Evangelical Christianity seems to be harboring two conflicting approaches to sex, which might be called the spirit approach and the flesh approach. The spirit approach refers to the Evangelicals who are questioning the nearly universal embrace of contraception that occurred after the 1930 Lambeth conference. According to Dr. Albert Mohler, young Evangelicals “are doing their very best to rethink the basic questions and, in doing so, they are embarrassed by the easy, rather unreflective embrace of the contraception culture that marked evangelicalism in the 1960s and ’70s. So they want to rethink all this.”And then there is also the small but growing “quiverfull” movement which completely rejects all contraception and family planning (including NFP) and aims at producing large godly families.
On the other hand there is the “flesh” approach, which refers to the disturbing trend among some evangelical pastors, in the name of correcting a lack of information about sex, of embracing a slightly modified version of the sexual revolution. This approach can be summed up as “don’t lust, except for your spouse.” Anything goes as long as you are heterosexual, married, and monogamous. A mainstream media series called America Unzipped did a profile of one such pastor, Joe Beam. Beam is a “sex expert” studying “sexology” in Australia. He gives his eager audience of evangelical Christians sexual advice that is too shameful to describe.
Playing with Fire
Suffice it to say that it would sound no different than sex advice from a call-in show on MTV or from Planned Parenthood, the only difference being a few token biblical boundaries. Joe Beam insists he is a “Bible-only” Christian, which in this case means that if it’s not in the Bible, then it is OK. He would forbid homosexuality because Leviticus says so, while simultaneously blessing sodomy among married couples, provided “it doesn’t hurt the body.”
This pharisaic approach to the Bible illustrates why—as Pope Benedict reminded us in Regensburg—religion can not dispense with reason. These “Bible-only” Christians use the Bible like a collection of whimsical rules existing in a void, unrelated to each other, unrelated to anything. They throw around words like “purity” and “lust” while reducing them to empty syllables.
Furthermore, the message of Joe Beam and other preachers—that Christians ought to be having more and “hotter” sex—is the sentiment of an addict. Sex is not hot, it’s holy. It is a dangerous and awesome power that no couple dares approach without fear and trembling. We should learn from Tobit on his knees praying that he would not take his wife in lust, but in truth.
But when you have embraced contraception, sex does not have a truth. One can’t find a meaning in it, and you end up hearing lame statements like: “sex is supposed to be fun.” The marriage bed is not an amusement park. When people play with sex they are playing with fire, a fire that—as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah would learn—comes from heaven and can burn you to ashes.
A Sacramental View of Sex and the Body
While some Christians act as though sex has nothing to do with Christian life, others err in the opposite direction by celebrating the goodness of sex without any real concept of chastity, biblical or otherwise. As Catholics we do have this treasure and should continue applying it to the nuts and bolts of the marriage relationship. If sex is a language, the body is its grammar. The nature of Pope John Paul’s theology of the body demands a thorough exploration into both the spiritual and physical side of the conjugal relationship. It’s not only the sacraments where “matter” matters. This same sacramental perspective differentiates the Catholic from the secular, and also often from the evangelical, view of marital sexuality.
It is precisely because the body does have a symbolic dimension that it can’t be ignored, if those living the sacrament of marriage are to integrate their sexual relationship and their faith. The secular view, which denies any transcendent meaning, reduces sex to pure biology. Under this view sex is “great” merely by being physiologically complete. On the other hand, no couple automatically experiences what God intended for the marriage bed simply by getting married. Perhaps some day there will be new ministries carried out by and for those living the sacrament of marriage. “Liturgists” of the marriage bed, who could illuminate the conditions for achieving that “full and active participation” in the bedroom.
At present, Catholics are likely getting information from poisoned wells, from sources that don’t subscribe to the idea that “the human dimension of sexuality is inseparable from the theological dimension.” (Ratzinger). May we continue down the path started by Karol Wojtyla in his book Love and Responsibility – there could be no better start for a truly Catholic marriage manual.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post. Have recently had some interesting discussions with a friend on the topic of Levitcal rules about sex and how things might have shifted under the new covenant.
Fascinating stuff.
I really like this article because it breaks down two distinct mindsets. I also think there is a propensity for divorce among evangelicals who wait until marriage and I wonder how much of that has to do with a contraceptive mentality.
Enjoyed this article! Thanks!
Good Article – Well said. I often think the Grace that comes through the Sacrament of marriage comes when the married couple “take each other in truth” as Tobit asked. If that’s true, Marital Sex is supposed to open the gateway to God’s Grace, as well as produce physical, emotional & emotional union for the couple. Using contraception, by replacing Truth with Lust, literally destroys the flow of God’s Grace, and the 3-fold union, in the marriage.
That would explain the High Divorce Rate among Christian couples who use artificial contraception, and would also explain the much Lower Divorce Rate among Christian couples who obey the Church’s Teaching on Artificial Contraception…
As a Protestant coming across this subject for the very first time, your article intrigues me. I have honestly NEVER come across the idea of chastity within marriage (i.e. between two people married to one another) and so I have a lot to think about before I can really respond. Regardless, I really appreciate you bringing these ideas to my attention.
On the one hand, I totally love and agree with what you said in your last post on the subject: “Contraception was invented for a single purpose, to maximize the possibility of indulgence while minimizing the consequences.” SO TRUE. I plan to seriously consider this matter deeply.
On the other hand, I’m hesitant to completely agree with the statement, “The marriage bed is not an amusement park.” True, but I also believe the marriage bed is a gift from God – a blessing for married couples to enjoy. Maybe not an amusement park, but at least source of delight?
Anyways, thanks for these coherent and thought-provoking posts.
Kathleen, yes the marriage bed is a gift from God, to be enjoyed, and a source of delight. What I am objecting to is the idea that sex is supposed to be “fun” and “hot”, etc. What is behind the notion of marital chastity is that there is good and holy enjoyment of sex, but there is also a kind of evil enjoyment of sex; a sort of evil charm when it is pursued the wrong way, that seduces but is ultimately empty. When people talk of sex being “hot” I suspect that they are dealing with this darker side of sex.
“Fun”, on the other hand, is just not a suitable word because it is too trivial for something as grave and meaningful as sex. Playing video games is fun, but I wouldn’t call sex fun. Sex is just way to important, momentous, sacred, etc. to be described as fun. Of course, I don’t want to deny that sex is enjoyable, pleasurable, and all that, just that it’s a sort of trivializing of sex to call it simply fun.
Anyway, this article was written originally for a Catholic audience and I could see how a protestant might take offense at it so I’m glad that you have received it so positively and that it has given you something to think about. Marital chastity is always a worthwhile thing to ponder for Protestants and Catholics alike!
I take absolutely no offense to this article, even though I come from an evangelical background. It’s awesome to get an “outsider’s” perspective on evangelical theology and practices. This stuff is always worth thinking about, and I think it’s great that you’re writing about it.
I still believe, though, that there is room for “fun” in the marriage bed. I don’t personally think it necessarily trivializes it. But I see where you’re coming from. I understand the concern – I also don’t want to trivialize sex. I agree that sex profoundly meaningful and sacred. I can see how the pursuit of “fun” can lead to all kinds of perversions. But I also believe that God invented fun and laughter and silliness, and that it’s OK to sometimes enjoy these things in the right context. And I personally think marriage is one of those contexts. But I’m open to new thoughts on the subject. Thanks again for your thoughts!