Sad. I may not agree with her final thesis, but even a secular paper like the USA today gets it…gets how deadly hook-ups can be to one’s whole being.

Hook-ups starve the soul

Wow! As I’m getting ready to preach tomorrow night on the topic of sex (the 3rd in a 4 part series) I ran across this article on Relevant just now. Tomorrow’s topic deals with what Christian ethicist, Lewis Smedes called “sinful distortion.” In this talk I will be looking at some of the sinful ways that we express our sexuality.

One of the huge issues I am going to talk about tomorrow night is “hooking-up.” The cheap and generic term for people getting together sexually, whether it’s making out, or going as far as having sex.

If you are a student reading this blog, you know what I’m talking about. If you are a parent reading this blog, then you need to know what I’m talking about. And if you aren’t convinced, just watch any episode, of any TV show on the WB. One Tree Hill devotes many of its episodes to this topic alone…of course in their eyes it’s a great and healthy thing, promoting sexual freedom. Actually, let me extend that statement. Just watch any tv show on tv from Desperate Housewives, to Seinfeld (they had an episode where they tried to make rules for hooking-up), to any reality tv show. They all promote pretty much this lifestyle of hooking up…of course they make it look wonderful, while not showing the short and long term affects this has on one’s life and future relationship and marriage. Like “incompetence in intimacy” as the research in the posting below will talk about.

I think this is not only a big issue in both Christian and secular settings, but Christians sometimes lie to themselves the most when it comes to hooking-up. For most Christians who are waiting, or trying to wait till they are married to have sex, they often view hooking-up as an alternative to having sex. They will justify pushing the boundaries as far as they can go, without actually going all the way. When we as Christians do this, we completely ignore the other psychological, emotional, and spiritual side-effects that we not only knew would be an issue one day, but we think we can control the outcome. I am always reminded of this verse when we think we are able to actually play with fire and sin, and not get burned, “Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?” (Proverbs 6:27-28). Hmmmm. No. In the article belowSeattle psychologist and adolescence researcher, Laura Kastner says this:

“If you’re having casual sex at 16, you don’t have the confidence to move on to dating at 18 because you don’t know how,” she says. “At 20, you feel even more awkward so you avoid dating even more. At 22, you’re like the client I saw last Friday. She knows how to hang in bars, flirt, and go home with a hook-up. She doesn’t know how to spend time with a person, one on one. That scares her. She feels like a loser, she feels disconnected and empty, and has low self-esteem.”

Check out the Tuesday column about hooking up on Relevant Magazine

Or read this interesting article on some of the new psychological research in terms of hooking up and how it is affecting people, especially youth. This was given to me by one of the pastor’s on staff. He apparently knew after 15 years of campus ministry that this is a huge topic:

‘FWB’ trend distorts the lessons of sex and loveBy Barbara F. Meltz, Globe Staff | October 21, 2004Not long ago, if a teen was in a long-standing relationship, it was reason to worry. It meant they probably were having sex. These days, it’s more likely they’re not in a relationship and having sex anyway.Their partner is likely to be a “friend with benefits.” That means they hang in the same group and know each other at least casually, but they don’t spend hours IM’ing or talking on the phone or even talking at all. They aren’t holding hands in the hall or buying each other trinkets, either. In fact, signs of affection are against the rules. It’s also a no-no to have feelings about the person or to behave like a couple. If there is sex a second or third time, and more likely they just move on to another partner, that’s all it is: serial sex.With FWB or “hooking up” (a term as unspecific and encompassing as “making out” once was), foreplay typically isn’t more than, “Do you want to –?” It is not a relationship that grows through emotional sharing, not a connection that teaches perspective or empathy, and not a chance to learn something about yourself or about what you like in a partner so you can make a smarter choice next time.Friend with benefits n, slang, also FWB. A one-time or occasional sexual partner within a subset of peers who agrees to an unspoken set of rules, esp. not having feelings about the partner; keeping feelings to oneself if they arise; not expecting social niceties such as loyalty, monogamy, or conversation. Sometimes interchangeable with hooking up.

Indeed, if there’s any learning at all, it’s “a negative mudslide,” leading to incompetence in intimacy, says Seattle psychologist and adolescence researcher Laura Kastner. Like most professionals, she has nothing good to say about the teen trend toward casual sex.”If you’re having casual sex at 16, you don’t have the confidence to move on to dating at 18 because you don’t know how,” she says. “At 20, you feel even more awkward so you avoid dating even more. At 22, you’re like the client I saw last Friday. She knows how to hang in bars, flirt, and go home with a hook-up. She doesn’t know how to spend time with a person, one on one. That scares her. She feels like a loser, she feels disconnected and empty, and has low self-esteem.”Even promiscuous college students of the ’60s and ’70s were better off. In between one-night stands, they tended to have monogamous relationships. Short-lived as those relationships may have been, Kastner says, they were at least practicing the skills that would make an intimate relationship work.Maybe our teens don’t need that practice. Maybe they’re preparing for a social convention yet to be unveiled that will replace marriage.Unlikely, says psychologist Geraldine K. Piorkowski of the University of Illinois at Chicago: “The skills that come from dating and emotional intimacy aren’t just preparation for marriage,” she says. “They’re key to human happiness. This is one thing Freud had right. Human beings are wired to need closeness and unconditional caring.” She is the author of “Too Close for Comfort: Exploring the Risks of Intimacy” (Perseus).
Researchers don’t know how prevalent FWB is; it varies from one high school or college campus to another. But they know it’s popular and growing. Jane O’Keefe of Wakefield, mother of 12-year-old Meghan, learned of it from the October issue of YM, a magazine for young teens. She picked up the issue thinking she might get a subscription for Meghan. Then she read the article on FWB headlined, “No Strings Attached.” While it says that having to conceal your true feelings about a hook-up can make you lonely, the article is otherwise an endorsement of casual sex.
O’Keefe did not get her daughter a subscription. She did invite her into the living room for a sit-down about the phenomenon. Too soon for the conversation? O’Keefe worried it was too late. “I wanted to be the first to talk to her about sexual intimacy,” she says. “Kids today have to make split-second decisions. I wanted to be sure she heard my opinion before she’s in one of those situations. I told her I don’t believe boys or girls benefit from casual encounters. To remove emotion from sex makes it meaningless and empty.”
Friend with benefits n, slang, also FWB. A one-time or occasional sexual partner within a subset of peers who agrees to an unspoken set of rules, esp. not having feelings about the partner; keeping feelings to oneself if they arise; not expecting social niceties such as loyalty, monogamy, or conversation. Sometimes interchangeable with hooking up.

Teens and young adults tend to see it differently. Bard College developmental psychologist Nancy Darling, who specializes in teen coupling, says teens cite a range of benefits to FWB: not getting stuck with one person; not having the time or wanting the responsibility for a relationship; eliminating the chance of heartbreak.
Ironically, there is potential for more hurt, not less.
“Because we are human beings, when we engage in this intimate act we do have feelings, even if the rules say you aren’t supposed to,” says Darling. In fact, the rules say you can’t even say that you have the feelings, so when you do, you have to pretend you don’t. “You can’t complain, you can’t blame, and friends aren’t so sympathetic. This can lead to as much depression as any break-up ever did,” she says.
Piorkowski explains why: “You feel ashamed for wanting closeness. ‘Everyone else is fine without it, what’s wrong with me?’ You feel bad about yourself, not for having sex, but for having feelings.”
FWB also sets young adults up to be sexually exploited. “Since the rules are that it’s no big deal, a teen who doesn’t want to [participate] feels a lot of pressure, boy or girl,” says Darling.
Judy Bohn of Arlington has seen that with her 20-year-old daughter. She managed to avoid the FWB syndrome in high school but found it pervasive at the small college she chose. “She felt like a pariah,” Bohn says, and eventually transferred to a large school where differences are tolerated.
It’s not that friendship groups are automatically bad. It’s not that there is no dating in high school or college, or that casual sex never leads to a relationship. If neither is the norm, however, it takes strength to be different. Parents can help.
“Parents do a good job of talking with teens about STDs and sexual safety, but they need to do more talking about the other aspects of a healthy relationship: mutuality, connectedness, shared interests,” says Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. She says that even though your teen may sit stonily through a “conversation” in which you express your values, he or she most likely is hungry to hear what you have to say. Ideally, this begins long before adolescence. Think Jane O’Keefe.
Rodriguez is critical of popular culture’s influence on teenage sexual behavior. “Young people aren’t making this stuff up,” she says. “They’re learning it from . . . TV, movies, ads, and lyrics.”
Her advice to parents includes giving children critical-thinking skills with which to scrutinize the popular culture’s message that casual sex is easy and fun, and that everyone does it. Look at the world through your pre-teen’s or teen’s eyes and help them frame questions: What is the message here? Do I believe it? Is it for me? What do I want in my relationships? What will get me there? What won’t?
Darling says teens most likely to avoid hook-ups or FWB are those who are comfortable with emotional closeness, and who will stand up to being mistreated within a relationship, whether it’s with parents, siblings, or friends. That’s partly a matter of temperament but also a result of how well parents communicate values about intimacy.
“These are not easy conversations,” says Rodriguez. “What’s worse is to never have them at all.”
Contact Barbara Meltz at meltz@globe.com
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

I have begun to have a better understanding just how difficult it is to have frank talks with people about sex! I don’t mean discussions that guys have in the locker room, or in the privacy of their apartment with each other, or the discussions women have when they are out together, or having a slumber party. But I mean, real, honest, open discussions about sex, their sexuality, and how it fits into the Biblical context. Is it not any wonder that some parents find it so difficult to have this discussion with their kids? But by not having that discussion, who is left to teach their kids about the proper way to express their sexuality, and in what context, according to God’s Word? Certainly our culture will pick up where the parent’s left off, or where the parents had even failed to start. Hollywood will do it. Media. Advertising. Internet. Magazines. Movies. Music. Television. You get the point. All of these mediums are screaming out and vying for the attention of young people. So it is with this in mind that I decided that I needed to be honest with my students about the topic of sex. If the church can’t share this news, then who can? And really, shouldn’t we as Christians be the first to be open about sex, especially since it was part of the design by our Creator, God?

So who cares if my face gets red from blushing, as I speak out words that my students have never heard come from my lips. My momentary embarrasment is worth it, if I might help others through the heartache and pain, or help rescue some students from going in the wrong direction sexually, or if I might be able to help shine God’s redemption on their past failures.

Last night was the second talk in my four part series on Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness, Sinful Distortions, and Redeemed Potential. On January 26, I began with an overview of Sex, Christianity and Culture, and last night I picked up on the theme of “Created Goodness.”

One of the most important messages that I wanted to convey to my students last night was that sex is a good thing. A beautiful and wonderful thing. But only when it is expressed in the proper context and relationship that God intended for it. When it is expressed outside of those boundaries, than all kinds of things go haywire, and we fall into what Lewis Smedes referred to as “sinful distortions.”

So why a talk on the Biblical foundation of sex? First, because as I mentioned before, with everything else in this world begging for your attention, and for you to follow their ideas and rules about sex, I think it’s about time that we look at what the Bible says. Second, since we as Christians view God as Creator of everything, from the universe, to the earth, to humanity, then isn’t it important that we look at what His original intent, or design for sexuality was and is?

With that in mind, let me say that the topic of sexuality is a very heated and controversial subject, because it really cuts to the core of who we are as creatures and people made in the image of God, reflecting His likeness.

“How to feel about our sexuality is part of a larger question. For the Christian believer, at any rate, the larger question is how to feel about creation. If our sexuality belongs to creation, our feelings about it can be of a piece with God’s feelings about what he made.” (Lewis Smedes in Sex for Christians).

With that in mind, I approached last night’s sermon, wanting to accomplish a few things. One, I wanted to look at a passage of Scripture that I believed really set the foundation, and gave guiding principles as to who we are as sexual beings, and how we are to live that out. Second, I wanted to allow the text to speak, to allow the mystery of the passage permeate our thinking, and not to simply try and pull systematic principles out of the text. Sex, marriage and relationships, are much too complicated and mysterious to simply put in simple, mechanistic terms. Third, I wanted to stir up their thinking. I wanted to pick a text, and to preach an angle on the text that they were probably not used to hearing. I think that my goal, and our goal as Christians in preaching is to stir people to think. To not simply provide some simple answer so that they can nod their heads up and down, and uniformally fit into the right group.

The Bible does not say tons about our sexuality. If you are looking for a sex manual, the Bible is not it. Though some might argue for Song of Solomon. If you are looking to the Bible to lay out clear and simple do’s and dont’s as to how far you can go physically, the Bible is not that either. Rather, the Bible provides a strong Biblical foundation that we can build on. That is why I began in Genesis, using that as the foundation for our sexuality.

With Genesis as our foundation for Biblical sexuality, there are three things that I want all of my students, and you as readers to keep in mind. These are three problems, or assumptions, or biases that I think we all can carry at times that keep us from having a healthy perspective on our sexuality, or sex in general:

1) I think that a lot of Christians hold a very Gnostic, dualistic view of sex, and especially our own sexuality. What is a Gnosticism and dualism? In very simple terms which don’t quite do it justice, it is the belief that all matter is evil, and that spirit is good. Therefore, anything related to the flesh, or its desires would be evil, and not of God, while those things related to the spiritual would be seen as good. For more details, read up on gnosticism. This was an early heresy that a great part of the church was fighting, as well as the author of I John, where in I John 4:2-3, he writes, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.” You see, many gnostics and dualists did not actually believe that Jesus could have come in the flesh because their view was that only spirit matter was good, and flesh was bad. I think many Christians still carry this view around with them unconsciously. They have been taught, either at home, or in the church, that any type of desires that they have, and that are related to their fleshly urges are automatically bad, and therefore, could not be related to the spiritual and divine matters related to God. My professor friend confirms this idea from the sex questionnaires that she issues as part of her class on Biblical sexuality. Most students she says, still carry a negative view of sexuality with them based on this dualist, gnostic, heretical view.

2) Speaking more specifically to men. I think and believe, that how we as men view women in the creation account, will greatly affect not only our future marriages, but how our sexuality is expressed in that relationship. What do I mean? When God says in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helpmate,” the Hebrew word “ezer” is used, meaning, suitable helpmate, co-laborer, helper, etc. That is what God has intended for us as men. But I think in many Christian circles, men prefer to use, or confuse the word “ezer” with “eber” which is slave, and which is picked up after the Fall. And I think how you decide to view women, as helper and co-equal, or as subservient, and a slave, will have drastic implications on your sexuality, and sex life in marriage.

3) As creatures, people made in the image of God, what does that mean for us then? If we our sexual beings, and we are made in God’s image, what does that say about God as a sexual being? Or maybe we prefer not to think of God in those terms, as having sexuality. But doesn’t our sexuality, point back to a Creator, who sees sexuality as something that is to be important? We are made in His image? Part of this goes back to the gnostic views, but I think we are more comfortable as viewing God only in terms of divinity, and not humanity, so we would prefer to keep our sexuality on a lower level of nature, than our spiritual. These views will affect not only what you think about your sexuality, but about God as well.

It is important that we are aware of our biases, or assumptions whenever we approach a subject, or when we look in the Bible. Because our prior assumptions and biases greatly shape what we read and interpret, sometimes blocking out what God is trying to say to us. So with those three assumptions fresh in our mind, let’s begin by looking at the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and how they help us set a Biblical foundation for our sexuality.

In Genesis 1:26-31 we get a very brief account of the creation of humanity, as in comparison to what we will read in Genesis 2. But Genesis 1:26-27 says:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ ‘ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’” (NRSV)

From this passage we get a quick snapshot of the creation of humanity, and the distinguishing of the sexes, male and female. God then commands them to be fruitful and to multiply. We already see then that a male and female relationship is the foundation of our sexuality, and a sexual union is established, where they are asked to continue to multiply.

But then we come to Genesis 2, which I believe is one of the most beautiful, most mysterious, and most poetic passages in all of Scripture. One of the beautiful things about going through seminary was the studying of Greek and Hebrew. And as I read through Genesis 2 in Hebrew, I realize how much of the beauty, and poetry, and mystery of the text is lost in the English translation. In Genesis 2:7-24 we pick up a very amazing story.

In Genesis 2:7 we find the creation of “man”, or the “adam”. “Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” God takes from the ground, from the dirt, the materials to form “man”. And then God breathes into his nostrils and the “man” is given life. In the Hebrew text, the word for “man” is “adam” (not in the proper name sense; by the way, the proper name Adam, is not used till Genesis 4:25), and the Hebrew name for ground, earth, dust is “adamah.” Leaving many theologians and scholars to say that this creation of “man”, is a creation of really this “earth creature.” This creature, that is created out of the dust of the ground, who shares the almost exact sounding name to that of the ground. He is a creation without any sexual differentiation. And this “adam” is put in the garden to tend to it.

Then we come to another remarkable passage in 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’” Though “adam/man/earth creature” was there in the garden, in communion with God, that was still not enough. God then begins to search for a suitable helper, or partner, “ezer” in Hebrew.” So then God forms out of the same ground, and earth, and dust, that he formed ‘adam” out of, he begins to form every animal of the field, and bird of the air. This is more evidence for scholars to believe that the creation of “adam/man”, is more similar to that of “earth creature”, because they were formed from the same material. God brings all these creatures to ‘adam”, and ‘adam” names them, giving them an identity. “But for the man there was not found a helper as his partner” (2:20). A very funny story if you think about it. God realizes that it is not good for “adam/man” to be alone, so he creates all these animals and brings them to “adam/man”, but none of them were suitable. A very early version of dating as one of my Fuller professors jokes about.

So in Genesis 2:21-22 the text tells us, “So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” So beautiful. God doesn’t take from the earth, or the ground, or the dust, the same materials that he had used to create “adam/man/earth creature” and all the other creatures. But rather, he tears open the “man’s” side, and takes out something close to his heart, something close to the core of who he is, a rib, and he forms woman out of it.

And then the Hebrew changes. In Genesis 2:23, it says, “Then the man (adam) said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishah), for out of Man (ish) this one was taken.’” Did you catch that? The “earth creature”, “adam”, or “man”, who was formed from the same materials as the animals, is given a new name, a new identity. He becomes ‘ish”, or ‘Man”, and the “Woman” is “ishah”. It is not until “Woman” is created that the “adam/man/earth creature” realizes his full idenity, realizes who he is. Where there was no sexual differentiation in the text before this passage, there is now sexual differentiation in the union of “Man” and “Woman”, of “ish” and “ishah.” For a closer look at this passage in Hebrew and English or here.

Then the passage closes in Genesis 2:24-25, saying, “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to hiw wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” A mystery for sure. Two people, with full identities, coming together as whole persons, and becoming one flesh. Not explainable. Only something that God can do. And the passage closes with a reminder of why sex should only be expressed between a husband and wife, a man and a woman, in a commited, marriage relationship. They were both naked, and not ashamed.

And that is how that beautiful story in Genesis 2, of the creation of man and woman ends. So what does that story have to do with our sexuality, or with sex in general? Everything! Sure there are other places in the Bible, such as Paul’s words in I Corinthians 7, where we could turn and read. But would you start a novel at the tail end of the story? I hope not. So why do we read only parts of the Bible, or read only the New Testament, without properly building a solid foundation from the beginning. Jesus fulfills the OT in the NT, but the OT is not replaced. Genesis is our solid foundation. In this text in Genesis 2, we are given a solid, Biblical foundation of humanity, of sexuality, of our relationships with each other. So what exactly does this story in Genesis 2 have to say to our sexuality? Good thing you asked. Here are some things that I think we can take from this story:

1) Sex is a great and beautiful thing when it is expressed in the right context. God forms man and woman, and unites them as one flesh in a sexual union. It is a union made in God’s image, which points us back to the Creator, who is a designer, and designed sex, and delights when the sexual act is expressed in the right relationship and context. “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,” (I Timothy 4:4).

2) The right context, the right relationship for sex, in only in the union of man and woman. Together. They are “ish” and “ishah”. Man and Woman. Nothing else was suitable for ‘adam”, for this “earth creature”, but this woman. And it is when these two come together that they exhibit, or display the full image of God. We have a full realization of who we are, when we are in relation, between a man and woman. We can have this realization in a non-sexual way, between friends, between a man and a woman, where there is sexual differentiation, and we are not simply ‘adam”, or “earth creature”. But for a sexual union, for sexual expression, the only place for it is in the marriage relationship of a man and a woman.

3) Other sexual unions are not a proper expression of the Biblical account. Whether it be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or between something more perverse, those are not Biblical, proper expressions of sexuality. The only proper expression is between a man and a woman, and anything outside of that leads to a distorted and sinful view of our sexuality.

4) Not only is sexual expression only proper between a man and a woman, but it is only reserved for marriage. And this expression in marriage, is best understood when each partner, man and woman, has the proper understanding of helpmate, or partners, of co-equality. A woman is not subservient to man, nor vice-versa. Paul will speak on this act of mutual submission in Ephesians 5, and any interpretation of Paul, or the role of women in the NT, is not properly understood, unless it is viewed at in light of the Genesis 2 account and other OT passages.

5) Sexual expression through marriage is a joining of two people, two individuals. A man and a woman becoming one flesh. It is a joint union with both people bringing all of who they are together, not half and half. I think that in many sexual relationships, and marriages, especially in the church, it is taught that the joining of two people, means both people will have to leave part of who they are behind, in order for the two to come together. And in Christian circles, this usually means the woman. I know you can think of many examples. If not, call me, and I will give you some. The woman is often taught that she is supposed to surrender her identity as a person, as a woman, in order to be formed, or joined with the man. This is not a good view. (If you don’t think we inherit some rough baggage in this area, then read up on some of the early church fathers, and their views of woman; even Augustine, who didn’t view women too highly, was barely gracious enough to say that women would be women in heaven, and not turned into men). Rather, the Genesis account displays to us, two individuals, man and woman, coming together as their whole selves, and becoming one, in a mysterious union that only God understands. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke has some great insight on this, when he says,

“The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky…………..Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate–?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself for another’s sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things.”

6) When sex is expressed in this proper relationship, there is no shame, no guilt. Because it is being expressed in the relationship that God has designed, there is not fear, or reservation in the sexual act.. How many of us carry around some shame or guilt because we have been in a sexual relationship outside of marriage? That is not freedom. There is hesitantness and reservation, and shame over many things, i.e. “will we get pregnant”, “am I being used”, “are they committed to me”, “do they really love me.” But in marriage, sexual expression between a man and a woman achieves its highest pinnacle, because it is where God created sex to be, without restraint, and guilt and shame.

This is what I have learned from the text in Genesis 2. And I believe this is the best text to convey the most comprehensive understanding of sex, and our sexuality. And, I think that rather than breaking everything down into some philosophical or theological system, the story narrative of Genesis 2 best expresses the understanding, the mystery, and the complexity of the bonding of man and woman in sex.

This is just the beginning of our journey as we look at the created goodness of sex. We will head next week into looking at what happens when our sexuality expresses itself outside of these boundaries that God has laid out, and heads into the area of sinful distortions. And in two weeks, we will look at what God does with our pasts, and how he can, and does bring about redemption and healing for our lives, when our sexuality was expressed in the wrong contexts.

But for now, let me leave you with a very insightful, and blunt quote, by the late ethicist and theologian, Lewis Smedes:

“Our sexuality is the form we take in life as persons. In this sense, sexuality has to do with much more than genital sex. People cannot live by orgasms alone, nor even by exquisitely sensuous love-making. Any two persons who are living a full life together as persons know that their sexual relations cover a lot more ground than the few moments of intercourse. Sexuality is involved in the quiet hours of communication and contemplation as much as in the volcanic moments. The sexploitation of our time is actually a vast shrinkage of sexuality becuase it concentrates almost wholly on the biological experience of orgasm and everything that stimulates people towards it.”

For further study, or reading on this issue, check out:

Sex for Christians
*bad title, but a landmark book in biblical and human sexuality; also very controversial; read with caution; I am not a proponent of all his views, but he says some things better than anyone else out there in this area.

On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology”

Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Volumes III/1, 2, 3, 4

Man As Male And Female: A Study In Sexual Relationships From A Theological Point Of View

I’m currently working on two blog entries that have come up after being here at the Emergent Conference. So look to find those sometime over the weekend, or early Monday morning.

But as I was doing some research online today, I was on Tod Bolsinger’s blog, who is the pastor at San Clemente Presbyterian Church. I guess I’m not the only one who thought that preaching on sex was something that was important. It appears that all of you are wanting pastors to speak more on issues such as this.

Check out his blog It Takes A Church and what he has to say on this issue.

As I mentioned Wednesday night, a lot of our Christian and religious beliefs within the Church, regarding sexuality, have been negatively shaped by the influence of some of our early church fathers such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Though these men contributed amazing things to the Church and it’s theology, they were not perfect and had some definite hangups about human sexuality. Philip Yancey brings this to attention in his book Rumors of Another World. You can view excerpts of this book in the article Holy Sex.

For some short, but scholarly treatment on this issue, check out the below papers, submitted by my friend and scholar, Cameron Jorgenson who is working on his Ph.D. at Baylor University. Cameron and I attended undergrad together, and were roommates at Fuller during our M.Div. program. You can read his insightful and witty humor at his blog Summa-Aesthetica, where he reflects on his interests in theology, moral formation, culture and art. For some good reading check out the following two articles below:
(I had some trouble posting some of his footnotes for some reason. But his bibliography is listed)

1) Aquinas on the Ecstatic Nature of Love
And its Relation to Sexuality and the Passions
(see below)

2) Augustine on Sexuality and the Passions
(see below)

Aquinas on the Ecstatic Nature of Love
And its Relation to Sexuality and the Passions

A Paper Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for
PHI 5311 – Cicero, Augustine, & Aquinas
Robert C. Miner, Ph.D. – Professor
Baylor University

By
Cameron H. Jorgenson

Waco, Texas
December 13, 2004

Introduction
Thomas Aquinas is remembered for many things; being an authority on sex is not one of them. While this particular investigation does not set out to prove a thesis quite that ambitious, the claim is provocative nonetheless. In his masterful Summa Theologiae, the Angelic Doctor explores the nature of love in a way that allows him to transcend problematic elements of Augustine’s account of the sexual passions. Although Augustine seems to make sexual passion inseparable from vice—similar to Cicero’s conception of grief—Aquinas’ description of the ecstatic nature of love opens up possibilities for redeeming sexual passion as a part of the rightly ordered creation.
Although his discussion of love and ecstasy is limited to one article of one question, Aquinas’ treatment is typically pithy and worthy of extended discussion. What follows is an attempt to unpack Summa Theologiae I-IIae 28.3 and apply its insights to the question of the sexual passions. The intent is to sketch a framework within which sexuality can be understood as a redeemable passion, one that is a natural outgrowth of love and the image of God.

Summa Theologiae I-IIae 28.3
In his treatment of “The Effects of Love” in Question 28, Aquinas addresses the question of whether ecstasy is properly described as an effect. The argument is provocative. Citing Dionysius, Aquinas claims that the “Divine love produces ecstasy.” Even more suited to raising eyebrows is his subsequent claim that, “God himself suffered ecstasy through love,” making all other loves, which are ultimately participations in the Divine love, necessarily ecstatic as well. There is no ambiguity in Aquinas’ claim: ecstasy is an essential characteristic of love.
Given the boldness of the claim, one must be clear about the definition of the key term. Characteristically, Aquinas is concerned to provide that sort of clarity. He spends the first half of the responsio carving out his definition:
To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside oneself. This happens as to the apprehensive power as to the appetitive power. As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him. This may be due to his being raised to a higher knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason, when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense and reason: or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is overcome by violent passion or madness. –As to the appetitive power, a man is said to suffer ecstasy when that power is borne towards something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.

While ecstasy in its simplest form means to be placed outside oneself, Aquinas hones his definition by differentiating between the operations of ecstasy as they relate to the powers of the soul. Considered according to the ratio of the apprehensive power, love is ecstatic insofar as the experience surpasses connaturality. Transcending connaturality in this way can be either good (i.e. being raised up to knowledge too lofty for natural capacities), or bad (i.e. being debased by destructive passions or the eradication of the mind in madness). Aquinas’ distinction at this point is unique because he does not dismiss all experiences that in some way outstrip the reason. Although Aquinas seems to agree with Augustine that reason is that which is considered most properly human, he makes room for the possibility of an ecstatic relation to that which is above or outside the normal bounds of sensory and intellectual comprehension. This is an important allowance that will be explored in more detail below. For the moment, it is worth noting that Aquinas’ allowance seems to open up the requisite space to account for important human experiences that transcend ordinary perception.
Based on his discussion of mutual indwelling as an effect of love in the previous article, Aquinas claims that the apprehensive form of ecstatic love is “caused by love dispositively, in so far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved.” This movement is ecstatic in that “the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul.”
Given the level of intimacy involved in mutual indwelling, ecstatic love in terms of an encounter with an object that transcends connatural capabilities seems inevitable. If the object is considered to be something worth knowing beyond superficiality, allowing for a certain mystery or “otherness,” love must be transcendent and ecstatic. Furthermore, it would seem that the degree of ecstasy involved in a particular love would depend on the degree of remoteness between the love and beloved. The more the beloved is transcendently other, and the more intensely it is loved, the greater the degree of ecstasy that result from that love. For this reason, the infinite difference between the divine/human relationship and all others would seem to put divine ecstasy in a category of its own.
Considered under the ratio of the appetitive power, love is ecstatic insofar as it bears one out from oneself toward something else. Because most loves have an object requiring a movement away from the self, yet not every object transcends connaturality, the appetitive aspect of love is the most common way in which humans experience the ecstatic nature of love. This type of ecstasy is caused directly by love in two ways: by love of friendship, simply, and by concupiscence in a restricted sense.
One is placed outside of oneself by love of friendship simply because “he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for him, for his sake.” The motion of friendship love is unidirectional. It is a well wishing that seeks the other’s benefit for the sake of the other, without any concern for pleasure on the part of the lover.
In concupiscible love the motion is not simple “insofar, namely, as not as not being satisfied with enjoying the good he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself. But since he seeks to have this extrinsic good himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this movement remains finally within him.” The good intention does not only extend itself to another, but seeks to return to the lover as delight. It is in this way that concupiscible love “is not satisfied with external or superficial possession or enjoyment of the beloved; but seeks to possess the beloved perfectly” —in other words, although the object of love is external, concupiscible love has internal results when it returns to the lover in the form of delight.

Objections
Before he makes his case, Aquinas opens his discussion of ecstasy with three intriguing objections. Although he does not cite an authority for the first objection, a complex interaction with Augustine’s City of God seems to be in the background: “It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love. For ecstasy seems to imply a loss of reason. But love does not always result in loss of reason: for lovers are masters of themselves at times. Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.” The logic of his first objection seems to be as follows: Ecstasy cannot be an effect of love because ecstasy implies a loss of reason, and this is self-evidently not true at all times.
This objection seems to be fairly weak, quibbling over whether ecstasy in every case involves a loss of reason. The rhetorical impact of the questions leads the reader to think “of course lovers are capable of exhibiting self control at times,” revealing the objection to be a self-evident assertion. This rhetorical effect suggests two things. First, Aquinas’ intends to demonstrate that ecstasy is primarily concerning the externality of love’s motion, a motion that need not imply anything about reason. Second, it seems to reinforce Aquinas’ notion of the apprehensive dimension of the ecstatic effects of love, which can either involve a violent loss of reason, or an encounter with a power that the lover’s sensible powers. As noted by the objection, there is a potential for a destructive loss of reason; however, in the latter case, there is not a bestial loss of reason, but the sort of supra-rational experiences that are uniquely human. These would include mystical experiences, or radically intimate expressions of interpersonal relationships that tend toward perfect knowledge of the other.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the first objection is something that is left unsaid. Although no authority is cited for this objection, the formulation immediately calls to mind Augustine’s construal of sexual passion in The City of God. Sexual passion “disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotion combines and mingles with the physical craving, resulting in a pleasure surpassing all physical delights. So intense is the pleasure that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed.” Given his affinities to Cicero’s account of the emotions and its wariness of all perturbationes of the soul, even by “positive” emotions and pleasures, this assessment of the pleasures of sex are not surprising. Any emotion that exceeds the bounds of wisdom, or worse yet, manages to extinguish the light of reason, is fundamentally dangerous and out of character for the virtuous soul. While this is all internally consistent, if the discussion is framed in this way, there is no way to account for sexual desire or activity of any type, except as lust. For Augustine, it is an irredeemable passion.
Clearly, the structure of the first objection does not allow it to undo Augustine’s analysis of the sexual act. The furthest extent to which the objection can be pushed is to claim that ecstasy, defined as loss of reason, is not always the effect of love. Nevertheless, the objection does put the issue of the centrality of reason on the table; setting up the subsequent claim that reason can be transcended in a way that does not result in debasement. The self-evident tone of the objection may also seem to question the absolute identity of love, ecstasy, loss of reason, and sin.

Relation to Augustine and Sexuality
One might wonder what exactly is at stake in the present discussion. With respect to Augustine’s construal of the sexual passions, it is essential that one find a way to redeem sexuality while taking Augustine’s critique seriously. Sexual actions and their attending passions are essential components of the marital state. If he is correct that any passion that transcends reason is by definition sinful, and if sexual passion is the chief example of such a passion, then the legitimacy of married life is called into question. There is no easy way around his critique. One could undermine his anthropology, but doing so would have far reaching, and unappealing, consequences. One could also take the modern escape route and dismiss Augustine on psychological grounds, denouncing his theology as the product of repression or an unhealthy attachment to his mother; however, his biography is too complex, and his theology too rich, for such a simplistic reading.
Aquinas’ account is appealing because it starts with presuppositions that are nearly identical to Augustine’s, yet it opens up a possible means to account for rightly ordered sexuality. Aquinas’ superiority can be seen along two lines. First, the category of ecstatic love seems to offer an alternate account of the role of the intellect. In Aquinas’ construction, the intellect is central, but can encounter an object that transcends its powers of knowing. In such an instance, the intellect is raised above itself toward the object that is greater than itself. If one applies this category to interpersonal relationships, then the degree of intimacy in a relationship and the corresponding degree to which the other is transcendently mysterious, makes possible an ecstatic love between humans. This construction of interpersonal relationships does not negate the role of reason; rather it recognizes the limits of reason when dealing with the mystery of human community. Surely this is all the more true in the most intimate of relationships, the mystery and sacrament of marriage.
The language Aquinas uses to describe the mutually indwelling nature of love and the ecstatic nature of the concupiscible powers, has overtones that are nicely suited to speak of marital relations: the lover existing in the beloved, intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, not superficial possession or enjoyment but possessing perfectly and penetrating into the heart. It would seem that the ecstatic is well suited to describe the appropriately erotic—the impulse for union with another.
Another way in which Aquinas seems to solve an impasse presented by Augustine is found in his description of friendship love. In describing the simplicity of the ecstasy involved in friendship love, Augustine describes a friend as one who is appropriately treated as an end, one whom is the simple recipient of the well wishing intentions of love. This seems to counter Augustine’s distinction between frui and uti, which assert that the only proper object of such simple love is God. Aquinas makes room for appropriate love of the other as an end. While this is less directly significant than his category of the ecstatic, it would seem that making space for treating other human beings as ends (relatively speaking) is an important step in describing how interpersonal relationships with others created in the image of God might also result in an experience of transcendence and ecstatic love.

Conclusion
Admittedly, there are problems to be addressed concerning the account given above. First, although Augustine is frequently cited as an interlocutor in the Summa, he is not mentioned by name in either 28.2 or 28.3. For this reason, the only evidence of a direct connection between Augustine’s account of the sexual passions, and 28.3 is the high degree of conceptual affinity. Equally problematic is that in all his discussion of the mutual indwelling and ecstatic effects of love, the sexual act is nowhere mentioned.
Both problems could be countered directly. Concerning the first issue, one might point out that Aquinas is often moderate in his critique of those with whom he disagrees. It is not unthinkable that Aquinas could address the substance of a point on which he diverges from Augustine’s account without mentioning him by name. Regarding the lack of explicit mention of sexuality as an example of the ecstatic dimension of love, it does not seem unreasonable to appeal to a sense of modesty. While Aquinas is not a prude and often mentions the pleasures of the table and the sexual act interchangeably, he could easily have been elliptical in his language regarding love, especially since his concern was to describe the general nature of love.
Whether or not these rebuttals stand, the issue is less about whether Aquinas had Augustine in mind when structuring his argument, and more about whether the present analysis makes appropriate use of Aquinas’ description of the mechanics of love. It is entirely possible that Aquinas had no thought of the transcendent nature of the “other” in human relationships. Nevertheless, it does seem that when something like Buber’s I-Thou dialectic is proposed to Aquinas’ construct, the categories of mutual indwelling and ecstatic love account well for the nature of such relationships. Perhaps most importantly, Aquinas seems to redeem what would seem in Augustine to be irredeemable. He makes room for love that transcends reason without effacing it, opening up the possibility for legitimate mystical experience in the overwhelming encounter with the divine Other, and legitimate intimacy in the marital encounter, even in its sexual expression.

Bibliography

St. Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettinson. London: Penguin Books, 1984.

St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Vol. II. Trans. Fathers of the English
Dominican Province. Notre Dame: Christian

Augustine on Sexuality and the Passions

A Paper Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for
PHI 5311 – Cicero, Augustine, & Aquinas
Robert C. Miner, Ph.D. – Professor
Baylor University

By
Cameron H. Jorgenson

Waco, Texas
October 18, 2004

Introduction
While Augustine is by all accounts one of the most important theologians in the history of the Church, his influence on the subsequent theology of sexuality has not always been assessed positively. His magnum opus, City of God, explores the topic of sexuality primarily in connection with his assessment of the passions. In keeping with the great moral philosophers of his day, most notably Cicero, Augustine saw the passions as an essential area of concern. Given his own struggle with sexuality prior to his conversion, Augustine understands sexuality to be the perfect illustration of an especially obstinate desire. More than any other passion, sexual lust embodied the elements of the human soul that resist the proper ordering of the human person: being subject to reason, wisdom, and charity.
What follows is an attempt to provide a close reading of the sections of City of God that deal with sexuality. Following a close investigation of Augustine’s arguments, I will offer suggestions about how his insights can be seen as relevant for the contemporary conversation, and offer a critique of his conclusions according to his own logic. It is hoped that the insights of this paper could be exemplify a via media between those who have strong reservations about Augustine, largely on the grounds of his views about sexuality, and those who wish to defend his thought at all cost.

City of God, I.16, 18
The first extended discussion of sexuality is offered in the first book of the City of God. The topic is addressed primarily to offer pastoral counsel concerning the problem of Christian women being raped by pagan captors, and what may have been seen by some as an appropriate response: suicide. Augustine makes clear that suicide is never a valid option for the Christian, declaring that Christian women should “not add crime to crime by committing murder on themselves in shame because the enemy had committed rape on them in lust.” Beyond this, however, Augustine makes a distinction about the nature of lust that both assuages whatever feelings of guilt Christian victims of rape may feel, and lays the foundation for his extended treatment of sexual passions in Book XIV.
Augustine makes clear that rape does not violate chastity. He argues that virtue is that which rules over the body, “from her throne in the mind, and…the consecrated body is the instrument of the consecrated will.” This being the case, if another sins against the body, it can in no way be a detriment to one’s virtue. If the will is untainted, neither is chastity. Augustine clarifies the issue even further: “for if purity is lost in this way, it follows that it is not a virtue of the mind; it is not then ranked with the qualities that make up the moral life, but is classed among physical qualities, such as strength, beauty and health.” Virtue is not, therefore an issue of physicality, but purely an interior condition of the will. No externally imposed act can in any way violate the goodness of a will unable to avoid the act without sin (i.e. suicide or murder). To reinforce this point, Augustine provides the example of the midwife who, “whether by malice, or clumsiness, or accident,” destroys a virgin’s maidenhead during a manual examination. He claims that no one would be stupid enough to claim that the virgin had lost any bit of chastity due to the accident. In stark contrast is his second example of the corrupt woman en route to fornicate. Even though the act has not yet taken place she is not chaste. Since her mind is unchaste, so is her body; just as the woman chaste in mind is chaste in body, even if she has been physically violated.
One enigmatic sentence appears at the end of chapter sixteen. Its difficulty may foreshadow a strand of thought that would not be picked up again until Book XIV. Augustine says,
And so whenever any act of the latter kind has been committed, although it does not destroy a purity which has been maintained by the utmost resolution, still it does engender a sense of shame, because it may be believed that an act, which perhaps could not have taken place without some physical pleasure, was accomplished also by the consent of the mind.

The problem is the shame associated that results from the rape. Augustine suggests that the source of this shame may be a belief in the mind of the victim that an act resulting in some physical pleasure must also have been the result of some consent. It may give pause to a contemporary reader that Augustine associate pleasure with rape, and this as being the source of shame. Beyond this, however, is the question Augustine leaves unresolved: whether physical pleasure must be accomplished by the consent of the mind. This intriguing question is left unanswered in Book I. It is not until Book XIV that related issues are raised and the mechanics of lust are more fully explored.

City of God, XIV.16-19, 23-26
Lust, which can refer to all sorts of inordinate desires, is most properly connected to sexual lust, the type that excited the “indecent parts of the body.” Augustine makes much of the shameful nature of the genitalia, referring several times to the etymology of the common term “pudenda (‘parts of shame’).” While the primary reason given for the shameful character of lust is its resistance to the will, as will be explored below, Augustine gives a few other reasons as well.
One reason sexual passion is problematic is its connection to pleasure. Lust “disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotion combines and mingles with the physical craving, resulting in a pleasure surpassing all physical delights. So intense is the pleasure that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed.” Given his affinities to Cicero’s account of the emotions and its wariness of all perturbationes of the soul, even by “positive” emotions and pleasures, this assessment of the pleasures of sex are not surprising. Any emotion that exceeds the bounds of wisdom, or worse yet, manages to extinguish the light of reason, is fundamentally dangerous and out of character for the virtuous soul. While this is all quite consistent, it should be noted at this point that according to this way of framing the discussion, there is no way to describe sexual desire except as lust—it is an irredeemable passion.
A second strand in Augustine’s account of sexual passions comes in connection with his description of the Garden of Eden. He maintains that in the Garden Adam and Eve felt no shame for their nakedness until after their sin, at which point the “grace that prevented their bodily nakedness from causing them any embarrassment” was removed. “The consequence was that they were embarrassed by the insubordination of their flesh, the punishment which was a kind of evidence of their disobedience,” and they immediately made for themselves clothes out of fig leaves. Augustine goes on to conclude: “thus modesty, from a sense of shame, covered what was excited to disobedience by lust, in defiance of a will which had been condemned for the guilt of disobedience.” Augustine seeks to establish a direct link, perhaps even a causal relationship, between the first sin and lust. While the connection between the first sin and all subsequent sins is a commonplace, it is not entirely clear in what way the special emphasis on sexuality is established.
A third part of Augustine’s account of the sexual passions involves the privacy connected to the sexual act. These insights are an extension of the above discussion of the first humans. Just as the first sin resulted in covering the “parts of shame,” the sexual act itself became cloaked in secrecy. Whether the act is the sort of debauchery that could result in public censure, or whether it is the consummation of a marriage, the sexual act requires privacy. As with the covering of the genitals, modesty in the sexual act is the result of shame. This is the point of Augustine’s rhetorical question: “What can be the reason for this, if it is not that something by nature right and proper is effected in such a way as to be accompanied by a feeling of shame, by way of punishment?” The impulse toward privacy is evidence of something more sinister, tainting even the holiness of marital relations.
The fourth, and most prevalent emphasis in Augustine’s theology of the sexual passions, is the rebellion between sexual impulses and the will. Because of the emphasis Augustine places on the will, that which defies subordination is especially problematic. The sexual drives are the human actions par excellence that demonstrate this mutiny in the body. Without sin, the sexual parts would be as subject to the will as any other part. The act of procreation would be as voluntary as any other human work: “(had there been no sin) the man would have sowed the seed and the woman would have conceived the child when their sexual organs had been aroused by the will, at the appropriate time and in the necessary degree, and had not been excited by lust.” As it is, the sexual organs are notoriously stubborn, refusing willed arousal even for those who are motivated by lust. This sort of inner contradiction, and the shameful refusal of a lower part to be ruled by that which is higher, is evidence of a creature badly disordered. It is this theme to which Augustine returns time and again throughout his account.

Implications and Critique
Much can be learned from Augustine about sexuality, especially in a culture as unreflectively affirmative about sex as ours. First, Augustine’s cautious stance toward the power inherent in the sexual act, clouding reason, and motivating actions incompatible with virtue, are well founded. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, it seems right that he would sound a note of caution regarding lust in marital relationships. Certainly, given the powerful forces at work in a marriage—the convergence of two lives and wills—there is a risk of sinful desires to skew the appropriate expression of love and invading the relationship with destructive effects. Above all, Augustine’s words are a helpful reminder that right reason and a will shaped by faith is the intended motivating principle in a human life. Self-control is possible. While he makes clear that self-control in sexual matters is supremely difficult, it is a possibility that can be realized. The recognition of the real struggle, and potential for real victory, is encouraging.
While there is much to commend about Augustine’s account, several points of critique can be made, often employing his own logic elsewhere. First, it seems odd that sexuality is characterized by an emotion Augustine considers irredeemable. Earlier in Book XIV Augustine argues that “the important factor in those emotions is the character of a man’s will.” He goes on to clarify that “a rightly directed will is love in a good sense and a perverted will is love in a bad sense.” Augustine makes a final beautiful move to redeem the emotions, “Christians…the citizens of the Holy City of God…feel fear and desire, pain and gladness in conformity with the holy Scriptures and sound doctrine; and because their love is right, all these feelings are right in them.” It is not entirely clear why Augustine does not choose to use this same type of argumentation to redeem sexual love in marriage, making room for even the ecstatic pleasure of conjugal relations. By stating that all sexual desire is by nature lust, Augustine has little constructively to say about the physical aspects of marriage. Apart from achieving apatheia, lust is bound up in the fabric of marriage itself. Rather, it seems that by his own logic, Augustine could say that sexual love, motivated by a rightly ordered love for the spouse could appropriately express itself physically. Perhaps such a move would also validate sexual relations beyond those specifically motivated by a desire to procreate. If part of a well-ordered love for ones spouse, such mutual pleasure should not be considered sinful.
A second brief point of criticism is Augustine’s direct link between modesty and shame. It does not at all follow that a couple’s desire for privacy is inevitably linked to a sense of shame or a desire to escape punishment. Given the intimate, personal, and (in the case of the marriage act) holy, nature of sexual relations, they should be expected to be conducted in privacy. Just as one does not have their most intimate conversations over a loudspeaker for all to hear, one would not want to perform the most intimate of human activities without privacy—even in the Garden.
Finally, the problem of the involuntary nature of sexual drives must be addressed. As mentioned above, it is the unwilled character of lust that makes it so problematic. It seems that this has in part to do with Augustine’s characterization of biological processes. He notes that the sexual organs ought to work according to will as do the hands and feet as even the lungs obey the will, enabling breathing and speech. But this picture of the human body is not entirely correct. While breathing can be regulated to a certain extent, after a strenuous run, breathing is unavoidably heavy. The eyes can be opened and shut at will, but one blinks thousands of time each day apart from any conscious decision. Countless other examples of involuntary physical processes can be noted, none of which have negative moral implications. While sexual desire is certainly problematic, and resistance to the control of the will is a complicating factor, it seems to be an overreaction to categorically reject all sexual desire as lust because of the biological necessities involved.

Conclusion
Augustine offers some brilliant insights concerning the nature of sin and the passions. He also offers some soothing pastoral advice to those who have been raped, or who are facing such horror, by assuring them that their virtue is not threatened by such violence. His emphasis on the well ordered soul and the primacy of reason are helpful constructs in discerning the nature of the moral life—but even in the midst of his strengths there are points at which Augustine could be positively modified. It is his genius as a thoughtful pastoral theologian that makes it possible to provide most of these corrections out of his own work.

Works Cited

St. Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettinson

Last night I began my four part series dealing with the issue of sex, Christianity and culture. In short, it is a series looking at what the Bible has to say about sex, and how culture, for the most part, has very differing opinions. In this series I want to challenge all of you to look at sex as a beautiful and wonderful thing created by God.

Philip Yancey, in his book, Rumors of Another World: What On Earth Are We Missing?, tries to point people to look beyond just their desires and urges, and to a Creator, a Designer. In the book, Yancey states:

“UPTIGHT CHRISTIANS forget the fundamental fact that God created sex. Having studied some anatomy, I marvel at God laboring over the physiology of sex: the soft parts, the moist parts, the millions of nerve cells sensitive to pressure and pain yet also capable of producing pleasure, the intricacies of erectile tissue, the economical and ironic combination of organs for excretion and reproduction, the blending of visual appeal and mechanical design. As the zoologists remind us, in comparison with every other species, the human is bountifully endowed.

A connected view of life assumes this is God’s world, and that despite its fractured state, clues of its original design remain. When I experience desire, I need not flinch in guilt, as if something unnatural has happened. Rather, I should follow the desire to its source, to learn God’s original intent.”

(You can view portions of the chapter Designer Sex in Christianity Today, here).

Most of us, at least I think…Read the instructions to equipment, or electronics, or to our car…to the things that we buy. We know that by reading the instructions, assembling the product correctly, and paying attention to the details, can keep us from a lot of future trouble, mistakes and devastation. So why is it then, when it comes to the issue of sex, that seems to be an issue that we ignore the design of? Wouldn’t it make sense to look to the Creator of Sex, and see what He has to say about it? And wouldn’t what He has to say about it make sense? Probably keep us from heartache and pain, and help us experience sex in the most fulfilling way?

As I told you last night. I stand by the Biblical truth that the only proper expression of sexual intercourse is in a committed, monogamous, marriage, between a man and a woman. I believe that that is God’s design, and is explicit throughout the Bible, especially as that groundwork is laid out in Genesis 1-2, and finds its expression in such writings as Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, I Corinthians, and many other places.

Why are we talking about sex? Because I believe for too long that culture has been the dominant force in relaying to us, and feeding to us our views of sex, while the church has lost it’s voice. This seems especially true in Los Angeles where Hollywood rules the roost, and continues to barrage us with a steady stream of sex, telling us that we seem to be missing out on life if we aren’t participating in sex. And mind you, in many distorted forms! So I think it is time that the church begin to teach more seriously on this issue, otherwise it may find itself irrelevant to a culture that is looking for fulfillment and direction in all the wrong places. I think that Rob Bell, the pastor from Mars Hill Bible Church made a great case in the video last night that culture really doesn’t get it..doesn’t really understand sex, and that it is a spiritual thing. For those interested in that video, go to Nooma for short excerpts of each video, or to purchase them. The video last night was called Flame and was a wonderful look at the three Hebrew words for love in the Song of Solomon. Bell made the case that society tries to live off only one flame, one word, the word that means sexual pleasure, arousal, while God really created sex only to be enjoyed in conjuction with all three words: friendship, commitment and sex. Only when all three are expressed, do we experience true sexuality, in the spiritual way that God designed. To hear more of Rob Bell’s teachings (the best preacher in the country), go to his on-line archives.

The famous Fuller professor, and Christian ethicist Lewis Smedes writes about sex, saying:

“It is simple to make an idol: slice one piece of created reality off the whole and expect miracles from it. The miracles may be positive or negative; they may heal or hurt. If the idol has the power to heal, you keep it around you; you touch it, kiss it, rub it, or manipuate it any way you can. If the idol threatens you, you place a taboo on it, which means that you do not touch it, do not even mention it, for fear that familiarity will have a hurtful backlash. Idols work both ways: we make an idol of something either by expecting too much good from it or by fearing evil from it. Making an idol of sex happens both ways. We make an idol of sex by first isolating one dimension of sexuality–the genital. Then we either expect everything from it that we need to be happy or we fear that it will hurt us. Either way, sex has become an idol.”

I think that is one of the most amazing statements about sex. All of us have made an idol of sex it seems. Some of us have looked to it for all our answers and fulfillment in life, hoping that that will bring us intimacy and love, and quench the longing that we have had. It has become distorted. While others of us have been so afraid to talk about sex, that we have placed a taboo on it, and we are unable to have a real and honest discussion about the issue, while all the while it is affecting negatively something that God has designged to be a wonderful thing for us in a marriage relationship.

We all have different views on sex, and for the most part they are ones that we have inherited, or have held on to for a long time. Some of our views can be traced to our family, and either their openness, or lack thereof on this issue. Others of us can trace it to our upbringing in the church, which is interesting in and of itself, since the Church has held some strange views on this issue, dating all the way back to St. Augustine, who saw the doctrine of orginal sin as being passed on through the sexaul act. And many of us have had sexual experiences that have shaped our views in many negative ways.

So over the next three talks I want to focus on three very distinct things. 1) I want us to look at the Created Goodness in sexuality, looking at how God created sex, and for what purposes, and in what context that it is to be expressed. I want us to begin to take off the taboos we have placed on sex, and to begin to have an open discussion. And I want us to let go of the magical power that we thought sex held for us, hoping that would be the magical pill to fill all of our needs. 2) I want to look at the Sinful Distortion that sex can create in our lives, and how we try to fill the emptiness and voids in our life with things such as sexual relationships, pornography, “hooking up” the way we dress, and many other things. 3) I want us to look at Redeemed Potential, and how God can take our sinful pasts and redeem them. That no matter what we have done, we have never run too far away from God to not return. And sex seems to be one of those sins in our lives that we often seem as unredeemable. I believe that that is one of Satan’s biggest lies and attempts to keep us away from God, by giving us so much guilt and shame, that we feel God will never have us back.

So as we journey through this series, look for daily updates, thoughts, articles and many other things.

I will be linking articles and the such in each blog, as well as on the side margin under the sermon resources.

I would also like your input and feedback. So please send me any info. that might be helpful, and please post comments that I can respond to.

But for now, let’s move forward together in honest discussion about sex, seeking in prayer and diligence what God has to say about sex, and not Hollywood.

If you are like me, living in LA, it’s hard not to be star struck, even if you have lived here for years. The fascination may have waned over the years, but you still get a little excited when you see someone out in public. Like the time i saw Adam Brody, also known as Seth Cohen from the O.C., out at the Coral Tree, and in line with Dustin Hoffman. Or the time I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger and his family at the Coral Tree as well. Hmm, maybe that’s a good place to see stars, which is probably why I stopped going there.

And with our fascination comes our tendency to elevate them to a certain status level, where we want to read all about them, dress like them, go where they hang out, and eat and drink. Why do you think the tabloids sell so much? We want to be like them. And because of this fascination and curiousity to catch up on what they are doing we begin to build a sort of false familiarity and intimacy, thinking we know who they are, what they are like, based soley on their public persona, and no first hand experiential knowledge.

I do this. We all do this. So I was somewhat surprised when I was driving to the gym tonight and I heard on KROQ that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston split. I was sort of shocked because I thought they were different. They seemed like an ideal couple. But how would I know? I don’t know them. My perception of them and who they were, and are, was solely shaped by the movies they were in, the photos we saw of them, the interviews they gave, and the things People, Us or In Touch magazines touted about them. Hardly credible evidence to claim any knowledge of someone.

Ultimately, I think most of us were infatuated with Brad and Jenn, “the couple”, and who they were as status symbols of looks, money, power, fashion and more. We all want to have that sort of image to those around us. We all want to be in a relationship that has some of those qualities. But as a Christian we are also looking for something different. I don’t know anything of Brad and Jenn’s spirituality, but I do know that for those of us who want to seriously consider dating someone, the other person’s spiritual life plays the most important part. Or does it? Should it? Is it balanced out with other components as well? Wherever you come down on this issue, I think we often sacrifice the spiritual role in a relationship for the more immediate and tangible things.

Much of scripture has many different things to say on this issue. In the Old Testament Proverbs 31:10-31 makes the case for a woman who fears God over charm and looks:

30Charm can mislead and beauty soon fades.

The woman to be admired and praised

is the woman who lives in the Fear-of-GOD.

31Give her everything she deserves!

Festoon her life with praises!

In fact, if you think looks are so important over and against everything else, you better take a look at the humorous comment earlier in Proverbs:

Proverbs 11:22 (New International Version)

22 Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout

is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.

So when choosing a “Wife of Noble Character” as Proverbs describes it, or a husband of the same quality, fear of God seems to be the overriding factor. Not looks, money, power, sex, fashion, etc., etc. Why? A simple but true statement would be to say that most of the Bible proclaims a fear of the LORD as more important than any other quality one can have. I guess that’s why I was somewhat surprised at one of our online Quest polls a couple of months ago. When asked what quality was the most important when finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, the response “seeking God” finished tied for second with “intelligence” while “attractiveness” finished in first, almost five percentage points ahead.

So how does this play out in my dating life? What about dating non-Christians? What about marrying non-Christians? Well, a proper answer would take more time and space than this entry will allow, so I will turn your attention to Paul’s writings in 2 Corinthians 6:14 (New International Version) where he states the following:

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Wow! That’s a difficult statement to understand and read at times. So I will allow you the thinking and reflecting and praying about these issues that have been discussed. Ultimately, I think that just as we were infatuated with Brad and Jen and their supposed ideal relationship, we too become infatuated with someone, sometimes being blinded in our infatuation to what God’s Word says is really important.

I am no expert in this field. I have just recently gotten engaged to the woman I have been dating since May of 2003. But through our relationship I have truly learned what is important for us as a couple, and what things fade and are inconsequential, and what is meant to last and endure and prosper. I am almost 30, so I have waited a while to find myself in this position, but many of you are dating, or are thinking about dating, and you may never know when that times comes. That’s why it’s important for you to develop and form healthy dating habits now, because it’s not like one day you will just decide to throw on the switch and make the right decisions in relationships.

So as we soon head into a series on sex, talking about dating and marriage, and as we get closer to that much loved, and much hated holiday, Valentines Day, I know that dating is on your minds. That’s why I would like us to be in open dialogue about these issues, as well as providing some resources for you.

The first article are questions that one should consider asking of themself when they are thinking about dating someone.

12 Questions to Ask Yourself About Someone You Might Date

The second article is about 12 Tests that can help determine if your relationship is based more on love or infatuation.

12 Tests of Love by Chip Ingram

I as well as others would like to hear from you. So fire off any comments you may have.

Deciding to write a blog on sex was purely a cheap and easy marketing ploy to get more readership. Selling sex seems to be working for everyone else, so why not try it to get more readers on The Quest website. In fact, before this blog was completed we had to go through an image/photo change regarding this topic…not wanting to offend, though wanting to bring attention to the subject at hand (thanks Jared for the help) Though I am being a bit tongue in cheek, the reality is that we are saturated in a culture obsessed with sex, and it’s pervasiveness is non-ending, from the TV shows we watch, to the magazines we buy, to the clothes we wear, and even to the shampoo that sells.

And living in a sex saturated culture has seemed to force us into two moral or theological camps. There are those who are interested in the topic and want to dialogue on the pressing sexual issues and struggles of the day and how they affect who we are as Christians. And though Bryan’s latest blog article is on dating and not sex, it is evident by the responses that we are a community of people hungry to discuss the relevant issues of our day that we find important, and these usually involve discussions about the opposite sex. Then there are those who want to have nothing of the dialogue, and would rather push it off to some obscure corner, hoping it goes away. Test in theory: Encouraging some young adults on the church staff to read an email I wrote regarding this topic, I titled my email with the subject, SEX, SEX, SEX. Of course, the email was never received because our computer system blocked out the receivers from my email due to the nature of the subject. I had to go downstairs and ask that the emails not be blocked. Apparently using the word sex in some workplaces will fire up all kinds of warning signals.

Though we can laugh at the situation with my email at work, it seems to be that this response is very much like our Christian culture, which upon hearing the word sex, would often rather run and hide than have an open talk on the issue, which in turn leaves us with nothing more than the influence of our surrounding culture which has little to say of value concerning sex and it’s proper context within the marriage covenant. The late theologian and ethicist Lewis Smedes, wrote this about the issue of sex, and the two errors of idolatry we often fall into regarding this topic:

“It is simple to make an idol: slice one piece of created reality off the whole and expect miracles from it. The miracles may be positive or negative; they may heal or hurt. If the idol has the power to heal, you keep it around you; you touch it, kiss it, rub it, or manipuate it any way you can. If the idol threatens you, you place a taboo on it, which means that you do not touch it, do not even mention it, for fear that familiarity will have a hurtful backlash. Idols work both ways: we make an idol of something either by expecting too much good from it or by fearing evil from it. Making an idol of sex happens both ways. We make an idol of sex by first isolating one dimension of sexuality–the genital. Then we either expect everything from it that we need to be happy or we fear that it will hurt us. Either way, sex has become an idol.”

Now I am not a naive college director, with my head in the sand not knowing what is happening in our community, and what everyone is up to in their time away from church on Wednesday nights. We are a community who has used sex outside of the marital covenant (I Cor. 7:1-16), and in the process have made an idol out of what God intended for marriage. And we are a community who would rather not even discuss the matter out of fear of some sort of contamination, or disgust, or embarrassment, or fear, or conviction. It is neither right for us to engage in sex outside of the marriage covenant, making an idol of it, nor is it right for us to not be frank on the matter, hoping that the topic will just go away, and that everyone would figure out things for themselves. That only does more damage to us in the long run. We have the option to leave ourselves in front of the TV and learn from the messages they preach on sex, or to listen to the word of God and the messages he preaches on sex.

If this is not already an issue, or struggle, or peer pressure point for you, then it will certainly be at one point in your life, and probably sooner than later. You will most likely face issues and frank talk regarding sex when you are single, dating, married, and at some point as a parent. Basically, always! And I would much rather look at what the Bible has to say about sex, than what the LA culture around me is screaming so loud.

That is why, from Jan. 26–Through Feb. 23 I will be teaching a four-part series on “Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness, Sinful Distortion and Redeemed Potential.” In those four talks I want to take an honest and open look about what God’s word has to say about sex, and how that compares and contrasts to what the culture around us is teaching.

January 26: Sex, Christianity and Culture
February 2: Sex: Created Goodness
February 9: Ash Wednesday Service
February 16: Sex: Sinful Distortion
February 23: Sex: Redeemed Potential

In this series I hope to do four things: 1) Give an overall view of comparison and contrast between what the world says about sex, and what the Bible says about sex. 2) I want to look at the “created goodness” that God intended sex to be, which is in a committed, monogamous, marriage covenant. 3) I want to look at the way we use sex and get into all kinds of “sinful distortion” when it is not in the proper context of the marriage covenant. And what are those distortions and how do they affect us? 4) I want to look at the “redeemed potential” of sex when we have fallen into sin and not expressed that gift from God in the proper marriage covenant. How does God heal and renew and transform us?

I know that we are a big and varied community, coming from all kinds of different backgrounds, with all kinds of different issues and baggage. I know that we are a community that struggles with many of the same things, and a community that feels isolated at times by the struggles we do face. I know that we are a community not only pressed upon with the overwhelming sexual temptations in the world around us, but at times can barely overcome the powerful influence of the Los Angeles culture and its degrading value upon sex. But the good news is, that wherever you have been, and whever you are, we serve a God who is faithful and just, and loving and merciful, and whose grace exceeds beyond what we can possibly fathom.

As I close this article I am reminded and touched by the moving scene in “The Passion of the Christ” where the woman who is cleaning up Jesus’ blood (portrayed as Mary Magdalene in the movie) reflects upon the time when Jesus publicly redeemed her from those who wanted to stone her (John 8). It is a beautiful and moving scene of what it is like for a loving and gracious God to redeem what has been lost or distorted by the world around us and our sinful nature, and to make it new, transforming us into new people. In some way or another we have all been affected or will be affected by the Fall (Genesis 3) and the sinful nature in us, causing us to struggle, and fight against what we know to be truth (Romans 7:14-25).

As we head into the holidays, I would like us to carefully and respectfully reflect on this issue, and if you are so moved, please share you feelings, thoughts or ideas below, so that we can better move forward into understanding and truth regarding sex, and what the Bible has to say about it.