalist Protestant churches had accepted contraception" ( See: A Sceptic's Guide to Christianity: The Catholic Church and Contraception)

While Protestant Christianity has softened its position on sex and now allows sexual pleasure "for married heterosexual couples only", it's general attitude to sexual pleasure, as a "carnal" experience, remains a liability. 

The Orthodox Church is not much better than the Catholic Church on this issue. Orthodox leaders still view sex as a "carnal act" that should be limited to procreation purposes.

But the Catholic Church is the worst in regards to sexuality. In the 1930's papal encyclical Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI ruled out any reason that would allow the use of contraception:

"...No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything which is intrinsically against nature may become comformable with nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is designed primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purposely sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious..." 

And the Sceptic reply: "Pope Pius' argument that contraception is "against nature" is ludicrous to the extreme. Isn't it against nature to shave? Isn't it against nature to have a bypass operation? Isn't it against nature for the pope to refrain from sex? His nocturnal emissions would surely convince him of that! Today more and more Catholics are citizens of the poorer third world countries. The papal ban on contraceptives can only mean more children than the poor parents can afford to raise. Apparently the church does not consider starving children and infant deaths "against nature."... The Church today is doing its utmost to prevent the spread of contraceptive knowledge in the underdeveloped countries. The result of this action can only mean suffering for the poor in the third world. With more children than they can afford to feed, doubtless starvation, disease and infant deaths will remain a common occurrence in the third world. But then starvation, disease and infant deaths are not "against nature."" (ibid)

It is not only the sceptics and the seculars who are laughing at the Vatican over the sex issue. Many Catholics feel embarrassed by their Pope. Most importantly, the Catholic Church misses the mark in regards to the Jesus Ethics. Jesus placed humans before traditions. Traditions, or laws, according to Jesus, are only good when they serve human needs. The Vatican does the exact opposite. It's general attitude towards human sexuality reflects the severe shortcomings in its worldview. For as long as the conservative camp remains in control of the Roman Catholic Church, this historical institution will become increasingly irrelevant. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church has also missed the mark

It is not only the Vatican that has lost credibility because of Sex. Eastern Orthodox leaders are finding themselves increasingly out of touch with reality as they merely pay lip service to their "infallible" views on sexuality. Officially they repeat the same things as the Church Fathers did centuries ago but in practice they don't enforce any church rules. 

 The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America asserts that "the Orthodox Church remains faithful to the biblical and traditional norms regarding premarital sexual relations between men and women. The only appropriate and morally fitting place for the exercise of sexual relations, according to the teachings of the Church, is marriage."... According to an Associated Press report, Greece's official state Orthodox Church recently "reaffirmed its conservative views on sex urging young people to remain faithful to church prohibitions". Like the Catholic church, "Orthodox leaders find their message lost on younger generations increasingly linked to and influenced by global cultural norms"... ( Greek Orthodox Criticize EU on Gay Couples ). 

Father Josiah Trenham blames the sexual revolution for the decline of the institution of marriage: "The sexual revolution of the 1960s is the mother of much contemporary thinking about sexual relations... Thinking like this has led to immense sorrow, and the bad fruits of the sexual revolution over the last thirty years are obvious: the exponential proliferation of domestic violence, adultery, venereal disease, unwed pregnancy, abortion and divorce..." (see: Sexual Relations in Orthodoxy) 

Father Josiah Trenham (ibid) explains the traditional Orthodox position:

"We Orthodox Christians must know more than what we are against.  We must know what we are for.  What exactly does the Orthodox Church teach about sexual relations?  First, sex is not essential to full human development and happiness.  Mankind was not created for sex.  Sexual relations as we know them today did not exist in Paradise.  Adam and Eve lived without sex, and did so in unutterable bliss.  Sexual relations began only after mankind fell into sin, and was stripped of its pristine glory and the Holy Spirit.  This is the teaching of the Book of Genesis,  “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...And Adam knew Eve his wife;  and she conceived” (3:22-4:1). The Holy Scriptures also teach that when mankind is resurrected into the Kingdom of God there will be no sex in the new heavens and  new earth... Far from being essential to human life sex is a reminder of the loss of our spiritual refinement and dignity due to our fall into sin.  Sex is designed for good in this fallen world, but it is in no way at the core of human development and happiness..."

"...consecrated virginity is the highest way of life.  Far from being an unfortunate and incomplete way of life, chastity is the highest expression of love and devotion to God..."

 "...God has designed sexual relations for three basic reasons:  to avoid fornication, to unite the husband and wife as a powerful adhesive, and to bring forth children to be raised to worship God and for the upbuilding of the Church.  St. Paul wrote,  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”... Since our fall from grace our passions have been disordered.  For most people this disorder is particularly noticeable in powerful sexual drives.  Sexual relations in marriage provide a safe and calm harbor to tame and redirect these unruly passions and desires. The procreation of children is the duty of Christian spouses, and can no more be avoided or tampered with than can the other purposes of sexual relations.  Those not prepared to assume the responsibility of sexual relations ought not engage in them.  The intense pleasure of sexual relations are designed by God to promote the procreation of children, since the difficulties inherent in childbearing and Christian parenting might otherwise tempt spouses to avoid this solemn responsibility.  Today’s contraception culture strikes at the heart of the God-designed unity of pleasure and responsibility, opting to embrace pleasure while avoiding the responsibility of childbearing and calling it “family planning.”  ...Such planned parenthood and family planning is in reality planned barrenhood and family banning, and as such has been vigorously forbidden by the Holy Fathers throughout the history of the Church.  St. Paul teaches that married women find their salvation in and through childbearing..."

About Homosexuality: "Homosexual relations are forbidden as a perversion of the created order, and as an assault upon God-ordained heterosexual marriage..."

About Masturbation: "Masturbation is censured as self-abuse, the waste of seed and its procreative intent, and an improper turning inward and rejection of the marital context of sexuality.  It is always sinful..."

About pre-marital sex: "Sexual relations prior to marriage are strongly condemned as fornication, a sacrilegious defilement of the Temple of the Holy Spirit, a defrauding of one’s future spouse, and are detrimental to the development of a stable future marriage.  It is no coincidence that the rise in pre-marital sex has been paralleled by the rise in divorce and marital unhappiness. To take the very sublime things of marriage out of their context of grace, perpetual commitment, and the Church’s blessings is a recipe for disaster..."

Even within marriage not all sex is permissible: "Marriage itself does not make legitimate all forms of sexuality.  The sexual intercourse of the married is to be modest, and within its proper limits.  Moderation is determined both by regulation of time and method of sexual relations.  Relations on fast days, on the eve prior to one’s reception of Holy Communion, and on days on which one receives the Holy Gifts are forbidden as an illegitimate indulgence to the flesh... Anal and oral intercourse, as well as the use of pornography and sexual toys, are sexual perversions and are always sinful, even for married Christians... The unnatural prolongation of sexual desire, through the use of drugs such as Viagra, is forbidden. On the contrary, such decline in sexual desire is to be warmly welcomed by aging Orthodox Christians as a divine help in one’s life long preparation for departure from this life..."

I notice that Father Josiah Trenham uses a mixture of cultic reasoning (defiling of body) with real-life considerations (negative results of "illegitimate" sex) to defend the traditional Orthodox view on human sexuality. The assumptions based on the flawed worldview of Original Sin are obviously a problem as they make Father Josiah Trenham say ridiculous things like: "Far from being essential to human life sex is a reminder of the loss of our spiritual refinement and dignity due to our fall into sin...". When will Orthodox clergy finally wake up to the fact that there was never a Fall? Sex, like death and pain, were not the result of some mythical Fall from a perfect Paradise. They have existed for millions of years. The earth was never a perfect place. It is a work in progress, an evolving reality. Humans were never "perfect". We have evolved from lower forms of animal life. All this talk about an ideal perfection that never was and a sexless humanity that never was is plain nonsense. Any claims about sexuality that are based on the erroneous assumptions of a "Fallen World", are themselves erroneous.

In relation to the Jesus Ethics, the only claims worth considering are those that link the sexual revolution of the 1960s with "the exponential proliferation of domestic violence, adultery, venereal disease, unwed pregnancy, abortion and divorce...". Perhaps Orthodox leaders should dig even deeper and try to identify the real reasons behind the sexual revolution.  Could one of them be the recognition of the moral bankruptcy of the old social order? If so, how can the Jesus Ethics guide humanity during the difficult transition towards a new social order? Renunciate reasoning has lost its power. Only real-life considerations can lead to meaningful debate about sexual morality. 

 For example, why is the institution of marriage going through a crisis with skyrocketing rates of divorce?  Father Josiah Trenham blames the sexual revolution, but is his assessment valid? For an institution to be in crisis something must be wrong with it in the first place. The institution of marriage is no exception to the rule.

  There were many faults in the institution of marriage. The more obvious one has been the inequality of the two sexes. In previous centuries marriage was an authoritarian institution with men dominating women. While in the past men dominated women without any repercussions, things now are very different. Today we have the battle of the sexes. For the institution of marriage to survive, it must re-invent itself as a more humane institution. Furthermore, society itself must become more humane, in order to support the institution of marriage. The harsh economic realities faced by married people make their lives a living hell. It is very naive to blame high divorce rates on sex. Yes, many people divorce because of adultery, but adultery is nothing new. The only difference is that in the past, women put up with their cheating husbands, but not any more. Also, in the past it was done more in secret, whereas now, it is done more in the open (in a way this is good because the real condition of society may be recognised in order for proper evaluations to be made). Again, we are talking about symptoms, not causes. The causes of marriage breakdown, adultery, divorce, etc are far deeper...

I hope Father Josiah Trenham doesn't seriously expect people to agree with his antiquated reasoning. Most Orthodox Christians, especially the young generation, would find these views on sex as naive, to say the least. 

It is a well known fact that the traditional Orthodox view on sex is largely ignored by Orthodox Christians. In practice it is virtually impossible for Greek Priests to stop married couples from birth control, unmarried young Greeks from having sex, or from masturbation, or gays from remaining gay. Every priest appears to do selective use of the "Holy Canons" depending on how strict or liberal he chooses to be. Officially however, the Orthodox Church retains the traditional attitude towards sex. In this way they seek to kill two birds with the one stone. 

By pretending to uphold traditional teachings as the official stand (de juro) on sexual issues they retain an appearance of stability and continuity attracting all those troubled souls in search of certainty and security in the midst of these uncertain times. Fundamentalism is always popular during times of upheaval... 

By allowing for elasticity in the application of the traditional teachings when it comes to practice (de facto) they attract and keep in the fold the modern-minded Orthodox sheep...

The question is: for how long will this method work?

Mainstream Protestant (Anglican/Episcopalian, Uniting, Lutheran, etc)

Mainstream Protestant Churches like the Anglican, Uniting, Episcopal, etc are in the process of comprehensive, albeit painful reformations that ironically are focused on sex. Again one wonders why so much emphasis on sex. Of all issues, and there are many, why should sex be so important, and why does it evoke such strong emotions? It is only when we understand the "renunciate" legacy of Christianity that we can make sense of the excessive importance placed on sexual issues. 

At the moment the worldwide Anglican Church is in turmoil over the issue of homosexuality. Over this painful issue, the Anglican Church may well be led into schism. The Anglican communion is at the moment experiencing a de facto schism between the hardliners (conservatives) and the modernists (liberals). The two sides are so obviously alienated between each other that a de juro schism seems inevitable in the future.

At the moment the bitter divisions within the Anglican communion are centred on the American Episcopal (Anglican) Church's planned consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as a bishop. In a recent  emergency summit in London, the primates of the international Anglican Communion made a fragile truce by trying to please both sides, something impossible. At the moment, the hardliners, including Sydney's Archbishop Peter Jensen, seem to have the numbers, thanks to the large African communion. Some African church leaders, "anxious to avoid a showdown with resurgent Islam in their countries, have joined the anti-gay bandwagon", and since more than half the world's 70 million Anglicans are in Africa, they have emerged as strategic partners to the hardliner faction of the Anglican Church .

Dr Muriel Porter, an Anglican laywoman and the author of Sex, Power and the Clergy, believes that no matter what the outcome of this particular issue, the showdown between the two opposing sides will go on: "even if America backs down on Gene Robinson, it will not be the end of the story. Before long another openly gay bishop will be appointed somewhere else, and the whole sorry saga will begin again..." 

She adds: "The large African contingent among the primates will ensure that the conservatives hold the upper hand, meaning that fracture is almost certain. In the short-term, it looks as if Sydney and its fellow-travellers have hitched their wagon to the winning side. But long-term? A split in the Anglican communion would be to Sydney's detriment. It would find itself out on a limb in this country if it forced a structural division. In the rest of Australia, ordained women, divorcees and gay clergy and laity generally receive a generous welcome in Anglican churches. In time, Sydney would wither on the vine. That is the usual fate of those who deliberately force schism..." (Why Anglican schism would hurt those who force it, by Muriel Porter, The Age, October 18, 2003)

Incidentally, the Eastern Orthodox Church is also in danger of a schism (between the Greek Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate), but for entirely different reasons, revolving around ecclesiastical power and politics. A schism over power politics is understandable and makes perfect sense for authoritarian institutions like churches. But a schism over gays? What is really going on? What is the real issue with the Anglican Church? 

Muriel Porter explains: "Those conservative church leaders who have fomented this international crisis, including Sydney's Archbishop Peter Jensen, claim the issue is not homosexuality per se, but rather obedience to the Scriptures. Because the Bible, in a few much-disputed verses, seems to condemn certain homosexual practices, they argue they have no choice but to outlaw those parts of the church seeking to welcome clergy and laity in faithful same-sex relationships."

"But why homosexuality? Why not divorce, for instance? Or why not women in ordained ministry? Conservative Anglicans continue to oppose both divorce and women clergy on the basis of Scripture... Divorce is the most clear-cut in biblical terms. While Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, let alone women priests, he was hardline about divorce. Marriage was for life, he insisted..."

"The Anglican Church worldwide agonised over this teaching for most of the 20th century. It only became constitutionally possible for divorced Anglicans to remarry in church in Australia as recently as 1985. It is still problematic in the mother Church of England, which is why Prince Charles - as a future head of that church - has so far not married his mistress, a divorced woman..."

"Sydney Diocese also has a problem with divorce, and continues to take a different official stance to just about every other part of the Australian church, but Sydney's leadership has not withdrawn from communion with dioceses such as Melbourne that ordain women..."

"So why the hardline attitude on Scripture only when it comes to homosexuality? Some observers believe the answer is cynicism. There are far too many divorced people in church and society for any stance on this issue to be successful. And far too many women! But gays in the church - and they do exist in significant numbers - go virtually unnoticed. With good reason, they keep to themselves, and rarely out themselves. They are easy targets, particularly given the still-powerful current of homophobia in wider society...."

"Homosexuality, ...was perhaps the only issue on which such a high level of consensus could be expected in this well-planned onslaught on the new Archbishop of Canterbury, and more liberal churches and dioceses within the Anglican communion generally. The primates have given in. The only way a contrived unity can now be maintained is at the cost of the exclusion of gay people..." (ibid)

Evangelical "Born Again" Christianity

Evangelical Christianity is  doing much worse than Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. At least the two elder "Sister" Churches have lost credibility among their flocks and their dated views are by and large not taken seriously. They are like barking dogs without teeth... But Conservative Evangelical Christian Churches (also known as Christian Fundamentalist Churches) hold great power among their flock literally by scaring the hell out of them. This is especially true in regards to human sexuality. Sexual offenders within such Churches live in constant fear and anxiety as they await God's terrible judgment to fall upon them. 

Christian Fundamentalism's unhealthy response to human sexuality is best expressed in the words of  Texan songwriter Butch Hancock: "Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things. One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, dirty thing on the face of the earth and you should save it for someone you love..." (source: Sex by Emery Lee)!!! 

 But really when you come to think of it, it isn't funny. This kind of Christian "Morality" can cause a lot of harm: "Morality, in any area of life, will not be achieved by threats and negativity. The repression of sexual energy, for example, which marked traditional ethics for so long, did not lead to the fullness of life. It only created the backlash of an uninhibited exercise of sexual energy, which was also destructive to our essential humanity. When the value of human sexuality is repressed, it returns as pornography. When we try to take sex away from love, we succeed only in taking love away from sex. Ethics and morality must go beyond this false dichotomy" ( Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Retired Bishop JOHN SHELBY SPONG, p. 160

To be fair, many Fundamentalist Churches now celebrate sexual pleasure as God's gift, as long as it is practiced within heterosexual marriages. Even the most prudish denominations are publishing Christian "sex manuals" which openly promote full sexual enjoyment. Also, they are finally beginning to view passages like "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love" (Proverbs 5:19) as celebrating the joys of sex, foreplay and all. These positive changes however, are not a result of any sudden revelation or enlightenment in regards to sex. As I pointed earlier, Fundamentalist churches have been forced to adopt them in their efforts to reduce divorce rates. Still, this is a significant change from the Christian Tradition which for twenty centuries viewed sex as a "necessary evil" for procreation only and warned the faithful against deriving pleasure from it! Now, the preachers (except some hard-core fundamentalists) are saying, "have sex as often as you want, whichever way you fancy and in whatever positions you desire, as long as you are married!".

 But the proviso "as long as you are married"  leaves a lot of people on "the outside" with no "godly" outlet to relieve their sexual needs... We live in different times now than the days of Abraham. Today people stay single until their late twenties or thirties. That's a lot of single adults out there! The biggest social problems today are depression, alienation and loneliness. For many lonely adults, the occasional one night stand with other lonely people is the closest they can get to feeling "alive". Of course they all desire to find someone special and marry! The problem is, what do you do in the meantime? If, as St. Paul once reasoned "it is better to marry than to burn", could we not also claim that it is better for two lonely singles to have a fling than to burn? As long as both parties are consenting adults, what business is it of ours to judge their private lives? Going back to the Jesus Ethics, as long as there is no manipulation, domination, degradation, harm, or deception involved, what can possibly be wrong with two consenting single adults having a sexual affair? On the other hand, one could find numerous examples where married people are being sexually victimised or abused by their spouses. A marriage certificate means nothing if a spouse is being coerced to have sex, or being degraded through sex. It is to the Church's shame when a blind eye is turned on domestic sexual abuse. Lois Gehr Livezey calls out to the churches: "It is time to break the silence on sexual and family abuse -- a silence that still haunts churches and schools of theological education even as these very issues are front-page news. Our silence will not protect us; it is life-threatening, and it is unfaithful to our commission..." (see: Sexual and Family Violence: A Growing Issue for the Churches )

 Married couples within fundamentalist Churches feel content, even privileged, by being allowed to have sex, and they are quick to condemn those outside the "married club". In other words, Fundamentalist Christianity is kind of a marriage cult with "family values" and all. Those outside are a constant threat to those inside, so they must be converted and married off. Perhaps when they manage to establish their theocracy in America they will make singles-sex illegal or even marriage compulsory for all adults... It will be a sanitized world without porn, without strip-clubs, without sex-toys, without prostitutes, without movies about fornication, without gays & lesbians (they might as well execute them all...), without Disney(!), and most importantly, without condoms! This would all be very funny if it didn't sound exactly like Adolph Hitler when he declared his "family values": "Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theatres, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth." (source: Atheist Morality, Sex ). Sarcasm aside, let's make it clear that there is nothing wrong with sexual morality, or modesty. What is wrong with fundamentalist thinking is the misguided idea that human behaviour, including sexuality can be strictly codified by "eternal' statutes. Remember the truism: "the letter of the law kills?". Well, fundamentalist thinking certainly kills all the "magic" of sex, turning it into a meticulously codified activity (for those lucky enough to get and stay married). 

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)

---

The Topics that follow will be regularly updated with new information. The aim is to promote a healthier attitude towards human sexuality based on the Jesus Ethics. 

 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.