What the Church gets Wrong (and Right) about Sex

This weeks article in Christian Today –

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/what.the.church.gets.wrong.and.right.about.sex/50228.htm

The text is below…

Last week we looked at what one non-Christian prophet of our culture, Russell Brand, has right about sex.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/why.russell.brand.is.right.about.sex/49441.htm

This week we look at what the church has to say.

We are often accused of being obsessed with sex ‘what other people do in private in their bedrooms’. I’ve always thought that was a slightly unfair misrepresentation. With some exceptions most of us who have grown up in the church have not had that experience. In fact any impartial observer could quickly work out that it is our society, rather than the Church, that is obsessed with sex. Ever since Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa was published in 1928, Western liberals have followed the myth that if we are ‘liberated’ from our ‘puritan’ past, we will all flourish as complete sexual free beings. Since the 1960’s the downward slide into the complete perversion of human sex and sexuality has accelerated. It turns out that ‘All you need is Love’ was a tad too simplistic.

Even this week I came across two examples. Firstly there was this article in The Guardian arguing that sex education for school pupils should include pornography. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/17/porn-sex-education-consent-sexual-exploitation Then I re-read an article from Prospect in which the author argued that because of ‘technological’ advances we can be true to our desires and get rid of the shackles of monogamy. “This is a cultural trend which reflects our changing values and natural desires. As a society we, especially women, are more independent and fulfilled. Relationships are viewed as more short-term experiences. We’ve been brain-washed into thinking that the ideal relationship is life-long and monogamous, but technology has given us the means to be true to our desires” (Helen Croydon Prospect Magazine – January 2015)

So how does the church respond?

Prudishness – We all know the stories of how the Victorians were such prudes that they even covered up piano legs, lest they cause stimulation, and the people who are happy to hear the word ‘fornication’ in a church service but not ‘sex’ because somehow it is dirty. I was once asked to speak to a youth group on ‘things that cannot be said from the pulpit’. When I asked for an example, there was an embarrassed silence at the end of the phone – ‘you know….”. It was with a great deal of difficulty that I managed to get out of my inviter that he wanted me to talk about sexual relations. It is disappointing that in a society which is obsessed by sex, where sexual words and innuendo are everywhere, sometimes the last place a young (or older) person will hear about sex, is in the church. We need to have the frankness and openness of the Bible in this – always of course remembering the appropriate cultural context.

Puerile – Because that of course is the other problem. The devil always loves extremes. Just as some churches have been unbiblically prudish, others have shown themselves to be unbiblically puerile. Never mind the biblical exhortation not to let even a hint of sexual immorality..obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking (Ephesians 5:3-4), there are some writers and preachers who just cannot wait to show how liberated they are. Personally I loved much of Mark Driscoll’s preaching but there series on the Song of Solomon with warnings how x-rated it was? Seriously? Do we really need a pastor who is made famous because he gives advice on oral sex? The problems with both the prudish and the puerile is that they both seem to regard sex as somehow ‘dirty’. And that is surely a perversion of Gods good gift of human sexuality.

Perversity – Speaking of perversity, I’m afraid that much of the contemporary Church is heading down the perverse route. The OED has this definition of the verb ‘to pervert’: “1. change the original form or meaning of something so that it is no longer what it should be. 2. lead someone away from doing what is right, natural or acceptable”. When we take it upon ourselves to re-write the Scriptures, to tell our Creator that he doesn’t really understand his own creation, we are perverting what he intended. Christians then become even more perverse – not only perverting Gods gift of human sexuality, but then perverting his Scriptures to justify our own perversions! When pagans behave like pagans then at least they have the excuse they are pagans! The sad thing about the aforementioned Margaret Mead was that she was a leading Anglican who had a profound effect upon the episcopal church in the USA. Her acceptance of the ‘free love’ philosophy resulted in her being married several times and in her having at least two affairs, one of them lesbian. Her idea of primitive sexual utopia turned out to be completely false (indeed she was dishonest and deceitful about her ‘research’). She sowed the wind (as did others) and we have reaped the whirlwind. That perversity is seen in different ways – the horror of child abuse done by religious leaders is a sin that reaches to heaven and deserves the lowest pit in hell. But there are more subtle forms of such perversity. The bottom line is that anything that moves away from the biblical teaching of the sacred gift of sex within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of companionship, procreation and the good of society, is perverting the design and purpose of God. Just as I finished writing this column I read the following excellent article on Christian Today which summarises how the issue of Same Sex Marriage is a foundational issue for the modern Church – http://www.christiantoday.com/article/marriage.the.modern.day.litmus.test.for.inerrancy/49900.htm

Purity – But thankfully not all Christians and churches are prudish, puerile or perverted. There are some who still teach, believe and practice the biblical idea of purity. In my city, Dundee, the kids use the word ‘pure’ a lot. ‘That’s pure dead brilliant! Pure in that context means complete and good. Its not a bad definition. The dictionary adds the ideas of free of contamination and morally good. So I need to rephrase my first sentence. All of us are in some way perverted, prudish or whatever because we are all sinners in this respect as in others. None of us can claim to be without sin. None of us is yet complete and without contamination. But there are those of us who don’t want to give up to the pressures of this culture, or the lusts of our own bodies. We recognise self-control as a fruit of the Spirit and because we don’t want to play the power games and abuse that go along with ‘free love’, we try to rein in our appetites and seek to do good to all people and to treat all with respect. We recognise the wonderful gift that sex is to those who can use it in the context that God intended, yet we don’t accept that in order to be a fulfilled human being you need to constantly be having sex. We stumble and fall, because we are fallen sinners. By the standards of Jesus none of us could cast the first stone. But as his followers we are not going to throw those standards aside and descend into the cess pit with the rest of our society. We aim for purity and holiness, just as He is holy. And we rejoice that our Saviour died and freed us from all our sins so that we might ‘become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation” (Philippians 2:15)

David Robertson

Solas CPC

Dundee

17th March 2015

6 thoughts on “What the Church gets Wrong (and Right) about Sex

  1. Wonderful article. The damage done by the sexual revolution is incalculable and so many secular,liberal progressives refuse to see it or acknowledge their own role in creating this mess. The Biblical teaching on sex is true,good and beautiful and its worth is demonstrated by the trajectory of our society into depravity. I stand on no moral high ground and am only too aware of my own sins. I pray that the beauty of God’s good design for sex will become more apparent to many today. Thanks for speaking truth on this matter.

  2. I suppose if a person was able to design a society from scratch then the need for children to know about porn would be far less important than it is just now. However, since children do know about it and can access it in a multitude of ways I think it is important to safeguard children from inappropriate relationships, pressure to perform in certain ways and to learn about respect and consent.

    The two lines in the definition of the verb “to pervert” are interesting in the context you have used them (moving away from what you regard as biblical teachings). Hermeneutics aside I don’t think the idea stands much scrutiny.

    1. change the original form or meaning of something so that it is no longer what it should be.

    Marriage existed before the bible. The use of the bible by the religious to claim a domain over marriage is actually changing the original form of marriage.

    2. lead someone away from doing what is right, natural or acceptable

    This depends on a whole different level of debate on ethics, science and definitions of harm. It really does depend on how the reader adds their all too human perceptions to what they read and understand. For example, the bible was used on both sides regarding the debate over slavery. The Southern Baptists said it was OK cause the bible said so and other Baptists disagreed. No reasonable ethical postiion, natural position or acceptable position supports slavery so was a huge body wrong to read the bible in a certain way? And if they were, how do we know people reading the bible today are not.

  3. The article in the Guardian is just so depressing. To present pornography in the classroom without any moral boundaries other than “no means no” will be so destructive to young people.
    We are seeing the full measure of Romans 1. When man turns from God and suppresses the truth about God He moves in judgement – “Therefore God gave them over to….” verses 24, 26 & 28.
    Funny thing but that chapter is rarely mentioned in many church circles these days!

  4. So what you are suggesting then David is that the church is mostly not equipped to engage with culture on the issue of sex. That’s a depressing read. It’s depressing to read of monogamy being referred to as “shackles” etc.

    I hope that this is not reflective of the church or society as your post implies. Where there are some (and often loud) elements of both giving out that kind of message I am sure that there are many who enjoy and thrive in monogamy and the true and pure sex within an exclusive lifetime commitment and for producing children.

    Yes I agree there was something prophetic about how Brand spoke. If the church in general mostly fails to speak in meaningful ways to society in this (as you suggest) then perhaps God’s way of meeting need is through people like comedians.

  5. There is one more p-word that comes into play regarding sex. That word is personal. Sex is a sharing of what is most physically intimate about ourselves. But if that sharing is just physical, another p-word, then there is something missing. Then the importance of our partner has been replaced by the thrill of the experience. When that occurs on a regular basis, the result is exploitation regardless of the purity of the relationship–and that is not to deemphasize the importance of purity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s