Shell from Across the Atlantic recently posted a “Primer on Fundamentalism” in which she outlines what “fundamentalist Christians” believe.* Overall, her post is a fairly accurate review of the basic tenets of biblical Christianity and would fit not only fundamentalists but evangelicals as well.
She goes on to add another principle that she admits is not a primary doctrine but that can be deduced from such beliefs, “Sex is physical, not psychological”:
Sex is an act. Not an identity. A person chooses whether or not to have sexual thoughts and whether to engage in sexual behavior. This is why knowledge about sex must be kept from "The Children"--if they don't know about it, they won't choose it. This is why homosexuality is a sin. If sex is an act, then you can give permission for that act to a limited number of people. If you are not lawfully married, then you don't get to have sex, just as if you don't have a legal driver's license, you don't get to drive. No masturbation, no porn, no fantasies. Sex is an act, therefore you can control it.
No doubt this is probably what many evangelicals actually do believe so I can not fault her for the misunderstanding. But to claim that sex is either merely physical (sexual acts) or mostly psychological (sexual identity) is to reduce sex and classify it as an individualistic phenomenon.
The evangelical biblical view, on the other hand, claims that sex is primarily relational. Unfortunately, most evangelical Christians tend to view sex only within the paradigm of marriage (pre – bad; post – good). While this is not exactly inaccurate, placing the emphasis on the “marriage ceremony” leads to a legalism that has a distorting effect on sexual ethics. As psychology professor Paul A. Twelker points out, it is not the marriage ceremony but the “one-flesh union” that should be our focus. “Individuals must order their lives so that they establish an authentic one-flesh union,” adds Twelker, “blessed by God once in their life (unless widowed).”
Sexual intercourse is, therefore, a form of glue that cements a man and a woman together until their death. Naturally, this is a serious commitment that should only be undertaken when a couple is financially, emotionally, and psychologically ready. The couple, however, is not autonomous unit but a part of a larger community. The marriage ceremony is the means by which a couple is able to express their eternal devotion in front of the community while allowing the family and friends an opportunity to pledge their support for the union.
Sexual intimacy is neither an act between two “individuals” or an expression of sexual identity. It is the “cleaving” together of “one flesh”, a mysterious and completely transforming process in which the union of two bodies, psyches, and souls takes place.
There are, however, two forms in which this “one-flesh union” can occur. According to Twelker,
The authentic union is established by sexual intercourse following consent when a couple (two persons of different genders) who love each other and act freely, deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge of the community, leave their parents and cleave to each other in permanent, unconditional commitment, loyalty and fidelity.” The counterfeit or alien union is not blessed by God and carries with it none of the beautiful gifts given with the blessing of God, including the energy and power and grace afforded by Almighty God to hold the bond together.
These counterfeit unions are not only damaging to the couple that enter them, but also hinder the ability of the two individuals to enter into authentic, life-long commitments in the future.
Sexual intercourse is a physical, emotional, and psychological act. To reduce it to its component parts only degrades its value and make it unworthy of human beings. While we shouldn’t attempt to reduce it to it’s component parts, we also cannot ignore the physical dimensions of sex, especially sexual differentiation. Men and woman are different in both their physical and emotional makeup. Evangelicals believe that these gender differences are complementary and designed by God to lead to fulfillment and happiness within the union.
Naturally, this leads to questions about homosexual orientation and same-sex unions. For the sake of brevity I’ll save those issues for another day. I will add, however, that while issues related to homosexuality deserve attention by the evangelical community, we place far too much emphasis on this issue. Whether homosexuality is caused by genetics or environment it will continue to remain a statistically minor orientation. A far greater threat to the sanctity of “one-flesh unions” comes from heterosexuals in the form of divorce.
Same-sex unions have the potential to impact the traditional concept of marriage in the future. That can neither be ignored nor left unchallenged. What we should mainly be concerning ourselves with, though, is the damage we are doing to marriage right now. For every post and op-ed we write railing against “same-sex” marriage, we should write one highlighting the damages to society caused by divorce. Maybe then we will have a firmer moral foundation on which to stand.
*Hat tip to Jim Mays of Too Much Information for pointing this out to me.
1
Interesting comments. One could also do an in-depth analysis of how God has used the husband-wife relationship as a parallel for His relationship with us individually, for His relationship with Israel prior to the new covenant, and for His relationship with the Church.
Israel's disobedience to Yaweh was tantamount to adultery. In Revelation, the Church is depicted as a bride for Christ... this in juxtaposition to the wayward harlot.
posted on 12.04.2003 6:45 PM2
Joe:
Good thoughts. I am personally coming to view gay marriage merely as the full outworking of a view of marriage that has been gaining currency for at least forty years, which goes along with your suggestion of equal time for anti-divorce and anti-gay marriage writings. This is not to say I am climbing on board with anything; rather, that we appear to have made our bed in a very untidy way and may have little option besides to lay in it.
Regarding the supposed evangelical view of sex as purely mechanical: I didn't read the link, so I should probably restrain myself from commenting much, but I find this view to be slightly less than credible. As you said, many evangelicals may act that way, but then I'm not so sure they do. At the risk of begging the question, evangelicals usually like to say they believe Paul, who had a theology of sex that was not very friendly towards this kind of reductionism. Many evangelicals do unthinkingly pigeonhole sex into the "straight married good/unmarried or gay bad" categories as you pointed out, but any even slightly thoughtful evangelical is aware of the 1 Corinthians 6 teaching that lots more than nerve ending stimulation is going on here. I think you fairly extended Shell a sporting amount of credit, but I don't think her view is all that prevalent or important within evangelicalism.
Anyway, I just posted on homosexuality again yesterday. Second post on the topic in three weeks. May I not fall into the trap you have pointed out here.
Hey, if I replace all my IT offshore oursourcing posts with gun rights posts, and put up a picture of myself from a few years back, maybe people will start thinking I'm Clayton Cramer and visit my site more. After all, we've got similar software backgrounds, and I used to be a Nazarene too. We're practically identical! :)
posted on 12.05.2003 10:01 AM3
The evangelical view would have to be the view of the Bible, one would think. Unfortunately, evangelicals are woefully undereducated in the Faith. Only 13% of evangelicals believe in the content of the Apostles' Creed, for instance (according to George Barna).
Marriage is a blood covenant that can only be broken by death. That marriage is a covenant, and that such is the nature of covenants is the teaching of Scripture from beginning to end.
That is also the view that the Christian church has had for nineteen and a half centuries.
It has only been in the last twenty years that evangelicals have had a divorce rate increasing from 1/500 to a higher rate than that of the lost. Pastors are actually solemnizing adulteries and bigamies as if they were holy matrimony. They will have a lot to answer for on That Day. Those entering into such life-long sinful unions are also putting themselves in grave peril, for a truly regenerate Christian does not fail to eventually repent of sin. Bibles are not scarce in this country, and they are indeed without excuse, though the guilt of the pastors is greater.
-That- is the evangelical, Biblical, view of marriage.
posted on 12.05.2003 11:17 AM4
"I will add, however, that while issues related to homosexuality deserve attention by the evangelical community, we place far too much emphasis on this issue."
I can not agree with this statement. Ask the members of your church youth group and they will tell you, if they are honest, that most of them have accepted the idea pounded into them 24/7 from the popular culture (public schools / media / music), that being gay is ok. Even worse, many of the youth also accept that "anti-gay" comments or teachings are "hate speech". This terrble attack on the Word and the Church must be addressed early, often and loudly.
posted on 12.06.2003 3:06 PM5
Every criticism you mentioned is equally applicable to divorce. Yet how often do we hear our churches speak out against the evils of divorce? Rarely, considering how great a threat it is to marriage and family.
posted on 12.06.2003 3:45 PM