My answer to Sid’s comment is going to be a very qualified yes. A good part of that is because human sexuality is an incredibly broad spectrum and the, imo, large slice that the Bible is in favor of is therefore narrow in comparison. I would say that most worldviews have their own narrowly prescribed range of acceptable sexuality, again in comparison. Are their people that think that “anything goes” when it comes to that emotionally charged topic? I’m sure that there are some that think they are and perhaps there are even some that are. But this isn’t about them. This is about the Bible’s own “narrow” point of view.

One of the things that I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to recently is the concept of polygamy. Oh don’t worry, I have no intention of ever practicing it. One wife is just plenty for me. But it’s something that the Bible doesn’t seem to be against. A number of the patriarchs in the Bible practiced it. It was and remains a common custom in that part of the world. The rare places that it’s spoken against that I’m aware of seem to nail the badness down in the area of marrying people who have radically different religious views than you. There’s also the admonition that elders should be the husband of only one wife, but it’s not (too my knowledge) listed anywhere as being a sin. Certainly you could say, as some have, that since Adam and Eve were apparently “married” and monogamous that this is God’s intention for all of us. I’m not so sure about that since Adam and Eve, to my knowledge never actually had a ceremony and were what I’d call common law spouses.

That leads to the topic of sex outside of marriage. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says what the act of getting married is actually like. There is no Biblically prescribed ceremony. It seems, getting back to Adam and Eve, that all that is required is for two people to pledge themselves to one another, and in the case of believers, to God. No need for a ring, a dress, or even a church and pastor. So, would it be accurate to say that in order to have sex “appropriately” all two people have to do is make such a pledge to one another? It certainly seems so. Granted there does seem to be some procedure for divorcing in the Old Testament and therefore it’s likely that there’s also a procedure for getting married, but I’m unaware of either.

The big buggaboo, and I suspect one of the things to which Sid was referring, would be homosexuality. I can’t argue there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clearly against it, both male and female. There aren’t exactly scores of verses pointing to it, but a few in the Old Testament and a few in the new are pretty clear. One of the passages that I don’t think is so completely clearly anti-gay sex is the whole Sodom incident. Those people weren’t so much homosexual as they were sexual predators. Otherwise though it is certainly clear that God designed man to be with woman and vice versa and doesn’t want it any other way. My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

Masturbation is also pointed to pretty frequently as being a no-no. The Bible doesn’t really touch on that though. Onan is the only one who is listed as performing that particular act (if that was indeed what he was doing) and he gets killed by God. What gets glossed over there is that Onan was commanded by God to get his brother’s widow pregnant and he didn’t do it. That was the real issue.

So all of this to say, are their things the Bible seems to be against when it comes to sex? Sure. A lot of what Christians say the Bible/God is against is tied up in two thousand years of tradition and our own (at least as far as Western Christians are concerned) cultural baggage. I think the Bible is certainly pro-heterosexuality and that sexuality taking place in a mutually respectful, loving, committed relationship. What that sex looks like, whether it involves something you, I, or the fly on the wall might think of as “kink”, or the granular details aren’t really touched on. I think that the Bible shows clearly that bad things can come from anything else and often does. So with that I guess I’ll don my flame retardant suit, open up the floor, and ask what you think of this. Am I way off the mark here?

How Narrow Is That Gate? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“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.

All These Things and More is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand. Let us examine that instead.

The Bible certainly condemns specific behavior. In addition to specific sexual acts and relationships, the Bible also condemns: lying, murder, tax evasion, slander, disobeying one’s parents, idol worship, eating pork, and a whole host of other things. The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.

When applying Biblical teaching to human sexuality, as to any aspect of life, one must first accept the authority and legitimacy of the Bible to govern that aspect of life. If one is to accept that the Bible has this authority, no issue may then be taken against whatever statements may be found therein – whether they condemn us for a sexual act, a malicious act, or even a well-intentioned act.

We may be thankful that the Bible does not teach perfect adherence to Biblical Law as the only means of salvation, but that salvation instead is the free gift of God to all who ask. It further /describes/ the practices of those who are saved, rather than attempting to /proscribe/ the actions of those who have no interest in the teachings of the Bible.

In the act of maintaining citizenship within a country, one agree to the legitimacy of the government to set whatever laws it deems necessary, with or without explaining the necessity of those laws. Only once one has agreed to accept Biblical salvation does any other practice described therein become necessary or prohibited. A salvation which attempts to add to or leave behind any portion of the Bible is inconsistent with Biblical text, and comes from human invention rather than divine revelation.

Many world religions use the Christian Bible as their primary sacred text, but reject the divine authorship and complete nature of the manuscript. These religions, which include the Mormons, the Emerging Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and certain movements within multiple Protestant denominations, are legitimately free to change the nature of salvation doctrine and prohibited human behavior to match their own desires. These religions should not be mistaken for, and often do not claim to be, Biblical Christianity.

Should one find oneself in conflict with any portion of the Biblical text, one may adopt a completely legitimate response in rejecting the text in part or in whole and seeking their own religious path. One who does so must understand without error that the freely-given salvation described in the Bible and internally consistent therin applies only to those who accept the authority of Biblical teaching as a whole.

To sum this argument in modern parlance: “If you want to play the game, you have to abide by the rules. If you change the rules, you’re playing a different game.”

Rules of the Game is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Ever since the 60′s, there’s been much change afoot when it comes to perspectives on human sexual flourishing. In the past, the Bible’s prescribed sexual mores were accepted with greater frequency and ease. The sexual revolution changed all that. Some even go so far as to ascribe to what I call the “no limits” philosophy: anything two adults consent to is within bounds, as long as it doesn’t harm the parties involved (harm is usually defined in very minimal physical terms), and the “as long as it doesn’t harm” bit is negotiable. Even where that extreme isn’t proclaimed, many hold that the sexual boundaries in the Bible are quite narrow, and therefore anti-human.

So that’s the popular view, but we should pause and ask, “is the popular view wise?” If lived out, will rejecting the Bible’s sexual boundaries really lead to human flourishing?

The short answer is “no.”

There’s no doubt that God’s prescriptions in the Bible are, in some sense, narrow, but suggesting that it’s therefore anti-human is a non sequitur. Afterall, no one would accuse my mom of being “anti-child” because she had restrictive rules about what belongs in an electrical socket (NOT my fingers!) or about what goes on top of a hot burning stove (NOT my hand, knees, or bum!). Get over the fact that the illustration is a cliche’, because the point applies perfectly in the realm of sexuality. The mere fact of “narrowness” isn’t good enough to prove “anti-humanness,” especially when we have good reason to think there’s a protection behind the boundary.

Well,are the boundaries protective? Yes. Most take it for granted that our physical bodies are like machines; they require the right food, rest, and exercise to run right. If you are one of the few that are skeptical of this, one look at Keith Richards will cure you of that skepticism.

What many miss, though, is that we have various non-physical parts to us that operate by the same design principle. It is very possible and easy to deaden your emotions, warp your reasoning skills, and tear your soul to shreds. Perhaps the quickest way to do all that at once is through fast sexual living. J.I Packer put it well:

“Nowadays some will maintain, in the name of humanism, that the ‘Puritan’ sexual morality of the Bible is inimical to the attainment of true human maturity, and that a little more license makes for richer living. Of this ideology…the proper name for it is not humanism but brutism. Sexual laxity does not make you more human, but less so; it brutalizes you and tears your soul to pieces. The same is true wherever any of God’s commandments are disregarded.”

Moreover, behind every “thou shalt not,” lies a “thou shalt;” behind every boundary is a provision. God’s prescriptions in the Bible are meant to save you not only from something, but towards something greater. His commands provide for us relationships where true commitment, trust, and agape (sacrificial, giving) love–the greatest love–can flourish. This is true humanity, for those things that are so necessary for our full well being are not found in the slightest in any of the temporary sexual arrangements that we contrive up. Fun–yes. “The thrill”–yes. A thin sort of happiness?–kinda. But you will also find suspicion, envy, competition and worry…trust and commitment are nowhere to be found.

There’s also a sense in which the “prevailing wisdom” is just plain morally wrong. Ever heard the following: “We need to find out if we are sexually compatible before we are married. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first, would you?”

Isn’t that every woman’s dream–to be compared to a car. How much more degrading can you get?

In case any are wondering, this is a life I’ve lived–on both sides of the equation. For a number of years, I attended a 12 step group for sexual addicts. I lost count of the number of men (myself included) who started out with what most would consider “trivial” things, but lost control and ended up in the gutter. The pain, loss, and grief I saw in the faces of men in that group was quite enough to get me to question the standard line I led with above. What’s more, in most cases, the biggest grief was not from any physical ailments the men (and I) contracted but from the hurt we caused loved ones in our pursuit of self-fulfillment.

As UCLA psychiatrist Miriam Grossman states, “you cannot live the life of *Friends* and *Sex in the City* and not pay dues.” (Check out the link. It offers a psychiatrist’s perspective on this subject.

Though I have experienced addiction in the past, that’s not the end of the story! God is a God of resurrection and healing. I am currently experiencing the flip side. Due to heeding God’s commands in Scripture while we were single, there’s a lot my wife and I don’t have to deal with in our marriage. In turn, that gives us a freedom that words cannot capture.

As designer of human nature, God knows what He’s talking about. Perhaps a little trust on our part would go a long way.

Are Boundaries On Sexual Morality Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.