Like Button

Thursday, January 12, 2012

The Bible on Sex II

I've already written recently about the Bible on sex. In view of the Driscoll's new book as well as Pastor Ed Young's stunt to live stream from a bed on top of the church (Young is a pastor who urged his listeners to have sex 7 days in a row to revolutionize their marriages), I think maybe I should say more.

There are voices all around that would like to assure us that the marriage bed is a safe place to do any sort of sexual activity at all. "Marriage," they assure us, "sanctifies all of it." We know that those dirty, rotten Victorian types are way too high strung and that, as long as it is done in the marriage bed, it's okay. Well, of course there are caveats. Sexual activity can only be between husband and wife, not to include others. And of course there is an element in Christian circles that misses entirely that pornography, by its very nature, is designed to include others, even if they're only on the screen. (I've heard many argue that porn between married people is perfectly okay because the marriage bed sanctifies it. Wrong.)

But, okay, so we'll agree that biblical marital sex excludes other parties, and we'll even stipulate that porn is out. Fine. Got it. We're good with that. But surely we would all agree that anything else goes, right? Well, it appears that Paul might disagree.
This is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you (1 Thess 4:3-6).
What am I getting out of this that would disagree? Since it is to "each of you" and since "each of you" would necessarily include married people, it would appear that there is the need to "abstain from sexual immorality" in marriage as well as out of marriage. Or, to put it another way, married men and unmarried men are required to "know how to control his own body in holiness and honor." "So?" you might ask. Well, look at the standard that we are to avoid: "Not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God." I would suggest, then, that there is something in the sex lives of married unbelievers called "the passion of lust" that we need to avoid as married believers. In other words, I do not believe it is so much the activities in the bedroom that are in question here as much as the motivations and attitudes that surround them. Here's what else I would suggest. It appears that the standard ("like the Gentiles") is only found by looking at unbelievers. What are they doing wrong?

First, I would like to point out that some would suggest that the passage in question refers to idolatrous sexual practices. There is no doubt that the pagan world of Paul's day had immoral religious rites. But Paul says here that "it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Eph 5:12). That can't refer to pagan prostitution practices because those were done in the open. This is the stuff they do behind closed doors. You know, like in the marriage bed.

Second, I'd like to point out that ... well, I just pointed it out. By examining what they are doing wrong, I do not mean discussing what they do because "it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret" (Eph 5:12). That is, individual acts are not the question here. The point is not how they're having sex. We're not supposed to be talking about that.

So where else do we look? Well, John says something interesting here. "For all that is in the world -- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life -- is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). Most translations use the word "lust" here, but this one doesn't confuse you with that. It is (rightly) epithumia -- "desires". It is a burning desire. Jesus had a burning desire (epithumia) to eat the Passover with His disciples before He died (Luke 22:15). This "desire" is not sin in itself. So what is John saying? Well in the world there are desires to indulge in fleshly pleasure, to satisfy the animal nature. There are desires to have what you might see, to covet. (I'm sure you can see that pornography would fall in that category.) And there is the ongoing problem of personal pride, of seeking honor and applause. Or, here, we have a very convenient example from Genesis:
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise ... (Gen 3:6).
That would be the lust of the flesh ("good for food"), the lust of the eyes ("a delight to the eyes"), and the pride of life ("desired to make one wise"). So, port this over to the discussion about abstaining from sexual immorality and controlling your body, "not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles". This would move sexual relations between a husband and a wife away from the satiation of physical desires, away from the coveting of what they see, and away from personal pride, which, according to John, "is not from the Father but is from the world."

I would venture to guess that from the world's perspective most of sex falls dead in the center of these three things. I would suggest, in fact, that a lot of what goes on in the bedroom has more to do with these and less to do with the sharing of love, the pleasing of the spouse, or the intimacy of such a union. How much do you suppose is wrapped up in personal power, for instance? They tell us that rape is not about desire, but about power. How much of what goes on in the bedroom is just that? Well, it's a shame to talk about what they do in secret, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of what passes for "lovemaking" is more about personal satisfaction, covetousness, and personal pride than most anything else you might name.

Well, I'm not going to offer specifics here. I'm not going to give you a "how to" manual or a "twelve-step" program. You get to look at it yourself. Peel back the self-satisfying characteristics. Remember that your body is not your own. Tear off the personal pride. Remember both the respect due from the wife and the understanding due from the husband. Now what would such a sex life look like? I'm not prepared to explain, but I think you can begin to see it's not what the world would offer. Neither do I think it's "anything goes" in the marriage bed. "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled" (Heb 13:4).

11 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

I would hope that in healthy sexual relationships, the point of what's going on would not be personal satisfaction, but the pleasing of one's beloved. I wouldn't worry too much about what goes on in others' bedrooms as long as it appears to be coming from this healthy place of self-giving love.

Stan said...

My aim here is twofold. First, point out that "anything goes in the bedroom" is not biblically accurate. Second, have readers ask themselves what I'm asking myself: "Am I doing what is right?"

I'm not too concerned about what goes on in other people's bedrooms. I would suggest that some sexual behaviors are not about "self-giving love", but that's not my aim to figure out which are and which aren't.

072591 said...

I'm pretty sure that you're not trying to say that wanting to be sexually satisfied by your spouse is a sin, but it seems like that is what this post is coming back to, so if you could clarify that in part 3, I would appreciate that.

Anonymous said...

Maybe eight years back there circulated around an open letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who is (or was) an orthodox Jew. The first line in it is, “Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God‘s Law.”

Another line in the letter: “I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.”

From the perspective of a born-again, is that commandment no longer in effect?

Also (if you know), do modern orthodox Jews typically ignore it? If so, how do they justify ignoring it?

Stan said...

"From the perspective of a born-again, is that commandment no longer in effect?"

Why do you ask? (I mean, I'm pretty sure you're not looking to "the perspective of a born-again" to find what you might consider "good and bad", right? (And I would guess, but don't know, that orthodox Jews still observe that rule.)

Stan said...

"I'm pretty sure that you're not trying to say that wanting to be sexually satisfied by your spouse is a sin"

My point is that wanting to be sexually satisfied by your spouse is not the point. Since love (especially the biblical version) is an outgoing thing, personal demands and desires are not at issue. And correlating "Your body is not your own" with "I demand sexual satisfaction from my spouse" is very difficult, at least for me. "Would like sexual satisfaction from my spouse?" Maybe. I'm not calling it a sin. I'm saying it misses the point.

Anonymous said...

In answer to, “Why do you ask?” ---

The older I get, the more interested I get in what the high-falutin’ folks call epistemology. Where do individuals get their beliefs? Why do they believe that way? How do they justify it? Do they hold others in contempt for not agreeing with them? Are they selective in telling others what they do and do not believe? That is, are there certain beliefs they hold, but they’d just as soon not have everybody on the block know they hold those beliefs?

That kind of stuff fascinates me.

Veering off topic, I used to carpool to work with an Episcopalian man. The car radio was on, and a newsman claimed, “The space probe has an onboard computer that has as much intelligence as a cricket’s brain.” The man in the car with me objected vehemently, which led to an interesting discussion on what “artificial intelligence” might mean, and whether it is happening, or whether it is something that could be made to happen in the future. I remember that during the course of the discussion he claimed that God masterminded a very clean distinction in nature between things that are alive and things that are not alive. I brought up things that seem to me to occupy a gray area: virus, viroid, prion. Some biologists go so far as to say a virus is both living and nonliving!

Maybe you had to be there… but it was fun. :-}

Refreshment in Refuge said...

Good point, Stanley. I completely understand this post and am so glad you give voice to something that has not been discussed very loudly in Christian circles.

"Anything" does not "Go" within the Christian marriage bed. There is pornea which makes a spouse extremely uncomfortable and when a wife doesn't desire that unwholesome (or unholy) type of union, then it is sin.

Stan said...

Gina, I would absolutely (and, I hope, obviously) agree that "'anything goes' does not go". Paul tells of people giving in to "dishonorable passions" where they "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature" (Rom 1:26-27). While we typically see that as a condemnation of homosexual behavior (and it clearly is), it also seems to require the concept of "natural relations", the idea that there are activities in the bedroom that are natural and there are some that are not.

Having agreed, though, I do have a question for you. We are all aware of the concept of "when a wife doesn't desire that unwholesome (or unholy) type of union, then it is sin." But what about the wife that is unwilling to give her husband any type of sexual "union"? Is that also sin?

Stan said...

Anon,

I, too, am almost always curious about "Why do they believe that way?"

FYI, I don't hold others in contempt for not agreeing with me. I am often baffled about how they hold their position, but baffled without contempt.

As to your question, the question itself is too bizarre to answer. "I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is on her period ... how do I tell?" Since the first rule is "married", the question is, frankly, stupid. I know when my wife is on her period. And if I asked, she wouldn't take offense. What's the problem? Beyond that, the question (from a sincere person), "Is that still in effect?" is aimed at "How little do I have to do?" (From an insincere person it would be aimed at "How crazy are you?") It is aimed at "I think it's unfair that I should exercise self-control 5 days out of a month and I should be allowed to have sex whenever I want (and with whomever I want)." Wrong aim.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

(And I would guess, but don't know, that orthodox Jews still observe that rule.)

Yes, they do. And they hedge it about with extra rules, too.