H.L. Mencken once defined a Puritan as, "somebody who was desperately afraid that somebody somewhere might be having a good time." Unfortunately, that is the impression many people have about evangelical Christians, particularly when it comes to our views on sex.
David Wayne has a series of posts in which he tries to dispel that false notion. But he does find that the misperception contains a kernel of truth:
Although Christians believe that sex is good the negativity with which we talk about sex really prevents us from gaining a hearing in the world today. I think that, rather than merely telling people that sex outside of marriage is bad, we should be saying something along the lines of "sex is so good within marriage that you are foolish to waste it outside of marriage." I know that sounds like semantics, but it has a more positive spin.
Part of the problem with getting a message like that across is that many Christians probably really don't believe that in their hearts. They may say it, but their actions belie their words. Although my little slogan up there about sex being so good in marriage may sound nice and just like the thing a pastor should say, I realize that many people in the church don't really believe that in their hearts. This is why there is so much use of pornography and so much sexual activity outside of marriage.
David is absolutely right. While most Christians would claim that they believe the Biblical view of sex and that true sexual fulfillment can only be found in marriage, our actions show that we don�t really believe that to be the case at all. Many of us secretly harbor a suspicion that somebody somewhere really is finding both fun and fulfillment while being sexually promiscuous.
The key to understanding the reason for our inability to act as we claim to believe can be found in Jeff Clinton's post on belief formation:
To believe something, one must be able to entertain the possibility that the belief might be true. It must be part of your plausibility structure.
A plausibility structure is the set of ideas of that a person is willing to entertain as possibly true. It is largely a function of the beliefs a person already has.
The claim that true sexual fulfillment can only be found in marriage is so foreign to our society's plausibility structure that even those with a biblical worldview have trouble believing it. We can hardly even imagine how such an idea could possibly be true because we refuse to even acknowledge the existence, much less the need for, a Christian to have an erotic imagination. But we do have erotic imaginations; we just haven't brought them under the Lordship of Christ.
Although art is the primary medium for feeding our imaginations, evangelical Christians have removed all erotic concepts from our artworks. We freely admit that, when taken on their own, both sex and art are good gifts of God. Yet we act as if combining the two produces a toxic mixture whose very fumes cause us to succumb to lust. We have become so disdainful of the idea that sex has a place in Christian art that many of us cannot even read the Song of Songs, one of the greatest works of erotic art, without trying to strip it of all but a "spiritual" meaning.
But unless we allow our imaginations to become completely atrophied, we will be influenced by both secular art and the base obscenities that are prevalent in our society. We are faced with a strict dichotomy: we will either be influenced by the unregenerate and often p0rn0graphic products of our culture or we will be shaped be art produced from a Biblically informed worldview.
If Christians are serious about restoring God's vision of sex and marriage then we must work to produce erotic art that is redemptive in character. We must change the plausibility structure by showing how erotic art differs from p0rn0graphy. In an address at Regent University, John Stuart Peck argues that the difference between erotic art and pornography, and the distinctive qualities of a Christian view of sex in art lie in the following:
(1) in the extent to which the dominant effect is to induce sexual arousal;
(2) in the focus on the relationship involved rather than sexual gratification;
(3) the degree to which it is redemptive and rescues our sexual life from improper exposure and from the idea that sex is an activity with no meaning beyond the physical experience.
Peck uses the example of the parable of the Good Samaritan to show how the plausibility structure can be changed by art:
Because Christians are under the inspiration of the cross and the resurrection and because of the fact that we worship a rescuing God, Christian art has to be something that sees itself as liberating people�s imagination so that things which otherwise would be unthinkable become possible. I would suggest that you read through the parable of the Good Samaritan again as an example of that. The story actually liberates the imagination of the questioner, so that at the end he can actually visualize the possibility that a Samaritan might actually be a neighbor. In that sense, the story liberates him. Of course whether he wants to be liberated is another matter, but we�re all up against that problem.
Indeed, we are faced with a culture that doesn't want to be liberated from its false notion that sexual fulfillment is contingent upon technique, experience, and variety rather than in a deep-rooted commitment and loving relationship. But Christians not only have the ability to change this plausibility structure, we have a distinct advantage: our beliefs are true.
We also have a responsibility to act. When we allow false views of sex to remain unchallenged we are providing a silent affirmation that we don't really believe what we claim. On this issue we not only possess the truth but have the means-our God given creative abilities-to shape the erotic imagination. Once we do that we truly can show society that sex is so good within marriage that it really is foolish to waste it on anything less.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3164
1
Joe, I'm trying, but this post is sailing right past me. But I really don't what to miss what you're trying to say.
"Pr0n": images that are sexual in nature and intended to stimulate sexual fantasy.
"Erotic Art": images that are sexual in nature and "shape the erotic imagination".
I'm having trouble seeing the difference. Can you suggest an example of actual erotic art which has the focus on "relationship"--yet is still erotic-- and in some way "redemptive" or "changes my plausibility structure"? I mean, if I'm witnessing an erotic relationship transpire between a man and a woman, it doesn't matter whether they're married. It's still voyeurism on my part and exhibitionism on theirs, is it not?
Please, tell me this all isn't some overwrought rationale to partake of highbrow porn.
posted on 10.27.2006 10:24 AM2
All you need to understand Evangelical attitudes toward sex are things like Ashcroft covering nude statues in drapes and a Texas school teacher being put on suspension for taking her class to an art museum that had, in their classical section, a few pictures of unclothed women.
It's the reason for their attitudes about abortion - not a fetishization of the fetus, but rather a hatred of female sexuality and a relentless desire to punish it as a fundamental sin. No, Kaffinator, you are unable to parse the distinction between beauty and obscenity, love and lust, because at some level, anything that is not guilt is probably a deadly sin.
Remember, the way fundamentalism works is always downhill; there will always be someone more pious, more observant, more self-flaggelating than you and their words and ideas will always have more authority than yours. Always more rules, more restrictions, more things covered in drapes. It's amazing you haven't instituted the burqa for women. Oh... you have:
posted on 10.27.2006 1:53 PMhttp://www.wholesomewear.com/page-4.html
3
Wow, Raven. That "burqa" link is quite the detour from the point. Where burqas are worn they are generally required by law or quasi-law. You're trying to equate someone who chooses to be modest without compulsion (the Wholesomewear link) with the wearing of a burqa and saying that "fundamentalists" have instituted it? You don't really even want to have a reasoned discussion about this, do you?
posted on 10.27.2006 2:53 PM4
Raven, I think it's awful that your life experiences have conditioned you to see any thirst for morality as some kind of "fear of female sexuality". I don't know what in your past is doing this to you, but I see now you are under some kind of bondage that is forcing you to think in such terms. I apologize for any unkind words I have previously sent your way, and I will pray for you.
posted on 10.27.2006 3:35 PM5
Kaffinator: My comments were directed less at you than they were at the inability to appreciate art and beauty, the fear of art and beauty, such that, as with Ashcroft, not only are statues covered in drapes - but so are live, breathing, American women.
If I misinterpreted your request for a clarification between the erotic and the pornographic in some critical fashion, of course you have my deepest apologies. But I read you as saying that you cannot distinguish the two, and responded accordingly.
posted on 10.27.2006 3:44 PM6
Kaffinator Can you suggest an example of actual erotic art which has the focus on "relationship"--yet is still erotic-- and in some way "redemptive" or "changes my plausibility structure"?
My favorite example: Song of Solomon.
posted on 10.28.2006 2:39 AM7
Kaffinator
The problem as always is human corruption of God's Good. Certainly even the Song of Solomon can be made pornographic by the reader - but can we complain because it causes a sexual addict to stumble. Or remove it from scripture (or edit to PG) because it might.
If we are going to celebrate the beauty of sex as given to us by God - we are going to be confronted with the corruption of that image to something ugly.
Raven
This is a discussion about sexual imagery and forms instituted by an evangelical who works for a highly conservative family organization.
Why doesn't that make you reach up and scratch your meme? How, in the midst of this discussion can you make an obviously dogmatic and stereotypical statement like
All you need to understand Evangelical attitudes toward sex are things like Ashcroft covering nude statues in drapes and a Texas school teacher being put on suspension for taking her class to an art museum that had, in their classical section, a few pictures of unclothed women. and you are unable to parse the distinction between beauty and obscenity, love and lust, because at some level, anything that is not guilt is probably a deadly sin.
Of course, you are correct in a sense: corruption keeps us from being able to "parse the distinction" just as you are unable here to parse the distinctions in evangelicals.
Of course, abortion has nothing to do with this discussion. Some folks see humans as imago dei - made in the image of God - and that image is obviously not a physical one. Therefore, there can be no physical definition of when we become that image; we cannot know when God sees us as that image; nor can we know when "ensoulement" takes place. For the last, since we are created in God's image (and that cannot be physical) I doubt it ever takes place - we are built in His spiritual image from the git. Once we start trying to find physical attributes, or mental ones, that give us the right to exclude people from being an image bearer, and therefore a rights bearer, then we are on the road to racism, sexism, nationalism, and genocide - all of these are other places where the physical and mental attributes of other humans do not measure up to someone's definition of someone adequate to bear rights.
However, you have probably heard that before and will continue to spin off that silly "hatred of female sexuality and a relentless desire to punish it as a fundamental sin." meme even if it means you are showing your inability, once more, to "parse the distinction"
posted on 10.30.2006 9:45 AM8
I am also known as Donovan Phillips. I produced pornography for 9 years. My models appeared in publications owned by Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, and on numerous adult websites around the world.
On September 25th, 2006 I surrendered my life to God, partially because of seeds planted by the anti-porn ministry XXXChurch.com .
I agree that Christians are way too uptight about sex. The "semantics" you mention above would definitely help. And Christians need to be taught that it's okay to enjoy sex. So many seem to think they're not allowed to have fun together.
It seems Christian women, in particular, have a problem. So many of them think anything outside of vanilla missionary sex is perverse. No wonder our culture rebels against our views of sex.
posted on 10.31.2006 12:07 AM9
All you need to understand Evangelical attitudes toward sex are things like Ashcroft covering nude statues in drapes...
The "inside story" I heard on that incident was that Ashcroft had gotten sick of all the media photo types always framing his face between the statue's boobs and draped the statue to goof their floof.
posted on 10.31.2006 3:54 PM10
Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...
posted on 12.08.2006 3:50 PM