home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

06/23/2003 Entry: "Let's talk about sex (just one more time)"

(continued from my last post)

So -- why is this? If sex was not a priority for Jesus, why does it occupy so much of the churches' (and bloggers') time? I'm convinced that part of the answer lies in our continuing "conformation to the world". Western Christians may claim to be in Christ, but we still share the world's obsessions: sex and wealth.We talk about sex the most because, frankly, sex is interesting. Exciting, even. There's no thrill in listening to a condemnation of greed, or pride, or gluttony. In any case, condemning those sins leads us to condemn ourselves. Sex is different. First, because it is usually other people's sin we're talking about, and that's always easier to condemn than our own. But most important, it's different because we like talking about it. "They did what?" "How often?!" "Shocking! Tell me more."

[Ironically, as I've been writing this little rant an email has arrived. It begins "We are writing to inform you that Rev xxxxxx who is a Methodist church minister in xxxxxxx is gay." It goes on claiming to identify the minister's boyfriend. The sender claims to be uncovering a secret, although they do not identify themselves. In other words, they have been speculating about what these two people are getting up to and have decided to gossip openly and widely about their prurient speculations. Disgraceful.]

What I'm suggesting is that the churches obsession with sex has more to do with tittilation than a genuine concern for morality. Married couples are no quizzed by their pastors about what they get up to in their bedrooms. It is unlikely that a gay couple in church would begin an over-coffee conversation with, "Guess what Sam did to me last night..." -- most gay people regard their sex lives as every bit as private as heterosexual couples do. So why should their living together be a source of scandal? Because we like to imagine what they do. Oo-er, missus. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

If the church were genuinely concerned about the sexual morality of gay Christians, we would surely be doing everything we can to make sure that their relationships are stable and lifelong. But instead of offering support and care, we prefer condemnation. Instead of focussing on how they relate to others in the world, we'd rather spend idle moments amusing ourselves with an imaginery visit to their bedroom as a fly on the wall. Self-proclaimed homophobes find it amusing to label themselves such, making (unintentional) common cause with others who get their kicks from a Saturday evening's queer-bashing. So far from being a place of safety, the Church is experienced by gay men and lesbians as a place of persecution. Where Jesus offered welcome and compassion, the Church most often offers vilification and hostility.

So I have a suggestion to make. Let's give the same priority to sex that Jesus did -- you know, like, none at all. Remember Jesus' words about specks and planks? Let's take them seriously and work on the planks in our own eyes before we trouble about the specks in other peoples. Or we could just continue in our sin, smugly ignoring the greed and covetousness most of us are a part of. But I hate to think of the consequences of that.

Posted by michael mckee @ 07/01/2003 04:38 AM CST

I read the comments and am amazed at how easy it is to be mis-understood. Jesus didn't mention sex. There has been conjecture that Mary Magedline was a prostitute, yet she was the favored one. It may be titillation. It may be that it is so easy to pick on such an integral human experience, one that we won't do without. If we need 'salvation' from our normal instincts. Won't the establishment be in power for a long time?

Posted by michael mckee @ 07/01/2003 04:37 AM CST

Gary,you seem to imply that stable and lifelong relationships of gay Christians are sinful. Where are you getting that from?

Posted by Swan @ 06/28/2003 01:23 AM CST

"There are many more ways to sin sexually these days than before. Or, at the very least, the ways we have to sin are much more available to us. And we're responding to that availability by sinning more."

I feel I have to respond to this, Gary. This is just not true. There were not good old days when people sinned less, sexually or in any other way. We have more information about what other people might be doing, but I honestly don't buy that people in the 21st Century are more sinful than those in the 12th. I think looking back to this golden past is counterproductive because it's striving to return to something that never existed rather than forging ahead and trying to improve things.

People have historically been incredibly creative in their ways to use sex to humilate and abuse others. I think most 21st Century Westerners are rank amatuers, frankly. The widespread acceptance that everyone involved should consent is actually fairly modern, and that's a big step in the right direction.

Posted by Stacy @ 06/25/2003 08:05 PM CST

I think a broader survey of Biblical teaching on the public condemnation of sexual sin would result in a very different opinion than the one expressed here. John the Baptist died for publicly condemning Herod's sin.

I agree that confessors should not be held to public ridicule. But sin interferes with a person's spiritual growth, therefore permitting open homosexuality (or adultry or greed or whatever) does not do the sinner any favors.

Posted by Jeffrey L. Whitledge @ 06/25/2003 05:03 PM CST

Coupla comments, Richard.

First, you said this: "If the church were genuinely concerned about the sexual morality of gay Christians, we would surely be doing everything we can to make sure that their relationships are stable and lifelong." It wasn't clear to me, but if you're suggesting that the church should work to make sinful relationships stable and lifelong, be they adulterous or homosexual, you're wrong, and wrong from a Biblical standpoint. If you're talking about relationships as the Bible commands them, then never mind that comment!

Second, I think you're wrong in the implication that the church should ignore this, or any, type of sin. Jesus did not ignore sexual sin (Matthew 5:27-28, Matthew 19:3-12, Matthew 19:18, John 8). He set the bar much higher than the Law had done with his definition of adultery.

I think you're right in why we like to talk about sex. But I suggest that we need to talk about sex, or rather sexual sin, because of our preoccupation with it.

There are many more ways to sin sexually these days than before. Or, at the very least, the ways we have to sin are much more available to us. And we're responding to that availability by sinning more.

But what we need to talk about is our own sin as well as that of our brothers and sisters. Speculating or gossiping about other people's sins is sin of our own. You're right on the mark there.

Thanks, Gary

Posted by Gary Petersen @ 06/25/2003 12:17 AM CST

Thank you, sir. Sure such balanced and thoughtful posts aren't allowed on the web, are they?

Posted by Chris A. @ 06/24/2003 10:59 PM CST

Yay Richard!

You the man.

Posted by Wood @ 06/24/2003 09:47 AM CST

Richard... thank you for your posts. I needed to hear these things again.

Blessings and peace.

Posted by Richard B. @ 06/23/2003 11:57 PM CST

Yeah, I just came in from a blog where a raging and sad debate was going on in the comments section about sexuality, etc.We get derailed so fast.looking back...looking forward put his two cents worth up. Beats what I just came from. Blog on!

Posted by Bene Diction @ 06/23/2003 10:47 PM CST