What is a biblical theology of sexuality? Part 1
Much of the electric current debate, both inside the Church of England and in other denominations, when information technology does focus on the Bible, often gets lost in the minutiae of discussion about unmarried verses or even private terms, as if the fence could be settled in this atomistic manner. The details are indeed important—but they also build into a bigger picture, and it is this bigger picture which is often missed, but is the real measure of any proposal to change the church's teaching of offer an innovative ethics. The big picture besides has the potential to critique aspects of the 'traditional' teaching on sexuality; it would exist hard to argue that the Church has got its education consistently right or healthy in past generations!
So what does a big-picture biblical theology look like? This is what I have offered in churches where I have spoken on sexuality, so the particular debates we are having now find a larger theological context. I propose eight affirmations that we notice in Scripture, which seem to me to be broadly assumed across the whole biblical narrative. I'd be interested in any observations about where this list might be revised. I am aware that this isn't a robust, 'academic' exposition—but it seems to me to exist a fair summary of the broad theological themes in Scripture.
1. Sex is God-given
The starting time conviction (in terms of priority and importance) of sex activity and sexuality is that information technology is a good gift of God in creation. This is the bones assumption made by the biblical narrative which surfaces at primal points in the text.
But the church has often struggled with accepting this, and the struggle is evidence in the history of the translation of 1 Cor 7.1: 'At present concerning the things most which y'all wrote: It is skilful for a man not to touch a woman'. Earlier English translations do not put the 2d sentence into inverted comments, and and so read this as a statement of Paul: sex (for which 'impact' is a euphemism) is an unfortunate necessity, and is to be avoided where possible. But the consensus of contempo interpretation is that this isnot the view or statement of Paul, but of the Corinthians with whom he is arguing. Their position is that if you are truly 'spiritual' (a theme that Paul picks up explicitly in 1 Cor 12.1, 'Now, about the "spiritual"…') so you volition leave behind the mundane, bawdy realities of sexual practice. Confronting that, Paul makes this remarkable statement:
The wife does not have potency over her own body but yields it to her married man. In the same manner, the husband does not have authorisation over his own trunk but yields information technology to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps past mutual consent and for a time, and so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. (1 Cor seven.iv–5)
This is remarkable because, in Paul's only explicit statement about 'authorization' in the context of marriage, he is articulate that authority is exercised equally and symmetrically by wife and husband over each other. But it is also remarkable considering he is quite clear that sexual practice is a not-negotiable attribute of married life, and that in that location is no 'spiritually mature' position which supersedes information technology. Sex is for the spiritually mature! He does concede that some might be like him, single and celibate, only he is clear that, for most, the expectation is that they would be married and have sex.
This is in line with the life of Jesus, where he is accused of existence 'a glutton and a drunk' in contrast with the austerity of John the Baptist'south life (Matt 11.19, Luke 7.34). It is clear that Jesus was someone who fully enjoyed the pleasures of bodily life, to the extent that is caused something of a stir amongst those who criticised him. Similar Paul, Jesus was celibate and single—but like Paul, he affirmed the goodness of pleasurable bodily experiences.
I of the most startling things most the canon of Scripture is the inclusion in this narrative testimony of the story of God'south dealings with his people of the Vocal of Songs, with its quite explicit and detailed celebration of intimate bodily pleasance between the lover and the love. In that location might well exist some deeper spiritual significance to information technology—but on the surface information technology certainly looks like a commemoration of intimate sexual pleasure. I retrieve being quite surprised when I discovered it as a teenage boy newly come to faith!
All of this is rooted in the origins of sexual activity in God'south creation of humanity as male and female. Having made Adam and Eve in their bodily distinctiveness, information technology is quite hard to imagine God existence either shocked or surprised when 'Adam knew Eve, and she conceived' (Gen four.1).
But we struggle with the idea of sexual activity as a good gift from God both inside and outside the church building. Talks on sex and relationships for teenagers rarely offset at this indicate; virtually often we are afraid that they already think about sexual practice too much, and we need to warn them away! And in the wider world, sex is often seen as something that brings harm and its misuse leaves lasting scars; the thought that information technology is good and a souvenir is a long mode from the experience of many.
2. We are created actual
The Police sang that 'We are spirits in a fabric earth'; by contrast Madonna sang 'I am a cloth girl'. Christians usually are skilful at rejecting the materialism and hedonism of the second point of view; just we are less skillful at discerning the false claim of the kickoff indicate of view. It was expressed long ago in Plato's philosophy: the textile globe is inherently bad, and we are spirits trapped in this vale of tears awaiting spiritual release at the bespeak of expiry. You detect this expressed in comments at funerals: 'He is no longer here, just has gone to be with God'; 'This is not her, just merely the empty shell of her body'.
By contrast, the consequent view of the New Testament (likewise assumed in the Old) is that we are body–soul ('psychosomatic') unities. Our bodies are not mere containers for our 'true' selves which we telephone call a soul, but the 2 aspects of our nature—the outer, concrete, and the inner or 'spiritual'—are integrated and inseparable.
This is why the incarnation is so important in Christian theology. For God in the person of Jesus to experience homo life meant him condign fully bodily, and then in even the most 'spiritual' of gospels, that attributed to John, Jesus experiences the full range of actual emotions and experiences, including hunger, thirst, tiredness, weeping and and so on. And when he is raised, he is raised actual; in the presence of his disciples, he eats (Luke 24.30, 39, 43). He tin can be held, touched and embraced.
If this was Jesus' resurrection destiny, then it is ours too. The reason why Paul is concerned with bodily behaviour in his upstanding outlook is that he is quite clear that, in some sense, we deport our bodily identity into the new creation.
The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his ability God raised the Lord from the expressionless, and he will raise usa also. Practise y'all non know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? (1 Cor 6.13–fifteen)
Nosotros volition be bodily in the resurrection, and in fact nosotros are already incorporated into Jesus' resurrection body, and so what we do with our bodies matters.
Jesus does teach that 'in the resurrection, they will be like the angels' (Matt 22.thirty), but that does non imply a lack of bodily reality, simply that at that place are some aspects of mundane life with which we will not exist concerned (on which, see below).
And so in biblical theology, bodies thing, since we are irreducibly bodily in our humanity. This implies that sexual practice matters likewise.
Come and join u.s. for the Third Festival of Theology on Tuesday 8th Oct!
3. We accept sexed bodies
To talk of humans being 'sexed' always sounds odd, since in English 'sex' is both a verb and a substantive, and so that discussion near sex difference is easily confused with talk of sexual practice. For this reason, the language of 'gender' is often used, so people talk most 'gender deviation'. Information technology is of import to notice that this is a relatively recent innovation in language; earlier its use in this way by sexologist John Coin in the 1950s and 1960s, 'gender' was just used to refer to an aspect of grammar. I recall there is some value in distinguishing between biological sex and the social roles for the sexes within a item culture—but of grade the current debate is exactly what is the connection between the two. But my point here is that Scripture always and everywhere see the creation of humanity as clearly distinguished into male person and female (often referred to as 'sex dimorphism', humanity every bit 2 sex-differentiated bodily forms).
In the first creation business relationship, in Gen 1 upwardly to Gen 2.3, there is central emphasis on humanity every bit maleand female:
So God created human beings in his own paradigm, in the image of God he created them; male person and female he created them. (Gen 1.27)
Information technology is worth noting here that this text is notasserting that humanity is male and female; it is assuming it. Within its context, the striking thing is thatboth male and female are made in the image of God; there is no contend that male and female people exist, and the text is not here arguing for sexual activity dimorphism, but bold it in its assertion that both halves of sex dimorphic humanity correspond God's image in the earth.
In the 2nd creation account, in Gen ii.5f, sex dimorphism becomes even more than central to the narrative. As has often been noted, following the repeated affidavit in Gen 1 that the cosmos is 'good…good…very good' it is startling to encounter the merits that 'it isnot skillful for theadam to be alone' (Gen two.18)—especially when that comes from the lips of God himself. What follows then is a narrative exploring the twin themes of equality and departure. The 'suitable helper' needed for theadam should be like the contrary bank of a river—equal merely differentiated. All the animals brought before theadam and named by him are indeed different from him, but none is anequal partner. Information technology is but when the woman is formed from the one who is and then known every bit the human being (Heb theishshah from theish) that nosotros have a pair who are dissimilar but equal, suitable partners to one another.
Again, though, the narrative is notasserting that humanity is male and female; this is taken as an assumed datum that needs some explanation, and the explanation is establish in the creative intention of God.
This bodily sexual activity differentiation is seen equally the foundation of sexual spousal relationship. In Gen ii.24, the climax of the story is fix out clearly:
For this reason a man will get out his begetter and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
What is the 'reason'? That in primordial creation, God has separated these aspects of humanity, and that marriage and the sexual union that takes place within marriage somehow reunites that which was divided. At that place is an intriguing parallel here with the speech communication of Aristophanes in Plato'southwardSymposium, in which the various sexual desires of people are also explained by the division of primordial creatures.
Those of us who want members of the opposite sexual activity were previously androgynous, whereas men who desire men and women who desire women were previously male person or female person. When we find our other half, nosotros are 'lost in an anaesthesia of love and friendship and intimacy' that cannot exist accounted for past a elementary appetite for sexual activity, merely rather by a desire to be whole once more, and restored to our original nature.
Both these accounts offer an explanation for why the sex activity drive is so strong, and offer an account of the existential significance of sexual union. The departure is that the biblical account is rooted in our sex dimorphic bodily forms of male and female, rather than (like Plato) inferring an explanation from the various patterns of sexual desire.
This ascertainment concurs with the reality of our actual form. Different parts of our bodies take a biological purpose: my lungs are for the purpose of breathing and oxygenation; my heart is for the purpose of pumping my blood effectually my body; my legs are for running and walking. This implies an agreement of biological normality; if my legs practise not function properly, so that I cannot walk or run, and so we are right to describe this equally a disability, simply in purely biological terms. But note that, within the complex system of the body, my lungs do not need anything else to fulfil their biological function; they are able to draw air into my body without needing another organ. Similarly, my heart can pump my blood around itself, within the complex of the body. However, my genitals are biologically unique, in that they cannot fulfil their biological function of reproduction on their own, without wedlock with the genitalia of a female body. And if for some reason they are, even then, not able to fulfil their biological part, then we are right to depict this as a disability. The rare range of conditions that are grouped under the mutual title 'intersex' do non offer a 'new fashion' to understand sexuality, but are kinds of disability.
I don't believe in sex dimorphism because the Bible teaches it; I believe in it because science observes information technology. The Bible makes the same observation that science does. This is important in current debate; if information technology was just taught in the Bible, then nosotros might be free to accept or reject information technology. Since it is really observable fact, information technology is harder to avoid.
4. God intends us to be integrated
The consequent vision of Scripture is that, just as God is 'i' (Deut 6.4), humanity made in God'due south paradigm should also exist '1'. There a sense in which God being 'one' means that he solitary is God, but it also implies that God is unified and integrated in his character, intentions and actions. The Alphabetic character of James, an early round to a Jewish Christian audience, makes this a central business organization:
Every practiced and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James ane.17)
Considering God is i, we besides must take integrity in our attitude to everything if we are to be similar him, treating rich and poor alike, and speaking with integrity, not using kind words at 1 moment and harsh words at some other. James' teaching hither is very close to Jesus' education in the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5–7; we are to have a 'single eye', a unmarried focus in life on the kingdom of God, and our words and our actions must align with this. Our inner thoughts and our outer actions must match one some other if we are to be people of integrity, rather than hypocrites, who act i office in public whilst actually playing a different part in the privacy of our own hearts.
This is the principal reason for Christian ethical delivery to sexual intimacy belonging in the lifelong and exclusive commitment of marriage. This is as well the root trouble behind pornography; in separating sexual activity from relational delivery, it is basically dis-integrating. Our bodily, sexual activity should match the intention of our inner lives. The full bodily commitment of sexual union belongs in an inner and outer commitment of the whole of our lives, and the bodily, the personal and the social should friction match i another. This is reflected, for example, in the Church of England's understanding of marriage every bit ready out in the introduction in the marriage service.
The Bible teaches u.s.a. that marriage is a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh. It is God'due south purpose that, as husband and wife give themselves to each other in beloved throughout their lives, they shall be united in that beloved as Christ is united with his Church.
Marriage is given, that hubby and wife may condolement and help each other, living faithfully together in need and in plenty, in sorrow and in joy. It is given, that with please and tenderness they may know each other in love, and, through the joy of their bodily wedlock, may strengthen the wedlock of their hearts and lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children may be born and nurtured in accordance with God'southward will, to his praise and glory.
In marriage husband and married woman belong to i another, and they brainstorm a new life together in the community. It is a way of life that all should honour. (ASB Marriage Service)
Notice the interweaving here of pleasure, affirmation, self-discovery, cocky-giving, love, reproduction, and social cohesion. The 'joy of their actual union' is both a reflection and a strengthening of the union of all other parts of their life.
These kickoff 4 affirmations—that sex is a good gift from God, that we are created bodily, and are sex dimorphic, and that we should live integrated lives where our actual and sexual actions reflect our desires and intentions—are substantially positive. But they need to exist held with ane another and with four farther affirmations which add some qualifications: that sexual activity is powerful, that we are fallen creatures, that sexual practice therefore needs boundaries, and that it is not the ultimate reality of being human. I will expound these in a 2d postal service tomorrow.
If you enjoyed this article, practice share it on social media, perchance using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot take valued this post, would you consideraltruistic £1.20 a month to back up the production of this weblog?
If you enjoyed this, practice share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can brand a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, can add real value. Seek starting time to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence equally a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-is-a-biblical-theology-of-sexuality-part-1/
0 Response to "What is a biblical theology of sexuality? Part 1"
Postar um comentário