All These Things and More

This continues a series of posts inspired by one of Sid’s tweets. He said that “The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.” My own post will come last. Today’s post is brought to us by Meredith Mathews from Braindouche. Hot Glue Media, and Sweet Tarragon. One of the things I love about guest posts is the opportunity to showcase a WIDE variety of opinions. Show her some love!

“The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.”

Not at all. How can I say that? Let’s recontextualize.

“The Bible has one monolithic message on absolutely anything at all.”

See what I mean?

What does the Bible say about sex? Lots of things. There are the rules in Leviticus that we’re all familiar with, which instruct an ancient tribe of Hebrews to get a wife or two, boink them as appropriate, not to boink them when it’s, yanno, that time, what to do when your wife bears your kid, and what to do when your slave bears your kid. Roughly. And it’s couched in the highly ritualized, black-and-white, OCD language and tradition that comes out of having a long-standing and very powerful priest class in control.

Up over in the New Testament, there’s Paul. Paul takes an entirely different tack, being quite certain that nobody should have sex at all, because it’s gross. Old definition. At best, Paul’s whole message is muddled, but he’s very well-known for at least being attributed with encouraging asceticism in the church. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was certain Jesus would return in his lifetime, combined with the firm possibility that he was also the world’s first armchair theologian. He was certain they were living in unique and urgent times. The result is that he picked weird priorities.

What does Jesus say about sex? Not a whole lot, especially if you don’t spend a lot of time deconstructing the implications of his big anti-legalism shtick.

Let’s see, what else? The parts of the old testament that aren’t made entirely of “begats” and “thou shalt nots” are mostly made up of good old-fashioned bronze and iron age myths and legends, and like any good set of ancient religious myths and legends, they’re full of rum, buggery and the lash. Taken on the whole, it shows a very human sexuality – kind of lusty, kind of confused, kind of not stopped by all the rules present over sexual behavior. It’s also worth mentioning that, as far as I’ve ever found, there’s no story in the old testament of anyone being smote by god for sexual misdeeds. Folks are smote for a lack of faith, a lack of ritual cleanliness, a lack of cooperation, or out of sheer bloody-mindedness, but not for having naughty sex. (No, I’m not convinced that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexuality, either. If you ignore the analysis of the passage later in the bible and just read the story, it seems quite clear that those cities were destroyed because they were populated entirely by assholes. And, as the currently totally trendy Book of Job shows, God does not abide assholes.)

You know what’s really terrible, though? The bible has a dirty book. Song of Songs. You could say that it’s a love letter to god using the metaphor of sexual lust. Or it’s just a marvelous letter of longing between lovers. Doesn’t matter. It’s a celebration of beautiful bodies, wonderful scents, textures, tastes, soaring feelings and all of the other wonderful stuff that goes with that intense first blush of love. It’s all the best things sex can do for us. Right there. In the bible.

So, no. The bible is prescriptive about sex, it’s against sex entirely, it’s got an unknown position, it accepts sex as a part of life, and it’s totally into it, and those are just the big swipes. It’s all these all at the same time, plus more.

  • Interesting take; I'm not sure I agree. I'm not all that familiar with the treatment of sex in the...um...appendices :) , but the Old Testament, as far as I can see, definitely has a consistent message on sexual behavior outside a fairly narrow range -- don't do it outside marriage, you'll be stoned to death, you'll be punished like King David -- all that. (Yes, polygyny was permitted, and technically still is by Jewish Law, though it's been nearly [not entirely*] a dead letter for centuries.) However, the consistent message is, so far as I can tell, limited to choice of sexual partners -- no sex outside marriage (even if that marriage is plural), and if you must, don't screw animals or certain near relatives; if you're male, don't boink other men. That's about it -- and Judaism has traditionally upheld that interpretation; as far as I know, it's considered acceptable to do nearly anything during sex that is pleasurable for the couple, since sex is a mitzvah within marriage and enjoyment is considered essential to sex. (Of course, the stories about the hole in the sheet are completely wrong.)

    The exception, of course, is the Song of Solomon. Where the rest of the OT has a fairly uniformly puritanical attitude towards sex (not as puritanical as Paul, but still), the Song is quite clearly a book of erotic poetry. Whether it's meant to be interpreted mystically or literally, or indeed both ways, it's there for the reading, and although it serves no obvious purpose in the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, it's traditionally considered fairly important. And perhaps with good reason: I'm fond of saying that it's the book that saved the early Hebrews, since without it, they would have been too scared to procreate. :)

    Actually, this discussion brings up an important point. It's not really possible (in a Christian context) to speak of "the Bible" as a uniform whole, since the Old and New Testaments are quite different in character. It seems to me -- and perhaps I'm wrong -- that the Old Testament is relatively uniform in outlook on most issues, far more so than the New Testament. Perhaps this is because the NT was compiled within the first couple of centuries after the time of Christ, so that people were still processing and having different reactions to his teachings (and the NT incorporates many of these reactions), whereas by the time the OT was solidified (apparently between 200 BCE and 200 CE), Judaism had already been practiced for centuries (the First Temple was apparently completed in the 9th or 10th century BCE), so there might have been more of a uniform point of view to canonize. But these are educated guesses; I'm no biblical historian.

    * Polygyny is generally banned in most Jewish communities, but the ban can be lifted in special cases. For example, since a woman must accept a Jewish divorce of her own free will, the ban on polygyny is sometimes lifted when a man has received a civil divorce from a wife who is not considered mentally competent to consent to a divorce under Jewish law. This allows him to remarry legally. Women, by the way, have no such recourse to polyandry, which creates all sorts of interesting problems.
  • leighroche
    You've given some thought provoking points. I just have a few questions and comments.

    Just where does Paul say sex is "gross?" He doesn't say everyone has to be celibate. He just says it is a preferable way. What's muddled about his message? Are all his priorities weird or just some? Can you be specific? I'd love to have further discussion on this point.

    As far as Old Testament smoting for sexual misdeeds, you're right, no one was killed by God just for sexual misconduct. However, Abraham, David, and Solomon, to name just a few, all paid a price for their sexual misdeeds.

    Song of Songs is a great book. Some say it doesn't even belong in the scriptures because it is so racy. It certainly gives the one glimpse of sexual love from a narrative pint of view instead of as a rule. You have probably heard that some people even think it is an analogy to the way in which God loves his people and the way they should love him. Of course removing the sexual connotation and focusing on the complete adoration and the leaving behind others for the sake of the relationship with the lover.

    As far as the Biblical view taken as a whole, sex is encouraged between husbands and wives, treated as a fabulous, sensuous, experience between lovers who should enjoy wholly each other's bodies, and something that has a distinctly spiritual connection to the person with whom one is having sex.

    I believe there are some other ideas expressed, but before I go into them I want to research a little more so as not to misrepresent the scripture.
  • sidfaiwu
    That was a fun read. It is clear from reading this and others that I mis-tweeted. Perhaps it should have been phrased "Modern Christianity is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.” Of course, that will elicit the usual "not my Christianity" from some small or ignored segment of that belief system.
  • spiritualtramp
    So wait, are you saying that a) Christianity as it's practiced worldwide fits some sort of mold you've set for it and that the overwhelming majority of said Christians have a "monolithic" PoV on sex or ab) that the narrowly viewed strip of Christianity that you see in the west has a view on sex that you disagree with? By Modern Christianity do you mean modern western Christianity? Also, how large must a segment of Christianity be, before they can say meaningfully "not my Christianity"?
  • Mer
    Sid, what part of the "you can't make sweeping statements like that" message here didn't you get? ;-)
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»