Lets talk about sex

by Shane Clifton

Next week in my ethics class, i am addressing the topic of sexuality.  What you might expect in a lecture on human sexuality is a list of “thou shalt nots”; of restrictions, of sexual sins etc. You expect this because ‘restriction’ has been the almost exclusive focus of the church in its discussion of human sexuality, a discussion which is essentially negative, which limits sexuality to genital activity, and which has resulted in people being manipulated by guilt and repression. Indeed, the history of the church's perception on these issues makes for interesting read

• Origen castrated himself, since he believed that prayer and sex were self-contradictory
•  St Anthony had a vision in which the devil took the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile him. His response was to repress his body and kept it in subjection.

• St Augustine

  states, ‘I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of a woman.’[1] He believed that the sexual organs were the bodily instruments of original sin. As the procreative act passed on the sin of our first parents to the new-born, the sexual act itself was considered to be sinful.

• Following Augustine, the church of the middle ages advocated that celibacy was the highest form of spirituality, and enforced this restriction upon its priesthoo

• In a slight improvement on Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas declares, ‘What food is to a man's well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation’.[2]

• Some historians suggest that the medieval church ‘was obsessed with sex’. The Penitentials, the rule book for medieval life, had three key principles with respect to sex:

o First, all who could were urged to attempt the ideal of complete celibacy while for those with priestly functions it was obligatory

o Second, a ban was placed on all forms of sexual activity other than intercourse between married persons, carried out with the object of procreating. In some penitentials fornication was declared a worse sin than murder. Even within marriage, the sexual act must be performed in only one position, and numerous penalties were prescribed for using variants (which called for up to seven years of penance)

o  Third, the penitentials devoted a disproportionately large amount of their space to prescribing penalties for homosexuality and for bestiality, but the sin upon which the greatest stress of all was laid was masturbation. The sin of masturbation has been blamed by the church for ‘impotence, dyspepsia, vertigo, epilepsy, loss of memory, senility, stupidity, melancholy, homosexuality, suicide, and defective offspring. The masturbator, it was said, is incapable of any generous impulse or act of loyalty; he is dead to the call of his family, his country, or of humanity.[3]

 

The list goes on, and the fact is that these perspectives are still part of the sub-conscious life of the church today. When we use the term ‘living in sin’, we are referring to sex (how bizarre). When we think of sexuality we still think of prohibitions. And it is ironic how restriction can in fact foster obsession. Who is more obsessed with sex; the Christian who declares, ‘don’t look at women in bikinis when you go to the beach’; or the person who is just happy to go for a swim?

 
But what if we were to turn this whole perspective on its head? What if we were to begin contemplating human sexuality, not from the negative of legalism (absolutism), but from a theonomous perspective, with the recognition that:

1. God      is relational in his very nature
2. God      created humankind in his image as relational beings
3. Our      sexuality is one of the ways we express our relationality – at its      heights, sex is one of the ultimate symbols of unity: and the two shall      become one flesh!

Of course we cannot lose sight of the fact of sin. That which is capable of symbolising the greatest good can be capable of degenerating into terrible evil. But a theonomous ethic nonetheless has a positive orientation, and begins with the idea that that passion, desire, intimacy, and union are gifts from God, and in this sense potentially expressing an element of the sacred. 

---

[1]

St Augustine

, Soliloq. i, 10.

[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , Second Part of the Second Part, Question 153, Article 2.

 

[3] Refer Daniel Maguire, Sex and the Sacred, Address to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2002, http://www.sacredchoices.org/Sex%20and%20the%20Sacred.htm

Comments

[Joshua Ballard]

Wow...you think you got international attention on this blog before...wait till this gets out. I'm gonna go get some popcorn and watch the show. Come to think of it, all of the blog topics you've suggested in class would attract international attention. Woo!

[Deborah Taggart]

hmm, what on earth did these people with negative views of sex make of Song of Solomon? There must have been some people with a healthy attitude to sex voting it into the canon, right? Or was that only on its merit as a metaphor of Christ's love for the church? But even if only on those grounds, doesn't sex then become almost sacramental? (when in its right context of an intimate expression of lifelong-committed love)

[Joshua Ballard]

I've seen a whole lot of people try and deny the sexual aspects and content of the book...plain lunacy as far as I am concerned...also...some Muslims don't like the book very much...claiming that such things should not be in a "holy book".

I think ultimately, the fact that there is a provision (marriage is to be held in honor by all) in the Pauline letters that prevents marriage and sexual intimacy being thrown out in it's entirety, preventing the rest of the early fathers from COMPLETELEY agreeing with Origen and Augustine...and I thank God for it.

I think that a major part of the reason for retaining it in the canon is it's attribution to Solomon, and perhaps part of the content exhorting people to not "stir up love before it pleases". But I'm stepping into an area I've done very very little reading on. (Sorry Jacquie)

[Cameron]

I want to see Joshua Dowton comment on Hebrew language descriptions of OT stuff, especially Song of Solomon. That would definitely be a show worth watching! C'mon Josh, hit us with some exegesis, woo!

[jdowton]

Not until you're married...

[maryjo Wheeler]

Loved the class - and the assorted reactions. Interesting to see so many blank looks when certain words are mentioned. In this day and age, in a university setting I am shocked that the subject of sexual ethics seems so.... shocking. If we do not deal with these topics guys, how in heavens name are we going to deal with people in ministry? We are all going to shepherd people with sexual issues and in some cases have to deal with our own sexual practices, hangups or attractions within a church setting. We need to get a grip - or we could pretend that sex does not exist and the stork drops off babies to loving parents with white picket fences!

Ignorance breeds a generation of legalistic leaders - and I believe that is not God's purpose for SCC. Although at times it is a challenge to break the constraints of tradition, it seems such a shame not to break new ground on some of these moral issues.
I say "Go Shane"! What a great day it will be when as Christians we can put away our prudish natures and follow the radical ministry of Jesus without apology or shame.

[gloria]

hi, i'm new here, just stumbled upon this thread whilst surfing the net and not even sure if this is restricted to students only. But i'll try anyway. I have been dealing with the topic of christian and homosexuality. I have held the view that being a christian and gay is not compatible but my theology was challenged recently by the pro-gay christian movement explaining that gay is biblically OK. I was told to celebrate my homosexuality. I have to admit that i'm really disturbed by the whole thing because I love God and I believe that God can help me in my sexual orientation but I also dont want to be deceived. I dont know if the theology i've been holding on to is right, or if the pro-gay theology is right.
I thought someone in this discussion will be able to share some light into the topic for me. Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks.

ps the pro-gay forums i've been getting my info from is freedom2b.org