ZONDERVAN

The Ethics of Sex

Previously published in Moral Choices

Copyright © 1995, 2000, 2009 by Scott B. Rae

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Zondervan.

EPub Edition JANUARY 2012 ISBN: 978-0-310-49648-9

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Rae, Scott B.

Moral choices: an introduction to ethics / Scott B. Rae—3rd ed.

p. cm.

ISBN 978-0-310-29109-1 (hardcover)

1. Ethics. I. Title.

BJ1012.R32 2009

170—dc22                                                                                         2009005151

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

All Scripture quotations marked TNIV are taken from the Holy Bible, Today’s New International Version™. Copyright © 2001 by International Bible permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard Bible. © Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Cover design: Ron Huizinga

Interior design: Matthew Van Zomeran

Contents

Copyright Page

The Ethics of Sex

The Ethics of Sex

Sexual ethics refers to the ethical issues raised by the variety of sexual relationships and arrangements both inside and outside of marriage. Cultures throughout the centuries have been concerned about the moral parameters for sexual expression. Since the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, many sexual boundaries have been challenged and longtime prohibitions on certain types of sexual behavior have been rethought.

To appreciate the challenges involved in this area of ethics, think about how you would respond to the following scenarios:

1. You are counseling a high school student who is unsure of his sexual orientation. He feels some attraction for the same sex and has received some very private encouragement from gay teens at his high school. He has doubts about his ability to be attracted to women but is very reluctant to admit that he is struggling with his sexual identity.

2. An engaged couple comes to you for counsel prior to their marriage concerning the subject of birth control. They do not want to become pregnant before they are ready, and they believe that life begins at conception. They believe that children are a gift from God, and they want to know if any birth control is okay. They have heard that some birth control methods actually prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. They don’t think that they want to do birth control that way but are not sure if that is any different from a miscarriage that might happen naturally.

3. A gay couple comes to you asking you to perform their civil commitment service. They know you are a minister in the area, and they are committed to each other and plan to stay together and either adopt a child or “procreate” using assisted reproductive technologies.

4. A college student asks you for your opinion on masturbation. He wants to know if that is something that the Bible allows or if it is a practice that should be discouraged. He acknowledges that it is widespread, and he sees nothing wrong with it.

5. A couple in their forties tells you that they are “done” having children—that their family is just the right size. The man in the couple is considering a vasectomy. He believes that all of their children are gifts from God, but he and his wife feel that they can give them all the attention they need if they hold their family size at what it is today. He wants to know what you think about permanent birth control.

6. An engaged couple on their second marriage participates in your premarital counseling workshop and is taken aback by your view that sex is reserved for marriage. They consider you outdated, especially with people who have been previously married. They insist that marriage is just a “piece of paper,” and if they are committed to each other, there is nothing wrong with sex prior to marriage.

Biblical Teaching on Sexual Relationships

Much to the surprise of people who have never read the Bible carefully, there is a wealth of material in Scripture that addresses the sexual relationship. God did not appear to be bashful or embarrassed when he spoke about sex in the Bible, and his teaching is both clear about the need for restraint and explicit about the passion of sex when expressed within the proper parameters. Central biblical passages include Genesis 2:18–25, where the notions of sex and marriage are both introduced; Leviticus 18, a listing of illicit sexual relationships; the Song of Songs, which passionately celebrates sex in marriage; 1 Corinthians 5–7, which addresses the sexual excesses of the church in Corinth; and selected statements in the Epistles that encourage avoiding sexual immorality.[1]

Genesis

In Genesis 1–2 there is a critical link between the man and woman in the context of marriage and the sexual relationship that will eventually result in the procreation of children. Although there are two creation accounts in Genesis 1–2, they are complementary and not contradictory. Genesis 1 provides the broad overview of creation. Genesis 2 views the most important aspects of creation in more detail—the creation of man and woman and their relationship to each other and to God.

In Genesis 2:18–25 both marriage and sexual relations are instituted. Thus this account actually fits into the broader overview of Genesis 1. It occurs after the divine initiative in 1:26 to create humankind and prior to the command to the newly formed couple in 1:28 to begin procreating and populating the earth. The first command given to them is the command to reproduce in 1:28, clearly a result of their becoming “one flesh” in 2:24.

Most scholars believe Genesis 2:24 to be the first reference to the institution of marriage. There are various reasons for this. First, the way that this text is quoted in other places in the New Testament makes it clear that it was originally intended for married couples (Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31).[2]

Second, the term “leave” is used to suggest that a man and woman who will be intimately related (as the term “cleave” [KJV] suggests) are to separate from their families of origin and begin a new family unit of their own—contrary to ancient Near Eastern cultural practice in which the bride moved in with the groom and his family.

Third, the concept of one flesh clearly involves a sexual unity (though not limited to that), and throughout Scripture it is evident that sexual relations are restricted to the setting of marriage. Thus it would appear that 2:24 is where marriage as a divine institution begins.

Placing the more specific account of the creation of male and female and the subsequent institution of marriage back into the broader context of the creation in Genesis 1:26, the command to procreate, which presumes sexual relationships, is therefore given to Adam and Eve in the context of their leaving, cleaving, and becoming one flesh—in the context of marriage. This sets the precedent for heterosexual marriage and sexual relationships for the purpose of procreation within that setting. Though it does not suggest that every male and female must be joined in marriage, it does indicate that marriage is to be between male and female, and that only in marriage are sexual relationships and procreation to occur. In other words, God has established sex and procreation to be restricted to heterosexual couples in marriage. There is continuity between God’s creation of the family in Genesis 1–2, sexual expression, and the command to procreate within that context.[3] This structure of the family seems to be basic to God’s creative design, however extended the family became due to cultural and economic factors.

The term “one flesh” is widely considered to refer to sexual oneness. Since the Hebrew term basar, translated “flesh,” is used, it appears to emphasize the physical side of the married couple’s relationship. Though it certainly also refers to a spiritual and emotional oneness experienced by couples, had the author wanted to stress that and downplay the sexual aspect, he could have used the term nephesh, translated “soul.” Whatever else it signifies, the use of basar clearly involves the sexual relationship. Since it is linked with the terms “leave” and “cleave” in the passage that institutes marriage, it makes sense to say that the Bible intends sex within the bounds of marriage. When Genesis 2:24 is cited in both Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31, it is clear that the original design for the one-flesh relationship of sex was intended for marriage, since both contexts indicate that married couples are in view.

The seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), was designed to protect this creation ideal for family life that was instituted in Genesis 1–2. Though adultery (sex between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse) does not encompass all the prohibited sexual relationships in Scripture, it is central since it involves breaking the intimate one-flesh connection with one’s spouse. Most cultures around the world have some moral rules to protect the family, and a prohibition against adultery is widely recognized since it breaks the sacred covenant of marriage. The prophets bring out this aspect of adultery by routinely comparing Israel’s spiritual breach of covenant with God in their idolatry to the violation of the marriage covenant that occurred when adultery was committed. Just as individuals broke a marriage covenant with their partners when guilty of adultery, so Israel was guilty of spiritual adultery when, through idolatry, they broke their spiritual covenant with God. The irony of the adultery imagery to describe Israel’s spiritual condition was that often idolatry did involve adultery. Religious prostitution was a regular part of idolatrous worship in the ancient world and was part of its appeal. So the prophets were correct both literally and figuratively to describe Israel’s idolatry as spiritual adultery (see, e.g., Jer. 3:6–10; Hos. 1–3).

Contrary to the original design for monogamous marriage, polygamy (as well as concubinage) was practiced periodically in ancient Israel. The patriarchs, such as Jacob, had multiple wives as did King Solomon, though in Solomon’s case, using marriage as a way to solidify foreign alliances was contrary to God’s explicit demand that the king trust God, not foreign allies, for Israel’s national security. Though polygamy was never sanctioned, nor commanded, it does appear to have been allowed in Old Testament times. The reason polygamy seems to have been allowed is not clear, though it may have something to do with the provision of an economic safety net for women. Remember that in the ancient world there were very few “working women,” at least not working in reputable occupations. For the most part, women were provided for either by their family of origin or by marriage. Women who never married or who were widowed were not generally seen as able to financially provide for themselves, though there were some exceptions. This is one reason why the biblical tradition of levirate marriage was commanded in the law—to provide financially for childless widows and to ensure that the lineage of the deceased woman’s late husband continue (Deut. 25:5–10; Ruth 4). This may be one of the reasons why polygamy seems to have been allowed in Old Testament Israel. In the New Testament, monogamy is affirmed as the norm. For example, when Jesus teaches on divorce (Matt. 19:1–5), he does so from Genesis 1–2, presuming monogamy as the standard. Further, when the qualifications for leadership in the church are clarified, elders are to be the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:1–5). Interestingly, when missionaries bring the gospel message to cultures where polygamy is still practiced, this raises a very sensitive ethical issue. What should be done with multiple wives once someone has come to faith in Christ? It would clearly be callous and uncaring to insist that polygamy be abandoned, virtually putting women into a state of destitution. Rather, many missions organizations suggest that no current marriages be renounced, but that following Christ demands that no additional wives be taken on from that point forward (having multiple wives would disqualify them from serving as elders in the church according to 1 Tim. 3:1–5). This would be a compromise of the standard of monogamy, but in cultures where polygamy is entrenched, it may take a generation or more to move toward monogamy in the culture.

Early on in Genesis (chaps. 19–20), the book describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence of how far and how quickly the world degenerated after the entrance of sin (Gen. 3). It is a common interpretation of this episode to hold that the judgment on the two cities came about as a result of their sexual perversions, which include homosexuality. Critics of the traditional Christian view of homosexuality argue that the sin of the cities was primarily neglect of the poor and materialism (Ezek. 16:49–50), and that even if homosexuality was involved, it was a case of gang rape, not consensual sex. They argue that this kind of gang rape was often associated with dominance and enforced submission in the ancient world, and that this narrative cannot be used to condemn loving, committed, and consensual homosexuality.[4] Those who defend the traditional view correctly point out that the New Testament clarifies the basis for the judgment on these two cities, clearly including a wide variety of sexual perversions, including homosexuality (Jude 7). One should exercise caution in using this account, since the specific instance of homosexuality was clearly nonconsensual. It is not clear that this story can be applied to consensual homosexual relationships, though other parts of the Bible do apply to those.

Levirate Marriage in Ruth

One of the most interesting sexual ethics questions is raised in the book of Ruth—it’s the biblical tradition of levirate marriage. Being a widow and having no surviving children created two significant problems for a woman. First, she had no way to support herself on her own, other than returning to her family of origin. Second, she had no opportunity to carry on the lineage of her deceased husband, a very important concept in the ancient world due to the link between lineage and property. In addition, having a lineage was considered an important form of respect for the person.

In the book of Ruth, Ruth is a foreign, childless widow who returns to Israel with her mother-in-law, Naomi. She attracts the interest and favor of Boaz, a landowner of some means in the town of Bethlehem, where they live. Through elaborate imagery, Ruth and Boaz connect and express their interest in each other. Naomi reveals that Boaz is a close relative, which means that he is a candidate to perform levirate marriage with Ruth. Ruth indicates her willingness to follow what the Law indicates, and Boaz expresses his desire to fulfill his legal responsibility to marry Ruth and provide for her. But there is a relative who is closer than Boaz who, according to the Law, has the first option to marry Ruth. Boaz defers to this relative who is not willing to marry Ruth. Boaz then publicly marries her and they conceive a child who continues Ruth’s late husband’s lineage. She gives birth to a child whom they name Obed, and everyone appears to live happily after that. Levirate marriage was especially important in this case, since the child born to Ruth and Boaz was the grandfather of King David. We learn later that the lineage of Ruth’s deceased husband actually includes Jesus the Messiah, since he is a descendant of David.

Old Testament Law

Other parts of the Old Testament Law were designed to safeguard this creation model of the family outlined in Genesis 1–2. For example, the prohibitions against illicit sexual relations assumed that the creation model for sex within marriage was normative and functioned to preserve the family from breakdown. In the sexual code in Leviticus 18 and 20, every sexual relationship except that between a heterosexual couple in marriage is prohibited. All forms of incest (sex with a relative), homosexuality, adultery, cultic prostitution, premarital sex, and even bestiality (sex with an animal) are forbidden. Though there is no specific reason given for these prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20, it seems clear that these violate the normative structure of the family that is rooted in creation. Keeping the creation ideal of the family intact and free from influences that would undermine it was considered central to the preservation of Israel as a society set apart as God’s holy nation (Ex. 19:6). Though it is true that God’s people are no longer under the Law as a rule of life (Rom. 7:1–3), it would seem that the general principle that is relevant is the protection of the creation norm of sexual relationships within heterosexual marriage.

Song of Songs

In contrast to the Law, which stresses sexual prohibitions, the Song of Songs celebrates the beauty of sex in marriage.[5] Throughout the Song there are exquisite descriptions of the lover and his beloved bride, particularly in 4:1–10, where Solomon describes the body of his bride in passionate detail prior to the consummation of their marriage (see also Song 5:10–16; 7:1–9). The imagery for sexual enjoyment is vivid and includes things like the choicest foods, drinks and spices, and water from the freshest springs and fountains (4:11–5:1). It is seen as a sensual delight, entirely blessed by God and to be enjoyed.

However, there is restraint in the premarital period in 1:1–3:5. During courtship, there is a normal and natural longing and deep desire for the other person, but restraint is required even though it is difficult. It is further significant that the book progresses in a rough chronological order. The book can be divided into four major sections: courtship (1:1–3:5), marriage and consummation (3:6–5:1), conflict (5:2–6:3), and reconciliation (6:4–8:14). Restraint is exercised during courtship (2:7; 3:5), and sex is not fully enjoyed until after the wedding procession (3:6–7) and ceremony (3:11). The book appears to assume that sex is to be enjoyed only within the parameters of marriage.

New Testament

The New Testament consistently appeals for the believer to avoid sexual immorality. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Paul equates avoiding sexual immorality with the will of God for the believer, one of the few occasions in which it is stated that directly. Similarly, the believer is to avoid even the hint of immorality because it is inconsistent with his or her position as one of God’s people (Eph. 5:3). Sexual immorality is seen as a part of the old life of the believer (Col. 3:5), and they are discouraged from associating with those who boast in such immorality (1 Cor. 5:9). Marriage is to be kept pure, particularly in the sexual expression (Heb. 13:4). Sexual immorality is also included in many of the “vice lists”—lists of specific sins that the believer is to avoid (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21–23; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:19–21; Rev. 21:8).

First Corinthians 5–7 is one of the New Testament texts that develops its teaching in more detail, presumably because the church at Corinth was having significant problems with sexual immorality in the church. They seemed to be proud of their accommodation to the sexual morality of the Corinthian culture (5:1–2), and it appears that many in the church came to faith in Christ from a background of immorality (6:9–11). Paul rebuked both their incestuous relationships and the pride that accompanied it (5:1–13). Then in 6:12–20, he laid some theological groundwork for his admonition for sexual purity. He then addressed specific problems related to married and single adults (1 Cor. 7, especially vv. 25–35).

Paul gives three theologically grounded reasons the believer should avoid sexual immorality. First, God the Father will raise the body to immortality at his second coming (1 Cor. 6:14). Because of this, the body is important and should be treated with as much care as the soul. With this point Paul is combating a view that dominated the Greek culture of the day—that the soul was all that mattered about a person. There were for the Greeks, therefore, two options for the body: either the person could severely discipline the body in order to keep it from interfering with the soul’s development (also known as asceticism), or he or she could do with one’s body whatever one desired (hedonism), since the body was of no consequence to the soul. The Corinthian culture had clearly chosen the latter option, and sexual license was commonplace as a result. Paul is suggesting that there is as much of a future for a person’s body as there is for his or her soul. Thus a person’s body is to be maintained with the utmost purity and care since God will redeem it at Christ’s second coming.

A second reason for sexual purity is that believers are one with Christ the Son (1 Cor. 6:15–17). Since believers are “members of Christ” (v. 15) and one with him, a believer should never become one with someone other than his or her spouse. This is especially true if, in sexual immorality, the believer is actually participating in idolatry through religious prostitution, as was the case in Corinth (v. 16). Not only does immorality result in breaking the one-flesh relationship with one’s spouse, but it also violates a person’s relationship with Christ by joining him to the person with whom one has sex.

A third reason Paul gives for avoiding sexual immorality is that the believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Thus it is to be revered and cared for, not abused or used in any way that would compromise a person’s testimony for Christ. Ultimately, the body does not belong to the believer because it has been purchased by God at the cost of his Son’s death. Therefore, the believer does not have the right to do with his or her body whatever he or she desires. The believer’s body belongs to God and is to be used to honor him, chiefly by avoiding sexual immorality (6:19–20).

In 1 Corinthians 6:12–20, sexual immorality is prohibited because it violates the believer’s relationship with all three members of the Trinity. God the Father will raise the body (v. 14), thus it is to be considered sacred. The believer is one with Christ the Son (v. 15), and thus should not join a part of him sexually to someone other than one’s spouse. The believer is also a temple of the Holy Spirit (v. 19), and thus the body is to be used for his honor. The way Paul outlines this passage shows that sexual immorality violates the essence of a person’s relationship with God.

Critics of the New Testament teaching insist that Paul’s teaching on sexuality must be understood against the backdrop of attitudes on sex in the ancient world. Critics argue that Paul’s prohibitions on homosexuality simply reflect his homophobic cultural bias, analogous to his patriarchal views on the role of women. But a close look at these cultural attitudes in the first century reveals a clear plurality of views and sexual practices that were considered acceptable, including homosexuality. For example, first-century Corinth, the city to whom the Corinthian letters of Paul were addressed, illustrated this sexual diversity well (1 Cor. 5–6). It would seem that the New Testament writers, rather than reflecting their culture, are actually being countercultural and are grounding their views in their theology, as opposed to their cultural biases.

Singleness

In the latter part of the decade of the 2000s, for the first time in the United States, the number of households headed by single adults was greater than those headed by married couples. That is, for the first time, single households outnumbered married households. The expectation of marriage may be diminishing as well, as many single adults are no longer viewing marriage as a viable or desirable option. A substantial portion of the culture is single and will remain that way, and the Bible has a bit to say about singleness as well as marriage. Just because sex is reserved for marriage does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say concerning singleness.

First Corinthians 7 is the one New Testament section that directly addresses unmarried adults. The Bible here affirms singleness and suggests that at times it may be a more expedient life choice than marriage. Verses 25–35 argue that singleness is preferable to marriage because of the “present distress” (v. 26) in the culture, which most take as the context of persecution for the faith facing the Christian community there. Given the likelihood of enduring persecution, singleness may be a better option, because being single minimizes a person’s vulnerability to persecution. Having a family makes one more at risk for succumbing to persecution, because far more pressure can be brought to bear on a person through persecuting his or her spouse and/or children than by pressuring the person himself or herself.

The passage goes on to affirm singleness by suggesting that marriage is part of this world that is passing away (1 Cor. 7:29–31). That is, marriage is part of the world that will pass away when Christ returns, which the early community anticipated as imminent. Thus marriage and singleness are both on the same level playing field when it comes to their eternal value. It would appear that here the Bible affirms singleness as almost the moral equivalent of marriage, that both have value, though not eternal value in and of themselves.

But perhaps the strongest affirmation of singleness comes when the passage suggests that single adults can serve Christ with undivided loyalty in a way that married couples cannot (1 Cor. 7:32–34). In terms of “undivided devotion to the Lord” (v. 35), it would seem that singleness has advantages over marriage. This passage clearly affirms that both choices, marriage and singleness, are good things and that no one has done wrong with either choice. Of course, there can be a variety of reasons and motives for pursuing marriage or remaining single, some reasons and motives better than others. But the Bible appears to affirm singleness as a morally good choice, while at the same time upholding marriage as the model from Genesis 1–2.

Homosexuality

The discussion on the morality of homosexuality has shifted somewhat from the intrinsic morality of homosexuality/lesbianism/bisexuality to the social arrangements that support homosexuality, such as same-sex marriage. It is assumed in most cultures that homosexuality is a valid alternative lifestyle, and that what is done sexually in private among consenting adults is no one’s business except the couple’s and is thus exempt from moral scrutiny.

Some of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality comes from religious individuals and groups who are serious about their religious views and are homosexual at the same time. For example, there are hundreds of congregations in the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) today around the world. The MCC is an association of churches that are attempting to harmonize homosexuality and the Bible. They claim that there is nothing inconsistent with following Christ and being homosexual at the same time. They have written broadly in an attempt to show how homosexuality fits with their interpretation of the Bible.

Society is facing increasing pressure to recognize gay rights and same-sex marriages, both of which presume a moral acceptance of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle. Although one can and should have sympathy for homosexuals who are victims of discrimination in housing and jobs—which is illegal—that does not mean that all parts of the gay rights agenda should be accepted. Similarly, the debate over same-sex marriage assumes that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Some states such as Hawaii recognize such unions, and many states and cities have what are called “domestic partner ordinances,” which recognize gay unions and grant whatever benefits they can to these couples.

Defining the Term Homosexual

The term homosexual can mean many things. Exactly what kind of person is in view with the label homosexual? First, it can refer to a true homosexual, one whose sexual preference has been inverted and who prefers only members of the same sex. This is what most people mean by the term, yet it constitutes only about 5 percent of the total persons to whom the term homosexual may apply. The latest studies indicate that only 1 or 2 percent of the total adult population are homosexual by sexual inversion. Second, it can refer to someone who is bisexual—someone who can be sexually attracted to either gender.

Third, it can refer to someone called a situational homosexual. This person has had some homosexual experience but does not have a predominant homosexual orientation. He or she has experienced homosexuality in some form, however limited. For example, a relationally needy person will sometimes use a homosexual affair to meet his or her needs for affirmation and love. Here the sexual attraction is not the controlling factor, but the person acts out his or her neediness in a homosexual relationship. The person is attracted to another person because his or her needs are being met, not because of the person’s gender. A second example is in the preteenage exploration of one’s sexuality. Some of that experimentation may take place with another member of the same sex. This is not particularly uncommon; studies show that up to 30 percent of adolescents have experimented in some way with a person of the same sex.

The Metropolitan Community Church

The Metropolitan Community Church exists as an association of churches that attempt to hold homosexuality and Christianity together. They hold to the historic creeds of the church and attempt to interpret biblical texts in a way consistent with loving, committed homosexual relationships. They argue that none of the often-cited biblical passages actually condemn loving, committed forms of homosexual relationships. For example, they insist that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is not representative of the kind of homosexual relationships they support, since what occurred in Genesis 19–20 is gang rape, not consensual sex. In addition, they argue that the writings of Paul in the New Testament address perversions of homosexuality, such as homosexuality as an expression of dominance over someone, or homosexual religious prostitution. In their view, what the Bible condemns is the use of sexuality for purposes of dominance and submission. They insist that the Bible does not address the kinds of homosexual relationships in which there is mutual caring and commitment. They insist that Jesus would not discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, analogous to not discriminating against a person because of race or gender.

Metropolitan Community Church congregations can be found all over the world, and they are spread throughout most regions of the United States and Canada. Their goal is to pose a challenge to the traditional view of homosexuality in Christian tradition. They offer seminary training and online resources concerning their view of the Bible and homosexuality. They view the Bible as one important resource but say that its teaching must be balanced by reason, experience, and tradition. Critics of the MCC insist that they misread the clear intention of the biblical texts and give too much authority to non-biblical sources.*

Myths about Homosexuality

These categories help dispel some of the myths of homosexuality, the first of which proposes that all homosexuals are effeminate. Though some homosexuals are readily identifiable, many are not, and there is nothing in their public lives that would outwardly indicate their homosexuality.

A second myth is that all homosexuals are promiscuous. Though it is true that the average homosexual male has had a relatively high number of sexual partners (the number is less for lesbians), to characterize all homosexuals as sexually promiscuous is certainly unfair. There are also loving, supportive, and committed homosexual relationships.

A third myth asserts that homosexuality is always a chosen way of life. It may actually be learned developmentally and therefore be neither hereditary nor chosen. Adjustment to the homosexual subculture is often difficult, though for many homosexuals that community may be the first place they have felt accepted without having to hide their homosexuality.

A final myth is that homosexuality occurs only in the more artistic professions. Though there may be a disproportionate percentage of homosexuals in those professions as opposed to the rest of society, homosexuality cuts across most cultural and professional boundaries.

Causes of Homosexuality

How does a person acquire a disposition toward homosexuality? No single, specific cause can be pinpointed with any precision, and there is currently great debate about the evidence for a genetic link. The gay community clearly hopes that some genetic predisposition will be found by researchers working on the Human Genome Project.

There do seem to be certain developmental factors that many homosexuals have in common, indicating that a homosexual orientation may be learned rather than chosen. These factors apply primarily to male homosexuality. First, there is the combination of an angry or absent father and a close-bonding and/or domineering mother. This is especially a factor if the boy becomes an emotional substitute “husband” for his mother. Second, the boy does not enter the “boy becoming man” social processes with pleasure. He either does not participate, or if he does, he does not enjoy it, and for that reason is derided by his peers. Finally, the boy’s introduction to his sexuality is a crucial factor. Two critical key questions are, With whom was he introduced to sex? and Was it pleasurable? If he was introduced to sex with a male who enjoyed it, that may contribute toward a homosexual orientation.

Though homosexuality is a diverse phenomenon and there is no clear pattern for its development, there may be some common elements that help pinpoint the way in which it developed.

Biblical Response to Homosexuality

Homosexual sex is prohibited in the Old Testament Law (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). However, among all the illicit sexual relations listed in Leviticus 18 and 20, homosexuality is not singled out as being any different or more worthy of condemnation than other sexual sins.

The central New Testament passage that addresses homosexuality is Romans 1:24–27. It is set in the context of the condemnation of those who reject God as revealed in creation or through natural law. It is part of Paul’s broader argument for the universality of sin and judgment, setting the need for the believer to be justified by faith in Christ’s atoning death on the cross, as outlined in Romans 4–5. Those who reject the available knowledge of God and choose instead to worship the Greek and Roman idols have lifestyle consequences that they cannot avoid. One of these consequences is homosexual behavior. Paul implicitly appeals to the natural order of creation to condemn homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:27). Male and female were created with an innate tendency toward opposite sex attraction, but because of sin, the human race developed the potential for homosexuality. This potential is often realized when certain developmental factors are present. Because of the reality of sin, every person has the potential for homosexuality in the same way that we have the potential for any other kind of sin that the Bible describes.

The reference to homosexuality in this passage has been interpreted in a variety of ways. First, it has been taken to refer to homosexual male religious prostitutes in idolatrous worship ceremonies. Therefore, idolatry, not homosexual relations, is condemned. This is parallel to the description of homosexuality in Deuteronomy 23:17–18, where religious prostitution of all types is condemned. Since idolatry is in the immediate context of the condemnation of homosexual sex, this adds strength to this view.

A second view is that Paul is condemning true heterosexuals who are engaging in homosexual acts. This view comes out of Paul’s emphasis on homosexuality as being unnatural. Many homosexuals, however, argue that their orientation is natural for them. An example of homosexuality that is not natural would be true heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts. The debate is over the use of the term “natural,” whether that refers to what is natural subjectively, based on a person’s own individual orientation, or whether it refers to what is natural objectively, which is natural regardless of one’s orientation.

A third view is that Paul is condemning perverse expressions of homosexuality as opposed to the loving, committed relationships that are possible for homosexuals. Thus Paul’s condemnation would be parallel to the way he would condemn heterosexuals for perverse expressions of their sexual identity.

A fourth view is that Paul intended to condemn all homosexual behavior. Paul’s appeal to a universal truth about sexual relations linked to the order of creation prevents someone from seeing this passage limited to only certain kinds of homosexual behavior and from seeing Paul as culturally outdated in his teaching. Rather, it provides an appropriate context for a judgment on all homosexual relationships. The phrase “natural relations with women” (Rom. 1:27, emphasis added) makes it clear that the natural sexual relationship is heterosexual and objective, and thus is not dependent on a person’s individual orientation. This is the only view that does not read into the passage things that are not there.

In applying these passages that forbid homosexuality, some suggest that it is important to make a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual sexual relations. There is a difference between being homoerotic, that is, being attracted to a person of the same sex, and homosexual, that is, acting sexually on that attraction. It may be helpful to see this distinction paralleled with heterosexual relationships. For a married person to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse is not sin. It becomes sin when that attraction is acted upon, either in lust, which is the process of mentally having sex with a person (Matt. 5:27–32), or in sexual overtures. Likewise, it may be that the homosexual attraction in it self is not sin, though at variance with the order of creation. But when that attraction gives way to lust and ultimately to sexual activity, it is sin. Some argue that what the Bible condemns in homosexual relationships it also condemns in heterosexual relationships—lust and sexual involvement outside marriage. Thus the options for the Christian homosexual would be the same as for the Christian heterosexual—either abstinence or heterosexual sex in marriage. Some Christians who struggle with their sexual identity have grasped this distinction and are attempting to be faithful to Christ and sexually pure at the same time. It may be that failure to recognize this distinction between being homoerotic and homosexual has kept the church from being a more accepting place for those struggling with their sexual orientation.

This above distinction may also be helpful in discussing a cure for homosexuality. It is common for gay activists to hold that cures rarely, if ever, happen. But they are using the term cure in a way that is not used in treating other kinds of struggles and addictions. There is a critical distinction between being cured of the behavior and cured of the desire. To be cured in the most common psychological and medical usage is to be content apart from the specific behavior in question. For example, the alcoholic who is cured has not necessarily lost the craving for alcohol. Rather, he has learned to be content apart from drinking. The same is true for the homosexual. He or she may not be cured of the attraction for persons of the same sex but is content apart from acting out sexually on that attraction.

Whether or not a person accepts this distinction, it is important that the church not view homosexuals as somehow outside the boundaries of God’s grace. The church needs to be a place where those struggling with their sexual identity can come and receive grace, truth, and compassion.

Responses to Homosexuality in Addition to Scripture

Crafting an argument against homosexuality that is addressed to a secular audience is more difficult than interpreting the biblical teaching. Three primary arguments have been attempted. The first is a public health argument. It is based on the statistics that clearly link the transmission of AIDS to homosexual sexual activity. Proponents of this argument insist that homosexuality constitutes a threat to public health, and thus it should not be embraced. While one should be honest with the statistics and admit that there is a significant link between certain types of behavior (unprotected sex, particularly homosexual sex, and intravenous drug use) and the spread of AIDS, one should also admit that AIDS has spread to the heterosexual community, although with far less incidence than in the homosexual community. Further, at best this argument would seem to support being careful about all unprotected sex—not just homosexual sex, though some suggest that homosexual sex is more likely to spread AIDS than heterosexual sex.

A second argument is a historical argument. It is based on the precedent that no civilization has ever survived the destruction of the traditional family. Homosexuality as a valid lifestyle clearly undermines the model of the family that has characterized most societies throughout the history of civilization—husband, wife, and children. Thus, to ensure the best prospects for the flourishing of society, one of its major institutions, the family, should be encouraged, and any competing institutions that tend to undercut the family should be resisted. However, historical arguments, though they can be very persuasive, always have the possibility of exceptions to which the gay rights activist may appeal.

A third argument comes from the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, whose system was based on the categorical imperative, or the principles deduced by reason alone.[6] One way Kant formulated his moral duties was in terms of what he called the “principle of universalizability”—if a certain moral rule can be comfortably made universal, then and only then is it a valid moral rule. For example, Kant held that truth telling should be a universal moral duty because it is necessary to a functioning society. If people stopped telling the truth, the prospect for meaningful communication in society would be slim, because one could never know if he or she was being told the truth. In other words, what might happen if no one held to the moral rule in question? As in the case of truth telling, social relations would be severely damaged. The same kind of argument might be applied to homosexuality. What would happen if no one obeyed the moral rule that prohibited homosexuality? It is likely that procreation would decline significantly unless reproductive technologies were employed on a massive scale, and the existence of the next generation might be at stake. Of course, one must adhere to Kant’s ethical system, and though there are many moral philosophers who do not, his way of fashioning moral duties has survived in the popular culture.

Same-Sex Marriage

Related to the above discussion is the issue of same-sex marriage, particularly in the arena of public policy. Though many states have formally defined marriage as between a man and a woman, there is a significant movement to legalize same-sex marriage at the state level. Some countries in Europe have laws that recognize same-sex couples as legally married, analogous to heterosexual couples.

The primary argument in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage is the principle of fairness. Advocates of same-sex marriage insist that it is unfair to deny same-sex couples the designation of marriage and benefits accorded to heterosexual couples. They argue that this is simply another way of discriminating against gays and lesbians. In the past, discrimination in the workplace and in housing has been eliminated by the force of law. Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that this is the last bastion of discrimination that must also be dealt with by the law.

Opponents of same-sex marriage reply that there is nothing wrong with defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Nor is there anything unfair about such a definition, because virtually all of the benefits available to married couples under the law are available to same-sex couples under domestic partner ordinances, which are the law in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. Critics of same-sex marriage wonder what exactly the proponents are seeking in the designation of marriage if so many of the benefits they claim they are being denied are actually available through domestic partnerships. Critics argue that proponents of same-sex marriage are seeking the social and moral validation of marriage more than any of the specific benefits. That is, they are seeking the symbolic affirmation of same-sex relationships by putting them under the designation of marriage. But this is precisely what the critics are attempting to prevent—the symbolic approval of types of relationships that they believe are morally problematic.

California and Same-Sex Marriage

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March 2008 on the legality of same-sex marriage and in May 2008 ruled that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The case came about when city officials in San Francisco allied with civil rights activists challenged the state’s prohibition of gay marriage on the grounds of equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs argued that denial of same-sex marriage treats same-sex couples differently under the law than heterosexual couples, thereby violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The state appeals court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2006, overturning a San Francisco ruling that held that the ban was unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court upheld that ruling.* In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

A second reply of the critics of same-sex marriage relates to the way in which the argument for same-sex marriage is grounded. Underlying the argument from fairness is the notion of personal autonomy—that a person has the right to make life’s most significant decisions, especially the ones that are value laden, apart from judgment or the intrusion of the law. Because of personal autonomy, whether a person chooses same-sex or opposite-sex relationships is irrelevant—the law should recognize them both because they are the informed choices of consenting adults. Critics insist that this grounding in personal autonomy opens the door to any type of relationship between consenting adults, including various forms of incest and polygamy. Some have even argued that there can be consenting relationships between adults and children, and others suggest that even relationships with animals (known as bestiality) be acceptable if they are based on a person’s informed desires. Critics of same-sex marriage are understandably concerned about what else beside same-sex marriage may emerge on the basis of the same personal autonomy that supports same-sex marriage. They point out that there are already some countries in Europe that have recognized same-sex marriage that are also legally recognizing multiple marriages as the equivalent of monogamy. When defending fundamentalist Mormons who are being prosecuted under state law in Arizona and Utah, the ACLU points out the similarity to the defense of same-sex marriage. One ACLU attorney in Utah put it this way: “Talking to Utah’s polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives and not live in fear because of someone they love. Further, other law scholars recognize the connection between support for same-sex marriage and increased receptivity to multiple marriage.”[7]

Birth Control

Two primary issues arise in dealing with birth control—whether birth control is acceptable at all, and if so, what types of birth control are within biblical parameters. Except for official Roman Catholic teaching, which prohibits all forms of artificial birth control, the consensus among most religious believers and the culture at large is that birth control is not only acceptable but desirable. Further, there is no moral distinction between temporary birth control and sterilization—vasectomies and tuballigations (in which the woman’s fallopian tubes are tied). The debate over birth control is primarily a religious one—most nonreligious people in the culture take birth control for granted.

Nowhere does the Bible prohibit the use of birth control. The only instance in which birth control was practiced was in Genesis 38:9–10 with the “sin of Onan.” Onan engaged in what is called coitus interruptus and, by doing so, refused to fulfill his responsibility as the “kinsman redeemer” by fathering a child to carry on the lineage of his deceased brother. He was unwilling to do this because he didn’t want the burden and responsibility of raising and supporting the child. So he practiced a crude form of birth control by having sex and withdrawing just prior to inseminating the woman.

Polyamory and Multiple Marriage

In September 2005 Victor de Bruijn and his wife, Bianca, took on another woman, Mir-jam Gevan, in a ceremony recognized by the notary in the Dutch town of Roosendaal as a “cohabitation contract.” They exchanged wedding rings and held a reception and celebrated a honeymoon immediately afterward. This is the first instance of a publicly recognized multiple marriage in the West, though it was not technically a marriage or a state-sanctioned domestic partner agreement (the way same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands). Interestingly, both the women in the arrangement are bisexual and the man is straight. The bisexual nature of the relationships suggests that multiple marriages are different from same-sex marriages, but they do share the same basis in personal autonomy. Social commentator Stanley Kurtz makes this observation: “Increasingly bisexuality is emerging as a reason why legalized gay marriage is likely to result in legalized group marriage. If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due. For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality. The De Bruijn trio is the tip-off to the fact that a connection between bisexuality and the drive for multipartner marriage has been developing for some time.”

Although polygamy exists in parts of the non-Western world, the new movement, known as “polyamory,” is seen in some fundamentalist Mormon communities in Utah, Arizona, and Texas. It is endorsed by the Unitarian Universalist Church, which desires to become the first denomination to welcome multiple marriages into their church. It has also made its way into the media, in the HBO series Big Love. Legal justifications are being published in major law journals in the United States such as the Stanford Law Review and the New York University Review of Law and Social Change.*

Some argue that the original mandate given to human beings in Genesis 1–2 (“be fruitful and multiply”) makes it mandatory for married couples to procreate children. Yet the view of procreation that must always link the unitive and procreative aspects of sex is a more rigid view than Scripture makes necessary. The Bible seems to separate those aspects of sex and holds that the unitive (the one flesh) aspect of sex is a sufficient end in itself. If those two components of sex do not always have to be connected, then married couples can have sex without procreation without violating any moral norm. In addition, notice in Genesis 1:27 that the purpose for human beings procreating was to “fill the earth,” thereby enabling human beings to more effectively exercise dominion over all of creation. If part of the original purpose for procreation was to fill the earth, one can easily make the case that the earth is full (perhaps even overfull) and that the mandate to procreate, and thus fill the earth, has been fulfilled. So assuming that it is done for the right reasons, a couple who chooses not to have children would not be violating the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Even conceding that the mandate to procreate is still in effect, the Bible nowhere indicates when or how many children a couple is to have. Advocates of birth control insist that couples have stewardship responsibilities both to their family and to the broader world and therefore should avoid having more children than they can properly parent and provide for, and further avoid contributing to overpopulation and taxing the world’s resources. It may be that birth control is used only for the purpose of spacing out one’s children, affecting not necessarily the numbers but the timing of children. This seems consistent with the notion of stewardship by avoiding overwhelming parents with children spaced very closely together.

Opponents of birth control insist that children are a gift from God, and that God’s good gifts should not be refused. However, proponents of birth control respond that, of course, if God gives a couple a child, they should see the child as God’s gift and the child should not be refused or abandoned. But they insist that it does not follow from that that a couple is obligated to have as many children as they biologically can bear. Nor does it follow that reasonable means to control the number of children can’t be used, knowing that the ultimate decision on the number of children a couple has belongs to God. Even though birth control is used, God can still give a couple a child should he so desire. It appears that God has ordained limits on procreation that are biological in nature when a woman starts menopause and stops releasing eggs monthly. Thus the mandate to procreate has a time limit on it that is God-ordained.

If temporary birth control is acceptable, there does not seem to be any reason why more permanent sterilization measures could not be utilized. Of course, this must be done wisely and not prematurely. But for couples who have reached their limit in terms of the number of children they have, nothing seems to prohibit sterilization. In fact, such measures may be consistent with obligations of stewardship toward one’s family and toward the broader community.

A second area of discussion about birth control concerns the specific methods of birth control. Most agree that contraceptive methods are morally acceptable—that is, methods that prevent conception are not problematic. The methods that are abortifacient are the ones that generate discussion. Abortifacient methods are intrinsically problematic because they cause the death of human persons, either by preventing implantation or by expelling the embryo form the uterus. IUDs prevent implantation, and RU-486 causes an implanted embryo to evacuate the uterus. Both are morally problematic from the view that embryos have full moral status. Of course, if one views embryonic status differently, these methods that cause the embryo’s destruction are not immoral.

The controversial method in this area is the birth control pill—a very common birth control method used by vast numbers of women around the world. The pill acts by suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucous in order to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. There is nothing problematic about the contraceptive part of the pill. But what is under debate is the abortifacient aspect of the pill—whether it has one and how significant it is. Some argue that there is a secondary effect of the pill that affects the lining of the uterus, making it inhospitable for an embryo to successfully implant. Others insist that no such mechanism is involved, or if it is, it is impossible to quantify how often it occurs. There is still considerable debate over this, and no consensus exists among specialists who are sensitive to the moral status of the embryo. For couples considering the pill, it is best to consult with your physician and be very open with him or her about your values and concerns about birth control. Until more of a consensus is reached, it is a matter of one’s individual conscience.[8]

Masturbation

This is an area on which the Bible is almost entirely silent. It is common to suggest that the “sin of Onan” refers to masturbation, but as mentioned above, that narrative is about Onan’s unwillingness to fulfill his obligation as a kinsman redeemer (Gen. 38:8–10). In fact, it is coitus interruptus, not masturbation, that is occurring in that narrative. So that narrative is entirely unrelated to the issue under discussion.

Masturbation is necessary to obtain sperm samples for in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and intrauterine insemination. In addition, it may be that couples may experience some periods where sex is either not possible or more difficult, such as during pregnancy or while nursing small children, or even post-menopause. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with masturbation. However, the Bible is clear that the sexual fantasy that normally accompanies masturbation is lust, and that is very problematic. Lust is equated with adultery (Matt. 5:27–29), and what is done in the mind is just as troubling as what is done in the body. Thus, for example, if it is done with one’s spouse and done apart from lust or sinful sexual fantasy, it can be acceptable. In the cases in which sexual fantasy is involved, that is the problem with masturbation, not the action itself.

Sex Change and Transgender

The Bible is silent about sex change and transgender because the technology to effect sex changes did not exist in biblical times and the biblical writers could not have been expected to anticipate issues like these. But there are some principles that seem to apply to this, particularly trust in God’s providence in the assignment of gender to individuals. Accepting one’s gender as one of life’s “givens” seems most consistent with a Christian ethic, analogous to accepting one’s race and traits that are genetically given. Of course, not everyone who would call themselves trans-gender would opt for sex-change surgery. Transgender simply refers to a person whose gender identity is at variance with his or her sex at birth. It has a variety of manifestations, ranging from cross-dressing (transvestites) to being a transsexual, one who desires to live full-time as a member of the opposite sex. Transsexuals generally seek medical interventions to change their sex.

In some cases a child is born with ambiguous gender, in which it is not clear whether the child is male or female. One form of this is known as hermaphrodit-ism. Ambiguous gender results from a genetic abnormality, and normally the parents select a gender at birth, which then requires corrective surgery and hormone replacement therapy. There are some medical indicators that help parents make a good decision when gender is selected. However, it seems reasonable to assume that mistakes are sometimes made in that selection, which then generates a later desire for sex change. In cases where sex change is done to correct a mistake made at birth, it would seem appropriate to allow medicine to make such a correction. That seems different from someone who is unable or unwilling to accept his or her gender as one of the givens of life.

Premarital Sex and Abstinence

The general term in the New Testament that is translated “sexual immorality” is the Greek term porneía, from which the English word pornography is derived. Though at times it does refer to a more specific type of sexual immorality,[9] in general it refers to all illicit sexual relations. These are listed in Leviticus 18, as we discussed earlier, and the New Testament repeatedly urges the believer to avoid sexual immorality and thus restrict sexual expression to marriage (Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Heb. 13:4). In the Song of Songs, the various figures of speech used to describe sex also suggest that sex is reserved for marriage. Solomon compares sex to a garden, spring, and fountain, and compares his bride’s virginity to a locked garden, sealed spring, and enclosed fountain (Song 4:12–5:1). Prior to his wedding night, he realizes that he cannot enjoy the fruit of her sexual garden or the water of her sexual spring and fountain. After they have consummated their marriage, he speaks of having entered the garden and tasted its choice fruits and spices. Thus the way that the sexual imagery is used in the Song of Songs strongly suggests that full sexual enjoyment is not an option prior to the marriage ceremony.

Sexual Purity versus Safe Sex

It is one thing to outline the biblical case for premarital sexual restraint, but it is quite another to apply it consistently in a society that is inundated with sexual stimuli. Even with the growing fear of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as the long-standing fear of pregnancy (though less today due to the availability of abortion), practicing sexual purity is still a significant challenge. People are being encouraged to practice “safe sex,” and there is a great deal of debate about how safe sex can actually be. Public awareness of the failure rate of many types of condoms is growing. Condoms fail to prevent sperm penetration in roughly 15 percent of all cases, and it is becoming clearer that many brands of condoms are incapable of preventing HIV transmission and fail to do so in as many as one-third of the cases. The following illustration suggests that condoms may not provide entirely safe sex. A few years ago a professional association of approximately eight hundred sex therapists was asked if they would have sex with a partner whom they knew was infected with HIV, using only a condom for protection. None of them responded that they would. As advertised in society, safe sex may not be nearly as safe as its advocates would like the public to believe. There is even a sense that the term safe sex is an oxymoron. One writer put it this way: “Consider the notion of ‘safe sex.’ Surely, the two words are ludicrously contradictory. Sex can be many things: dark, mysterious, passionate, wild, gentle, even reassuring, but it is not safe. If it is, it is not very likely to be sexy. How to abandon oneself to another, how to give your body into someone else’s care and control, and remain safe? Sex is dangerous. It’s supposed to be.”[10]

In moving toward sexual self-control, it is important to realize that individuals are capable of controlling their sexual urges in the same way that they are capable of controlling any other desire. Abstinence is routinely dismissed as unrealistic today because adolescents are simply going to “do it.” But such language is actually insulting to teenagers because it suggests that they are incapable of self-control in this area. It likens them to animals for whom sex is qualitatively different than for human beings. Individuals do have choices about sex beyond whether to use adequate protection. They also have choices about whether to become sexually involved.

Given the way that sex outside of marriage is viewed in the popular culture, making the right choice to keep its full expression within the boundaries of marriage is difficult. Many people who desire to keep themselves for marriage are thus viewed as hopelessly out of date, belonging to the Victorian era of a few centuries ago. And many who desire sexual self-control are frustrated by their inability to maintain it consistently. There is a great deal of encouragement for sexual self-control in Christian circles but not much advice on how to make it a reality. The culture at large treats abstinence as though it is not a possibility, and its main concern is with preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Winning the Battle for Sexual Purity

There are a variety of things that a person can do in the battle for sexual purity. First, it is important to avoid sexually tempting situations in the same way that one should avoid other potentially morally compromising situations. Paul puts it in a simple and straightforward way when he says to “flee … immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). The comparison of this advice with Peter’s later advice to believers to resist Satan (1 Peter 5:8) shows the power of the sexual temptation. Believers are encouraged to resist Satan, but to flee sexual temptation. This involves conscious decisions to limit one’s intake of sexually stimulating media and avoid situations in which a person could end up sexually involved. This may also require some sort of accountability from a trustworthy friend to whom permission is given to ask hard questions about what is happening in one’s sexual life.

A second element of sexual self-control is to realize that sex is not the glue that holds a relationship together. If anything, sex is the dessert, and the main course of the meal of marriage is the emotional and spiritual relationship of the couple. Sex is simply not like the media portrays it. On television or in the movies, every time a couple goes behind closed doors, it is assumed that fireworks and magic result. Rarely does one get the impression that anything disappointing ever happens in the bedroom. Yet many married couples will testify that sex, particularly without emotional intimacy and commitment, is overrated. A healthy sexual relationship does not happen like spontaneous combustion. It takes work, adjustments, and communication—none of which are ever portrayed in the media. It is not unusual for the average married couple to take up to a year to initially adjust to each other sexually, and it is not uncommon for couples who have been happily married for five to ten years to say that they are just now beginning to enjoy the sexual aspect of their marriage. There are actually more conflicts about sex than about anything else in marriage except money. It is hardly the glue that keeps a relationship together, even though it is treated as such by the popular culture.

A third element in the move toward sexual self-control is to accurately assess the damage that premature sexual relations can do to a relationship. For example, when a couple gets sexually involved, the physical aspect of the relationship normally begins to dominate and can short-circuit the development of the emotional and spiritual sides of the relationship—the ones that are important for long-term sexual enjoyment. Most sexual problems in relationships are not physical, but relational in origin, and the solution has nothing to do with sexual technique. It lies with relational harmony and contentment. Couples who get sexually involved prior to marriage risk mortgaging long-term sexual development for short-term pleasure if a dominant sexual aspect of the relationship stunts emotional and spiritual growth. In addition, for many Christian couples there is a good deal of guilt involved in premarital sex, and for many couples there is often pain and frustration if the relationship does not last. There can also be a loss of objectivity about the direction of the relationship when the physical aspect is dominant, since sexual involvement often communicates a greater sense of commitment than may actually exist. Finally, sex before marriage can sow seeds of mistrust. If a person cannot control his or her sexual desires before marriage, then what assurances are there that he or she can control sexual desire after marriage when the complicating factors of pregnancy and children enter in? Control of sexual desire thus tends to build trust in one’s partner that is essential to good sexual enjoyment in the long term.

Advertising Adultery

The Ashley Madison Agency (www.ashleymadison.com) promotes itself as the largest married dating site in the world. It uses the catch line “When monogamy becomes monotony.” The site boasts almost two million members, and it enables married individuals to meet someone in order to start dating outside marriage. Of course, the site promises 100 percent confidentiality, making it “safe and secure for people just like you.” It claims to have been seen on major media outlets such as Dr. Phil and 20/20.

Restoring Sexual Purity

Frequently in discussions of sexual morality, one’s moral obligation is clear but the person is disturbed by failure to live up to that obligation. Of more interest than how to maintain sexual self-control is the question of what to do when someone sins sexually. An extension of the garden imagery for sex in the Song of Songs is particularly helpful here in addressing a lack of sexual self-control (Song 4:12–5:1). It may be that a person has unwisely allowed someone to enter his or her garden, and as a result the garden is in a state of disarray. Or worse, it may be that someone has forced himself or herself into a person’s garden through rape or sexual abuse. Solomon’s bride kept her garden locked until the appropriate time, but she is the ideal, and many people’s actual experience falls discouragingly short of that. If someone came to you and asked what to do about sexual failure, perhaps you could tell him or her something like this:

If I were a gardener and someone had broken into my garden and overturned the flowers and fairly well spoiled it, I suppose I would be the best person to go in and fix it and place things back like I wanted them. I could accept the problem and restore the garden to its original beauty. You are the garden of your Creator. He is the One who made you, and He knows how you are best prepared for marriage. He can accept the problem and remake the garden. He can accept the broken flowers of your life and forgive them. And He can give you instructions for your part in the restoration of the garden.[11]

Even though physical virginity cannot be restored, it appears that emotional and spiritual virginity can be. In his forgiveness and grace, God can heal the emotional scars of past sexual promiscuity and restore a person’s hope for a fulfilling sexual relationship in marriage. The individual’s responsibility is not to let anyone in the garden while the divine gardener is at work restoring it. One woman who wrote to Dear Abby put it this way:

Dear Abby:

I was raped by a relative when I was a teenager. I spent the next five years searching desperately for love through numerous brief sexual encounters. I felt cheap and dirty and was convinced that no one could love or want me. Then I met a very special young man who convinced me that God loved me just the way I was, and that I was precious in His sight. I then let go of my burdensome past, and by accepting God’s forgiveness, I started on the long road to forgiving myself. It works. Believe me.

Free and Happy

For Further Reading

Grenz, Stanley. Welcoming but Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

Wold, Donald J. Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Wolfe, Christopher, ed. Homosexuality and American Public Life. New York: Spence, 1999.

Review Questions

1. What types of sexual relationships are prohibited in the Mosaic law?

2. What is the general norm for sexual relationships in Genesis 1–2?

3. Israel’s idolatry was compared to what sexual sin? Why was that specific comparison made?

4. Why was polygamy allowed in Old Testament times?

5. Which book in the Bible celebrates the sexual relationship in marriage?

6. In 1 Corinthians 6:12–20, what is violated when sexual immorality occurs?

7. Why does 1 Corinthians 7:25–35 affirm singleness?

8. What are the different meanings of the term homosexual?

9. What are some of the primary myths about homosexuality?

10. What are some of the developmental factors that sometimes account for a homosexual orientation?

11. What does Romans 1:24–27 teach about homosexuality?

12. What are some of the other suggested interpretations of Romans 1:24–27?

13. What is the difference between being homoerotic and homosexual?

14. What are the arguments outside the Bible that are sometimes used to address homosexuality?

15. What is the primary argument for legalizing same-sex marriage? Against it?

16. What is the difference between contraceptive and abortifacient types of birth control?

17. What does the “sin of Onan” refer to?

18. What is the primary argument against the use of birth control?

19. What arguments support birth control being acceptable?

20. What is the clear moral difficulty in the discussion of masturbation?

21. What are the main concerns with the notion of “safe sex”?

22. What things can be done to maintain sexual purity?

23. How can the garden imagery from the Song of Songs help someone to recover from sexual failure?

Cases for Discussion

Case 10.1: Wrestling with Sexual Orientation

You are counseling a college student in your church who has come to you very privately with ambiguity about his sexual orientation. He doesn’t understand why it is difficult for him to sustain interest in opposite-sex relationships, and he thinks he might be gay but is not sure. He wants to know what you think about homosexuality—he knows you have religious views on this, and he wants to know what you think.

Questions for Discussion

1. What would you tell this young man about your views on homosexuality? What does the Bible contribute to your view on this issue?

2. Suppose he ends up deciding that he’s gay and holds similar religious views to yours. Is it possible for him to be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time? Why or why not?

3. Assume that this person has no interest in any of your religious grounding for your view. How would you articulate your view in a way that is not exclusively dependent on the Bible?

Case 10.2: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

You are a state senator in your state, and there is a bill in your committee that would provide for the legalization of same-sex marriage. It would go beyond simply recognizing the rights of same-sex couples, as civil unions do in your state and many others. This bill would actually confer the designation of “marriage” on same-sex couples who go through a ceremony similar to the justice of the peace performing heterosexual marriages. Opponents of the bill insist that this will undermine the traditional family—the most important structure that transmits values in the culture. Proponents of the bill insist that this is basic fairness for same-sex couples.

Questions for Discussion

1. How will you vote on this bill giving same-sex couples the designation of marriage? Would you extend that designation to other forms of constructing a family, such as multiple marriage?

2. What do your religious views have to say on this issue? How do you feel about your religious views informing your public policy position?

Case 10.3: Sex Change and Christian Ethics

I recently received the following inquiry from a church leader. Think about how you would respond to this request for counsel.

Dear Dr. Rae,

I work at_________Church with Pastor_________. Recently, a person called our church and said that they had a sex change from a man to a woman. (His male organs were changed to female organs.) He does not view this as a problem and wants to know if our church would accept him into our congregation. My current view is that this type of behavior is sin, but the pastor and I want to know how you might handle this situation. What Scripture would you cite relating to this issue? Do you have any advice on how we should handle this situation? Is this an acceptable thing to do for someone who says he is a Christian?

I appreciate your help.

Questions for Discussion

1. How would you answer this inquiry from this church leader? Do you think that a sex change is compatible with Christian ethics?

2. What biblical resources would you bring to bear on this discussion?

3. How does your decision on the sex-change operation affect your decision to receive this person into the church?

Notes

1. Paul’s teaching on homosexuality in Romans 1:18–32 will be discussed in this chapter in the section on homosexuality.

2. The exception to this is in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20, where Paul argues against sexual promiscuity on the basis of Genesis 2:24. He is not speaking to married couples here. Rather, his point is limited to the one-flesh relationship that is associated with sexual intercourse, thus making promiscuity wholly inappropriate for the believer. This is magnified by the indwelling Christ in the believer, so that Christ is actually joined to the person with whom one has had an affair.

3. This is not to say that single-parent families are any less genuine families in the sight of God, only that procreation cannot occur in that setting. Single-parent families usually began as two-parent families, and procreation occurred in the proper context. Divorce, however tragic, does not prevent the resulting single parent and children from being a legitimate family.

4. Though not a supporter of these critics of the traditional view, Donald Wold makes this same cultural observation about the connection between homosexual gang rape and forced submission in his book Out of Order: Homsexualitiy in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).

5. I am assuming a more literal interpretation of the Song of Songs and reject the allegorical interpretation that views the relationship between Solomon and his bride as symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. Although that comparison is certainly appropriate in the light of Ephesians 5:22–33, the consensus among recent commentators is that Solomon’s primary intent was to address literal sex in a literal heterosexual marriage. For more on this, see S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1978). See also Richard Hess, The Song of Songs (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

6. See Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, , chapter 3, for more detail on Kant’s deontological ethical system.

7. Cited in Megan Basham, “Pushing for Polygamy,” National Review Online, April 18, 2005.

8. For further reading on this, see Linda K. Bevington and Russell DiSilvestro, The Pill: Addressing the Scientific and Ethical Questions of the Abortifacient Issue (Deerfield, Ill.: Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 2002).

9. For example, see Matthew 5:19 and 19:1–10, where Jesus discusses divorce. There is a great deal of debate on what exactly porneía means in this context. Some hold that it means premarital sex, while others hold that it means adultery. Whatever one’s interpretation of these difficult passages, it is clear that porneía is used to specify a particular type of sexual immorality.

10. Kari Jenson Gold, “Getting Real,” First Things 39 (January 1994): 6.

11. Glickman, Song for Lovers, 115–16.

*Sources: www.christianlgbtrights.org; Mona D. West, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” www. mccchurch.org; Nancy Wilson, “Our Story Too: Reading the Bible with New Eyes,” www.mccchurch.org.

*Howard Mintz, “California High Court Plans to Hear Gay Marriage Arguments,” San Jose Mercury News, February 7, 2008.

*Stanley Kurtz, “Here Come the Brides,” The Weekly Standard, December 26, 2005, 19–27; Megan Busham, “Pushing for Polygamy,” National Review Online (April 18, 2005).

Table of Contents

Copyright Page

The Ethics of Sex