Christian Sexual Ethics
April 26, 2006
I’ve been reading some books for fun recently - don’t ask me how I’ve had the time to do this (well, you could ask me, and I would tell you that I’ve been reading them as I use the bathroom, but…everyone doesn’t need to know that, so…). First I finished James Nelson’s Body Theology and then went on to Marie Fortune’s book on sexual ethics, Love Does No Harm. I’ve been able to incorporate both of these books into a paper that I’m writing that I’ll post later this week.
However, it’s been very interesting to think about some of these issues: the body, sexuality, sexual ethics, etc. During BGLASS Week, Michael Adee did a workshop on sexual ethics, based primarily off of Marie Fortune’s book, Love Does No Harm. We talked a lot about how sex and sexuality was talked about (or more likely wasn’t talked about) in our youth groups growing up. There were some youth groups who actually had pretty honest conversations about sex. One thing that was very telling was when Adee asked people what they "wished" they had learned in youth group. One person said, "That your life doesn’t end after sex." Another said how a youth pastor he knew had given a talk called "The Idolatry of Abstinence" and how parents didn’t really like that talk too much (surprise, surprise). But I thought those were interesting points - the way the church (or most of it anyway) has portrayed what happens after sex is that your life is over; there is nothing more to live for - once you’ve lost your virginity, well…shit, what else is there? Like the youth pastor’s talk, most of the conservative/evangelical church has made an idol out of abstinence, making rule-based relationships the focus of any talks about sexuality, and abstinence the end-all goal of all youth ministry.
In Fortune’s book, she lays out five guidelines for sexual ethics that I want to leave you with. While Fortune herself is an ordained United Church of Christ pastor, her audience is not specifically Christian, but she believes these guidelines would be put to good use in Christian circles as well. The guidelines are below:
5 Guidelines for Sexual Ethics
- Peer Relationship: Is my choice of
intimate partner a peer, i.e. someone whose power is relatively equal
to mine? We must limit our sexual interactions to our peers. Some
people are off limits for our sexual interests. - Authentic
Consent: Are both my partner and I authentically consenting to our
sexual interaction? Both of us must have information, awareness, equal
power and the option to say "no" without being punished, as well as the
option to say "yes." - Stewardship of my Sexuality: Do I take
responsibility for protecting myself and my partner against sexually
transmitted diseases and to insure reproductive choice? This is a
question of stewardship (the wise care for and management of the gift
of sexuality) and anticipating the literal consequences of our actions.
Taking this responsibility seriously presupposes a relationship:
knowing someone over time and sharing a history in which trust can
develop. - Sharing of Pleasure: Am I committed to sharing
sexual pleasure and intimacy in my relationships? My concern should be
both for my own needs and those of my partner. - Faithfulness: Am I
faithful to my promises and commitments? Whatever the nature of a
commitment to one’s partner and whatever the duration of that
commitment, fidelity requires honesty and the keeping of promises.
Change in an individual may require a change in the commitment which
hopefully can be achieved through open and honest communication.
Thoughts?
Posted in Sexuality
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
April 26th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Not sure I’ve ever commented here before but have enjoyed reading your site for a couple of months now. (I’m a recent grad of Dubuque Seminary.)
Sounds like a book I’d be interested in reading. I’m also concerned about absitence being promoted as the end all, be all. As it often does nothing more than set youth up for failure (and then of course a relationship with God based solely on the whole guilt/unworthiness thing.) I even remember hearing that if you have sex b4 marriage, then your marital relationship will end up in ruins later on. (How’s that for setting one up to fail!?!)
I suspect most folks in my congregation would disagree with the following, but:
1. I like #1 and #2, I’ve been concerned that sex education in schools is solely ‘instrumental’ in nature. There is never any talk about what a good relationship looks like and where sex may be an appropriate expression within the context of such a relationship.
2. I also like #5. That sets a context for sexual expression in a realtionship where two are committed to one another but not yet married (i.e. ‘living together’ or ‘in sin’ as I often heard it called.)
I’d love to read your paper when you post it.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Here is a book that I have picked up
Relationships: The Key To Love, Sex, And Everything Else (From Dean Sherman)
It is really good aswell.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
hmmmm. I like these kind of discussions. It reveals that there is still so much for us to learn, and also so much that we’re so unwilling to discuss openly. thanks for this.
This post also reminds me of a book I’ve been meaning to sign out: “Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity” by Lauren Winner.
I think I’ll go reserve it at the library…
April 26th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
You must be one of those that it takes along time to use the bathroom.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
I’m not sure what is so revolutionary about this. Seems to me to be exactly what has been preached in public schools for the last several decades. At least it is what I got. Rape=bad. Condoms=good. fidelity=negotiable.
Were all of your youth pastors really that bad ?
April 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Interesting stuff.
Those damn evangleicals…
Wait… haha!
April 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Both your post and the guidelines for sexual ethics leave me curious for more. What exactly are you trying to say? Maybe that will come in your paper. What seems to be lacking for me in the sexual guidelines is any real comment about where these ethics are to be played out. I think there is a specific place that God wants us to express our sexuality, and this post seems to be vague in defining what you think that place is. Any response?
April 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Sounds like Christian unethics to me in light of what the Bible saysabout the subject.
Doesn’t the Bible mention specifically liscentiousness, adultry, homosexuality as specific parts within the “chrisistian Ethics”? I see no Scriptural basis for support of any of these things. In fact the Apostle Paul mentions how certain sexual actions which I mentioned above as being sin or how a heart standard is revealed by these sins. I’m all for sex except within marriage and between a husband and wife.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Abstinence isn’t an idol but a relaying of what the Bible says onthe subject which is very clear. If it is said with aright attitude I have no problem with abstence programs and I have no idea where the term “idol” comes in with regard to abstinence. It seems strange in light of one having a greater responsibility to God over abstinence making the term “idol” mute and inaccurate.
April 27th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
>>>In fact the Apostle Paul mentions how certain sexual actions which I mentioned above as being sin or how a heart standard is revealed by these sins.
Citing the apostle Paul, what are you, some kind of evangelical?
April 28th, 2006 at 12:09 am
“I’m all for sex except within marriage and between a husband and wife.”
I don’t think that’s quite what you meant to say…
As for the guidelines, I really like the first one. It creeps me out when 15 year olds date 22 year old losers.
The last one is pretty vague - “whatever the duration of that commitment”? So a one night stand is fine, as long as that’s the understanding? Just get that signed in triplicate.
But really, there’s nothing even vaguely identifiably Christian about those rules.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:58 am
while our translation of what Paul said about sex is quite clear, I am unconvinced that what paul actually wrote about sex is totally clear. in fact I think the bible, while making it clear that sexual ethics are important, at a base level does not get into specifics abotu what is and is not ethical. it warns against sexual immorality, but what does that really mean? I am unconvinced that outside of infidelity this is ever really played out.
April 28th, 2006 at 10:44 am
>>>while our translation of what Paul said about sex is quite clear, I am unconvinced that what paul actually wrote about sex is totally clear.
In other words, the Bible can’t be taken at face value because it’s been corrupted (especially when we don’t agree with what it says).
April 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
And no one is worried that he started this thread by saying “I’ve been reading some books for fun recently…”?
I am.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
“don’t ask me how I’ve had the time to do this (well, you could ask me, and I would tell you that I’ve been reading them as I use the bathroom, but…everyone doesn’t need to know that, so…)”
Obviously you think that reading in the bathroom is not too embarrassing. You must think it is humorous actually, to share something that intimate. I too, am a bathroom reader junkie. I honestly find that it’s time that I would otherwise be staring at the wall, so why not take a book and learn?
April 21st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I would guess it is in the context of what happens in a “Christian” environment. I recall a big bully hitting me in the arm for years at a Christian school telling me I would be a “fag” when I grew up. Also, recall a child molesting teacher at the school, although fortunately avoided him. There were certainly some creepy teachers there who were either struggling with being gay or just had found a good place to hide. People who identify themselves as Christians should own up to the fact that a high proportion of ministers use pornography and that 50 percent of Christian marriages end in divorce. they should acknowledge this up front instead of acting like their beliefs are securing marital bliss. I recently saw some people on a corner with banners proclaiming against sexual sins and none of them looked like they would ever be someone’s sexual partner. That may be what is bad; extremely unattractive people are drawn to this philosophy which gives them a power to condemn others and then when they find another unattractive person they begat and then ruin the kids life with talk of how they are going to hell unless they become just like them.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:46 am
>>> In other words the bible can’t be taken at face value because it has been corrupted (especially when you don’t agree with what it says).
Well I don’t believe the bible has been corrupted David in fact I believe it is the inspired word of God. I do however belief that mans interpretation of the inspired word is not all equally inspired. In order to understand scripture as both God and His inspired human authors intended it to be understood we need to understand the culture of the biblical world. We need to understand the meaning of biblical words as they were used at that specific point in time and not a few hundred years later. As an analogy the word gay in the early twentieth century meant someone was happy or perhaps gregarious and in the latter twentieth century and beyond it has come to mean a homosexual. A total change in meaning over maybe fifty years. There is some scholarship that suggest the word translated fornication in our english bibles did not mean any sex outside of marriage as most Christians have been taught, but may have had much more narrow meaning tied to cult temple prostitution in cities like Corith. I am not a greek scholar myself, so I can’t confirm or deny this, but the principle of interpretation as I stated above that we need to find out what the original authors meant by what they said by understanding language and culture is solid.