"Sex is dirty." - "Sex is wonderful."
"Sex is for marriage only."
"Children aren't sexual."
"Sexual thoughts and fantasies are sinful."
"Sex is an expression of love."
"Sex has nothing to do with 'Christian' love."
The above statements represent some of the many conflicting views about sexualitywith which most of us were raised.
You will recognize that the negative statements are the kind that are used by religionand society to control the sexual lives and attitudes of people. In other words,those who have power over others use such ideas to conform others to some moralstandard that is thought to be absolute. Traditional Christianity has used justsuch ideas for just such purposes.
Christ and the apostles taught that all power structures were to be challenged,not in the sense of political or social anarchy, but in the abolition of the controlof one person over another or any institution over groups of people in the senseof restricting God-given liberties. In these teachings there was an appeal fortransparency in human relationships. This transparency, which really implies bothvulnerability and trust, was to reveal itself in the common bonds of family andsocial relationships.
Jesus challenged both family and social relationship structures, suggesting thatfollowing him would break down traditional allegiances and create new ones.
Today we are seeing the serious breakdown of monogamous marriage and the traditionalnuclear family of European and North American cultures.
For the most part marriage and family practices and structures are the product ofculture, rather than of specific biblical teachings.
In other writings Dave and I have challenged the Christian tradition of monogamy. The breakdown I mentioned above suggests that the time has come for Christiansto seriously reconsider the entire range of marital and sexual teachings that havebeen handed down to us in traditional Christianity. It is time to realize, forexample, that monogamy has never really worked as an exclusive marital/sexual option(we've discussed reasons for this elsewhere) and to seek new structures and bondsthat will better express the vitality and creativity of sexual loving.
Monogamy and a host of other sexual restrictions are the products of a sexuallyrepressive Christianity.
How has this history of sexual repression come about? Various reasons, includingthe body/pleasure-negative traditions of some of the Greek thinkers of the timeof early Christianity, have contributed to this history. In addition, there hasbeen a tendency of Christians to turn the liberating teachings of Christ and theapostles into rules to obey and to be enforced by religious authorities (more powerstructure). The nature of these rules has also tended to reflect small errors ofinterpretation, misplaced emphasis or overemphasis on a particular teaching or aparticular aspect of a teaching and translation or interpretational errors stemmingfrom a moral bias (for example, the tendency to apply the term "porneia",usually translated "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in olderEnglish Bible versions, to every case of sexual intercourse outside of monogamousmarriage; the misinterpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as supporting monogamyand as teaching that nakedness is sinful; interpreting the biblical concepts ofpurity and holiness primarily as calling for abstinence from sexual "contamination").
With the passage of time these small errors and their resulting moralisms have continuallyincreased to the point that the fundamental teachings of Christ have often beenforgotten (for example, loving one another) and the minute and burdensome rulesof Christianity have won the day (for example, the extension of the idea of "fornication"to any kind of premarital sexual contact, from heavy petting to holding hands --really, this is actually frowned upon by some Christians; the sometimes organizedChristian opposition to social nudism --trying to close down nude beaches, etc.).
It is my contention that the general repression of sexuality and the repressionof nonmonogamous loving is not inherent in the Bible, nor was it the intention ofJesus and the apostles to be understood as teaching these views. Yet, it is truethat these ideas are part and parcel of the baggage of traditional Christianity,which has emphasized them to the neglect of love and liberty.
The French writer Jacques Ellul makes a helpful distinction between what he calls"Christianity" and "the faith of Christ". True Christianity(the faith of Christ) he defines as "the revelation and work of God accomplishedin Jesus Christ"; "the being of the church as the body of Christ"(as opposed to the church as religious institution); and "the faith and lifeof Christians in truth and love".
Christianity as tradition he describes as a movement which has virtually abandonedits commitment to the above principles and has degenerated into a moralistic religion,devoid of true love for God and neighbor and obsessed with enforcing a moral codedemanding "chastity, absolute obedience... (and) sacrifice". (The Subversionof Christianity, pp. 11, 17)
It is this perverted version of Christianity which imprisons people in guilt andshame about their bodies and their God-given sexual desires. (This is not to saythat there is no such thing as sexual sin or that we are given license to do anythingwe please at anytime and with anyone in terms of fulfilling sexual desires. Itis to say that Christian love, properly understood, will both live freely in termsof sexual loving and at the same time respect all persons in their relationships,so that fulfillment is accomplished without harming others.) This is not the Christianityof the Bible, that is, the Christianity that Ellul calls "the faith of Christ".
The purpose of Jesus in his life and death was to enable us to fulfill the demandsof the law of God, not by sacrifice and legalistic obedience, but by loving Godand loving our neighbor.
I believe that it is in the intimacy of sexual relationships where this kind oflove can be expressed in a very full way. One of the greatest deformities of trueChristian faith is the collection of teachings that seeks in every way possibleto remove godly love from the sexual experience.
Contrary to this is the simple, yet beautiful, statement of a Christians brotherwho is involved with his family in a sexually loving community in another state:"We believe that sharing sexual pleasure with one another is an extension ofthe love of almighty God."
Obviously, such sharing presents the problem or vulnerability -- the challenge ofopening ourselves to others. Many people are afraid of such openness. I believethat it is only within a loving, caring community, manifesting the kind of lovethat Jesus taught, that sufficient trust can be created to make truly "open"relationships possible.
In a recent newsletter Dave wrote extensively about nudity and that subject wasalso discussed at our first introductory couples' session. It was clear from theresponse at the session that several people were fearful of experiencing nuditywith others. There may be various reasons for such fears, including past religiousand parental teachings and attitudes. These may need to be worked through. ButI believe that the primary issue with nudity is the same as that for sexual openness--vulnerability.
Overcoming this problem in a loving fellowship setting can change a person's lifein a major way -- in terms of body shame and guilt as well as being a preparationfor sexual openness. This is why we emphasize nudity in our materials and groupsession discussions.
The elements of fear and distrust are very significant in terms of all aspects ofthe religious and cultural attitudes toward sexuality.
In other writings Dave and I have discussed how various attitudes and beliefs ofancient peoples have contributed to the understanding of sexuality that is presentin modern Christianity. Much of the content of the sexual belief systems of ancientpeoples derived from superstition, born of ignorance of the working of the humanbody and psyche. The ideas of conception, pregnancy and childbirth were regardedwith a mixture of fear, awe and even worship. The phenomenon of human fertilityand the mystery of sexual bonding were likewise sources of superstitious wonderand little or no practical understanding. Without birth control it had to be assumedthat sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. All of these elements of lifewere viewed in almost magical ways and indeed witch doctors, soothsayers and thelike were often involved in ritual practices associated with sexual events.
(It might be observed at this point that the availability of many near-foolproofmethods of birth control today opens the way to much greater sexual freedom in generaland should make possible some of the restructuring of marriage and family modelsmentioned earlier. It is worth noting that such restructuring on this basis wouldnot have been possible in the ancient world and indeed would not have been feasibleuntil very recent times. It seems to me that practical/scientific developmentssuch as safe, reliable contraception should make the church rethink the possibilitiesof sexual behavior and patterns. I believe that alert and aware Christians havethe opportunity to explore new and exciting options in these areas.)
It happened that Christianity was born in a culture in which these views of sexualitywere common. Thus, all of Christianity's sexual teachings have been compromisedby such views, almost to the point of continuing to treat sexual phenomena as magical,thus calling for the many controlling taboos.
Today we know that sex is not magic. It may be awe-inspiring, exciting, confusingand even properly regarded as containing elements of mystery. It may be the mostemotionally meaningful aspect of human life. But it is not magic and should notbe treated with the fear and taboos of the past. I believe that traditional Christianityperpetuates these outdated views and we must work to rid ourselves of them in thefellowship of Christian love.
It is these old views that lead to the emotional/spiritual abuse for which manypeople reject this version of Christianity. These views are not characteristic ofwhat Jacques Ellul calls "the faith of Christ".
It is our hope in Liberated Christians that this kind of faith can set us free tolove freely, joyfully and responsibly the way we believe God has made us to love.
"Sex is for marriage only."
"Children aren't sexual."
"Sexual thoughts and fantasies are sinful."
"Sex is an expression of love."
"Sex has nothing to do with 'Christian' love."
The above statements represent some of the many conflicting views about sexualitywith which most of us were raised.
You will recognize that the negative statements are the kind that are used by religionand society to control the sexual lives and attitudes of people. In other words,those who have power over others use such ideas to conform others to some moralstandard that is thought to be absolute. Traditional Christianity has used justsuch ideas for just such purposes.
Christ and the apostles taught that all power structures were to be challenged,not in the sense of political or social anarchy, but in the abolition of the controlof one person over another or any institution over groups of people in the senseof restricting God-given liberties. In these teachings there was an appeal fortransparency in human relationships. This transparency, which really implies bothvulnerability and trust, was to reveal itself in the common bonds of family andsocial relationships.
Jesus challenged both family and social relationship structures, suggesting thatfollowing him would break down traditional allegiances and create new ones.
Today we are seeing the serious breakdown of monogamous marriage and the traditionalnuclear family of European and North American cultures.
For the most part marriage and family practices and structures are the product ofculture, rather than of specific biblical teachings.
In other writings Dave and I have challenged the Christian tradition of monogamy. The breakdown I mentioned above suggests that the time has come for Christiansto seriously reconsider the entire range of marital and sexual teachings that havebeen handed down to us in traditional Christianity. It is time to realize, forexample, that monogamy has never really worked as an exclusive marital/sexual option(we've discussed reasons for this elsewhere) and to seek new structures and bondsthat will better express the vitality and creativity of sexual loving.
Monogamy and a host of other sexual restrictions are the products of a sexuallyrepressive Christianity.
How has this history of sexual repression come about? Various reasons, includingthe body/pleasure-negative traditions of some of the Greek thinkers of the timeof early Christianity, have contributed to this history. In addition, there hasbeen a tendency of Christians to turn the liberating teachings of Christ and theapostles into rules to obey and to be enforced by religious authorities (more powerstructure). The nature of these rules has also tended to reflect small errors ofinterpretation, misplaced emphasis or overemphasis on a particular teaching or aparticular aspect of a teaching and translation or interpretational errors stemmingfrom a moral bias (for example, the tendency to apply the term "porneia",usually translated "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in olderEnglish Bible versions, to every case of sexual intercourse outside of monogamousmarriage; the misinterpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as supporting monogamyand as teaching that nakedness is sinful; interpreting the biblical concepts ofpurity and holiness primarily as calling for abstinence from sexual "contamination").
With the passage of time these small errors and their resulting moralisms have continuallyincreased to the point that the fundamental teachings of Christ have often beenforgotten (for example, loving one another) and the minute and burdensome rulesof Christianity have won the day (for example, the extension of the idea of "fornication"to any kind of premarital sexual contact, from heavy petting to holding hands --really, this is actually frowned upon by some Christians; the sometimes organizedChristian opposition to social nudism --trying to close down nude beaches, etc.).
It is my contention that the general repression of sexuality and the repressionof nonmonogamous loving is not inherent in the Bible, nor was it the intention ofJesus and the apostles to be understood as teaching these views. Yet, it is truethat these ideas are part and parcel of the baggage of traditional Christianity,which has emphasized them to the neglect of love and liberty.
The French writer Jacques Ellul makes a helpful distinction between what he calls"Christianity" and "the faith of Christ". True Christianity(the faith of Christ) he defines as "the revelation and work of God accomplishedin Jesus Christ"; "the being of the church as the body of Christ"(as opposed to the church as religious institution); and "the faith and lifeof Christians in truth and love".
Christianity as tradition he describes as a movement which has virtually abandonedits commitment to the above principles and has degenerated into a moralistic religion,devoid of true love for God and neighbor and obsessed with enforcing a moral codedemanding "chastity, absolute obedience... (and) sacrifice". (The Subversionof Christianity, pp. 11, 17)
It is this perverted version of Christianity which imprisons people in guilt andshame about their bodies and their God-given sexual desires. (This is not to saythat there is no such thing as sexual sin or that we are given license to do anythingwe please at anytime and with anyone in terms of fulfilling sexual desires. Itis to say that Christian love, properly understood, will both live freely in termsof sexual loving and at the same time respect all persons in their relationships,so that fulfillment is accomplished without harming others.) This is not the Christianityof the Bible, that is, the Christianity that Ellul calls "the faith of Christ".
The purpose of Jesus in his life and death was to enable us to fulfill the demandsof the law of God, not by sacrifice and legalistic obedience, but by loving Godand loving our neighbor.
I believe that it is in the intimacy of sexual relationships where this kind oflove can be expressed in a very full way. One of the greatest deformities of trueChristian faith is the collection of teachings that seeks in every way possibleto remove godly love from the sexual experience.
Contrary to this is the simple, yet beautiful, statement of a Christians brotherwho is involved with his family in a sexually loving community in another state:"We believe that sharing sexual pleasure with one another is an extension ofthe love of almighty God."
Obviously, such sharing presents the problem or vulnerability -- the challenge ofopening ourselves to others. Many people are afraid of such openness. I believethat it is only within a loving, caring community, manifesting the kind of lovethat Jesus taught, that sufficient trust can be created to make truly "open"relationships possible.
In a recent newsletter Dave wrote extensively about nudity and that subject wasalso discussed at our first introductory couples' session. It was clear from theresponse at the session that several people were fearful of experiencing nuditywith others. There may be various reasons for such fears, including past religiousand parental teachings and attitudes. These may need to be worked through. ButI believe that the primary issue with nudity is the same as that for sexual openness--vulnerability.
Overcoming this problem in a loving fellowship setting can change a person's lifein a major way -- in terms of body shame and guilt as well as being a preparationfor sexual openness. This is why we emphasize nudity in our materials and groupsession discussions.
The elements of fear and distrust are very significant in terms of all aspects ofthe religious and cultural attitudes toward sexuality.
In other writings Dave and I have discussed how various attitudes and beliefs ofancient peoples have contributed to the understanding of sexuality that is presentin modern Christianity. Much of the content of the sexual belief systems of ancientpeoples derived from superstition, born of ignorance of the working of the humanbody and psyche. The ideas of conception, pregnancy and childbirth were regardedwith a mixture of fear, awe and even worship. The phenomenon of human fertilityand the mystery of sexual bonding were likewise sources of superstitious wonderand little or no practical understanding. Without birth control it had to be assumedthat sexual intercourse would result in pregnancy. All of these elements of lifewere viewed in almost magical ways and indeed witch doctors, soothsayers and thelike were often involved in ritual practices associated with sexual events.
(It might be observed at this point that the availability of many near-foolproofmethods of birth control today opens the way to much greater sexual freedom in generaland should make possible some of the restructuring of marriage and family modelsmentioned earlier. It is worth noting that such restructuring on this basis wouldnot have been possible in the ancient world and indeed would not have been feasibleuntil very recent times. It seems to me that practical/scientific developmentssuch as safe, reliable contraception should make the church rethink the possibilitiesof sexual behavior and patterns. I believe that alert and aware Christians havethe opportunity to explore new and exciting options in these areas.)
It happened that Christianity was born in a culture in which these views of sexualitywere common. Thus, all of Christianity's sexual teachings have been compromisedby such views, almost to the point of continuing to treat sexual phenomena as magical,thus calling for the many controlling taboos.
Today we know that sex is not magic. It may be awe-inspiring, exciting, confusingand even properly regarded as containing elements of mystery. It may be the mostemotionally meaningful aspect of human life. But it is not magic and should notbe treated with the fear and taboos of the past. I believe that traditional Christianityperpetuates these outdated views and we must work to rid ourselves of them in thefellowship of Christian love.
It is these old views that lead to the emotional/spiritual abuse for which manypeople reject this version of Christianity. These views are not characteristic ofwhat Jacques Ellul calls "the faith of Christ".
It is our hope in Liberated Christians that this kind of faith can set us free tolove freely, joyfully and responsibly the way we believe God has made us to love.
Come Meet Us
No comments:
Post a Comment