-5-
(Theology
and Human Sexuality)
It seems our religions are really stuck in a
rut when it comes to the sexual behavior of human beings. Often, when we hear preachers
talk, it sounds like the greatest evil in the whole of reality is in our HUMAN
sexuality; when in fact, it is one of God's most wonderful gifts!
Perhaps you have wondered why night after
night you can see: murder, violence, tragedy, bigotry, and hatred portrayed on
the TV screen? Yet, if someone were to show an act of
copulation (even if it were expressed in love) there would be moral outrage!
So often, religions condemn the life-styles of
homosexuals, or the unmarried, as being evil; to the point where some actually
blame them for the natural disasters on earth, as if
We see many self-proclaimed religious people
picketing and protesting so called "porn shops", as a great evil in
our society. But where are they when it comes to some of the irresponsible
bars, poorly run restaurants, tenements, or environmentally destructive
companies? This begs the question: which is a greater evil - a dirty book; or a
drunk killing another on the highway - a dirty movie; or a place that risk
poisoning its customers with bad food - a girly calendar; or children living in
a rat infested house - a sexual toy; or the pollution of a lake which may
effect the lives of thousands? Where are our theological priorities?
Too many of the theological positions on sex
reduce God to a "peeping Tom" who seems to find our sexual behavior
more outrageous than human selfishness, materialism, poverty, exploitation,
war, pollution, oppression, and the mass indifference to the needs of others
which has become part of our culture. The religious ideals, which are often
presented, seem to make sex more like an invention of the Devil, than, a
beautiful creation of God.
In such thinking, sex becomes the scapegoat of
all human shortcomings. It becomes this great icon of morality, projecting us
away from the seriousness of other ethical discussions.
Much of the present Christian theological
approach toward human sexuality is seriously flawed. Religion often distorts a
psychologically healthy sex drive, turning it into an evil force to be
reckoned with. In such cases, sex seems to be a weapon of the devil; rather
than, part of the creation of God. It is seen as a weakness of the flesh,
rather than, an expression of the spirit. This is an idea that needs to be
re-examined and dealt with according to the ethics we discussed. But ethics
aside, we need to consider the present psychological understanding of human
sexuality. We need to question what we are saying to each other and our
children; examining the reality of our attitudes in our physical, as well as,
spiritual ideals.
The religious message should be that human
sexuality is healthy, beautiful, holy and very much a part of God's plan. And
while sex does serve the purpose whereby we can share in the creative process
through procreation, it goes far beyond that. Sex, of itself, can be an
expression of an act of love. It can also be an act of joyous pleasure that
people may wish to participate in. Or, it can be merely a release of sexual
frustration. One could conceivably argue that if God wanted sex for only one
purpose, there would be only one sex act that brought any pleasure. But this is
not the case. He could have made it so we only mated at intervals like the
Panda - but She did not.
The fact is: sexual desire is a normal and
healthy part of our physical existence, and, it can act as an expression of
love coming from the depths of our soul. One could almost argue that in the
sexual union we are the closest to sharing in the Essence of the Divine. While
sex can be physical, it is not only physical. Sex is also part psychological,
part intellectual, and part emotional which takes it
into the spiritual realm. In other words, sex involves the whole of being.
To consider any responsible expression of sex
as evil, or immoral, is to really say that God is immoral. The human sexual
drive, and as far as we know in all its peculiarities, has been in us from the
very inception of our primordial form. Today, that drive has evolved into a
complex system, which not only ensures our continuation as a species; but it
also allows us to share, embrace, exchange joy, experience physical pleasure
and become one with each other for a brief second in time. Human sexuality is
by no means a weakness of flesh; but a means whereby the spirit can experience
its greatest depth of feeling.
While the ethics of responsibility come into
play, as we shall discuss, to place human sexuality in categories of violence,
immorality, sin, and shame are counter productive and have done little to reduce
irresponsible sexual behavior. These concepts have no effect on the
irresponsible while producing feelings of shame and guilt upon so many decent
people.
THE
PROBLEM
Too often, our religious institutions paint a
picture of sex, which suggest that sexual desire is of the devil. It is also
suggested that in some perverted way, God uses this strong drive She instilled in us as a tool of our judgement,
one which can ultimately bring us to eternal damnation.
Many religions compound these problems of
human sexuality by glorifying abstinence and celibacy; as if somehow these
individuals were closer to God than sexually active people. While we might
respect the self-control and sacrifice of these celibate individuals, their
abstinence is a matter of choice to express their love of God. But to promote
this as a higher state of holiness, is as much to say - God wants us to live in
opposition to the way He created us.
We need to acknowledge that many of the
religious and social attitudes (which are rooted in our religious beliefs)
about sex are out of touch with natural creation of God. These ideals put
demands upon us that are unrealistic expectations, which often cause negative
psychological effects on adults and make our children guilt laden and confused.
From our attitudes about masturbation; to our fear of homosexuality; right down
to the embarrassment we feel about things that are sexual in nature - we have a
serious problem in our society. It is a problem which religion has a
responsibility to address in a realistic and loving manner - a problem that is
of religious concern because human sexuality is one of the most awesome gifts
that God has seen fit to bless humanity with.
People like Paul, Augustine, Calvin and
numerous other religious thinkers and teachers have turned God's most beautiful
creation into a disgusting act that can only be performed under certain
approvals of the church (marriage). These thinkers that sex should be avoided
if one wants to reach perfection in the eyes of God. The whole concept that
virgins, or celibate men, are somehow holier than the rest of us is
preposterous. We project so much of humanities evil into sex that we are
failing to see the real evils, which plague our societies.
It seems that the worst problem with these
attitudes toward sex is that the more we proclaim it a sin, the more we condemn
it, the more we try to regulate it, the more we try to deny its naturalness;
the worse it comes back to haunt us. We have rape, pedophilia, and even
cannibalism turning up in our newspapers. There are so many sexually
dysfunctional people that one cannot feel safe walking the streets of our
cities, yet alone, allow their children out there.
Sexual dysfunction is making its way even into
the sacred institution of marriage. It can take the form of violence as in wife
beating and child molestation at one end of the spectrum; while taking the form
of impotency and frigidity on the other side - both leading to disharmony and
dysfunction in our homes. Sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy
are at epidemic proportions. And to those who promote the idea of celibacy or
abstinence as God's righteous path, they might do well to look at the problems
of the Catholic Church and her priesthood in recent years.
Also, religious condemnation of homosexuality,
self righteously in the name of God, creates hate groups; fag beating; and
psychological pain and suffering for millions of gay and lesbian people who are
simply responding to their own inner sexual drive. This often leads to drugs
and suicide at the worst, or low self-esteem and
oppression at the very least. In the name of God, we dare command that gay
people must deny themselves the expression of love and commitment that we
ourselves would not ever think to deny ourselves; simply because, it is
different from us! If homosexuality is a sin, than we must have an awfully
cruel God to allow it to orient some ten per cent of the people.
We have overpopulation with thousands of
unwanted children born every year; some of which could be avoided if religion
took a realistic approach toward sex, birth control, sensible sex education and
focusing on a purer ethic.
In a sense, we are reaping what we sow. Many
in the psychological field, particularly in the area of sex, agree with Jung
when he says:
When any NATURAL HUMAN FUNCTION gets LOST (i.e., IS DENIED
CONSCIOUS AND INTENTIONAL EXPRESSION) a general DISTURBANCE results.
(C.G. Jung, THE
UNDISCOVERED SELF p65)
Dr. Lillian Frey-Rohn
further elaborates on the psychological problems resulting from unrealistic
moral platitudes in a book called "Evil", in the chapter, which she
wrote, entitled, "Evil From A Psychological Point
of View":
In empirical psychology, concern with the problem of good and evil
is only of recent date. It was the IMPOVERISHMENT of HUMAN VITALITY and Moral
HOPELESSNESS at the end of the Victorian age which led to the revival of
psychological research. THE EFFECT UPON CULTURE OF AN OPPRESSIVE MORALITY, of false ideals and
deceptions, WERE SO NEGATIVE that a psychological reconsideration of the whole
moral problem became unavoidable.
And psychology has been, and continues to look
at human sexuality, learning and expanding its views in line with reality and
tolerance. Religion, on the other band, with the exception of some, has
remained Victorian in its teachings and ideals. This can be psychologically
damaging as well as judgmental and divisive - neither of which serve the ideals
of Jesus or the
And what has all this condemnation done for
us?
Turn on the television on any given evening
and you will see murders, fights, thefts, lies, deceit, and human tragedy of
every kind; but if a network were to show a sexual organ, which in reality is no
different than any other organ, there would be public outrage beyond belief!
One has to ask, isn't there something wrong with this logic? Even the implied
sex that is now shown in our programming, as ratings grabbers, is often grouped
by church leaders and public officials with the violence, crime and the murders
shown on television.
We need to recognize that sex and violence are NOT THE SAME THING. Violence in sex is just that:
VIOLENCE "IN" SEX. Violence does not ensure the continuation of the
human race, it is not an expression of love, nor is it a source of pleasure for
the well-adjusted mind. From a psychological standpoint, to use sex and
violence in the same sentence, as if they were alike in some manner, is a mixed
message that we should not be sending out in our society; yet alone, be sending
it to our children!
Then there are the preachers who proclaim
God's judgement upon us for our natural sexual
desires. There is an almost universal Christian condemnation of homosexuals who
are told that they are going to hell if they don't choose to give up sex. And
even with all the psychological advances of the present age, there are many
that still state that masturbation is a sin, instilling guilt and shame in
children exploring their sexual identity. Religious men are often claiming that
the sorry state of our world is because of the sexual attitudes of the society;
implying, that if we could just rid the world of natural sexual urges we would
somehow be transformed into Utopia. Sometimes churches paint a religious
picture where the whole judgement of God rests in
what we do in our beds.
And, while religiously emphasizing this aspect
of human nature, these same preachers are often ignoring the plight of poverty
stricken people - ignoring, the exploitation of working people all over the
globe - ignoring, the pollution and abuse of the world's natural resources -
ignoring, man's inhumanity to man - even justifying many of the causes of war.
Where is the usefulness in such religious ideals? What purpose do they serve in
life's flow? And above all, is humanity any better off because of them? Do
sexual oppression, guilt, and condemnation even work?
(A
Brief History of Sexual Attitudes)
In order to approach human sexuality in a more
positive light, it is necessary to explore how we got here in the first place,
as well as, looking at some of the people who influenced the present thinking
Doctor Elaine Pagels
in her excellent work called Adam, Eve And The
Serpent, states:
To judge by the New Testament reports of his few comments
concerning marriage, divorce, celibacy
- such concerns seemed almost incidental to Jesus' message.
(p8)
This is the reality: that Jesus didn't find
enough of a problem with human sexuality to even mention it. Adultery is the
closest he came, but it must be pointed out that marriage was a very different
institution than it is today. Jesus NEVER mentions the so-called
abomination called homosexuality. He never really addresses the issue of
premarital sex, although we must keep in mind that in those days marriage took
place just after puberty.
We also see that Jesus defends the
prostitutes, often keeping company with unscrupulous people of his time (a
charge used against him at this trial).
The fact is - no reading of the four Gospels can
account for the emphasis the Christian Church has put on sex. Jesus cannot be
cited to support their theological positions on sex in any concise manner.
Masturbation, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, oral sex; to Jesus, are
not significant enough to mention. Yet, this is so often portrayed as the
ultimate human weakness and occasion of sin.
And beyond Jesus, the interpretation of the
Bible itself becomes questionable when you compare its injunctions of that time
to our understanding and culture of this period. Even adultery doesn't mean the
same thing today as it did then.
When we seek biblical guidance on the issue of human sexuality
today, we discover that despite the frequent quotation of the Bible in defense
of CONVENTIONAL MORALITY, the Bible presents us with ambiguous, contradictory,
and sometimes absolutely unacceptable standards for making sexual judgments
today. On one side, no sexual practice was condemned more completely in the
Bible than the sin of ADULTERY. It was one of the commandments to which was
added the DEATH penalty (Deut.
The second thing to note about adultery in the Bible is that the
prevailing marital pattern of the times was not MONOGAMY but POLYGAMY. What
does adultery mean when one man can possess and unlimited number of woman for
his own amusement? How can any injunction based on these premises be used to
define morality today?
(Bishop John
Shelby Spong, LIVING IN SIN, Harper and Row, cl988,
pl3l)
We also need to add to Spong's
insight, that the structure of marriage was a far cry from the commitment of
love we proclaim today. Most often marriages were prearranged taking place at a
very young age. The young developing individual didn't have this long period of
abstinence which is a norm for only the last century. A fifteen-year-old of
biblical times would for the most part be married; and sometimes even younger
for the girls.
So then how did we get here? And why is so
much of the Christian church so reluctant to change?
The emphasis on human sexuality in Christian
Theology begins with Paul who is the basis for much of the theology that
overshadows so much of the deeper message of Jesus. Most scholars agree that
Paul was a deeply troubled man. A man who in fact never met Jesus, nor did he learn from Jesus first hand.
In fact, Paul is a self-proclaimed spokesman
of God and Christ.# It is also recognizable that
Paul is often contradictory and has a bias (probably prominent in the
patriarchal society of the times) against women. Not only do we get the basics
of our sexual attitudes from Paul, but also much of the discrimination against
women which exists in Christianity is justified from the works of Paul. In the
Gospels there seems to be no evidence that Jesus seen women any different than
men, and in the Gospel of Thomas, there is no mistake that Jesus seen the sexes
as completely equal, which was a point of contention with several of his
disciples.
Paul's injunction against homosexuality, for
example, is simply a quote from Leviticus, a book that is full of laws that are
no longer observed. Leviticus 19:13, tells us not to hold back a man's wage for
a day. Leviticus 19:26, tells us you can't eat meat
with blood in it. In fact in Chapter Nineteen: tattoos are
outlawed (verse28), people are forbidden to eat the fruit of a
tree for three years (26), cutting your hair and shaving the edge of your beard
are forbidden (27). If we examine all the laws in Leviticus, capital offenses
in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and scrutinize the laws of the Old Testament, we
find that we conveniently pick and choose what we accept, and, ignore the rest.
In
Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul establishes fornicators, homosexuals
adulterers, sexual perverts as all being banned from the
So it begins with Paul, but he is not the
final word on the subject. The guy who cements and glues sin and sex together
is Augustine. His ideas about sex are summed up nicely in his Soliloquies,
where he says:
"NOTHING
IS SO MUCH TO BE SHUNNED AS SEX RELATIONS."
Augustine, like Paul, was a deeply troubled
man when it came to human sexuality. Doctor Pagels
paints a nice picture of the division and mixed messages that this man received
from his early family life:
Born into a non-patrician family, Augustine tells us that his PAGAN
FATHER, Patricus was a man HABITUALLY UNFAITHFUL TO
Augustine's MOTHER, and not only failed to "root out the brambles of
lust" from his son, but expressed pleasure in his adolescent son's
appetite... His Christian mother, Monica, patiently endured her husband's
infidelities, Augustine says, but "most earnestly implored ME NOT TO
COMMIT FORNICATION." As a young man he would have been embarrassed to
take such "womanish" advice; but much later, looking back, be came to
believe that GOD HAD SPOKEN TO HIM THROUGH HIS MOTHER, and that "When I
disregarded her, I DISREGARDED GOD."
(Elaine Pagels, ADAM, EVE AND THE SERPENT, cl988, p122)
It is psychologically easy to see why
Augustine might develop his own sexual bang-ups, given his upbringing. Yet,
this is the man that would influence Christian ideals about sin more than any
other is. Quoting Pagels again:
Augustine would eventually transform traditional Christian teaching
on FREEDOM, SEXUALITY, and on SIN AND REDEMPTION for all FUTURE generations of
Christians. Where earlier generations of Jews and Christians had once found in
Genesis 1-3 the AFFIRMATION of human freedom to choose good and evil,
Augustine, living after the age of Constantine, found in that same text a story
of human bondage.
(ibid. p97)
Augustine came to view human sexual desire as
a weakening of human nature caused by the original sin of Adam and Eve. Our sex
drive, in a sense, was placed there to allow the devil more control over us
according to Augustine's logic. Natural erections, wet dreams and the like were
all indications of the inert evil within us, caused by that stain from the
original sin. Where Jesus delivered a message of God within, Augustine chose to
accent the devil within - and this has been the position of countless Christian
Theologians ever since
But that still does not answer the question of
why the church is so preoccupied with controlling our sexual behavior. The
answer is: power through guilt! Give a man guilt over
the one thing which is his strongest controllable desire, and you make the man
dependent upon the church. Few of us, if any, have no sexual desires that are
not in some way sinful in the eyes of the accepted moral codes of many
Augustine's theory of original sin not only proved politically
expedient, since it persuaded many of his contemporaries that human beings
universally NEEDED EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT - which meant, in their case, BOTH A
CHRISTIAN STATE AND IN IMPERIALLY SUPPORTED CHURCH - but also offered an
analysis of human nature that became, for better and worse, the HERITAGE OF ALL
SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS OF WESTERN CHRISTIANS AND THE MAJOR INFLUENCE OF THEIR
PSYCHOLOGY AND POLITICAL THINKING.
(ibid., introduction, p.xxvi)
In John Romer's
excellent work called TESTAMENT, he tells us that the Christian
Church took on new meaning when
Arguments about the nature of God were far from being theological
abstractions; they were about POWER in THIS WORLD AND THE NEXT.
(215)
By Augustine's Birth in 354, the church was still
formulating its ideology, but now it had structure and the power of the state
to enforce its ideals. Augustine's concepts of man being a slave to sin and
God's "saving grace of the church" were ideal components for a
doctrine which sought to secure its place in the world. In connecting sex and
the weakening of our natures to the original sin, the church could ensure that
every individual would need its "saving grace". Such a dependency
doctrine would also insure that people look to the church, God's authority on
earth, to seek guidance in what is acceptable and what is not.
There are even remnants of this power hold
today, for it seems, the more a religion seeks to control its membership the
greater its emphasis is upon the sins of the flesh.
(Differing Ideals)
Now let
us compare the words of Augustine:
"Nothing is to be so much
shunned as sex relations."
to the Words Of
Sexual pleasures, WISELY USED AND NOT ABUSED, may prove the
stimulus and liberator of our finest and MOST EXALTED ACTIVITIES.
(AND)
SEX LIES AT THE ROOT OF LIFE, and we can
never learn THE REVERENCE FOR LIFE until we know how to understand sex.
(From:
"Studies in the Psychology of Sex'" Random House, 1936)
Now, ask yourself: Which of these two
statements make the more sense in light of the reality of our natures? Given
the nature of our sexual drives and feelings, which is the more rational
statement? Would a loving and logical God give us such a strong sex drive and
then expect it to be used only in the narrow manner that many religious leaders
tell us it should be used?
The statement by Augustine, cited above, is
totally unnatural and out of touch with the psychological make-up of most men
and women. What Augustine considered the weakening of our human nature (sex
drive) because of the original sin; is the natural - God given - sexual drive
of a human being. This totally unrealistic morality which is preached, is not
only unnatural, it is unhealthy. In many cases, such teachings go against the
very natures of men, especially, if we acknowledge our animal primordial state
as part of the complete human.
As always, the first premise of a responsible
theology is that men have no right to declare God's word for other men. Even
those who declare the Bible "the word of God," ignore much of
its content. The truth is, no matter what we profess to believe people pick and
choose from Scripture that which supports their beliefs and disregard the rest.
Responsible theology will see sexual morality
as a personal issue between an individual, their partner, and God. The only
moral law which should be declared are those laws of
the state which are needed to protect a society from unscrupulous members of
that society, and the regulation of social contracts where absolutely
necessary. No church, no state, no man has the right to declare God's law. The
responsible approach for religion is to encourage an ethic among its followers,
especially the young, by which they can develop a personal moral code, which is
positive in the life of the individual and respectful of the rights and lives
of others. The responsible theologian will take literally the directive of
Jesus that no man can sit in judgement of another.
To declare human sexuality between consenting
adults a sin, is a presumption of God. For example, is prostitution a sin if a
mother resorts to it to feed her children? One could say no, for in reality the
sin is in the society that forces individuals into such circumstances. Too often,
our religious views have us so focused on a microcosm of immorality, blinding
us to a bigger picture that encourages the so-called immorality.
We are not saying that there cannot be a right
and wrong in sex. Sex is definitely wrong when one forces
themselves upon others, when it is harmful to another in some way such as in
child sex, or when there is unwanted life brought forth in the cases of
irresponsibility, or, when we spread disease. But, to overcome these things
involves individual ethics, personal responsibility, respect and love among
people - these are the things that will remove the immorality from our society
- not the condemnation of sex!
Sex is not the greater evil. It's the
selfishness, indifference, and lack of respect that we have for one another,
which creates the problem. It is true that to take advantage of someone
sexually would be immoral, but that applies to all aspects of our lives, not
just sex! In many respects, our business practices where lying in advertising,
where exploitation of workers, where cheating and overpricing, where the need
to create a market is of greater priority than one's ability to pay: these
things are every bit as much of an evil as irresponsible sexual acts - but no
church equates business to weak wills or evil. To take advantage of another, to
lie or cheat them, to oppress them is evil whether it is sexual, social,
business, or pleasure.
The ethics a responsible theology would
encourage should also be realistic - in touch with the reality which God
created. The church itself has a responsibility to promote good mental health
and take into consideration the effect of its teachings upon its flock.
Theology may be able to disagree with psychology, but it can never ignore it.
The mind of an individual is as much a part of that human being as is the soul.
The soul may give life, but it is the body which lives it, experiencing it
through the mind. God would never declare a law that would require us to act
against our natural well being; therefore, it is imperative that religion
considers what we know about psychology, genetics, and the biological realities
of our human sexual natures.
In so far as sex has been repressed by many of
our religious ideologies, theology must work hard to establish a healthy view.
Religion can't advocate a complete disregard
for moral teaching, or advocate promiscuity, for both would be irresponsible.
But, it can strive to get away from archaic reasoning and unnatural doctrines;
approaching the whole ideal of human sexuality from an open, tolerant, and
loving approach. Churches need to stop viewing "sex as sin," and
approach it as the beautiful gift that God has made it. Theologians need to see
that sexual pleasures are as diverse as eating, respecting such diversity among
humankind. Religion needs a sexual ethic which will help protect the society
from destructive sexual behavior; but one that does not condemn an individual
on the basis of our own personal dislikes or beliefs. And, we need ethics that
apply across the board equally to all our social activities.
These issues need much further study and open
dialog to formulate approaches which can work, but the first thing we must
admit is that we have something wrong. While this work makes no claim to have
all the answers, it does have some suggestions toward overcoming some of the
problems which religion faces in dealing with this issue.
(Marriage)
Theology must support the concept of marriage
based on the psychological importance of children needing a stable environment
in which to grow. It would seem that those who wish to bring forth children
have a special responsibility to each other and the children that they bring
into the world. Committing to one another in the concept of marriage is a good
way to achieve this objective. While one cannot say that marriage is the only
suitable lifestyle to bring children into the world, for there are many loving
parents who are single or not married, we have to recognize that marriage is an
important part of our social order.
But this idea of marriage for love is a
relatively new concept of just the past century, and, we have already
established that polygamy was the norm throughout much of scriptural writings.
And even in the development of the Christian Church marriage was only required
for certain classes of people in much of its history:
The true agenda of marriage at its inception was by far MORE
ECONOMIC THAN IT WAS MORAL. The woman would produce the heirs to the man's
wealth and property. Among the upper classes, who really made the rules, the virgin
status of one's bride and the faithfulness of the married woman were the only
guarantees a man had that his heir would be legitimate and therefor
the one to whom he could pass on his fortune.
This is why marriage was never, demanded or enforced, EVEN BY THE
CHURCH' among the lower classes until very late in Western history. The
PEASANTS HAD NO WEALTH TO PRESERVE, so they never developed any great need for
a marriage ceremony to cement restrictions around the wife. In
seventeenth-century
Without benefit of clergy, lower class men and women simply began
living together. The church, at least in
(John Shelby Spong,
LIVING IN SIN,1988, p48)
So, it would seem that the sanctification of marriage
by the church was not always a requirement and had less to do with Divine Will,
being more about social contracts. People could commit to each other at an
individual level, if they so desired.
Marriage is not so much a religious
institution, but rather a social contract - for basically social reasons - the
rules for which are based upon cultural and other sociological factors.
No church, acting as a spokesman for God, has
the right to pronounce, deny, bind or excuse; the vows which individuals pledge
to one another. This does not say that the church does not have the right to
marry; for that power is granted by the state. Nor, should the church fail to
encourage marriage; in fact, the opposite is true; churches should encourage
marriage because it is good for the whole and has proven to be a worthy social
institution for many.
The fact of the matter is, when it comes to
God, no human being has a clue as to what marriage should be. Even if we look
to nature, we will see every kind of relationship that human beings are capable
of, and even beyond that.
The present theological basis for marriage is
rooted in the story of Adam and Eve, and enforced, by at least some
What God has joined together, man must not separate.
(Matthew 19:6)
The obvious question here,
becomes: How do we know what God joins together? The marriage ritual is
performed by human beings acting as self-proclaimed spokesmen for God.
And to
support Spong's theory about adultery being considered
only a crime for women, Jesus states:
They (those who followed the law of Noses) Were told, a man who divorces his wife must give her a note
of dismissal. But I tell you this: If a man divorces his wife for any cause
other than unchasity he involves HER in adultery; and
anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
(Matthew 5:31)
You will note, there
seems to be no injunction against marrying a divorced man. This statement was
somewhat corrected in Luke
That [marriage] is something, which NOT EVERYONE CAN
ACCEPT, BUT ONLY THOSE FOR WHOM GOD HAS APPOINTED IT. For while some are
incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there
are others who themselves have renounced marriage for the sake of the
(Matthew 19: 11,12)
So, even Jesus is somewhat ambiguous about the
institution of marriage. What does he mean when be proclaims that some can't
marry from birth? While such might be referring to sterility, it could also
include those who are born homosexual. In truth, we don't have God's law on
marriage, and Jesus isn't giving it out. Marriage is an institution created by
men to protect their progenies. The concept of marriage has not been the same
since the so-called origin in the Garden of Eden. It has, and continues, to
change.
While it is advantageous for people to express
their vows before God and others, such might not really be necessary for
marriage in the eyes of God. Nor, do all the moral standards of the church
regarding marriage need to apply to every married couple.
As a theological issue, religion is at a loss
in its scripture to define marriage, for such was different things at different
times. And some of the so-called religious doctors of Christianity pronounced
platitudes about a way of life they themselves had never experienced.
And while we are talking about commitment, our
society is a hypocrisy when it comes to the sacredness
of the institution of marriage. The divorce rate for the
For all our religious condemnation of those
who choose to live together outside marriage (based on the premise that
marriage is a commitment for life), married people are dissolving their
commitments left and right! There are many reasons, but at least some of this
problem could stem from the idea that marriage is needed to legitimize sex in
the eyes of God. So we should not look at marriage as license to have sex in
the eyes of God, for such attitudes cloud the true meaning of marriage which is
really about the sacredness of love and commitment and the unity in two
becoming one.
That leads us to the question of how a
responsible theology will approach marriage?
The first reality, which comes to mind, is
that marriage is a stable institution for children. To have two parents
representative of paradox (male & female), who work together to love and
protect them, is a valuable psychological tool. People should be encouraged to
marry if they wish to have children, and, such a commitment should be serious,
responsible and lasting.
Today, love is supposed to be the root of
marriage. People need to determine their own expression of love and the
commitments they make to each other without a church telling them what God
requires. The role of the church is to respect an individual's decision within
the ethical guidelines of responsibility and love. A minister, or a judge,
doesn't define love in the eyes of God; it is what is in the heart of the
individual that makes the love that God sees; in, or out of, a church.
In the end, marriage is not about sex. It's
about sharing, respect, responsibility, commitment, love, unity and often
children. Theologically, sex needs to be removed from the equation of marriage.
Theology should concentrate on the sacredness of two people committing their
love for one another in the marriage contract. Religion needs to also recognize
that the vows individuals exchange, should be personal
in nature, exchanged in a manner where individuals know if they can keep them
or not. These vows could even include what sexual behavior will, and will not,
be tolerated.
And a responsible theology will be careful in
assessing its moral point of view for those who choose to live together outside
matrimony. There are many a couple who live together outside marriage who are
happier, and raise their children better, and provide a more functional home,
than some married couples. A religious ceremony, or a state license, does
nothing to add or take away a commitment that is truly from the heart.
When we wonder why marriages don't work today,
maybe its because we instill in people that it is the
only legitimate way to have sex. The ceremony, the celebration, and the
honeymoon are all more focused upon than the sharing of life that two people
are committing to. In other words: the libido is the driving force, rather
than, the love and commitment to one another. Such psychological implications
can only be our folly.
(Sex
outside marriage)
Instead of trying to discourage certain
aspects of behavior, especially between consenting adults, religion should be
emphasizing the virtues of love, respect, personal responsibility and the idea
of treating people as we wish to be treated.
We have already established that the idea of
marriage as being the only way to express love is ridiculous. And the idea that
love is eternal, or must be for life, is also a folly. Again, one only need to look at the divorce rate. Of what use is a
commitment that one knows can be dissolved by simply paying a lawyer a fee?
Realistically, love can, and often is,
expressed outside marriage. While socially there are a variety of reasons to
marry in love, especially where there are children; God needs no human
intervention to determine the value of one's love for another.
And when two consenting adults choose to
participate in sex, for even a brief encounter, theologically we have no right
to judge the act. The pleasure they may bring to each other, or self-pleasure
as the case may be, may be what each of them need. Such sex can be healthy as
long as it is responsible. By this idea of responsibility we mean we care
enough and are serious enough about the step we embark upon. One would hope
that when one sees sex as sacred, one would act responsibly. They need to
consider protection (so unwanted children are not born) either by
contraceptives or sexual acts that would not produce children. They need to
make sure that disease is not spread to another. These should be ethics that go
without saying. But these individuals who take such a step need to also
consider the feelings of those they have sex with; striving to avoid
exploitation of someone in weakness; striving to make sure the other person's
wishes are of the same type of an encounter as they envision - in other words,
complete honesty.
Responsible theology will recognize that sex
can express many different things to different people. It certainly is not
always about love. Loneliness, connectedness, pleasure, and just plain sharing
are all part of sexual drive. Religion needs to acknowledge this, allowing
individuals the right to determine the morality of their own personal choice,
which is really what people, do anyhow. It would seem that God cares whether
people are hurt or not, not what two people decide to do in their bed. People
should not be made to feel immoral or guilty for actions, which affect only
them. Sex, like any other expression of human nature, is only immoral when it
hurts someone, when it exploits someone, when it is forced upon another, when
it produces unwanted life which is rejected in some way.
The act of having sex cannot be a sin. The
only immorality, which can come about in a sexual union, is one of hypocrisy or
destructiveness. Sin is in indifference to the feelings and needs of others;
compounded by a lack of self control over self-gratification. These things are
what lead to evil, in sex, as well as every other aspect of life. It's not the
sex that's evil, but the individuals who may take advantage of others in
selfish pursuit.
As far as youth goes, we have a unique problem
today. It has only been in the last hundred years that marriage began to occur
"later" than "sooner" in life. One thing is for certain in
dealing with the young, to teach youth that sex is immoral is useless and
confusing.
While religion must be careful NOT to
encourage youthful sexual activity, it would seem that sex education in the
form of responsibility, as we discussed, would be a far better tool than the
religious standard many churches often employ. Many of the present ideals
simply drive the young away from God, make them feel guilty, or are ignored in
the moment of passion. Studies have shown that quality sex education
significantly decreases teen pregnancy. Many teenagers are going to have sex whether
we give them commandments or not - better, they are prepared with responsible
knowledge, than judged.
Once again, with sex among youth, theology
must shift their focus from condemnation to an assumption of responsibility.
Responsible theology must stress the sacredness of sex, not its immorality or
our weakness. Many of the ancient religions saw the sacredness of human
sexuality, and sometimes, even incorporating such into their rituals. While we
are far removed from that world, their motif of sacredness is as valuable today
as ever. Perhaps, if the sacredness were the message, young people may try a
little harder to be responsible. We must not forget,
young people get a very mixed message about sex in our society; from, the
preachers who condemn such acts as vile, to the entertainment media using sex
to sell, entertain, or get our attention.
In our rising to consciousness, God gave us
the free will to make our own destiny as individuals as well as collectively.
In the paradoxes of myth, and scripture, are outlined the ethics which would
best serve that gift. Balance, tolerance, and unselfishness are things that
best serve the whole. Dogmatism, judgement, and
narcissism need to be controlled. It is easy to share and tolerate the concepts
of those who think like us, but it is much more difficult to be tolerant of
those who differ. Jesus makes this point several times in the Gospels.
Human sexuality is a diverse thing, like
appetite or creativity. Ultimately, the responsibility for sexual behavior is
personal, between individuals, their partners and God. If religion led people
to God, instead of a church, there would be no need to proclaim what is moral
or immoral. It is not our weak human natures that are causing the problem. It's
the misguided priorities of so many of our theological decrees. It is a
religion's responsibility to proclaim the joy and sacredness of sex for it is
in this way that healthy and responsible sex can be nourished. Sin and guilt
are not answers, but love and respect make people think more about what they
do.
(Masturbation)
Another archaic idea of many of our present
religious institutions is the idea that masturbation is wrong and displeasing
to God. The fact of the matter is that masturbation occurs in all primates, and
it can be a release for vent up sexual frustration.
Several years ago, a Surgeon General was
dismissed in a controversy of advocating masturbation as an acceptable
deterrent to teenage sex. Churches and self-righteous politicians were
outraged; when in reality, the common sense of this woman was profound. If
masturbation becomes a sin as some claim, then people might as well go after
the sex anyhow? If its sinful to masturbate and sinful
to have sex outside marriage, then what is the difference between the sins? The
folly of this Victorian thought process is self-evident.
Here again, Jesus never mentions this act for
all the preaching some of the Christian churches do about it. When we read in
the Bible the injunction against "spilling one's seed" as it is
called, we cannot ignore the mentality of the individuals who reasoned such.
They were under the assumption that semen was actually the seed of humans. They
felt that the male planted the seed into the female,
thus, any wasting of that seed would somehow threaten procreation. There was no
consideration, or understanding of the biological role that woman played in the
creative process. The writers of the Bible, as well as other ancient text, seen the woman as no more than an incubator for male seed.
It would make logical sense from their perspective that masturbation would be
sinful. But, to base one's moral position today on such logic speaks for
itself.
Today we know that masturbation is not harmful
and the spilling of seed is a natural happenstance. God didn't make our ability
to masturbate as a sexual release in order to create some Divine Law against
it, for such would not make any sense. In fact, under the laws of logic,
combined with the powerful and emotional sex drive, such a concept could be
seen as a brilliant and loving plan offered to those who are deprived of having
sex.
Masturbation also allows the young to explore
their sexual identity, preparing them for future relationships. There is no
danger of the spread of disease, it doesn't bring about unwanted children, and
it doesn't hurt anyone when practiced by healthy human beings. There are far
greater ills and problems in our society which churches should devote their
energy toward. It really wouldn't hurt to encourage masturbation as an
alternative to premarital sex as Dr. Elders suggested. Nor, would it hurt
religion to acknowledge that masturbation is a normal way to vent sexual
frustration or desire.
(Homosexuality)
And our religious and social attitudes toward
homosexuality, too, must be questioned. The strongest Christian rationalization
for the evils of homosexuality is "that it is unnatural". But, as
Bishop John Shelby Spong states in his work entitled
"Living in Sin":
Can a religious tradition that has LONG PRACTICED CIRCUMCISION and
INSTITUTIONAL CELIBACY ever dismiss any other practice on the basis of its
unnaturalness?
(p71)
In that same work, Spong
also cites from a study done by JoDurden-Smith and
Diane de Simone from their work called "Sex and the Brain," about the
occurrence of homosexuality in nature:
It remains a fact that among higher mammals, homosexuality is found
in roughly the same statistical percentages as is found in Homo sapiens.
(p74)
And Frans B.M. de Waal, in the March 1995 issue of Scientific
The species is best characterized as female-centered and
egalitarian and as one that SUBSTITUTES SEX FOR AGGRESSION. Whereas, in most
other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the Bonobo, it is part and parcel of the social relations - and
not just between males and females, BONOBOS ENGAGE IN SEX IN VIRTUALLY EVERY
PARTNER COMBINATION (although such contact among close family members may
be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among Bonobos than among other primates.
Any religious argument that homosexuality is
evil because it is unnatural is as dead in the water as stating the "earth
is the center of the universe" because it says so in the Bible. While it
may not occupy the majority of natural behaviors, it occurs enough to be part
of the natural order of things. If we place our faith in God, such must be in Her plan.
And in still the same work cited above, Bishop
Spong covers the gross unfairness and complete
foolishness of our positions on homosexuality in a Christian influenced
society, especially when Jesus never mentioned the subject.
Our pious conditional resolutions binding moral homosexuality to
CELIBACY reveal nothing less than an IRRATIONAL BELIEF in a sadistic God. In
light of new knowledge, this God created gay and lesbian people only to punish
them. God made them in the creation complete with sexual drive and then said
that morality demanded that this drive be repressed. Once again, we are
confronted with the dictum that bad biology and bad biochemistry result in bad
theology. The traditional position of the church, based on the false premise
that loving sexual expression between persons of the same gender are always
evil, MUST COME FACE TO FACE WITH THE EVIL THIS STANCE HAS CREATED.
(p85)
Each one of us is different sexually, and we
must begin to recognize and respect those differences. Our likes and dislikes,
our greatest moments in bed; are as varied as our choices of foods. Some people
may prefer oral sex to genital sex, or homosexual sex to heterosexual sex, or
mutual masturbation over actual intercourse. We would never think of telling a
person who likes oatmeal never to eat it simply because we don't like its
taste, but this is essentially what many religions do with sex!
On the other hand, this is not to advocate sex
without ethics - it is simply to say that we cannot establish morality based
upon our own standard, even when that standard might be in the majority. We
cannot make moral judgements about sexual acts;
instead, we need moral ethics by which we can judge our own behavior. Morality
has nothing to do with what we do in our beds, it's
the intent and consequence of those actions that create moral dilemmas.
Morality, in sex, becomes our personal
responsibility toward others; and that varies from situation to situation.
Religion needs to concern itself with broader ethics that apply to responsible
actions in all aspects of life, which include sex. It's not what we do in our
beds that makes us bad or good, or with whom partake. It becomes the
consequence of the activity that makes it right or wrong. Is someone getting
hurt? Are we deceiving in order to get selfish satisfaction? Is there unwanted
life being conceived? Are we spreading disease? Are we breaking our commitments
to someone else? Are we concerned with the other person's feelings in this
matter - psychologically as well as physically? These are the questions we need
to ask ourselves in our sexual encounters as well as every other aspect of our
life.
Religion seems to have a standard that if you
are faithfully married in a heterosexual relationship, or remain celebrate:
that this makes us holy in the eyes of God. But there are faithfully married
people who rape their employees every day of the week when they pay them less
than they can afford to live on! There are celibate people who prostitute
themselves in ways outside of sex for a buck every day of the week. There are faithful
people who cheat other people every day of the week and think nothing of
cheating as long as it is outside of sex.
And while we focus on sex as a society, we
lesson the true evil of many of our greater evils. Churches often condemn the
homosexual while ignoring the industrial polluter. They might
picket get rid of erotica, but its okay to vividly portray violence and murder
in our news and entertainment. Religion often condemns
the prostitute, but keep quiet about the circumstances in our economy
that cause men and women to prostitute themselves. They tell our youth to say
no to sex but say little about tempting them, enticing them, and leading them
on in every way we can in our effort to get them to buy our products. It's okay for business to exploit sex for profit, bit it
becomes a sin to experience it! This is the double standard of our
self-righteous God fearing society.
Responsible theology's answers are not in
telling people bow to live. They encourage people to find their own true, God
given, sexual nature; and, would strive to provide a religious structure that
would encourage a responsible approach to that identity. Such theology would
postulate that a religion should approach human sexuality with openness that
will allow it to adjust to our new found knowledge of the role that sexuality
plays in our development. The religious ideal can not ignore science in the
pursuit of self-serving truth about human sexuality. Human sexuality is part of
life, and life is of God and science studies the realms of life. Most objective
scientist would agree that homo/bisexuality are inert
drives which can be influenced positively or negatively by one's conditioning.
It is irresponsible of religion, and a
violation of the ethic of love, to make any human being feel guilty, immoral,
or cursed from an orientation they may have no control over.
And there is not any strong biblical support
to condemn homosexuality. We've already established that for all the citing of
Leviticus (
Some might cite the story of
"The issue of homosexuality is another reality in sexual
thinking and practice that places pressure on Holy Scripture. Once again, this
prejudice is so deep, so widely assumed to be self-evident, that all the major
churches have in the past simply quoted the Bible to justify their continued
oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian persons. THE
In the biblical world of male values, the humiliation of a male was
best achieved by making the males act like women in the sex act. To act like a
woman, to be a passive participant in coitus, was thought to be insulting to
the dignity of the male. This, far more than homosexuality, was the underlying
theme of the
The story goes on to say that
(Bishop John
Shelby Spong, RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM
1991, p7)
The fact is, if the church recognized the
naturalness and legitimacy of homosexual unions they would be embracing
individuals that have seen themselves as religious outcasts for a long time.
Just as Christians justified many of the atrocities against the Jews by
proclaiming them "Christ Killers"; they are creating the same potentially
dangerous environment for homosexual men and woman.
Responsible theology would not participate in
such judgmental and dangerous positions. Instead, it would encourage the same
ethics of responsibility that applies to all sexual behaviors.
One final thought on this subject. While
marriage is often defined as a contract between a man and woman, which would
obviously exclude homosexuals by definition. Despite that, one might still
believe it is in the best interest of society to promote monogamous
relationships and offer some sort of love commitment for homosexual
relationships. This would go a long way to serve such ethical commitment.
(Birth
Control, Abortion and Children)
It is absolutely preposterous for any religion
to say that birth control is sinful. It becomes especially foolish when it this
is based upon a theological assumption that birth control might somehow deprive
a human life that God intended. Reason and logic would dictate, that if God
were the determinant factor in human conception; far less children would be
born out of accident, or, be born to people who might abuse them. And for
religions that believe in a Virgin birth, one might conclude that God would
have no problem creating any intended life.
While responsible theology can concede
conception as a part of God because it is a sharing in the creative process, it
is biology, which is the pure determinant that God has put in place for
procreation. As the population grew, science gave us the means to limit
reproduction and plan families according to the means and resources we have at
our disposal. Such intellect comes from God. In a world of overpopulation, in a
world of starving children, in a world where children are abused, in a world
where children are exploited, in a world where many will have no opportunity;
it is irresponsible of any theology to proclaim birth control a sin! True
immorality is bringing children into the world irresponsibly, when they are
unwanted, unloved or abused , when we do not have the
means to care for them, or when we know the child will experience undue
suffering.
In light of the overpopulation (and because
God has given us the intellect and means to control our numbers) birth control
can be considered part of a responsible approach toward human sexuality and
morality. Unlike other animals, we can choose through artificial means (or by
choosing other gratifying sexual activities outside of intercourse) whether or
not we want to procreate during sexual activity.
Abortion is a travesty for an enlightened
society. It is a condition which should not exist. The argument over the women
having control over her own body and the right of the
unborn is a waste of spiritual time. There is no theological position for such
irresponsible behavior.
Ignorance, irresponsible sexual behavior,
selfishness and indifference are among the evils that lead to abortion. Too
often, we seek to legislate against the act, instead of addressing the cause.
If we began to exercise prudent behavior in all phases of our life from
business to social, maybe, we would be more responsible in our sexual
encounters and less abortions might occur.
And there is another hypocrisy of religion in
regards to this question; that is, the seemingly indifference of the church and
the state in the quality of life of the children that are already born -
children who suffer and are neglected - children who are tortured and abused -
children who have little, if any, opportunity - children who are doomed to a
lifetime of hardship. Reasonable people might ask: what is the difference in
aborting a child; from, bringing a child into the world to live in misery?
And those religions that choose to stand in
opposition to birth control are as much of a cause of the suffering children in
the world as the irresponsible people who continue to produce life they cannot
offer love and hope. How dare they tell people they should have a child
conceived out of irresponsible behavior because it is a sin to have sex otherwise.
The question of abortion is one about the
sacredness to life. It is hypocrisy for any theology to condemn such a practice
and ignore the conditions that children face all over the globe. A society has
no right to address the issue of abortion until it sees to it that all children
are fed, clothed and have shelter - that all children have hope and opportunity
- that all children have medical care - that all children have opportunity to
live in dignity! To say that life is sacred and to ignore these realities is as
hypocritical as it gets. The truth is that in many cases, abortion is more
humane than the conditions we allow our children to live in. Go into any inner
city and experience the hell that children are forced to live in because of
irresponsibility on the part of parents, government and religion, which condone
by their silence the exploitation of others. The nature of this problem is a
disgrace for religion, inexcusable for a thriving society, and an abomination
of hypocrisy for individuals who picket and preach the evils of abortion but do
nothing for the children who suffer.
Before religion should even consider asking
the state to protect the rights of the unborn, it should be fighting for the
rights of the born. It should be fighting for a QUALITY OF LIFE where children
need not live in fear, hopelessness and misery. One cannot realistically
protect the rights of unborn until they secure the rights of the born. Until
the society, or the churches, can offer quality life to the aborted, they have
no right to sit in judgement of this desperate act!
Again, responsible theology would emphasize
the sacredness of life, the sacredness of sex, and the personal responsibility
of the individual to respect that sacredness. It would work to promote an ethic
based upon the concept of love, instead of, seeking to legislate
its moral conclusions. Responsible theology would recognize that the greatest
evil in our societies is the conditions in which our children must live! To rid
the world of abortion would do little, if anything, to rid the world of these
problems.
(Summary on Human Sexuality)
While this discourse cannot solve all the
moral problems of human sexuality, for such would take volumes, it can be used
as a starting point where we might improve upon ideas that are out of touch
with our world. The present system of Christian values is a failure because of
the rampant hypocrisy toward its moral teachings. Divorce, sexual
entertainment, using sex to advertise - not to say that these things are evil;
but, they are a hypocrisy in a society that lays claim
to be founded on the traditional Christian values preached by Jesus.
The theological problem we have is that too
often people separate their religious lives from their secular lives. To often
the causes of evil, such as, self-centeredness, selfishness, and instant
gratification are overlooked and even condoned by religions that remain silent
about such things. The same ethics that might apply to church and family are
not present in business, social acquaintances or other matters of everyday reality.
When religion looses its meaning in everyday reality, as practiced by
individuals who proclaim such faith, the religion can no longer lead people to
God or effectively serve society. This is why it is important for responsible
theology to address all problems in terms of the reality in which we live. A
responsible theology will recognize that the church's role is to lead people to
God; not speak for Her. It will always see sex as
sacred, avoiding concepts that it is evil or something to be avoided like violence.
Human sexuality is one of God's most joyous
gifts, one that should be celebrated and not condemned.
Please email us with your thoughts.
Express your opinion on our Message board
Sign our Guest Book