The Death of the Christian Sexual Ethic

Posted on March 18, 2014 by Steve Foster

R.I.P.

It appears that the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic has been killed in America. It has been convicted of being impossible, archaic, and repressive. Testified against with the evidence of many hypocritical Christian leaders who have been caught in sexual crimes and improprieties. Judged guilty by the jury of media and popular opinion. And formally executed by our culture. 

"Good riddance," many are saying. "It was past time for it to go. Now we can enjoy sex without the restrictions of some 2000 year old book." 

But have we entered into a new era of sexual freedom and pleasure or into a new era of sexual addiction and pain? 

Sex without limits may bring more than we bargained for.  

Since the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic has been so vilified by our culture, it is important to at least know what it is. Here's what the Bible would say. Yes, yes, I know, there are sordid tales and seemingly strange sexual standards in the Bible but let's start with the basics before addressing some of that.

1. Sex is created by God. Sex is not our invention. It was designed by God. We were created as "male and female," with different, complementary sexual organs (Genesis 1:27).  

2. Sex is a good gift from God. God is not ashamed of sex. He declared it "very good" as part of His original creation (Genesis 1:31).

3. Sex is powerfully procreative. Sex is the means God designed for creating new life. Male and female come together and amazingly and wondrously have the potential to bring a new human being into the world (Genesis 1:28).

4. Sex is spiritually bonding. Sex takes two wholly other people, male and female, and brings them together into a mysterious union, one flesh, uniting them physically, emotionally, and spiritually (Genesis 2:22-24). 

5. Sex is so powerful, bonding, intimate, and procreative that it must be protected within the security of a lifelong commitment that we call "marriage." Within the security of marriage, a person is enabled to be vulnerable, naked and unashamed, and thus experience the beauty of intimacy. Moreover, any children gifted from this sexual union are then born into a stable, committed relationship (Genesis 2:24-25).

Okay, that is the good side of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. The original design. The way things are supposed to be. But the Bible also acknowledges that there is something wrong with our world, with our bodies, with our desires. Our original parents decided to go their own way and experienced the consequences of their choice. As their children, we inherit these consequences. This is what the Bible calls "sin."

6. Sin has distorted our sexual desires. The power of sex is still there but now it fights against containment. It is like a fire that quickly spreads and burns out of control. We have sexual desires that push against any boundaries. We have sexual impulses that become amplified and, like cancerous cells, multiply to the detriment of our own souls. We are all spiritually and sexually broken people (Romans 3:19-23). 

7. Sexual sin impacts us at a deeper level than any other sin. Sex is not just a physical act. It involves more of us than we realize. The more we misuse it, the more it changes us psychologically at our core (1 Corinthians 6:18).  

8. Sex outside of marriage promises more than it delivers. Apart from the security of a lifetime commitment, sex seems freer and less restrained. But it actually forces us to put up protective walls in our heart to avoid the pain of being intimate with someone who may leave us tomorrow. So we try to separate the act from the vulnerability and intimacy that it is designed to produce. We work counter to the power and purpose of sex and find ourselves trapped within the walls of our own heart (Proverbs 5:18-23).

9. The society that worships at the altar of sex soon becomes a dangerous, destructive society. The freedom to pursue sex without boundaries eventually leads to more and more perverse and experimental sexual acts. Children are seen as inconveniences that can be sacrificed for personal pleasure. Women are seen as sex objects. Men lose self-control. Families become unstable and transient. Abuse multiplies. Society suffers (Romans 1:24-31).

Yes, the Bible includes some stories that would make even a sailor blush. But what the Bible describes is not what it necessarily prescribes. The Bible does not view the world through rose-colored glasses. It is brutally honest with the ugliness of sin. Jesus summed up any allowances against the original design of marriage as God's awareness that the hardness of people's hearts may sometimes require the "lesser of two evils" in a society (Matthew 19:1-11). That is simply the reality of the world in which we live.

But Jesus also offered us hope.

10. Our sexual brokenness can be healed in Christ. Sin has distorted our desires, misled us, lied to us, harmed us, enslaved us, but its power has been conquered at the cross. And when we recognize our need, yield to the Lordship of Christ, and humbly receive His grace, we gain new life and begin the progressive pathway toward wholeness (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

The wounds may be deep, but God's love is deeper. The addictions may be strong, but God's power is stronger. 

Yes, it is possible that this is all a bunch of hooey. Maybe we are just slightly more advanced animals programmed by our genes to hunger for sex. Maybe sex is a mere physical act. Maybe there is no "spiritual" side to it. Maybe children are an inconvenient consequence that can be avoided, if at all possible, so that we can have even more unhindered sexual pleasure. Maybe there are no legitimate limits to sex. Maybe we are on the verge of a sexual revolution that will bring untold happiness, progress, and satisfaction to our culture. 

Or perhaps the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic has been poorly misrepresented, falsely accused, and hastily judged.

Perhaps we have executed an innocent citizen of our nation, eliminating a member of our society that has served us well for 200+ years and has proven to be a reliable guide in other societies as well.

The only one willing to tell us the truth on the witness stand.

With its hand on the Bible.

So help us, God. 

Posted in Sex and Marriage | 2 Comments

A Few Thoughts on the Anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s Death

Posted on February 26, 2014 by Steve Foster

We live in narratives. We construct narratives. We interpret life through narratives. 

That thought struck me as I reflected again on the Trayvon Martin tragedy. The truth of what actually happened on that day (Feb 26, 2012) may never be fully known. One thing that is clear is that it was a tragedy. A 17-year old boy lost his life based on a confrontation that from all appearances could have…and should have…been avoided. 

But from the first day of Martin's death, many media outlets tried to fit the event into an overall narrative–a white man shot an unarmed black youth out of racial profiling and racial hatred. This narrative governed how many media outlets covered the event. And whenever evidence emerged that contradicted the narrative, it was either ignored or interpreted differently. The most glaring example of this was NBC's editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call to purposefully make his words appear racially charged. The initial pictures of Martin and Zimmerman on most major newscasts also clearly presented Zimmerman as a big thug and Martin as a small smiling pre-teen even though at the time of the shooting Zimmerman was 5'9" and 170 lbs. and Martin was 6'1" and 150 lbs. 

As a USA Today article (July 14, 2013) noted, "Some of the media's major mistakes stemmed from stories that fit neatly into that widely accepted narrative."

Of course, on the other side of the aisle, a few conservative news outlets and various online postings did all they could to defend Zimmerman and present the most unfavorable picture of Martin as possible, highlighting a recent suspension he had from school and finding as many unpleasant photos of Martin (including some not of Martin) they could find. 

I confess…I tended toward the more conservative news outlets and couldn't understand why some people seemed completely unable to separate this tragedy from a larger racial narrative.

But then I began to put myself into a different scenario.

Suppose I was a Christian in a Muslim-dominated country and an unarmed Christian teen was shot by a Muslim young adult in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood. As a Christian, I would almost immediately place that incident into a larger narrative of Muslim oppression and hatred for Christians. And despite the evidence that would emerge, I would still have a hard time processing the story any differently. In fact, I would probably look at any re-interpretation of the events as further Muslim opppression.

My narrative would dictate my perspective. 

Isn't that what happens with most major stories? We come to the story with our own story, our own narrative. And we often go to the news outlets that we already know will reinforce our narrative. For instance, if Obama makes any political decision, we can almost assume that liberal news outlets will put a positive spin on it and conservative ones will put a negative spin on it. And even if the decision is somewhat conservative in nature, many conservatives will still find some hidden agenda to make it even more insiduously liberal. 

Our narratives dictate our perspectives.

And the current glut of media information and instant accessibility to every possible viewpoint means that we can always find information to fit our own preferred narrative. Thus our own narrative is reinforced and the divide between me and anyone who disagrees with me is widened.

Welcome to the present-day USA.

So what does all this mean? Since we all see things from our own narrative should we give up on all narratives? That is the post-modern solution. No one is truly objective. All is subjective. So just construct your own narrative, accept everyone else's narrative as equally valid, and get used to ambiguity. 

As Nietzsche once said: "There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes – and consequently there are many kinds of 'truths,' and consequently there is no truth."

Sounds good on the surface but the postmodern narrative is its own narrative. So who is to say that it is right? 

Going back to the Trayvon Martin tragedy, something did happen on February 26, 2012. There is a reality. We may never personally know the true story but there is a true story. There is a real narrative. The challenge is resisting the tendency to try to fit the real narrative into our own preconceived narrative. Instead we have to submit our narrative to the larger one, the real one.

How can we do this? How can we ever know what the real narrative is?

We can't know unless the one who knows the real narrative accurately tells us. If Martin were still alive, and both he and Zimmerman were honestly objective, then they could tell us the true story. We could know what happened on that day, what thoughts went through their heads, their reactions, their choices, their mistakes, their actions. And if we humbly and openly listened, then we could know the truth.

Projecting that out to the larger narrative of reality, we can know the Truth only if the One who objectively sees and knows all things reveals the Story to us. And if there is such a One, and He reveals the Story, then we could know the Truth if we listened humbly and openly…and if we were willing to submit our smaller, personal narrative to this larger, real One.

We live in narratives. We construct narratives. We interpret life through narratives. 

And we either stay in our smaller stories or we find our place in a larger Story. We either construct our own reality or we submit to a larger Reality and let it reconstruct us. We either interpret life through our own narrative or we let a larger Narrative interpret life for us.

Yes, this is the intersection of faith, reason, and revelation. 

There is a God. There is a Reality. There is a Story. 

And through faith, I have placed my narrative in His. 

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Shirley Temple, the Olympics, and Morality

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Steve Foster

Shirley Temple died last week. Though I have never seen a Shirley Temple movie…and have never even had a Shirley Temple drink…I felt strangely sad when I heard the news. To me, Shirley Temple represented a different era in America…an era in which TV and movies presented the best of America. The ideal. Child stars were cute, respectful, hopeful. There was no pressure to be more. It was okay to simply be "good." 

Today the scene is different. "Good" is seen as unrealistic, too good to be true. The "child star" who makes it today soon finds out that to keep the spotlight they have to be sexier, more risque, more rebellious, more cool. Shirley Temple has been replaced by Miley Cyrus.

I know that's an overgeneralization but there is a ring of reality to it. We no longer promote and hold up the ideal; we expect and present the dysfunctional. The Leave It to Beaver family is ridiculed as a relic of the past. Fake. Unbelievable. Even hypocritical. What kind of family was really like that? Dad wearing suits at home. Mom cooking dinner in a dress. Beaver making innocent gaffes. We want to see the dysfunction today. The extreme. The strange. The Modern Family. Non-traditional. Streetwise kids. Clueless parent(s). Loose morals. Heavy duty problems. 

It's a different world. We're a different nation. And TV loves to show this.

So why portray the "Beaver family" when families have so many problems? Why promote a "Shirley Temple" image when the world is so much darker and dysfunctional?

I thought about that in relation to the Olympics. 

When I watch the athletes in the Olympics, I am amazed. The strength. The grace. The skill. I realize that I could never do the things I see (except maybe curling). The training needed is extensive. The dedication is total. The athleticism is rare. I can barely snowplow much less slalom down a hill at break neck speed…or jump a football field in the air…or land a triple salchow on ice…or do a 1080 corkscrew spin on a snowboard. 

But I love to see the ideal. I want to celebrate excellence. 

Even though I could never reach the level of an Olympian, they inspire me to strive a little further, to dedicate myself more, to exercise more, to dream more. I see the level that a person can reach and it convicts me, humbles me, motivates me, pushes me. 

Imagine ostracizing, criticizing, and marginalizing exceptional athletes because they are too far beyond us. They are too good to be true. They make us feel guilty. They are not "normal." 

Imagine gathering people from all over the world for a display of athletic mediocrity or dysfunctionality. The inexperienced ski jump (or who can break the most bones falling off the ski ramp). Most falls around an ice rink. Most pathetic snowplow down a hill (I got a chance in that one). It might be like a bad episode of WipeOut. Fun to watch for the embarrassment of the contestants. But nothing to celebrate. Nothing to gather people in stadiums to watch. Nothing to give out medals for. Nothing to inspire national pride. Nothing to make us better. 

It is sad that we still expect excellence in athletics but not in life. We celebrate the ideal physically but not morally. We admire dedication and personal sacrifice for a gold medal but not for the beauty of sexual purity…or the preservation of a marriage…or the stability of a family…or the virtue of a nation.

The Bible indicates that what we meditate on will eventually change us, shape us, define us. 

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable,whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is any praise—dwell on these things (Philippians 4:8).

When our entertainment is vulgar and sexualized, it is no surprise that our culture is too. 

So with the passing of Shirley Temple, it feels like we have lost something precious as a nation.

Not a gold medal…not an iconic "child star"…not even the innocence of a prior generation.

It feels like we have lost our common sense.

It feels like we have lost our soul. 

Posted in Random Thoughts | Leave a comment

Ken Ham and Other Crazy, Anti-Science Christians

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Steve Foster

I confess that I didn't see the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate on February 4. I do plan to watch it though I am not sure it will be much different than other similar debates that I have watched…some of the best being between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. 

However, I did get a chance to read some of the articles written after the debate. Christians were generally positive while non-theists were typically either dismissive or aghast that the debate even took place. 

The conventional wisdom is this: All intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution. Thus if you don't believe in evolution, it is obvious that you are not intelligent. Case closed. End of story. 

That's why most evolutionists (including Dawkins) didn't think the debate should even take place. In their minds, by debating a creationist, you actually give some semblence of credence to their views. You actually act like there is something to debate. It is sort of like debating a pig on the virtues of cleanliness. The pig can't and won't understand you and you'll just get your hands dirty in the process. 

But the debate did take place and for the most part people seem to agree that Ken Ham at least sounded smart, "vaguely professional," and like "a reasonable human being." And that's the other big problem for the evolutionist. When you debate creationists, they often sound somewhat intelligent and their arguments sound somewhat reasonable. But we know that they cannot be since (see above) "all intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution." Thus, these creationists are simply clever, slick, power-hungry individuals who are able to play to the common man/woman who is also not very intelligent. 

I guess I am one of them crazy, gullible yokels. 

Now I admit that there is much that I don't understand. I have read many evolutionary essays that have made my head spin. I am not a scientist or an expert on scientific issues. I generally agree with the young earth creationists but realize there is much that is hard to explain and some things in Genesis that may allow for gaps or longer time spans. We have to approach these issues with humility, teachability, and a willingness to be corrected. 

But there are a few things that I am reasonably sure of…

1. No person is totally objective. We all bring our presuppostions to the table and see things through a subjective lens. Thus, to act as if you have reached a state of total objectivity and complete knowledge is the ultimate ignorance (1 Corinthians 8:2). And to act as if an atheistic scientist is approaching the data objectively without an agenda while the creationist is approaching it subjectively with an agenda is naive at best. 

2. Historically, the scientific movement emerged within the Judeo-Christian worldview. Thus, to argue that Christianity is "anti-science" is to be purposefully or unknowingly misleading. The Harvard philosopher Alfred North Whitehead noted that science developed in Europe because of the widespread "faith in the possbility of science derivative from medieval theology" (Stark, The Triumph of Christianity, 284). Indeed as Johannes Kepler, one of the great early scientists, stated: 

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God.

In other words, unless the universe is ordered and rational, then there is no sense in studying it. But if it is rational and ordered by a rational God, then its mysteries can be discovered. Thus, it is no accident that the majority of early scientists were very religious men with a Judeo-Christian worldview. 

3. If we truly live in a materialistic world with matter being the only true reality, then our very thoughts are simply random chemical processes in the physical brain. So who cares what Dawkins, Ham, Nye, or anyone else thinks?

4. The fairly well-established scientific theory that the universe emerged in an instant out of nothing is a pretty difficult (or dare I say, impossible) concept to explain from a non-theistic standpoint. 

5. As Ham indicated in the debate, there is a difference between observational science and philosophical science. The origin of the universe is not observable, repeatable science that can be subjected to the scientific method. It is a philosophy (and even a religion) that must be accepted with some element of faith. 

6. The notion that believing in God is a killer to scientific curiosity (the "God of the gaps" argument) is simply not true (see #2 above). If I came home today and found a full dinner immaculately prepared for me on the table, I could infer that it either miraculously appeared out of nowhere or that someone else prepared it for me. Yes, trying to figure out how it emerged randomly and spontaneously might be fun and challenging to my imagination. But I would argue that the greater mystery is trying to figure out why my wife would love me enough to do something special for me in the first place. The mystery of relationship is far greater than any other mystery and the pursuit of its knowledge is far deeper than any other knowledge.  

7. When I look at the intricacy and complexity of the universe…when I observe the beauty, creativity, and symmetry of nature…when I consider the wonders of the human body…when I ponder the mysteries of life, consciousness, and love…then I am moved to awe and to worship. Like a child, I may not understand all things, but I can see the handiwork of my Father and know He loves me. 

If that makes me crazy, then call me crazy. 

Posted in Creation and Humanity | Leave a comment

Same Love?

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Steve Foster

It wasn't too long ago that I first heard "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. It is a compelling song with lyrics that plead for love and acceptance for those who have and/or struggle with same sex attraction. It is a powerful message that resonates with many people. And it has become the anthem of the homosexual movement as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards in which the song was sung as 33 same sex couples said marriage vows in front of a national audience. 

The notion of the song is that since same sex couples have the same kind of love that heterosexual couples do then there is ultimately no difference between them. It is the same love therefore it should be accepted as the same kind of marriage. "What's the difference?" the song would ask. And why would anyone, especially Christians who believe in love, fight it?

It's a good question…but it is based on a mistaken notion.

Christians do not have a problem with the love between two males or two females or between any group of people. We are all commanded to love. And the love described between two males or two females isn't any different than the love prescribed for a man and woman in marriage.

The Bible predominantly uses the Greek verb, agapao, to describe the love that we are to have for one another. Agapao describes an action of sacrificial love. It is a love given for the benefit of another person. Unselfish and other-centered. Characterized by patience, kindness, humility, graciousness, forgiveness, truth, acceptance, commitment, and loyalty (1 Corinthians 13; John 3:16; 1 John 3:16-18; Philippians 2:1-8). 

This kind of love is a beautiful thing. Really an unnatural thing. It runs counter to every selfish gene that we have in our bodies. 

And it is love that can be stronger between two men or two women than between a man and a woman.

For instance, the Bible describes the love between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:1-4.

Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day, and would not let him go home to his father’s house anymore. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, even to his sword and his bow and his belt.

David and Jonathan loved each other and even made a covenant of loyalty together. Jonathan, as King Saul's son, gave David his prince's robe, armor, and weapons as a sign that he recognized David's right to future kingship and would not fight him or oppose him. Later, when Jonathan died, David would lament in 2 Samuel 1:26:

I grieve over you, my brother Jonathan! You were very dear to me. Your love was more special to me than the love of women. 

This kind of love is called friendship and its bond can potentially be closer than any familial bond. A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:23-24).

So what ultimately distinguishes marriage in the Bible is not the love. What ultimately distinguishes marriage is the sexual union and its purpose. 

The institution of marriage is first described and defined in Genesis 2:24-25.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

God designed male and female as biologically different. They are two "other" and complementary beings. And He designed sexual intercourse between one man and one woman to be exclusive, beautiful, uniting, and life producing. This sexual union is so powerful, sacred, and special that it is to be protected within the lifelong security of a marriage covenant so that its vulnerability and intimacy cannot be misused or abused, so that its potential procreation of children would be in the stability of a family, and so that its picture of security and intimacy would reflect the union of Christ and His church. 

This is what marriage is and should strive to be. And it is the sexual union which separates it from all other unions. If nothing else, even the objective non-theist would have to say that the biology of sex is intended and best designed for one man and one woman and that this is the only natural means for procreation. 

So the issue is not really over love. It is over sex.  

Are there any limits to sex? Are there any parameters? Is there a divine design for marriage and sex that is best for individuals, for families, for society? Or is it all open to individual interpretation, definition, gratification, and pleasure?

Can we redesign the design of the Designer to fit our own designs?

The recent Grammys show illustrated what happens when sex is preached and promoted apart from any divine design or limits. 

The sexual act is imitated on stage for all to see. Intimacy is turned into voyeurism. Security is turned into self-gratification. Love is turned into lust. And sex is whatever I want it to be.

In this kind of society, everything is sexualized. Even friendship. The biblical story of David and Jonathan can't even be read without sexual implications. We can't imagine how a person could live without sex or how two people could have a committed, close friendship without it. Sex is our new god. And the old One who designed it must be mocked, disdained, and burned at the stake. This is not a new idea or a progressive movement. It is as old as biblical days when Baal was god and sex was the worship of choice for those who followed him. 

But whether in an ancient society or in our own "modern" society today, the message of the Bible remains the same.

We are all broken, morally, sexually, spiritually. And we all need redemption, healing, restoration, and grace from the God who designed us (Psalm 139:13-14)…and died for us despite our sin and selfishness (Romans 5:8)…and rose again from the dead so that we could walk in holiness and newness of life (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).

And those who experience that kind of divine, gracious, sacrifical, transforming love are to show that same love to others.

Posted in Sex and Marriage | Leave a comment