Notes

Preface to the Westminster

John Knox Press Edition

"Dating just ain't what it used to be." screamed the opening line of an
article written for this year's Valentine's Day edition of the daily newspaper
The Vancouver Sun. The essay, bearing the title "Be still, my tacky heart,"
introduced what the writer claimed would be a series exploring "the changing
landscape of love, sex and romance in the age of AIDS, political correctness
and increasing isolation." As the article indicates, sex retains its perennial
place at, or near, the top of today's "hot" topics.
In this context of keen interest in sex and sexuality but of a profound
sense of "increasing isolation" as well. Christians have good news. We declare
that human sexuality belongs to our essential nature as created by God.
Consequently, the authors of "tacky heart" articles are not the only ones
concerned about sex. In fact, no one is more interested in our "sex life" in all
its dimensions than the Creator! But in contrast to the typical newspaper or
magazine essay, which generally reveals a truncated understanding, our God-
given sexuality involves more than genital sex. Nor is individual happiness or
self-fulfillment its chief purpose.
Although she is somewhat misguided in the specific advice she offers, the
"tacky heart" author is nevertheless on to something. Given the realities of our
world, sex can never be the same. This is even more the case when it is
viewed from a Christian perspective. Acknowledging a biblically informed
understanding of ourselves as sexual beings can free us from the slavery to
sex that so often seems to plague our society. Such an understanding can lead
us to move beyond our isolation into truly meaningful relationships and
thereby to live as persons of sexual integrity. And whether we are married or
single, this awareness can release us to express ourselves as the sexual
creatures we are, in a manner that accords with the intentions of our Creator
and Savior.
My goal in this volume is to set forth a theological understanding of
humans as sexual beings and of the sex act itself, and to explore the
theological significance of marriage and singleness as contexts in which we
express our sexuality. I then attempt to draw out some of the crucial ethical
implications of this theological understanding. At the foundation of the
discussion is the conviction that a biblical view of human sexuality carries
ramifications for how we relate to one another as sexual beings, whether we
are married or single. Hence, the following pages seek to address the ethics of
 Notes

fidelity vs. adultery, divorce, dating, and homosexual relationships. I explore

other issues as well, however, including such practical questions as birth
control and technological procreation. The recent creation of the cloned sheep
"Dolly" suggests that these issues may take on even greater, and perhaps
more ominous, importance in the near future.
The significance of the task of setting forth a theological understanding of
sexuality and exploring its ethical ramifications has not diminished since this
book first appeared in 1990. Therefore, I am grateful to Westminster John Knox
Press for its interest in publishing a new edition of the volume and to
Stephanie Egnotovich for her gracious support of the project. My thanks goes
as well to Paul Chapman and Paul Martins for taking on the task of updating
the indexes. And as always, I am indebted to Carey Theological College for its
support of my writing endeavors, as well as to my colleagues at Regent
College and more recently Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (Lombard,
Illinois) for their interest in my work.
With the exception of slight editing of the text, the present book is
identical to the original 1990 edition. The desire of Westminster John Knox
Press to keep the work substantially in its original form is for me a gratifying
indication of the continuing value of the positions I sought to articulate seven
years ago.
Stanley J. Grenz
Vancouver, B.C. Lent 1997

Introduction:

The Church Amid Sexual

Revolution

To an extent unparalleled since the early centuries of the Christian era,

Christians at the close of the twentieth century find themselves living in a sex-
orientedor perhaps more accurately, a sexually disorientedculture. Sex and
sexual expression are among the dominant characteristics of contemporary
Western society. We are continually bombarded with sexual messages. The
advertisement industry and the media have often gone to great lengths to
exploit the theme of sexuality1 and have given the impression that to be
sexually attractive and to express one's sexuality is the key to personal
happiness and success. In the midst of this emphasis, people are increasingly
confused both about their sexual identity and the proper context and the
proper means for expressing their sexuality.
One of the most far-reaching results of the elevation of sexuality in
contemporary society has been the questioning of what some would term the
traditional sex ethic, a moral code which has dominated Western culture for
over a millennium. This sex ethic focuses on marriage as the proper context
 Notes

for sexual expression. In recent years, however, this ethic has come under
attack; many have rejected the older link between marriage and sexual
expression. As a result, important questions have been raised, including the
meaning of marriage itself, whether the sex act should be reserved for
marriage, and whether marriage ought to form the boundary for personal
sexual activity. At the same time, with the rise in the number of single persons,
the single life has received increasing emphasis, yet without the development
of guidelines for the role of sexual expression among single people.
Beyond the general questioning of the older sex ethic, modern technology
has raised additional issues. In fact, many of the sticky moral dilemmas we
face today are the result of the combination of technology and human
sexuality. The explosive, emotional issue of abortion stands as a crucial
example, especially as related to the use of abortion as a birth control
measure or in cases of sexual abuse. Although capturing less public attention,
issues surrounding artificial insemination have become increasingly important
as well. As Donum vitae, the 1987 Vatican statement on human sexuality
sought to indicate,2 these issues are also closely bound to personal and public
conceptions of the relationship between sexual expression and procreation.
Christians are called by their Lord to live as the people of God in the midst
of the present situation. Jesus' statement to his first-century disciples, "You are
the salt of the earth" (Matt. 5:13). applies to Christians in every age and in
every culture. At this crucial point in history, therefore, the church must
shoulder the responsibility to think through the sexual ethic it gleans from the
Bible so as to determine its implications and application to the sex-intoxicated
world of today.

Changing Views of Sexuality in Church History

Although contemporary society poses a situation that in many ways is unique,
the task of determining a response to the question of human sexuality by
looking to the pages of the Bible has been present with the church throughout
its history. The church's viewpoint concerning this dimension of life, however,
has not remained constant throughout its history, but has been the result of a
lively dialectic between church and culture. So on the one hand, the
understanding of human sexuality given by the church at various junctures has
been determined in part by the situation posed by the mores of the
surrounding culture. On the other hand, as the church came to be a dominant
influence in society, its attitude toward sexuality was an important factor in
the shaping of culture. Three basic viewpoints have characterized the church's
understanding toward human sexuality.3

1. The Affirmation of Sexuality Within the Context of

Morality
The church in the first Christian centuries characteristically placed
sexuality within the context of concern for moral living. During the subapostolic
era, theologians accepted sexuality and marriage as part of the good creation
of God. This attitude was based on such biblical texts as the Genesis creation
narratives, John's account of Jesus' presence at the wedding in Cana, and the
several admonitions concerning marriage in the Epistles. But more important
than the basis in creation was the context of morality for the early Christian
understanding of marriage and sexual matters. The church fathers were
 Notes

concerned for moral living in all areas of life, a concern which formed an
important theme in much of the literature of that era. This concern was applied
to the sexual dimension and marriage (e.g., Heb. 13:4).
This emphasis on the basic goodness of sexuality and marriage, together
with the call to moral living in the realm of sexual conduct, did not arise in a
vacuum. As the New Testament era was drawing to a close and the
subapostolic era dawned, the church found it necessary to do battle with a
tenacious foe that invaded from the surrounding cultureGnosticism. Inherent
in the Gnostic outlook on human sexuality was the antimaterial bias that
formed a central tenet of its philosophical foundation. Gnostic teachers
disparaged the body as inherently evil. They offered to the "spiritual," to those
initiated in Gnosticism, a special "knowledge." As a result of this rejection of
the body (because it was material and not spiritual), these teachers would,
according to the characterization of the Pastoral Epistles, "forbid people to
marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be
received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Tim.
4:3).
In response to the Gnostic heretics, the early church theologians, following
Paul, emphasized the created goodness of the body. This emphasis found a
theological basis in the incarnation. In Christ, God had seen fit to assume
human flesh, thereby affirming the material body as capable of housing the
divine essence. In keeping with the heritage of the Old Testament and in
contrast to certain aspects of the Greek philosophical tradition, the church's
position affirmed likewise a basically holistic outlook toward the human person
as spirit and body. Tills meant that the body and its functions, and not merely
the soul. belong to the originally good creation of God. As a result, the church
theologians viewed marriage, together with procreation, as divinely ordained,
an outlook they believed Jesus himself had confirmed by his presence at the
wedding at Cana.
The integral relationship between the physical and the spiritual
dimensions of human existence also meant that what a person did "in the
body" was important for his or her relationship to God. The body could not
simply be indulged with no fear of affecting the soul, as certain Greek
philosophers had taught. In this way the church continued the Pauline critique
of the proto- Gnostic Corinthians, found in his admonition to "flee from sexual
immorality." The Christian's body is "a temple of the Holy Spirit," Paul asserted,
From this principle he drew the resultant command: "Honor God with your
body" (1 Cor. 6:18-20). The sex-affirming, morality-demanding position of the
church was capsulized by the simple injunction of the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept
pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Heb.
13:4).

2. The Elevation of Celibacy

Already in the subapostolic era, however, the seeds of a changed
viewpoint were being sown. This change would result in the elevation of
 Notes

virginity as an ideal and celibacy as the preferred lifestyle for the truly spiritual
in the church.
One factor that contributed to the coming change was the growing
emphasis on martyrdom that arose in the face of civil persecution. In this
context, the church came to regard being put to death for one's testimony as
the highest expression of devotion and faithfulness to Christ. By its very
nature, martyrdom had a tendency to discourage entanglements with the
world, including marriage. With the increased emphasis on the glories of
martyrdom, the tone of Christian teaching became increasingly death-affirming
and world-denying. This tendency gave birth to the fully developed asceticism
which followed in later centuries.
A second seed of change came through the success of the Christian
proclamation in the Roman world. As the church became increasingly more
Gentile and less Jewish in membership, it became more Hellenistic and less
Hebrew in outlook. This fostered a more Greek-oriented understanding of the
New Testament Scriptures. As a result, when read apart from the context of the
Old Testament affirmation of marriage, Paul's expressed preference for the
celibate state"because of the present crisis" (1 Cor. 7:26)came to be
viewed as a permanent injunction for all situations.
The growing influence of Greek thought is visible in the writings of the
third-century Alexandrian father, Origen. Origen extolled the virtues of the
celibate life. Choosing to follow literally Jesus' declaration that some had made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom (Matt. 19:12), he chose to be castrated
prior to his ordination. Although he later regretted this radical action, Origen
nevertheless continued to lead a life of strict austerity, emphasizing the
pleasure of the rational soul's contemplation of God. as opposed to the
pleasures of the body.
The seeds that sprouted in the subapostolic age produced a harvest in the
post-Constantinian era. The focus of attention shifted away from an emphasis
on marriage and personal sexual morality within marriage, to the single,
celibate life. As this occurred, the theological understanding of human
sexuality came to center almost exclusively on celibacy and virginity. In their
writings, the church theologians generally continued to view sexuality as part
of God's good creation, but they deemphasized sexual activity. This is visible
already in Clement of Alexandria (early third century). Although affirming that
marriage was instituted by God, he maintained that sexual intercourse ought
to be practiced only with a view toward procreation.4
Although the biblical declaration of the goodness of human sexuality was
not generally denied, the emphasis was now clearly placed on the other aspect
of the biblical story of the genesis of humankind, the Fall. Through the Fall,
human sexuality was marred. In this way the church fathers came to associate
sexuality with the realm of sin. As a result the sex act. theologians declared,
was always tainted by lust and thereby by sin, even when practiced within the
marriage bond. Sexual activity carried a further negative aspect. Because it
meant marital commitments and the raising of children, marriage by necessity
brought involvement with the world. The mood of the times was captured in
the writings of Jerome, whose teaching can be summarized by this quip:
Marriage populates the earth, virginity populates heaven.
The emphasis on the fallenness of human sexuality meant a growing
emphasis on celibacy as the way to avoid the trap of sin bound up with the sex
 Notes

drive and even marriage itself.5 This was paralleled by a developing Mariol-
ogy. As Mary came to be the paradigm of obedient humanity, her obedience in
the context of virginity gained significance as a model to be emulated, at least
by the spiritual in the church. As a result, attempts were made in the West,
climaxing with the First Lateran Council in A.D. 1123, to impose celibacy on the
clergy.6 The Fast was somewhat more lenient in this regard; yet, even the
Eastern Church came to view celibacy as the preferred lifestyle.
The growing asceticism of the era found a more radical expression in the
monastic movement, which often added hermitage to celibacy. Yet seclusion
could not free the hermit from sexuality and sexual battle. The renowned
hermit, Anthony of Egypt, for example, retired into the wilderness, where he
discovered to his dismay that he could not escape his passions. While not
following the life of a hermit, Jerome nevertheless did battle against Just even
while in seclusion in the desert.
Although many theologians touched on the theme of human sexuality,
Augustine of Hippo deserves a special place in the development of the
theology of sexuality in this era. More than any other church father he became
the leading theological authority for subsequent discussions. Augustine's
theology was affected by his personal turbulent history as well as by the
turbulence of his time. Prior to his conversion he followed a promiscuous
lifestyle, and therefore he was well acquainted with "the temptations of the
flesh." At one stage he embraced Manicheism, a dualistic philosophy that,
similar to Gnosticism before it, held that the flesh was evil.
Although as a Christian he affirmed against the Manicheans the goodness
every aspect of God's creation including the body, Augustine also gave great
emphasis to the dark side of human nature. He reformulated the Pauline
concept of the universality of sin and, based on what is now often seen as a
faculty exegesis of Romans 5:12, viewed this universality as the direct result of
Adam's transgression. So pervasive were the effects of original sin, in
Augustine's understanding, that every human act is tainted by it. Because of
birth in Adam's lineage, each person quite naturally is captive to
concupiscence, that is, the cravings of the will toward lower goods rather than
for the highest good, God.
The emphasis on human fallenness spilled over into Augustine's
understanding of human sexuality. The effects of the Fall are present in sexual
activity in two ways, he maintained.
First, sexual intercourse is the transmitter not only of life from one
generation to the next, but also of original sin. Second, because of its
unavoidable link to passion and thus to compulsiveness, every act of coitus is
tainted by evil, he asserted. Even limiting the practice of the sex act to the
boundaries of marriage could not free it from this bondage to lust. In this way
Augustine's view coincided with a quite literal interpretation of the cry of the
Psalmist, "in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5 KJV). At best, marriage
was useful as a way of channeling passion toward a useful end, procreation.
 Notes

Despite this pessimistic attitude toward sexuality, Augustine did develop a

positive understanding of marriage. The union of husband and wife could carry
the blessing of God. The goodness of marriage came about in three ways:
through the faithfulness of the spouses to each other (fides), through
procreation and the education of children (proles), and through the
sacramental importance of marriage as a sign of the grace of God
(sacramentum).7
The Middle Ages mark the climax of the development of an emphasis on
celibacy. The medieval church embraced fully the monastic ideal as the
Christian's higher calling. Marriage may have been afforded sacramental
status, but celibacy was clearly the preferred option, at least for the more
spiritually attuned Christians. At the heart of the monastic life lay the vows
chastity, obedience, and sometimes povertythat would bind the neophyte to
the chosen pattern of existence. The vow of chastity not only meant
renunciation of sexual activity, but also of marriage itself, in that love between
spouses would only distract the believer from the higher calling of love for
God. To sexual purity in act was added purity in mind, for only with the spirit
clear of passion could the Christian gain a clear vision of God.
By the Middle Ages the community of the monastery had largely displaced
the isolation of the desert. At this stage the monastic ideal emphasized
friendship apart from sexual relations. Communities of the celibate, whether
limited to a single gender or mixed, sprang up and became important agencies
in the church. The mystics elevated the monastic outlook as the central model
for the union with God that was to be desired by all Christians. As a result,
sexual relations were deemphasized or even disparaged as being potentially
sinful, addictive, and distortive. The common people, those who were not able
to follow the more rigorous route to spirituality, could receive forgiveness of
their sins of passion through the confessional, as they described to the celibate
priest the details of their passionate exploits.8

3. Marriage as the Norm

The Reformation inaugurated a marked reversal of several trends in out-

look toward human sexuality which had developed during the Middle Ages. 9
These changes focused on a rejection of the ideal of virginity and a
reaffirmation of marriage as God's design for humanity, yet not as a sacrament
of the church but as be longing to the order of creation.
The Reformers rejected the medieval ideal, which elevated virginity as
superior to the married state. This move was precipitated in part by the
Protestant rejection of justification by works, which the Reformers found in the
sexual rigorism of the Middle Ages, in favor of justification as God's gracious
gift received by faith alone. As a result, they attacked both the demand that
clergy remain celibate, as well as the monastic vows of lifelong chastity.
The Reformation rejection of the elevation of celibacy was likewise the
result of another theological understanding, namely, a return to a more holistic
anthropology. Protestants came to regard the will of God as including that
humankind be a sexual creation. This understanding of human sexuality as
 Notes

based in creation meant that to regard sexual expression in every form as at

best unimportant and at worst fundamentally evil (which view Protestants
found in medieval theology) was to contradict the divine will.
These two themes, anthropology and grace, worked together in Protestant
ethics in an interesting fashion. Because the human person was created as a
whole being and had fallen as an entire being, the person in every aspect of
existencebody as well as soulmust be the object of the transforming grace
of God. God's grace, therefore, could extend even to the sexual dimension of
human existence. At the foundation of the medieval practices of monasticism
and celibacy, the Reformers perceived a specific understanding of the
Christian life, namely, that true Christian piety entailed the attempt to live up
to the standards of the next life. In the place of this emphasis they taught the
principle of obedience to one's true calling within the orders of creation. As a
result, they viewed marriage as receiving value as one of several institutions
belonging to the created universe.
This understanding, like the rejection of the ideal of celibacy, marked a
radical move away from the Middle Ages; thereby the Reformers reasserted
the positive contribution of marriage to the life of the Christian. Medieval
ethics had afforded to marriage and sexual relations a place derived largely
from their function as the remedy for sexual concupiscence and as the
necessary context for procreation. In this way, marriage had gained a status
within the structure of the sacramental system of the church. For the
Reformers, in contrast. marriage was a means of being obedient to one's
spiritual vocation to exemplify true charity and authentic chastity, it was a way
of being a Christian in the created world.
As the Reformation unfolded, marriage became increasingly important,
being elevated nearly to the point of developing into a positive duty. Yet, the
concern that motivated the Protestant emphasis on the duly of marriage was
quite different than what often motivates entrance into the marital stale today.
The Reformers viewed marriage as a vocation. Therefore, service, and not self-
fulfillment and personal pleasure, formed the basis for enjoining marriage. In
the Reformation era, marriage and raising a family were seen as one important
way through which God wanted Christians to serve the present order.10
Despite the teaching and example of Reformers such as Luther and
Calvin, some Protestantsincluding George Herbert and William Lawvoiced a
preference for a celibate clergy, a viewpoint that was defended even into the
eighteenth century. Yet. their calls for a continuation of the older practice were
overpowered by the newer mood. Protestant thinkers completed the
Reformation challenge to the medieval system by arguing that the celibate life
is not somehow purer than marriage. On the contrary, some even extolled the
advantages of marriage for spirituality, in that those who share in the marital
state are free from many carnal temptations.
The Puritans moved the Reformation understanding to a climax, exalting
marriage, just as the Middle Ages had elevated celibacy. 11 They viewed sexual
activity as more than a physical drive, for it was an expression of deep love,
the love that is to exist between Christian spouses. As a result, the Puritans did
not limit the function of the sex act to procreation. Instead they celebrated the
relational aspect of the marital bond and the attentive care spouses were to
give to one another. Sociologists Milton Diamond and Arno Karl en summarized
the impact of Puritan attitudes in this manner:
 Notes

The real Puritan revolution was to move the passions of love

and sex from adulterous romances into the marriage bed. 12
The Puritan viewpoint concerning human sexuality was built on a central
aspect of Puritan theology in general, namely, the concept of covenant. God
had ordained a variety of covenants that are to form the context for human
relationships, the Puritans taught. Among the most significant of these was the
marriage covenant. By placing both marriage and general human social
relationships under the rubric of the covenant, they catapulted marriage and
the family to center stage for the rightly ordered society.

The Current Situation: An Era of Transition

The modern era, the epoch of Western history that began in the
Enlightenment, has witnessed the demise of the Reformation understanding of
society in general and marriage in particular. The breakdown of the older
consensus, while a process that began with the intellectual shifts of the
Enlightenment, came to enjoy wide influence within the broader society only in
the twentieth century and with accelerated swiftness only since the Second
World War. In some respects, recent developments have been positive.
Contemporary attitudes have sought to redeem sex from the bondage to sin
that characterized earlier stages in Western history. 13 But this liberation, with
its attendant emphasis on the ecstatic and on "quality" sex, has not been
without negative effects. It has brought heightened expectations to sexual
relationships and a performance orientation to the practice of sex. And it has
marked an additional example of the general undermining of the religious
orientation of life, characteristic of the modern era.

1. Sex and Secularization

A central hallmark of the era that has resulted from the Enlightenment is a
process generally termed "secularization." This process entails a movement
away from religion as a basis for understanding life. People view increasingly
fewer dimensions of personal and social existence by means of reference to, or
in terms of, religious symbols and stories. As secularization advances, religion
is relegated to the fringes of life. It becomes a private matter, seen as having
little bearing on life beyond the realm of personal convictions.
The sexual revolution of the second half of the twentieth century is an
important step in the larger process of the secularization of sexuality. In
previous epochs, people interpreted sex acts and sexuality in general in
theological categories and as having public implications. Recent decades, in
contrast, have brought a decrease in the religious and public interpretation of
sexuality. Underlying this phenomenon is the demise of the theological world
view lying at the foundation of the older outlook toward sexuality. In earlier
eros the sexual dimension was seen as an integral aspect of the human
person, and people viewed themselves as standing in relationship to God. But
when sexuality came to be divorced from its theological context, sexual acts,
like religious belief in general, were severed from the public domain and made
exclusively private.
 Notes

The secularization of sexuality is closely related to the general

secularization of human life, which process has included the loss of a
theological perspective on existence as a whole. But as significant as this
theological shift has been, it could not have become so pervasive in society
without the aid of certain technological factors that have also contributed to
the development of our secularized world.
One contributing technological factor is the advent of privacy itself.
Persons raised in the twentieth century might not realize that separate rooms
in houses (not to mention the anonymity offered by hotels and automobiles) is
a recent phenomenon. This seemingly minor developmentthe advent of
privacy as a presupposed context for human livinghas had far-reaching
impact on sexual mores and attitudes. Prior to the era of privacy, sexual
activity could not be as completely hidden as is now possible. Sneaking off to
have an illicit affair was not as readily accomplished. And even sexual relations
between marriage partners could not always be shielded from the cognizance
of children and others in the family. Modern living conditions, in contrast, allow
sexual activity to transpire in private, thereby making sex, which was once a
public concern, largely a private matter.
Technological advances produced by modern medicine have also
contributed to the secularization of sexuality. Penicillin has reduced the
chances of persons contracting sexually transmitted diseases. And recently
developed artificial means of birth control, especially the pill, have reduced the
risk that sexual activity will result in pregnancy. Such developments now give
the impression that sex can occur without consequences. As a result, in the
minds of many persons sexual activity has been effectively disengaged from
the context of permanent relationships where it had been placed, at least
ideally, in past eros. Disengaged from relationship and consequence, sex has
become a freestanding activity engaged in solely for the purpose of pleasure.

2. The Sexual Revolution

The secularization of sex came to a climax in the 1960s in the so-called

sexual revolution. That decade witnessed the sounding of the death toll of the
older morality. The double standard was overturned, women were liberated to
join men in practicing promiscuity, a call for the throwing off of all sexual
restraints was issued, and a new era of enjoyment of sex was proclaimed.
Beginning in the 1980s, however, a new mood became evident. "Caution"
and "commitment" replaced "freedom" and "experience" as the watchwords of
the day. Time magazine even declared "The Revolution Is Over." 14 Statistics
indicated that weddings and births were on the rise and divorce on the
decrease. And even playboy gum Hugh Hefner joined the ranks of the married.
Several factors have been cited as contributing to the newer
conservatism. "The sexual revolution was born in the mid-60s, the product of
affluence, demographics and the Fill," postulated the Time report. But in the
eighties and nineties attention turned in other directions. An uncertain
economy is one factor. People today are concerned with job and career, and
young people are concentrating on preparation for a profession. Second, the
sputtering of the revolution was caused by concern over sexually transmitted
diseases. Genital herpes and AIDS added a sobering dimension that demands
a more cautious stance. A third factor is demographic: in the 1980s and 1990s
 Notes

the baby boomer generation passed into an age bracket in which stability and
conservatism are more pronounced.
As important as these changes have been, many observers cite a different
development as the most significant factor, the new search for commitment.
The 1960s' quest for new sexual conquests came to be replaced by the search
for what is termed "intimacy." Yet, the commitment that is touted today is not
that of a lifelong, monogamous marriage relationship. Rather, it maintains
certain features of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, including the primacy of
the independent individual, the privacy of sex, and sex without any necessary
consequences.15

3. Transition and the Church

The impact of secularization on sexuality has nearly run its course, many
observers are declaring. But the new conservatism does not necessarily entail
a return to the traditional morality or to a specifically Christian understanding
of human sexuality.
As the authors of the Time report concluded, "No sexual counterrevolu- tion is
under way. The sexual revolution has not been rebuffed, merely absorbed into
the culture." This reality means that Christians today are living in a transitional
era, one in which they dare not grow complacent by assuming that they have
won the sex ethics battle. The challenge for the church remains as acute today
as in previous decades. We must rethink and reassert a biblically based sex
ethic in this new era. We can no longer simply appeal to some ethical
consensus which supposedly characterized earlier generations. Despite rumors
of the end of the sexual revolution, people today are not simply affirming a
consensus of a previous age. On the contrary, any past consensus has been
discarded by a generation bombarded by the media's romanticizing of the
necessity of sex for self-fulfillment and by the exploitation of sex by the gums
of advertising.
More than at any other time in Christian history, the present generation
has been cast on its own resources. The freedom of private decision offered by
secularized culture means that persons living in contemporary Western society
find themselves entrusted with unparalleled responsibility for shaping and
expressing their own sexuality. We may be discovering to our regret that the
possibilities of the present have outpaced the moral capabilities of many
persons, perhaps even of society as a whole.
All transitional eros are frightening. As the old norms are thrown aside
and not always in the name of higher norms, but in the overturning of the
normative life as suchan ethical void develops. The presence of such a void
is dangerous. It can readily lead to antinomianism and the casting off of all
restraint. At the same time, transitional eros are challenging and exhilarating.
Such times of change are characterized by iconoclastic tendencies. As old
orthodoxies are questioned, all the old props of tradition are pulled out from
under us. But when this happens, transitional eros offer us opportunity to read
the classics anew, with opened eyes and a searching mind.
For the church, the present era of transition affords an opportunity to offer
a fresh statement of God's design for human beings. The Scriptures assert that
God created us as sexual beings. The current situation in Western culture
 Notes

challenges the people of God to think through the implications of our created
maleness and femaleness and apply to the questions and issues of our day the
biblical declaration that our sexuality is a divinely given aspect of our
humanness which demands that we live together as the community of male
and female.

HUMAN SEXUALITY
AND CHRISTIAN
THEOLOGY
1
Male and Female
The Nature of Human Sexuality

Generally the first statement made at the birth of a baby is an assertion of

the sex of the newborn. Among the first characteristics we notice in
encountering other humans, whether children or adults, is their sex. And we
do not simply put aside our awareness of the sex of another after the first
glance; rather, it continues to exercise a powerful, even pervasive influence in
our ongoing social interactions.
But what exactly is this universal human dimension called sexuality which
is evident in the distinctions, male and female? How pervasive of our being is
our sexuality? And what does the Creator intend in constituting us as sexually
determined beings? Questions such as these offer the beginning point for the
attempt to provide a Christian perspective on the phenomenon of human
existence as male and female. The task of developing a Christian response to
the ethical issues surrounding human sexuality must begin with an
understanding of our sexuality in the light of the Christian faith.
This chapter and the next develop the thesis that humans are a sexual
creation, a thesis which carries both an individual and a social or corporate
dimension. The task of this chapter is to explore the individual aspect of
human sexualitythe human person as a sexual being. In the next, the
corporate or social dimension will be considered, before turning to the
implications for human sexuality of the dynamic of Creation and Fall which is
so significant for Christian anthropology. In the entire discussion, our eyes
 Notes

must remain fixed on certain biblical texts that seek to shed light on the divine
design in creating us as sexual beings.

What Is Sexuality?
The most readily perceived dimension of human sexuality is the individual
dimension. We cannot help but see each other and ourselves as sexual
entities. But the observation that humans are sexual beings only serves to
raise questions, not provide answers, concerning our identity. Our cognizance
of human sexual differentiations leads us to ask basic questions concerning
this phenomenon: What do we mean by sexuality? And are the gender
distinctions, male and female, an integral part of our essential being? These
questions require further reflection and thereby form a basis for the
development of a Christian theological understanding of human sexuality.
The question that arises first and becomes foundational is that of
definition. What are we talking about when we use the term sexuality? What is
this dimension of our existence that becomes visible in the distinctions "male"
and "female?

1. Sexuality, Biological Sex, and Reproduction

The initial response many people give to the question, what is sexuality?
focuses on the physical characteristics associated with biological structures
and on reproductive roles. Such a response is, of course, correct, at least in
part. But we cannot simply look to biological sex, viewed solely in terms of
certain distinctive features of the physical body that separate male and
female, thinking thereby that we have come to grips with the essence of
human sexuality.
Sexuality is closely related to physical sex, of course, and thus to our
reproductive capacities. The thesis of this chapter, however, is that our
sexuality, our fundamental maleness or femaleness, runs deeper than the
physical features that separate male and female and allow the reproductive
function.1Sexuality is an aspect of our being that lies behind, produces, and is
given expression by physical sexual characteristics and reproductive capacity.
To understand this fuller dimension of sexuality we must look both to the
human sciences and the biblical narratives concerning human origins.

a. Sexuality In the human sciences. The assertion that sexuality is not

merely our physical sex (male or female), but lies deeper in our being, is in
keeping with the findings of the human sciences. Psychologists, for example,
generally assert that children do not suddenly become sexual beings with the
development of their reproductive capacities. On the contrary, sexuality is
both present in the child and given expression prior to the onset of puberty.

1
 Notes

Roman Catholic theologian George Tabard succinctly summarized the

conclusions of the analysis of human sexuality by modern depth psychology:
Whether it remains latent or becomes active, sexuality
pertains to the deepest levels of personality ... from earliest
infancy humans are sexually oriented ... their sexual
inclinations are predetermined by their earliest experiences. 2
The priority of sexuality to reproductive capacity in developing humans is
confirmed as well by biological findings. The development of the procreative
capability in an adolescent is the product of biological sex, which is set already
in the womb. In fact, even though the chromosome heritage of a fetus usually
is not manifested until the sixth or seventh week so that in the first stage of
development the fetus appears neuter or indifferent, the male or female
potentiality is fixed at conception and is already present in the "neuter" stage. 3
Recent studies indicate that certain biologically based differences between
males and females are evident in early infancy.4
Not only does sexual differentiation predate reproductive capacities in
human beings, it is also present after the cessation of that capacity. Older
adults, for example, remain sexual beings even after their reproductive
capacities have ceased, as do persons who for physical reasons or because of
mental malfunction will never be capable of reproduction. Recent research has
documented the presence of interest in sexual expression in older persons.5
These factors all suggest that sexuality, while related to function in the
process of reproduction, is actually a deeper dimension of our existence. For
this reason, Milton Diamond and Anno Karen define human sexual
development as "everything in body, mind, and behavior that rises from being
male or female."6 In keeping with this understanding, many psychologists
differentiate between "affective" and "genital" sexuality, a differentiation that
dates to Freud.7 "Genital sexuality," of course, refers to the physiological or
biological dimension. The affective aspect, in contrast, goes deeper. It includes
the emotional and psychological dimensions of our sexuality, lies behind the
mystery of our need to reach out to others, 8 and is the basis for affection,
compassion, tenderness, and warmth.9

b. Sexuality and Genesis. The opening chapters of Genesis indicate a

similar orientation point and lead to a similar a inclusion. The Creation and Fall
sequence in Genesis 23 portrays sexual distinctions as being present already
from the beginning with the creation of the woman from the man. The narrator
indicates that upon creating the woman God brought her to the man. At this
point, however, she is not viewed in terms of her function in reproduction. She
is simply 'ishshah, "female," just as he is 'sh, "male" a point that is
unfortunately lost by the English term woman with its explicit reproductive
connotation (womb-man). In the narrative, actual mention of procreative
 Notes

capabilities comes only after the Fall. Only then does the man call his wife,
Eve, a name that denotes her status as the mother of all the living. Adam then
"knows" his wife, and she gives birth to a son.
This observation raises a crucial question. Does the Genesis narrative
intend to indicate a relationship between sexuality and sinfulness? More
specifically, is procreation itself to be viewed as a result of the Fall? The
sequence of the narrative of Genesis 23, which only makes explicit reference
to sexual activity after the Fall, has exerted a powerful influence in theological
history. Although the motif of sexual consummation prior to the Fall was
present in the rabbinic tradition and predates the Christian era, the church was
more influenced by another Jewish tradition, the Levitical, which viewed Eden
in terms of priestly purity within the temple. 13 This theme formed an important
foundation for the Augustinian-medieval attitude toward human sexuality with
its cautious stance toward sexual relations and its elevation of celibacy.
Gregory of Nyssa, for example, held explicitly to this view, declaring that
original creation was sexless and that sexuality resulted from the Fall.
Augustine postulated that sexuality was present from the beginning of
Creation. Nevertheless, he placed the exercise of sexuality under the sphere of
sin. Even within the context of marriage, he maintained, the sex act was
tainted with lust, because it participated in the Fall.
Two considerations, however, point us in a different direction.
First, the Creation account of Genesis 1 forms the context in which to
understand that of Genesis 2. The shorter statement concerning the creation
of humankind found in Genesis 1:27 includes the human procreative potential
apart from any mention of the Pall. God creates humankind as male and
female from the beginning. And he commands them to "he fruitful and
multiply," implying the presence of reproductive capacities as a corollary of
their existence as male and female.
Second, likewise in the second Creation narrative sexual distinctions,
division into male and female, are evident already in the creation of the first
human pair, being visible in the use of the similar sounding masculine and
feminine terms, 'sh and 'ishshah. In the narrative, it is first after the Fall that
Adam and Eve give expression to their sexuality through the birth of offspring.
Nevertheless, the narrator does not mean to suggest that the procreative
potential itself is a product of sin. On the contrary, it predates the Fall. Both
accounts, then, follow a similar sequence. Sexual differences are presented as
existing from Creation. This fundamental sexuality, in turn, forms the basis for
the pro- creative function, which in Genesis is in view from the beginning, even
though in Genesis 23 this function is not explicitly mentioned until: the two
humans are expelled from the garden.
While procreation (and thus genital sexuality) ought to be seen as implicit
already from the beginning with the creation of humankind as male and
female. it is not without significance that the text explicitly mentions the actual
 Notes

expression of the procreative function only after the Fall. Its importance may
be seen when this observation is placed within the context of the main theme
of the Bible as a wholenamely, God's salvific action. Already in the proto-
evangelium of Genesis 3:15 a foregleam of the purpose of human procreation
in the divine plan of salvation is evident. God promises that the seed of the
woman will bruise the head of the serpent. The church has consistently
interpreted this as a veiled reference to the Coming One who would be
victorious over God's foe. The Victor would be the offspring of the woman.
Genital sexuality, then, is present from the beginning. But with the Fall it
takes on a new, significant meaning which can move in either of two
directions. On the one hand, human sexuality with its procreative potential,
like all aspects of human existence, can now be used as an instrument of sin.
History is filled with examples of this denegration of the potential found within
human sexuality. On the other hand, after the Fall God employs the human
procreative capacity as a vehicle of divine grace. This aspect of human
existence comes to play a central role in God's purposes in bringing to
humankind redemption from the effects of sin and the Fall, for through the
procreative potential of humanity, God's Son enters the world.

c. Sexuality as the link to the order of life. Human sexuality both

forms a link to the order of created life and sets humankind apart from that
order. As a result, to employ the assertion of V. A. Demant, "sex in mankind has
a dual aspect."12 Demant divides the two levels of human sexuality into the
drive to propagate the species through procreation, which humans share with
many other life forms (renus), and the communion which the sex act nurtures
between the sex partners, which sets humans above the world of nature
(eros).
The dual dimension of human sexuality is visible already in the procreative
potential present in humans as a result of their existence as sexual beings. 14
Because procreation through the sex act links humankind with the animal
world, sexuality mediates human participation in a reality in the created order
that is not limited to humankind. Rather, propagation through sex acts is a
feature of the divine plan shared by many species, being one specific
expression of the survival instinct that pervades all life forms. This
participation in the realm of nature provides a point of departure for an
understanding of the nearly instinctual pervasiveness of sexual expression in
humans.
At the same time, the procreative potential that arises from sexuality
places humankind in a category apart from the rest of creation. God calls
humans to participate in the divine work in salvation history. One dimension of
this participation lies in the expression of human sexuality. After the Fall the
begetting of children through the procreative function became the vehicle that
linked the first human pair to the coming of the Messiah. And procreation
 Notes

continues to the end of the age, an understanding of which, within the context
of the mandate to the church, we will develop subsequently.
The role of human procreation in God's salvific purpose in bringing the Son
into the world and its importance as a part of the mandate of the church offer
a clue as to why this capacity, which is present in humankind from the
beginning, plays no apparent role in the eschatological kingdom, even though
the broader aspect of human sexuality remains a part of human existence. As
will be argued later, in the age to come we remain sexual creatures and give
expression to our sexuality in various ways. But as Jesus' statement to those
who attempted to test him with the dilemma of the woman who had been
married to seven brothers quite clearly indicates, marriage and procreation will
no longer be among these expressions (Malt. 22:30).
The procreative potential that arises from sexuality both links and
separates humankind from the rest of the order of life. But human sexuality
encompasses more than procreation, more than the drive to perpetuate the
species. As will be developed subsequently, sexuality also forms the dynamic
which unites male and female together to form a unity of persons. This
dynamic likewise both links and separates humankind and the rest of the life
order. Sexually derived bonding is evident among some of the higher species
in the animal world, indicating the participation of humankind in a wider reality.
But human sexuality offers a potential for forming personal unity that goes
beyond that found among animals. In humans sexually derived bonding is less
strictly orientated to procreation and the rearing of offspring, for it can develop
into the type of unity of persons which is spoken of as love.
This potential for the sharing of love, which has its basis in sexuality, gives
to humankind a special status in creation. According to the Bible, only humans
are designed to be the image of God. This theme will be developed in the next
chapter.

d. The nature of human sexuality. Although sexuality is closely related

to biological sex and procreation, they are not to be simply equated. Sexuality
refers to our fundamental existence as male or female. The sexual distinctions
we note in relating to one another, in contrast, focus most readily on the
physical differences between the sexes. Differing functions in the human
reproductive potential are one specific capacity that these physical differences
make possible. Yet, the distinctions that give expression to our sexuality, our
fundamental maleness or femaleness, run deeper than the procreative
function.
Our sexuality is a basic datum of our existence as individuals. Simply
stated, it refers to our way of being in the world and relating to the world as
male or female. Studies within the social sciences indicate that males and
females view the world differently; they "have different modes of
orientation."16 Our sexuality is related to this fundamental difference.
Further, sexuality is a dimension of our existence as embodied persons. As
we will see later, at its core this embodied existence includes a fundamental
incompleteness, one which is symbolized by biological sex and is based in our
 Notes

sexuality. Through sexuality we give expression both to our existence as

embodied creatures and to our basic incompleteness as embodied persons in
our relationships to each other and to the world. Our sexuality, then, calls us to
move toward completeness. It forms the foundation for the drive which moves
male and female to come together to form a unity of persons in marriage. But
this yearning toward completeness also lies at the basis of the interpersonal
and religious dimensions of human existence as a whole.
The concept of sexuality presented here suggests that a distinction exists
between sexual desire and the desire for sex,17 both of which arise out of our
basic sexuality. "Sexual desire" refers to the need we all share to experience
wholeness and intimacy through relationships with others. It relates to the
dimension often called eros. the human longing to possess and be possessed
by the object of one's desire. Understood in this way, eros ought not be limited
to genital sexual acts, but encompasses a broad range of human actions and
desires, and it participates even in the religious dimension of life in the form of
the desire to know and be known by God. For many people, the desire for sex.
the longing to express one's sexuality through genital acts (venus), is
psychologically inseparable from sexual desire. Nevertheless, for the
development of true sexual maturity, a person must come to terms with the
difference between these two dimensions and learn to separate them both in
one's own psychological state and in overt action.
This understanding of human sexuality is gaining broad support across
the theological spectrum. A study commissioned by the Catholic Theological
Society of America concluded from the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics:
The experience of people today supported by contemporary
behavioral and theological sciences understands sexuality
much more broadly. Sex is seen as a force that permeates,
influences, and affects every act of a person's being at every
moment of existence. It is not operative in one restricted
area of life but is rather at the core and center of our total
life-response.18
A similar statement was adopted by the Tenth General Convention of the
American Lutheran Church:
Human sexuality includes all that we are as human beings.
Sexuality at the very least is biological, psychological,
cultural, social, and spiritual. It is as much of the mind as of
the body, of the community as of the person. To be a person
is to be a sexual being.19

Sexuality, then, belongs to the mystery of personhood and the mystery of

the image of God.

2. The Expression of Sexuality

While being related to both, human sexuality is not to be equated with

either physical sexual characteristics or procreative capacity, for it is that
 Notes

dimension of human existence that lies behind physical features. Sexuality

comprises all aspects of the human person that are related to existence as
male and female. Our sexuality, therefore, is a powerful, deep, and mysterious
aspect of our being. It constitutes a fundamental distinction between the two
ways of being human (i.e., as male or female). This distinction plays a crucial
role in our development toward becoming individuals and our existence as
social beings.
We give expression to the fundamental sexual dimension of our being in many
ways. The most obvious, of course, is through sexual attraction and sexually
determined acts. Such acts include the way we speak and touch others,
especially those to whom we are sexually attracted, and ultimately in genital
sexual relations. But there are other ways of expressing our sexuality. These
may range from the seemingly mundanehow we dress, comb our hair, etc.
to the more sublimethe appreciation of beauty, as well as cultural and
artistic preferences and activities. The sexual aspect of our existence likewise
forms the basis for our sensuousness. Letha Scanzoni aptly described this
dimension as
our capacity for enjoying and celebrating all kinds of bodily
sensations, whether it be the fuzzy warmth of a new blanket,
the bracing splash of a summer rainshower, the tender hug
of a friend, or the playful nuzzling of a puppy. 20

In a sense, our sexuality pervades all our relationships. We constantly

relate to others as male or female. And our relationships to persons of the
same sex differ from our relationships to the opposite sex. 21 This relation-
pervading aspect of human sexuality forms the basis for the development of
societal understandings of sex roles and of proper and improper sexual
behavior. Such social mores, in turn, give rise to the task of expressing our
sexuality in positive, beneficial ways.

Sexuality and Our Essential Being

Sexuality denotes more than the physical distinctions that allow for the
differentiation in reproductive functions. Instead, the sexual dimension of the
human reality encompasses all the various aspects of the human person that
are related to existence as male or female. This understanding of human
sexuality is relatively noncontroversial. It calls forth, however, a further
question that in contrast to the first generates a variety of responses: Is
sexuality an essential feature of our being?
In recent times much sympathy has been building for a positive response
to this question. As noted above, many observers both in the human sciences
and in the theological disciplines agree that sexuality is so all pervasive of the
human person that it must be considered an essential dimension of what it
means to be human. How we think, how we view the world, and how others
 Notes

view us are all affected by our sexuality. We can be human, therefore, only as
male or female.
This viewpoint, however, has not generated a consensus. Throughout
history there have been strong voices declaring in various ways that the true
human essence lies beyond sexuality and gender distinctions.

1. Sexual Distinctions as Peripheral to Essential Humanity

Christian thought has repeatedly denied the essential importance of
human sexual distinctions. In the Middle Ages, for example, theologians
generally described the essential nature of the human person in terms of the
soul, seen as a nonmaterial substance constituting the core of each individual.
In the same way. the image of God was viewed as a structure of the human
person located in the human soul. This viewpoint tended to minimize bodily
existence, and thus sexuality. Body (and sex) was separated from the soul and
thereby was made ultimately superfluous to individual personhood, localized in
the soul. The soul lay above sexuality, both sexes, it was asserted, participate
in the common essence of humankind apart from their existence as sexual
creatures, although the scholastic theologians also differentiated between the
sexes, asserting that women were in some sense inferior to men. Although the
idea may seem humorous to us. medieval divines such as Thomas Aquinas
accepted Aristotle's declaration that the rational soul is present in a female
fetus eighty days after conception, in contrast to the forty-day interval in the
case of a male fetus.
The medieval view is seldom articulated today in the categories of the
scholastic theologians. Yet a somewhat similar understanding can be detected
in the contemporary concept of androgyny. This view posits only one
fundamental human essence lying beyond but also encompassing the sexual
distinctions of male and female. The implication is, of course, that sexual
differentiations are ultimately peripheral.
Although popularized recently by certain feminists, androgynous
anthropology was present in the ancient world. Among the myths of the
Greeks, for example, is a story that explains human origins in androgynous
categories. According to Plato's retelling of this myth through the character
Aristophenes in The Symposium, the original humans were unified wholes and
globular in shape. As a punishment for their pride after their foiled attempt to
conquer heaven by force, they were split into two halves. Now individuals are
incomplete until they find union with their complements.
The Greek myth has exercised great influence in Western thought. It has
at times colored the exegesis of the second creation account in Genesis 2,
which is understandable in that God's creating the woman from a rib of Adam
lends itself to the Greek myth. As a result, some exegetes view the original
human as an androgynous being who becomes sexual only through the act of
division into male and female.22
 Notes

A contemporary variant on the theme of androgyny builds on Jungian depth

psychology. Jung spoke of two dimensions of the soul related to gender
(animus and anima) which all persons share, albeit to differing degrees
depending on the sex of the individual.23 Based on this theory, George Tavard
argued that "men and women are complementary in sexual activity, yet
identically human in everything else." Thus, he advocated a "harmonization of
masculine and feminine," which he conceived "not as two modes of human
nature or two ways of being human, but as two dimensions of every human
person, the balance of each dimension varying from person to person." 24
This viewpoint is helpful, especially as it seeks to avoid any identification
of some virtues as essentially male and others as female. Nevertheless, it
appears that the distinctions between the sexes run deeper into the individual
psyche than is indicated by Tavard's suggestion that apart from sexual activity
men and women are identically human.

2. The Basis for Affirming the Essential Nature of Sexuality

Despite their popularity, anthropologies that reject the essential nature of
human sexuality are unable to account for the extent to which male and
female differ. Sexuality, it seems, constitutes an essential dimension of the
human person.
As noted earlier, the essential nature of our existence as sexual beings is
becoming increasingly evident from the findings of the human sciences.
Biology offers an example. John Money, a medical psychologist from Johns
Hopkins University, to cite one example, concluded from his research that
individuals go through four stages in the prenatal development of biological
sexual identity. Most crucial to this process, however, is conception. At this
point, one's biological sex is already determined, set by the coming together of
chromosomes from sperm and egg, even though subsequent stages
sometimes produce a situation in which the four bases for biological sex
determination are at odds with each other. 25 In most cases, a person's
genetically based sex forms the foundation out of which normal psychological
sexual identity emerges.26
Our essential sexuality is supported likewise by theology. 27 Specifically, the
assertion that sexuality belongs to the essential nature of the human person
arises from two Christian doctrines, creation and resurrection. God created us
as embodied beings, and in the resurrection recreates us in like fashion.
Together the two doctrines confirm a basically holistic anthropology that
includes our sexuality.
a. The doctrine of creation. The Old Testament fulfills a foundational
role for the Christian doctrine of creation. The outlook concerning human
origins that arose among the ancient Hebrew people formed the context for,
and came to be reaffirmed in its basic form in, the New Testament. In contrast
to that of the Greek philosophical tradition, the Hebrew understanding of
 Notes

creation resulted in a basically holistic or unitary anthropology. Greek

anthropology was dualistic; it understood the human person in terms of two
distinct substantial entities, generally termed "bodly" and "soul." The Hebrews
viewed the human person as a unitary, embodied being. Although references
to creation are scattered throughout the Old Testament, the most succinct
statement of the forming of humankind is found in the opening chapters of
Genesis.
In the first creation story, God is presented as simply making humankind,
just as he had made the other aspects of the universe, including other living
things. There is no indication that humans are anything but a part of the
material world. They are created in the divine image, but their special creation
entails no fundamental dualism in the human person that gives higher status
to one part of the person, a nonmaterial soul, in contrast to the material body.
The soul constitutes the "real" person. In fact, the only dualism in the text is
the male/female distinction.
The second narrative offers more detail. God's creation of the man occurs
in two steps. He forms him from the dust of the ground (material) and
breathes life into him. But even this is not to be interpreted as meaning that
God constituted the man as an ontological dualism. Rather, the emphasis falls
on the fact that he is an animated being, a material creature animated by the
life principle from God. The Pentateuch subsequently indicates that the
animals are likewise animated, for they too are spoken of as "soul." 28 In this
narrative, as in the first, the important distinction that arises from creation is
the dual aspect of the first human pair as male and female.
From the perspective of the Genesis stories, then, humans are the creation
of God in their entire being. God fashioned animate material creatures, each of
whom comprises a unity of being. Genesis offers no indication that there are
two substantial entities in the human person, as postulated by Greek
anthropology, no indication of a soul/body dualism. In the narrative the human
person is the whole person, the embodied person; the real human being is not
localized in some spiritual principle standing within the material body. Rather,
each human is an embodied creature.

b. The doctrine of resurrection. The basic holistic or unitary

anthropology of the Old Testament forms the context for. and is reaffirmed in,
the doctrine of resurrection. In fact, the resurrection offers the ultimate
critique of all dualist anthropologies, for it declares that the body is essential
to human personhood. Rather than the body being shed in order for the person
to enter eternity, as in the Greek philosophical tradition, the human being
conies into fullness of life as an animated body, as an embodied person
transformed in one's entire being through the resurrection.
 Notes

This doctrine indicates that God's creation of humankind as animated

material beings is not a temporary act. Instead, the creation of the first human
as a synthesis of the material from the earth and the animating principle,
evidenced in Genesis, actually belongs to the human destiny as God's
creation. God's intent is that humans exist as embodied persons.
The divine intent that our sexuality participate in the eschatological
transformation of the person is confirmed by the resurrection of Jesus. The
main purpose of the postresurrection stories of the Gospels as well as the
Pauline appeal to the appearances of the Risen Christ is to indicate that the
Risen Lord was recognized as none other than Jesus of Nazareth, the one who
had been crucified. He had passed through the event of transformation into
the new existence described metaphorically as eternal life, the apostolic
tradition declared. Yet, according to the Gospel narratives Jesus remained an
embodied reality. His disciples touched him, ate with him, and conversed with
him. And they knew who he was. The Risen Lord had remained the
recognizable Jesus.
The appearance traditions give no indication that Jesus had shed his
maleness in the hours between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. He is
presented as recognizable by sight to those who had known him. This would
seem to suggest that the basic male physical features of Jesus of Nazareth
were preserved through the transformation experience of the resurrection.
If in the paradigm of the eschatological resurrection the external maleness
of the Risen Jesus is preserved (albeit only as it is transformed) so that he
remains physically recognizable, then how much more are the deeper
characteristics of maleness/femaleness preserved (yet again only as
transformed) in the glorified state entered through the general resurrection at
the consummation of history.
Some theologians assert the nonsexual nature of the resurrection state by
means of an appeal to Jesus' statement, "At the resurrection people will
neither marry nor be given in marriage: they will be like the angels in heaven"
(Matt. 22:30).29 However, two considerations indicate that Jesus' intent is not
to deny the presence of sexuality in the eschatological community. First, Jesus
does not explicitly declare that sexuality will be absent, only that marriage will
no longer be practiced. Human sexuality will no longer be expressed in genital
sexual acts, and the sexually based drive toward bonding will no longer be
expressed through male-female coupling. This is not to suggest, however, that
the deeper dimensions of sexuality will be eradicated. Second, Jesus declared
that humans will be like the angels. Although some theologians see in this
statement an assertion of a nonsexual existence, to do so is to go beyond
Jesus" point, which is to assert only the nonmarital nature of the kingdom
society. Even though they do not marry, the angels might in fad be sexual
beings. This understanding can claim a long exegetical tradition of certain
biblical texts (e.g., Gen. 6:4; 1 Cor. 11:10; Jude 6).
c. Implications for human sexuality. The unitary anthropology
inherent in the Hebrew-Christian doctrines of creation and resurrection
indicates that sexuality is a constitutive part of the human reality as an
embodied existence. We are created by God as embodied creatures. And our
sexualityto exist as male or femalebelongs to our embodied status.
Genesis 1:27 declares, "male and female he created them." There is simply no
other way to be a created human, to exist as a human being, except as an
 Notes

embodied person. And embodiment means existence as a sexual being, as

male or female.
This close relationship between embodied existence and being male or
female is in keeping with the discovery of modern psychology that identity
formation is closely connected with our sexuality. We simply see ourselves as
male or female, and our fundamental sexuality becomes the primary and
deepest aspect of our existence in the quest to determine who we are.
The doctrine of the resurrection indicates that the foundational role played
by sexuality in determining identity is not destroyed in eternity. Resurrection
means that our entire person, including our body, passes through
transformation. But because existence as an embodied person means
existence as male or female, our sexuality must participate in the event of
resurrection as well. Our sexuality participates by necessity, for it is a part of
the total person who undergoes transformation.

3. Objections to the Essential Nature of Sexuality

As has been mentioned, an alternative tradition has been present in
Christian history, maintaining that sexuality is external to the essential nature
of humanity. From this tradition arise certain objections to the assertion that
sexuality is an aspect of our essential personhood.
First, it could he argued that our sexuality docs not belong to our
personhood, because we are complete persons apart from our maleness or
femaleness. The strength of this position is found in the claim that each human
being, as a human person, participates in the image of God, and this apart
from any distinctions among people, including those of gender. Two texts stand
out as the most prominent in support of this position. The Old Testament law
puts forth a strong injunction against murder, the basis of which lay in the
creation of humans in the divine image. The Torah places the genesis of this
prohibition in the covenant God made with Noah:
"Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man." (Gen. 9:6 nasb)

The sole New Testament reference to the universality of the image of God
in humanity comes in the context of a warning concerning the destructive
power of the human tongue: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father,
and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness" (James 3:9).
There is, of course, a sense in which each person as an individual is the
image of God, albeit in the sense that to be in the image of God is the divine
intention or goal shared by all. Nevertheless, we ought not to surmise from this
theological conclusion nor from these two biblical statements that we are
complete beings as individual selves. To do so would run counter to the tenor
of the Bible as a whole. The biblical anthropology is quite clear that we are not
 Notes

complete in ourselves. On the contrary, we are created for and destined for life
in community. We find true fulfillment in community, ultimately in the
eschatological community of the people of God characterized by fellowship
among the human family, harmony with creation, and fellowship with God.
The two texts cited above may readily be understood in this context.
Neither actually asserts that each individual now possesses the image of God.
On the contrary, corporate or generic language is employed in both. Although
the eschatological perspective is not specifically present in either text, neither
categorically denies this perspective, but both may readily be read within it.
Finally, the main emphasis must be placed on the intent of each of the two
texts, which lies in the moral injunction each carries. To support the commands
they enjoin, the texts appeal to a widely held premise, the universal
participation of humanity in the divine intent for creation. No indication is
given in either text as to how humans actually participate in this divine ideal.
A second argument against the assertion that sexuality is essential to
humanity appeals to a common human essence. All persons share in
humanness, it is maintained. The strength of this position is found in its link to
the assertion of the unity of humanity, which is both a theological dictum and
a biological reality. Theologically, this assertion declares that all persons,
regardless of sex. are members of the one human family. In terms of biology,
we are all linked genetically.
The declaration of the fundamental unity of all human beings is a crucial
theological assertion that carries important implications. And the existence of
a common genetic pool is a significant biological discovery.
Nevertheless, neither of these statements leads to the conclusion that
there is a common human essence which, because it transcends our sexual
distinctions, makes them nonessential to our existence and identity as human
beings. On the contrary, we are human only as male or female; there is no
other way for each of us to exist except as this embodied, and therefore
sexual, human person.
A third argument moves in a quite different direction from the other two. It
readily admits that our sexualityour existence as male or femaleis a
central aspect in determining who we are. But it denies that sexuality is
uniquely determinative of personal identity. Our basic maleness or femaleness
is a factor in who we are, how we perceive ourselves, how we think, how
others perceive us, how we relate to others. Other factorssuch as race, for
example play an equally important role in the process of identity formation,
it is argued.
Although undeniably important, racial differences and other factors do not
loom as foundational in personal and social identity as do those distinctions
which arise out of the fact that we are sexual beings. The first aspect noticed
at birth is not race, but sex. And we carry with us throughout our lives the
tendency to see our maleness or femaleness as the fundamental demarcation
among ourselves. It is interesting to note the presence of this human tendency
in the early biblical stories of human origins. Racial distinction is not presented
in Genesis as arising from creation itself, as is the case with sex distinctions.
Rather, the races first emerge after the Flood.

4. Embodiment in Christian Theology and in Secularism

Contrary to what we might at first surmise, the emphasis of the human
person as an embodied and therefore a sexual being is more pronounced an
 Notes

the Christian understanding than in the basically secular anthropology

widespread in Western culture today. The biblical doctrines of creation and
resurrection imply that our sexuality is basic to our sense of self and
foundational to our understanding of who we are as God's creatures. God
intends that we be embodied beings who are either male or female.
Further, because our sexuality is the product of God's creative intention, it
constitutes an essential aspect of the way we stand before God. As God's
creatures, humans are responsible before God to be stewards of all they are.
This responsibility extends to our sexuality as well, for our existence as male
or female is essential to our being. The Christian, therefore, must take the
Pauline admonition seriously.
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You
are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore
honor God with your body. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

The secular anthropology, in contrast, tends to view sexuality largely as an

activity, not as a constitutive aspect of our being. Sexual expression becomes
thereby something in which the self engages. When viewed in this manner, as
an activity in which the acting subject engages rather than an essential aspect
of who a person is, sexuality is more readily separated from the self. Similar to
the Gnostics of the New Testament era, the secularist differentiates between
"who I am" and "what I do," seeing "what I do" as external to "who I am," that
is, to my personhood.
This attitude toward human sexuality in general and the sex act in
particular is readily linked with the modern understanding of the basic nature
of the human person. A fundamental shift in thought has emerged since the
Enlightenment. In contrast to the more socially oriented viewpoint
characteristic of much of Christian tradition, there has been a growing
tendency in the modern era toward a fully individualistic understanding of
human nature. The human person, the modern view maintains, is an
independent self, whose essence is to make choices in freedom. The self is
fundamentally a free decision maker, and this fundamental nature of the self
characterizes all persons regardless of whatever distinctions (such as sex)
differentiate one human self from another. In the choosing self, modern
anthropology claims to find the transcendent human essence lying beyond all
observable differences.
As an outworking of this anthropology, the sex act is viewed as one vehicle
for the expression of the freely choosing self. Sex is a means whereby the
human person as a free agent of action actualizes personal freedom. In
keeping with this understanding the code words of the modern sexual
revolution include self-expression and self-actualization. The 1960s phase of
this revolution declared that the modern outlook ought to be applied not only
to the male domain, as was the case in prior decades, but to females as well.
Thus, it called for freedom of sexual expression not only for men but also for
women.
The Christian viewpoint differs radically from the modern, secularized
alternative. Because of our view of the human person as a unified being, we
 Notes

simply cannot follow those voices which assert that the body can be indulged
without affecting the essential person. Because we are created as embodied
persons, we cannot relegate the sexual dimension of our existence to the
realm of the nonsignificant, as having no bearing on our relation to God.
Further, we refuse to view our fundamental identity as human beings in terms
of freedom. The human person is not primarily the freely choosing self. Nor can
our existence as male or female be set aside as external to our essential
nature. Because of this mistaken understanding of sexuality, therefore, the
sexual freedom espoused by the sexual revolution, despite whatever positive
gains it may have brought, in the words of Vance Packard, "seems to be a
dubious goal."30
According to the biblical documents, we are not primarily and essentially
souls and secondarily and consequently bodies. Rather, from original creation
to the new creation we are embodied beings. Our personhood is tied together
with the fact that we are "flesh and blood." But to be embodied, to be flesh
and blood, entails being male or female. There is simply no other way to exist
except as this particular female or this particular male. We are indeed
essentially sexual beings.
 Notes

2
Male and Female
Humankind as a Sexual Creation

Human beings are sexual creatures. The individual dimension of our

fundamental sexuality is part of normal living, for we are continually made
aware of the fact that humankind is divided into two sexually determined
groups, male and female. The previous chapter offered the first step in the
attempt to provide a Christian perspective on the phenomenon of human
existence as male and female, which can serve as a beginning point for the
task of developing a Christian response to the ethical issues surrounding
human sexuality. That chapter looked at the individual side of the thesis that
humans are a sexual creation, viewing the human person as a sexual being.
Less obvious than the individual dimension, but no less real, is the
corporate dimension of human sexuality. We are not sexual beings in isolation
from each other. Rather, our individual sexual nature is closely linked to our
situation as social beings. In short, sexuality is significant for community. This
chapter develops the theme of the corporate or social dynamic of human
sexuality, asking the theological question, what does the Creator intend in
constituting us as sexually determined beings?

The Social Purpose of Our Creation as Sexual Beings

The quest for an understanding of the social dimension of our sexuality is

closely connected with an awareness of the purpose of this aspect of our
essential nature. The concept of purpose can be formulated in terms of a
question: What can be discovered concerning the role that our essential
sexuality plays in our total existence? This question seeks to understand the
social outworking of individual sexuality, in order thereby to discover the goal
the Creator had in view in creating us as sexual beings.

1. Bondingthe Basic Purpose

The basic purpose of our existence as sexual creatures is related to the

dynamic of bonding. There is a close relationship between human sexuality
and the bonding process, so much so that sexuality forms the fundamental
 Notes

drive that leads to this human phenomenon. The close relationship between
bonding and sexuality is borne out by the biblical documents. However, the
two Testaments find the central expression of the dynamic of bonding in two
different institutions, the family and the church.
The Old Testament: the family bond. Human sexuality and the drive toward
bonding play an important role in the Old Testament. Perhaps the most
powerful statement of the relationship between sexuality and bonding is
presented in the second creation story. This connection lies behind the
narrative of the formation of the woman in Genesis 2.
The creative act that brought the first woman into existence is presented
in Genesis 2 as the outworking of the divine intent: "I will make a helper
suitable for him," called forth by the divine observation of the situation of the
first human, "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18). Although the
human enjoyed a relationship with the animals, none of them was an
appropriate bonding partner for him: "But for Adam no suitable helper was
found" (v. 20). The Hebrew term helper ought not to be interpreted in the
sense of serving as an assistant. The Hebrew word, 'ezer, derived from the
verb 'azar, which means "other" or "helper," also refers to one who saves or
delivers. Apart from this verse it is only used with reference to God in
relationship to Israel (Deut. 33:7; Ps. 32:20; 115:9). God's desire, therefore,
was to create another human being who would deliver Adam from his solitude
by being a suitable bonding partner for him, not merely sexually, but in all
dimensions of existence.1 At this point God creates the woman. In contrast to
his response to the animals, Adam immediately senses a bond with her. He
bursts forth in joyous declaration: She is "bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh" (v. 23).
The Genesis narrative indicates that the sexual nature of the human
person forms the impulse that drives an individual beyond the self to seek
bonding with others. Adam's solitude arose from a void that could not be filled
by his companionship with the animals nor, interestingly enough, even by the
presence of the solitary Adam before God. The appropriate antidote for this
situation was the creation not merely of a counterpart, but more specifically of
a female counterpart. This indicates the sexual nature both of Adam's solitude
and of his awareness of solitude. The void in his existence was sexually based,
for he was fundamentally incomplete. And his sense of incompleteness gave
birth to the cry of joy, when he was introduced to his sexual counterpart.
The narrator concludes the episode with the application of his story to the
phenomenon of male-female bonding expressed in the marriage relationship:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and they will become one flesh" (v. 24). The meaning of the phrase, "and
they will become one flesh," is lost if it is interpreted to refer only to the
begetting of offspring. It is rather a further statement of the previous clause,
"a man ... will be united to his wife." Thus, it moves beyond procreative unity
to encompass the entire bond enjoyed in the marriage relationship. Hence, the
narrator's comment presents the awareness of a fundamental personal
incompleteness ("for this cause") as the dynamic lying behind the
phenomenon of the two actions, "leaving" and "cleaving." This awareness, in
other words, results in the drive for the bonding expressed in the relationship
of husband and wife.
 Notes

The Old Testament finds a further outworking of the relationship between

sexuality and bonding. The bonding that transpires through the union of male
and female, although completed in the marriage relationship, does not end
with husband and wife as an isolated union. Rather, this intimate bond
becomes a first step toward the establishment of the broader human
community.
This too is evident already in Genesis. The fellowship between man and
woman formed in the marriage relationship is presented in the Genesis
creation narrative as the primal human community. But arising naturally out of
this union is the expansion of community into the family unit that occurs as
Eve bears children. And the primal human community expands beyond the
family as the generations multiply, resulting in the establishment of cities
(Gen. 4:17) and even entire societies characterized by a division of labor
(4:21-22).
In this way sexually based bonding forms the basis for the Old Testament
view concerning human community in general. 2 For the ancient Hebrews, the
primary social unit was the extended family, headed generally by a male
patriarch and including his wife/wives, offspring, and household. As a result,
there arose in Israel a strong emphasis on the importance of bearing children,
especially sons. The emphasis on progeny, in turn, provided the context for
the ancient understanding of the development of the wider social order.
Patriarchalism produced the sense of tribal identity, for a person's
participation in the tribe as a wider expression of social relationships was
determined by lineage as derived from male ancestors.
The centrality that tribal identity enjoyed among the ancient Hebrews was
never lost within Israel. Despite attempts by the Davidic monarchy to develop
a sense of nationalism to displace tribalism among the twelve tribes, the
nationalistic impulse was never able to overcome the primacy of the tribal
consciousness. In fact, tribalism remained a dominant aspect in determining
the sense of community identity and participation in the social order in Israel
into the New Testament era.
In the Old Testament, however, the family remained the primary focus for
the experience of human community. The primacy of the family is highlighted
in various ways in the Old Testament. The Ten Commandments enjoin honor to
father and mother, as carrying great significance as "the first commandment
carrying a promise." The family is likewise presented as the first focal point for
religious instruction. Through the family the traditions of the tribe are to be
passed from generation to generation (e.g., Deut. 4:9; 6:1-9; Ps. 78:5-6).
The basic relationship between sexuality and bonding, leading to
community set forth in the Old Testament, continues to carry importance into
the modern era. As in the ancient world, sexuality functions today as the
primary drive toward bonding and community. Despite what one might
conclude from the rise of divorce in Western society, most people continue to
 Notes

view marriage as the most enduring and stable bond formed during a human
lifetime. The conclusion of the Genesis narrator remains appropriate: "For this
cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife"
(nasb). And stable marriages that provide the context in which children can
gain a sense of personal identity continue to function as the backbone of
societal stability.
The Genesis 2 narrative carries significant implications for a contemporary
understanding of sexuality. Because we are sexual beings, as isolated
individuals we are fundamentally incomplete. Our sexuality not only
participates in, and in pan is the cause of our incompleteness; it also allows us
to sense this incompleteness, an incompleteness that in turn moves us to seek
community through bonding.3 For many, the primary place of community
becomes marriage and the family, both of which arise out of our basic
sexuality. But as will be developed in chapters 9 and 10, even in the case of
unmarried persons, the drive to community, while not specifically oriented
toward genital expression, is nevertheless based in the sense of the
incompleteness of the human individual apart from community.
The drive for community has powerful theological implications as well. Our
sexually based sense of incompleteness forms the dynamic lying behind the
search for truth, a search which ultimately becomes the search for God. We
long to have our incompleteness fulfilled, and this longing gives rise to the
religious dimension of life. The message of the Bible, beginning already in the
Old Testament book of Genesis, claims that in the final analysis, the source of
this completeness is found in the community that focuses on fellowship with
the Creator.
The theological interpretation of the quest for community has been given
expression in various ways in the Christian tradition. Augustine, for example,
described it in terms of the restlessness of the human heart until it finds rest in
God.4 Likewise, medieval mysticism arose as a response to the same impulse
to find completeness in union with God. The emphasis on the new birth
characteristic of pietism and of contemporary evangelicalism is similarly
motivated by the desire for fellowship, specifically fellowship with God and
with the people of God.
"The drive for completeness and for completion in fellowship with God is not
surprising, because it is in keeping with the theological assertion that we are
created in God's image. Just as God is the community of the trinitarian per-
sons, so also God has created us for the sake of community, namely, to find
completion in community with each other and together in community with our
Maker.
The New Testament: the bonded community. The Christian understanding
of community finds its foots in the New Testament. The early church moved
beyond the ancient Hebrews by offering a new understanding of the nature of
the primal human community. In the Old Testament era, the sense of
community was primarily associated with one's immediate family, extended
patriarchal family, and tribe. Only subsequently and secondarily did the
individual sense an identity with the nation of Israel as constituting one people
and a specifically religious people.
 Notes

In the New Testament era, however, an important change occurs. Now the
primary community is no longer presented as the physical family, entrance to
which occurs through natural familial heritage. Rather, the central community
is the fellowship of Christ. More important than physical ancestrywho one's
parents areis one's spiritual ancestrywho one's heavenly Father is (e.g.,
Luke 3:7-8; John 8:31-59). The highest loyalty is now directed to God through
community with Jesus Christ. And the primary bond is that which binds the
disciple to the Master and to the community of disciples.
Tills change in outlook was inaugurated by Jesus himself. It is embodied in
his demanding challenge to discipleship, summarized in his admonition:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37)

At the same time he promises to the loyal disciple a larger, spiritual family
to compensate for the loss entailed in leaving one's natural family for the sake
of discipleship:
"I tell you the truth. ... no one who has left home or brothers
or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and
the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this
present age ... and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark.
10:29-30)

but what Jesus demanded of his followers, he required of himself. He too

forsook family for the sake of the cause of the kingdom of God. Rather than
attaching himself to his physical mother and siblings, he counted as his true
family "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven ..." (Matt. 12:50).
Jesus' view was carried over into the early church. The Jerusalem
believers, for example, looked to the community of discipleship as their
primary focus of fellowship and loyally. They were bonded to each other, and
as a result they held even their material possessions in common (Acts 4:32-
35).
As the gospel made inroads in the Hellenistic world, the view of the
church as the believers' primary community expanded with it. So keen was
this sense of community, apparently some thought that their new status as
members of the Christian fellowship severed all previous social bonds,
including the marital. To combat this dangerous tendency, Paul and others
found it necessary to forge a middle position. Membership in the community of
believers was to be primary. In fact, once a person joined this fellowship he or
she ought not to form additional social bonds, at least not outside the
community (2 Cor. 6:14).
But the believer nevertheless ought not to instigate action with the goal of
severing one's previous bonds, as Paul's advice to believers who were married
to unbelievers indicates (1 Cor. 7:13). For Paul, the basic rule was "each one
should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God
has called him" (v. 17). In fact, such previously formed bonds could serve to
advance the kingdom of God, for they are to be used as occasions for the
spread of the gospel (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:14; 1 Peter 3:1-2).
 Notes

The Genesis narrative indicates that God created us as sexual beings. Our
sexuality has a purpose, for sexuality is a primary force that places in us the
drive toward bonding. This drive leads to the development of social
communities, beginning with marriage, family, tribe, and finally larger
societies. For the Christian, however, this drive is fulfilled ultimately only
through fellowship as part of the society of disciples who have been redeemed
and therefore enjoy fellowship with God. The New Testament offers as the
highest location of community the corporate community of believers in Christ.

2. Gender Roles

The understanding of the basic purpose of our sexuality outlined here

forms a context in which to offer a theological perspective on gender roles. A
discussion of this topic is important in this context because of the important
relationship that exists between sexuality and the roles we fulfill as male or
female. It was argued in the previous chapter that human sexuality lies deeper
in the individual than physical sex. That means that our existence as sexual
beings encompasses more than how we function in the biological process of
reproduction. This deeper dimension of sexuality forms a basis for the social
dimension of human interaction we refer to as "gender roles."
In part as a result of the impact of the feminist movement, gender roles
both in marriage and in society have become an explosive issue. Much of the
discussion focuses on the relationship between biology and sociology: Do
differing functions in the reproductive process dictate specific roles for male
and female in social relationships? Advocates of hierarchical models of male-
female relationships often appeal to the Bible in support of the claim that
biological differences do indeed determine social roles. Despite the attempts
by some to reduce the issue To a simple matter of God's truth versus human
rebellion, this is actually a complex question that has several dimensions.
a. The rise of differing roles. A first dimension raises the question as
to the historical (or prehistorical) genesis of the phenomenon of role
distinctions between men and women. This question has been the subject of
much anthropological research.
Perhaps the most widely held theory today maintains that male/female
roles developed in the prehistoric hunting and gathering societies. They were
supposedly based on the need for women to be protected during pregnancy, a
state which typified the greater portion of their lives.5 The weaker position of
the female while carrying and then nursing offspring was paralleled by the
relatively greater physical strength of the male, and this situation led to male
dominance. Even in the New Testament, written long after Mediterranean
society had moved beyond the prehistoric stage, women are referred to as
"the weaker partner" (1 Peter 3:7).
The prehistoric situation indicated by this theory as the genesis of role
distinctions is obviously no longer operative in Western culture. Women are
not pregnant or nursing offspring for the greater part of their lives. Nor is a
 Notes

pregnant woman dependent on the physical strength of her husband for

protection and sustenance. In the same way. brute strength has lost the
importance for survival that it once had. The significance of this change ought
not to be overlooked. As roles in procreation and nurturing of offspring lost
their determinative influence over the wider social roles assumed by males
and females, the door was opened to the assumption of new social functions
for the sexes, especially for females, which in turn placed the traditional
gender roles under great strain.

b. Changing views on gender roles. The awareness of the changed

situation of women and men in modern society has ignited a discussion of the
second dimension of the question of gender roles, namely, the dispute as to
whether any inherent gender differences necessitate set roles. Recent years
have witnessed a marked fluidity concerning this issue. In a sense, the current
situation forms the third of a series of social developmental stages.
The first stage: traditionalism. In the first stage of the modern era, what
are now considered traditional gender roles were put in place, formed by
adapting the roles assigned to the sexes in the older gathering and hunting
societies to Western culture. In this situation, the husband was viewed as the
"breadwinner" and the head of the home, with the wife subservient and
domestically oriented. Differences between the sexes were considered great,
with men viewed as rational and dispassionate, whereas women were seen as
emotional. The outcome of these differences was the advocacy of a
hierarchical model of male-female relationship, with men retaining the
dominant status they enjoyed in prior eros.
The second stage: androgyny. A second stage arose under the pressure of
the various women's movements, bolstered by early twentieth-century
anthropological findings. Now the theory was put forth that apart from the
obvious difference in reproductive organs no fundamental distinctions exist
between males and females. Whatever distinctions may be present were seen
as not sufficient enough to warrant the assigning of gender roles (except the
specific role of the woman in giving birth). This position obviously constituted
a major shift in understanding away from the traditional model of male-female
relationships that envisioned definite and fixed gender roles. In its most radical
form, it called for the eradication of all gender-based distinctions in roles.6
The newer view concerning gender roles corresponded to a shift away
from a male-female anthropology to an androgynous viewpoint, one that
maintains that our sexuality is external to our essential being. Maleness and
femaleness, this understanding asserted, are external characteristics which
have no bearing on the fundamental humanness that forms the true essence
of all persons regardless of sex.
Although the androgyny model provided a much-needed corrective to the
traditional view concerning gender roles, its own foundational flaw soon
emerged. At its basis lies a denial of all sexually based distinctions. 7 But as has
 Notes

been argued earlier, this violates the emphasis on embodiment, for it posits
some ultimate humanness beyond existence as male and female. Because we
can exist as human beings only as male and female and because this
distinction is deeper than mere physical features related to reproduction, there
are indeed certain basic differences between the sexes. 8 The androgynous
ideal is likewise theologically questionable, because it is based on an
erroneous view of sin. It sees sin primarily as sensuous in nature and ascribes
our sexual polarity to the fallen human condition.9
Recent thinking: sex-based differences. The assertion that certain basic
distinctions, beyond functions in the reproductive process, do exist between
the sexes has gained support through recent anthropological research. One
widely held view characterizes men as being more linear and rational, 10
whereas women are oriented to a network of relationships embedded within
the social context. Carol Gilligan, for example, has declared that women tend
to define their identity through relationships of intimacy and care, rather than
through assertion and aggression.11 Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich
offered a similar description of this distinction, suggesting that the core
properties of femininity can be conceptualized as a "sense of communion" and
those of masculinity as a "sense of agency." 12 (Like Jung, however, they find
both traits present to varying degrees in all males and females.)
In a textbook intended for use in university social science courses,
Diamond and Karlen succinctly summarized other distinctions noted by
contemporary researchers:
It is fact, not social stereotype, that men virtually
everywhere are sexually more active and aggressive than
women, and that if either sex is to have more than one
sexual partner, it is likely to be men.
And in all known societies, men have greater authority than
women both inside and outside the home. Images of power
and success as masculine seem deeply rooted in the minds
of both men and women, in our society and probably in
virtually all others.
It is also fact that in most animal species, including most
primates, the male must be more dominant than the female
before she will allow copulation.13
Despite earlier attempts to minimize the importance of our different pro-
creative capacities, it now appears that the differing functions of male and
female in this process do affect to some extent the distinctive outlook of each
of the sexes toward the world. Take, for example, the differences noted by
anthropologists, for several of these distinctions may readily be linked to our
differing roles in childbearing. Only the female has the capacity to nurture
developing life within herself, whereas the male must always nurture
externally. Perhaps this internal nurturing capacity contributes to the greater
tendency toward networking found among females.
According to recent research in the human sciences, the basic difference
between the sexes goes beyond the reproductive dimension of life. Current
discussions in neuropsychology, for example, focus on the theory that men
and women also think differently, even dream differently, 14 and this difference
in the way of thinking is due to the differing stages of brain development in
boys as compared with girls. 15 Women, it is purported, are more readily able to
 Notes

employ both "left brain" (i.e., verbal, logical, and analytical) and "right brain"
(emotional, intuitive, creative, and holistic) functions simultaneously. 16 As a
result, women are apparently more capable of holistic reasoning, whereas men
tend to be more analytical.17
It is probable that both the distinctions in physical structure and in brain
development, noted by research in the human sciences, have a common
source, namely, the hormones that control our physical development and
functioning. This common basis of both types of sexual differences points to
the foundational formative nature of our sexuality, our existence as male or
female. Not surprisingly, some distinction in roles between men and women
arises.18 Lisa Sowle Cahill offered a helpful summary of the relationship
between sex-specific physiological differences and gender roles:
It appears that different physical characteristics, deriving at
least in part from their reproductive roles, may create in men
and women a tendency toward certain emotional (nurturing,
aggressive) or cognitive (verbal, visual) capacities, which
may in turn influence the ways they fulfill various social
relationships. This is not to say, however, that emotional and
cognitive traits vary greatly between the sexes or are
manifested in comparable degrees by every member of each
sex; or that the fact that males and females may fulfill
certain roles somewhat differently implies that each sex can
fulfill only a certain set of social roles, much less the
devaluing of one sort of role or set of roles, and the
subordination of it to that of the opposite sex. 19

These various findings not only indicate certain fundamental differences

between the sexes; they also serve as an indication that our basic sexuality is
part of our essential being. We exist as male or female, and this fundamental
way of being human influences our basic orientation to the world, others, and
ourselves.
To maintain that biological differences may indeed color the differing ways
that males and females view the world is not to deny the significance of the
socialization process in establishing gender identity in young children and
thereby subsequently in determining roles in social relationships. Recent
research seems to indicate that both biological and sociopsychological
influences must be viewed together as accounting for the basic orientation
toward the world, others, and oneself that characterizes the human person as
a male or female.20
The third stage: role flexibility. The rediscovery of sexual differences, as
focused as they may be, has placed contemporary Western society on the
boundary of yet a third stage in the discussion of gender roles in society.
Whereas stage one was characterized by fixed and static roles and stage two
emphasized the total fluidity of roles, stage three promises to move between
these two. This new understanding acknowledges differences between the
sexes. But at the same time it declares that society must provide more
flexibility for both individuals and the sexes in general in the area of roles.21
Based on biological findings, Milton Diamond offered this advice: "A goal
for our culture might be to recognize and accept that generalities can exist
simultaneously with allowable deviation from the typical." 22 In the light of
contemporary thinking, the admonition of Emil Brunner earlier in this century
 Notes

appears more in keeping with current attitudes than with the viewpoints of his
time:
The criterion of the genuine emancipation movement must
always be this, that sex differencein the broadest sense of
the wordis not removed but is fully emphasized. For this is
the effect of all spiritual development: that it intensifies the
individuality and does not remove it.23
c Traditional hierarchy and Genesis. For many Christians, a move from
traditionalism to flexibility is neither easy nor completely possible. Some
continue to find in any suggestion of inherent gender distinctions a basis for
setting forth a hierarchical model for relationships between male and female.
Their apologetic often brings together anthropological findings and certain
biblical materials, in the attempt to make a case for the assertion that gender
roles are based in the divine order of creation. An example of this approach
among evangelicals is found in the formation of the Council on Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood and the drafting of its Danvers Statement in
December 1987. Among other points, this statement affirmed that "distinctions
in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created
order, and should find an echo in every human heart." More specifically,
"Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was
not a result of sin."24
Closer inspection, however, yields the conclusion that the grounding of
gender roles in our creation as sexual beings does not necessitate the
advocacy of a hierarchy of men over women. 25 The creation story of Genesis 2
offers an appropriate point of departure for a discussion of this issue.
Defenders of the traditional hierarchical view often find in the order of
creationAdam first, followed by Evean inherent hierarchy. This exegesis is
seen as confirmed by the Pauline comment concerning the creation of the
woman: "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither
was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor. 11:8-9). The intent of
Paul's reference in this context is a complex exegetical question. In any case
the suggestion that the order of creation constitutes a hierarchy of male over
female as part of the created order is quite foreign to the intent of the Genesis
narrator.26
In contrast to the exegesis that is used to support traditional roles, there
are several features of the story that could conceivably indicate that the
woman may actually be the more important of the two characters. For
example, some contemporary exegetes argue that if the principle governing
the first chapter is applied to the secondnamely, the ascending order of
creation then being created second would place the woman above, not
below, the man.27 This argument, however, is invalid, for it fails to take into
consideration the great difference in intent between the two creation
narratives. In contrast to the first story which indeed employs the principle of
 Notes

an ascending order of creation, the second narrative focuses on human

solitude. The central figure in Genesis 2 is clearly the man. And the alleviation
of his solitude forms the basic motif generating major divine actions of the
chapter, the bringing of the animals to Adam, and the creation of the woman.
Despite its faulty importation of considerations from the first chapter into the
second, the egalitarian exegesis is helpful, in that it points out that in so far as
the function of the woman in the text is to serve as savior of the man from his
loneliness she becomes indeed the crown of creation.28
Other observations, however, are more significant. It is notable that in the
conclusion to the second creation story the narrator speaks of the man as the
one who leaves family and cleaves to his wife, not the reverse, as one might
expect in a patriarchal context in which the male holds the dominant position
in a sexually determined hierarchy. Further, in the story of the Fall (Genesis 3)
the woman appears as the dominant figure. The sequent comes to her and
reasons with her. She sins on her own, whereas the man follows his wife into
sin. Finally, as noted earlier, the creation of woman "for man" (1 Cor. 11:9) or
as his "helper" (Genesis 2) is understood in Genesis in terms of being the one
who rescues him from his solitude. This casts the woman in a role exactly
opposite of the subservient position one might expect, for she is elevated to
the status of being an agent in God's saving design.
Advocates of the male-domination, hierarchical model correctly point out
that in the Genesis narrative a male/female hierarchy is present. But they fail
to see that it is introduced only after the Fall. The hierarchy of male over
female is presented in the text as a direct consequence of the sin of the first
human pair. For this reason the statement of hierarchy given to the woman,
"'Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'" (Gen. 5:16),
is to be interpreted as a curse, not a command. Rather than being a
prescription of what is morally binding on all subsequent relationships, it is a
description of the present reality of life after the Fall, of what is likely to be the
situation in marriage. The woman's desire will be for her husband; the husband
will rule over the wife.
A clue as to why the Fall led to male, rather than female, dominance is
found in the curse spoken to Adam:
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil
you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce
thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the
fields. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food. ..."
(Gen. 3:17-19)
The anthropological research of Peggy Reeves Sanday indicates that in
addition to biological sexual distinctions, the nature of the environment in
which a society is found has a bearing on the relationships between the sexes.
A hostile environment readily leads to male domination, whereas relative
equality between the sexes is most frequently found when the environment is
beneficent.29 In the light of her conclusions it is instructive to note that the
biblical narrative of creation and Fall views the curse which resulted from
human sin as giving rise both to a hostile environment and male dominance.
 Notes

Because the hierarchy of male dominating female is a curse and not a

morally binding injunction, a result of the Fall and not of creation, this is to be
changed in the New Creation. That this curse is indeed overcome through the
coming of Christ is evident in the New Testament. The radically new situation
of the new era is evidenced in Peter's declaration that women are coheirs of
salvation with men (1 Peter 3:7). As an outworking of Christ's conquering of
sin, one would expect to find in the church the proleptic experience, a
foretaste, of the egalitarian ism of the kingdom of God envisioned by the
apostle. Such ecclesiological egalitarianism is articulated in Galatians: There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). And it is enjoined in Ephesians 5:21"Submit to one
another out of reverence for Christ"where it is presented as the overarching
principle that is to govern social relations involving Christians (husband-wife,
master- slave, father-child).
An important apparent counterexample to the position outlined above is
the crucial New Testament commentary on Genesis 23 found in I Timothy
2:11-15. Women are not to teach or have authority over men, the writer
declares, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one
deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (vv. 13,
14). Rather, the woman will be saved through childbirth.
A central exegetical issue is whether the author appeals to two arguments
or one. Some exegetes see two arguments for the injunction concerning
womenEve was created second, and Eve sinned first. This interpretation,
however, runs the risk of setting the text against the Genesis story, which
does not base the hierarchy of male over female on the creation order (Adam
first, then Eve), but on the Fall. To find two arguments in 1 Timothy is to
conclude that the New Testament text takes a crucial and far-reaching step
beyond, and perhaps even in contradiction to Genesis.
An alternative is to view 1 Timothy 2:13 as offering only one argument.
The author's point, it should be noted, is not based on seeing the creation of
the first two humans and the order of their fall as two isolated events, as
would be the case if the verse were setting forth two arguments. Rather, for
the apostle it is the relation between the two orders (creation and Fall) that is
important. Specifically, he notes the reversal in order between creation and
Fall, that the one who was second in creation became the first in sin. Thus, the
point of the verse is that the female, who was given by God in order to
complete the creation of humanity as the deliverer of Adam from his solitude,
rather than fulfilling this intended function, actually became the agent of the
opposite result. She led him into the bondage that brought a deeper alienation
a severing of the relationship with God, with each other, and with the
environment.
But the author cannot leave this pronouncement of human sin as the final
word. He immediately speaks of a new role that God has for Eve in the process
of salvation, her role in procreation. The best interpretation of verse 15 sees in
 Notes

the statement another allusion to the Genesis narrative of creation and Fall,
specifically to the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15.
Understood in this way, the point of the text is the same as that found in
Genesis 3. The hierarchy between the sexes is a product of the Fall, in that Eve
fell into sin first. The final creation of God is the first to transgress and
therefore now will be ruled by the one who followed her into sin. But only with
Adam's transgression is the fall of humankind complete. Cahill offered an
appropriate summary of the import of the curse as it relates to the two sexes;
It is ironically appropriate that the more passive sinner, the
man, who took and ate, now is condemned to the exertion of
laboring to wrest human sustenance from a resistant
environment; the more active sinner, the woman, who
debated with the serpent and led her husband, is
condemned not only to subordination to the man, but also to
helpless submission to the inexorable pain of childbirth. But
what is the sum effect of the judgment? It is to condemn
equally pride as active self-assertion and pride as passive
complacency.30
To this statement of curse, however, must added the promise of salvation
inherent in Genesis 3 and explicit in the New Testament. According to 1
Timothy 2, the toil of the woman will bring salvation, for through the process of
giving birth, the Savior comes. And the role of Adam in the completion of the
human fall into sin offers Paul the basis for this appropriate employment of this
act in Romans as the basis for a typology between the willing transgression of
the first Adam and the chosen obedience of the Second Adam, Christ (Rom.
5:18).
With the coming of the Savior, the curse of the Fall can be lifted. This
redemption includes liberation from hierarchy as the way in which the sexes
relate. Because in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), hierarchy
can give place to a new model of relationship, mutual submission (Eph. 5:21).
This new pattern for the establishment of male-female community as a whole
forms the overarching principle not only for the church, but also for the
particular expression of this community in marriage. In this context mutual
submission calls husbands to love their wives after the pattern of Christ's love
for the church and calls wives to respect and submit to their husbands in the
Lord (Eph. 5:22-32).

The Theological Significance of Our Creation of

Sexual Beings
The Bible and empirical evidence agree that we are created both
individually and corporately as sexual beings. Sexuality is an essential feature
of each human person and is a central aspect contributing to the identity of
each as a person. At the same time, this essential feature of our being
constitutes a basic factor leading to the drive toward bonding and eventually
toward the establishment of human community. But the biblical understanding
of humanity as created in God's image invites the search for further meaning
to our sexuality. Our creation in the divine image indicates that there is
 Notes

theological meaning to our sexuality as well. Because we are created in the

image of God and our creation includes being formed as sexual beings, the
sexual dimension of our existence must in some way reflect the divine reality.
As a result, our sexuality offers insight into the nature of the Creator.

1. Sexuality and the Nature of God

The primary statement concerning the creation of humankind in the divine
image is given in Genesis 1:26-27:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and
over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them.
The Genesis declaration that humankind is created in God's image is
found in the same context as a reference to humans as existing as male and
female. This raises the question as to whether maleness and femaleness is
significant for creation in God's image. Is the division of humankind into male
and female related to the image of God? If so, in what sense is this to be
understood? What could humankind as created male and female suggest
about the nature of God?
a. Sexuality and the gender of God. A well-established tenet of
Christian theology is that God is beyond sexual distinctions. Since biblical
times, masculine pronouns have been traditionally used to refer to God: yet,
these are not intended to declare that God is essentially sexually oriented,
specifically, being male and not female. The biblical documents simply will not
be pressed into such anthropomorphisms. In fact, one significant point of
difference between the Old Testament and the religions of the surrounding
nations lies in the Hebrew desacralizing of sexuality. Yahweh is not a male god
who has a goddess at his side, as in other ancient religions, for he alone is
God.51
Despite this amazing secularization of sex in the Old Testament, it is not
without significance that in both Genesis narratives when God chooses to
create what would mirror the divine being, he creates male and female. This
aspect of the Genesis stories indicates that our sexuality and human sexual
distinctions are somehow grounded in the divine reality and that the existence
of two sexes is important for our understanding of God.
On this basis, the Christian doctrine that God is beyond sexual
distinctions, although correct, must not be understood in an oversimplified
manner. God is beyond sexuality not in that God is nonsexual, but in that God
encompasses what to us are the sexual distinctions of male and female. What
we perceive as feminine and masculine characteristics are present in and
derive their significance from the divine reality.
b. Masculine and feminine motifs in the Bible. In speaking of the
divine reality, the Bible repeatedly employs motifs that are related to gender-
based traits. Of these, masculine-oriented references predominate. The
primary names for God found both in the Bible and in theological history
reveal this. Names with an Old Testament source include the Lord of the
 Notes

universe, the King over all the earth, the Father of humankind, 32 and the
Husband of Israel, a theme explored in the next chapter.
In addition to the use of specific names for God, God is pictured in a
masculine manner through the activities ascribed to him, which center largely
on the action of an agent presented as external or transcendent to the world.
Thus, in creation God speaks the universe into existence; in redemption God
sends his Son into the world; and in salvation God places the Holy Spirit into
the hearts of people.33 This basically masculine orientation lies behind the
consistent use of male pronouns to refer to God.
Despite the predominance of the masculine in the Bible, it would be a
mistake to conclude that the ancient Hebrews perceived of God in strictly
masculine terms. Feminine allusions are prevalent as well. Not only is God the
transcendent one who like a monarch exercises sovereign power, God is also
the imminent one who nurtures from within creation.
The nurturing motif is present in various ways in the Old Testament. For
example, it is evident in the first creation account. At the foundation of the
world the Spirit of God hovers over the primeval waters (Gen. 1:2b).
One feminine motif is foreign to the Bible, however. In contrast to
masculine metaphors that speak of Yahweh as husband to Israel, the imagery
of God as wife is never employed. Instead, feminine relational metaphors focus
on the mother-offspring relationship. God is presented as one who like a
mother protects, cares for, and nurtures her offspring.
In the Old Testament the mother bird was used as a specially apt picture
for the divine care enjoyed by the people of God. God's care for Israel was
likened to "an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that
spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions" (Deut. 32:11).
In keeping with this imagery, the Hebrew poets repeatedly spoke of the refuge
available "in the shadow of your wings" (Ps. 17:8. See also Pss. 36:7; 57:1;
61:4; 63:7; 91:4). This Old Testament background adds poignancy to Jesus'
lament over Jerusalem: "how often I have longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not
willing" (Matt. 23:37).
At times the metaphor of maternal nurture is also used to convey the
divine compassion on the people who have forsaken their God. Isaiah, for
example, who presents God as lamenting, "I reared children and brought them
up, but they have rebelled against me" (Isa. 1:2), declares "for the Lord
comforts his people and will have [motherly] compassion on his afflicted ones"
(Isa. 49:13). The maternal allusion is evident in the Lord's subsequent
exclamation: "'Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no
compassion on the child she was borne? Though she may forget, I will not
forget you!'" (v. 15).
The parental heart of God, especially in its maternal aspect, forms an
important imagery in Hosea as well:
 Notes

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I

called my son. ... It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking
them by the arms; ... I led them with cords of human
kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck
and bent down to feed them." (Hos. 11:14),

Maternal and conjugal imagery unite in the opening chapters of the

prophecy. The child of the prophet's unfaithful wife is Lo-Ruhamah, which
Samuel Terrien claims means "the one for whom there is no motherly love." 34
In contrast to this unloved state, according to the prophet's vision, in the
renewal God will extend motherly compassion to Lo-Ruhamah (2:23).
Terrien notes that the Hebrew term compassion was etymologically linked
to womb and that the word for grace originally meant "maternal yearning."
One must be careful not to put too much stock in such conclusions from word
rootage. But we are surely correct in seeing at least a parental, if not a
specifically maternal aspect of the Hebrew understanding of God at work in
the Old Testament reflections on experiences of God's gracious compassion.
(Even Paul, who could never have experienced the maternal dimension of
parenting, could not avoid entirely speaking of his relationship to his converts
in terms reminiscent of the Old Testament image of the divine maternal care of
God's people: "but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her
little children" [1 Thess. 2:7]).
The ancient Hebrews rose above the blatant equation of sexuality with
the divine that characterized the religious orientation of the surrounding
peoples. Yahweh was not simply a male deity for whom there existed a female
counterpart, for he alone is God. Despite Israel's cautionary stance with regard
to ascribing sexuality to the deity, the Bible is not reticent to employ sexually
based terminology and allusions to speak of the divine nature. God is not to be
thought of as either male or female, but as encompassing and serving as the
ground for both. For this reason, imagery based on human sexuality is
appropriate.

2. Sexuality and the Plurality of God

Because sexuality is a characteristic of God's highest creation, it would

not be surprising to find a foundational sexuality in the divine nature which
forms the ground for human sexuality. Similarly, because a plurality of sexes is
essential to God's highest creation, it would not be surprising to find a
foundational plurality in the divine being as well. In fact, the creation
narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 provide a hint that the plurality of humanity as
male and female is to be viewed as an expression of a foundational plurality
within the unity of the divine reality.
In the creation statement of Genesis 1:26-27 the plurality of human sexes
is explicitly linked to a plurality found in the divine self-references. God
expresses the creative intent with the declaration, "Let us make man in our
 Notes

image." Although the use of the plural forms ought not to be interpreted as
indicating that the writer was prototrinitarian (as many exegetes since
Tertulian have erroneously argued), at the very least they suggest, in the
words of Derrick Bailey,
that he envisaged God as associating others with himself in
some mysterious way as patterns in the act of creation, and
that he regarded Man as constituted in some sense after the
pattern of a plurality of supernatural beings. 35

The fuller divine self-disclosure of the New Testament allows us, however,
to see in these words in Genesis a more profound meaning. "They express,"
continues Bailey, "the Creator's resolve to crown his works by making a
creature in whom, subject to the limitations of finitude, his own nature should
be mirrored." The plural self-reference, therefore, finds its outworking in the
creation of humankind as male and female, that is, as a plural sexual creation.
A fuller presentation of this idea is reflected in the story of the formation of
Eve from Adam. The bond formed between the man and the woman in the
Genesis narrative arises out of a dialectic of sameness and difference. The
man sees in the woman a creature like himself, in contrast to the animals who
are unlike him. For this reason bonding can occur. At the same time, the two
are different, for he is male and she is female.
The narrator is keenly aware of both aspects of this unique relationship;
they are the same, yet different. In the application, the narrator draws from
the interaction of sameness and difference in explaining the mystery of the
bonding which leads two to become "one flesh." Male and female form a
dialectic of sameness and difference. The result of this dialectic is mutuality.
The two are alike and different, and on this basis supplement each other. The
mutuality of the sexes is the result of the attraction (eros) experienced
between the male and the female, beings who are fundamentally both alike
and different. In this way the dialectic of difference and similarity forms the
genius lying behind human bonding, which from the beginning has taken as its
primary form the marital bond with its attendant production of offspring.
The creation of humankind as male and female comes in response to the
divine self-declaration, "Let us make man in our image." This suggests that the
same principle of mutuality that forms the genius of the human social dynamic
is present in a prior way in the divine being. The assertion of just such a
supplementary within the one divine reality constitutes the unique
understanding of God that lies at the heart of the Christian tradition, namely,
the doctrine of the Trinity. God, Christians declare, is three persons in one
essence. In other words, God is the divine community.

3. Sexuality and the Community of God

The importance of community to our understanding of God and God's

program in the world is everywhere evident in Christian theology. For example,
it is central to the doctrine of creation. God's will to community lies at the heart
 Notes

of our understanding of God's design for all creation, but especially for the
creation of humankind. This theme is evident in the creation narratives. God
creates the first human pair in order that humans may enjoy community with
each other. More specifically, the creation of the woman is designed to deliver
the man from his isolation. This primal community of male and female then
becomes expansive. It produces the offspring that arise from the sexual union
of husband and wife and eventually gives rise to the development of societies.
God's design as directed to the formation of community may be pursued
from another theological direction as well, for it is evident in the biblical
concept of the kingdom of God. Ultimately God's reign carries an
eschatological orientation point, in that it refers to the completion of God's
program at the end of the historical process. The reign of God finds its
consummation in the eschatological New Creation promised by God. This
future reality will be characterized by full communion between God and
creation. The seer in Revelation envisions this even in terms of God coming to
dwell with humankind:
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the
dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They
will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be
their God." (Rev. 21:3)

The vision of the Bible is that of a coming kingdom of God which will
consist of a redeemed humanity populating a renewed universe. The final goal
of God's salvific activities, then, is communitya human society enjoying
perfect fellowship with the created world and with the Creator.
The community dynamic is likewise visible in New Testament ecclesiology.
The church is presented as the eschatological community, the fellowship of
those who seek to reflect in the present the future reality of the reign of God.
The church is the primary expression of this community in the New Testament,
replacing the Old Testament emphasis on family and tribe.
It is not surprising that the concept of community emerges as the focal
point of our understanding of the program of God. Community is an expression
of the nature of the Creator. As the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to express.
throughout all eternity the divine reality is the community of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit who comprise the triune God.
The concept of trinitarian community is closely related to the divine
attribute of love. Throughout the Bible God is presented as the loving one. In
fact. John put forth love as the central divine attribute (e.g., 1 John 4:16). This
assertion suggests that the community that comprises the Godhead is likewise
best characterized by reference to the concept of love. The doctrine of the
Trinitythe affirmation of one God in three personsallows this idea to be
taken a step further. It indicates that the bonding that characterizes the divine
life is similar to the dialectic of sameness and difference found in human
sexuality. The persons of the Trinity share in the one divine essence, for there
is but one God. Yet they differ from one another, for each is a distinct person
and cannot simply be equated with the others.
 Notes

The presence of this dialectic within the bonding inherent in the Godhead
may be seen by recalling a further aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the
Western tradition, the Father-Son relationship has been viewed as forming the
basis of the divine reality. Like the divine nature itself, this is a relationship
characterized by love, a bonding between the Father and the Son. The
foundational bond between the first and second persons of the Trinity is
characteristic of the divine nature as a whole but also emerges as a separate
hypostasis in the third person, the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of the
relationship between the Father and the Son. In this way, the love generated
by the relationship of the Father and the Son in their difference from each
other means that they likewise share the sameness of the divine nature, which
is love. This sameness is the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless is neither the Son
nor the Father, and therefore differs from both.
On the basis of the creation of humanity in the divine image it has been
asserted that the dialectic of sameness and difference characteristic of human
bonding is analogous to the dynamic within the divine Trinity. This suggestion,
however, ought not to be seen as indicating that the true reflection of the
image of God is only found in the marital union of male and female. 36 As noted
earlier, there is a sense in which the biblical tradition presents each person as
related to the image of God, albeit within the context of community which in
the New Testament focuses on the community of Christ as the foretaste of the
eschatological renewed community.
The New Testament link between the image of God and the church as an
expression of the future human community lies in three theological
considerations. Two of these have been described: God's intent in creation and
God's eschatological purpose for creation. The third arises from the metaphor
of the church as Christ's body and Christ as the head of the church. According
to the New Testament, Christ is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb.
1:3). As Christ's body, however, the church shares in Christ's relationship to
God. For example, the community of Christ is invited to utilize the address the
earthly Jesus preferred in speaking to the Father, namely, the term abba, with
its deep relational meaning. In the same way, by extension the church shares
in Christ's calling as the image of God. Through its connection with Christ, it
has been given the responsibility and privilege of reflecting the very nature of
the triune God. And as a result of this connection, the Pauline literature speaks
of believers, the members of the church, as now being transformed into the
image of God in Christ (1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10).
In the final analysis, then, the "image of God" is a community concept. It
refers to humans as being-in-fellowship. This conclusion completes the circle of
our discussion. Human sexuality forms the basis of the drive toward human
community. True community, community in accordance with the divine design,
gives rise to the primal male-female relationship, the bond of marriage. But
community is given expression preeminently in the community of Christ which
is to be expressed by the church, for ideally the church is the highest form of
 Notes

human community in this age. As we live in love, as we live in true community,

we reflect the love which characterizes the divine essence. Not only in
marriage, but in every expression of community, this living-in-love is an
outworking of our sense of personal incompleteness. At the foundation of this
recognition of incompleteness lies our sexuality, our existence as male or
female with its fundamental need for relationship. Because of its function as
the basis for the drive toward the bonding of community, sexuality is
foundational not only for the bond of marriage, but also for the forming of the
highest human community, the community of those who enjoy fellowship with
each other through their corporate fellowship with Christ.

Sexuality and the Dynamic of Creation and Fall

Christian anthropology summarizes the human situation by two
assertions. We are the good creation of God, designed to be the image of God.
to reflect the divine nature. But we are fallen. Our present existence is not fully
in keeping with God's design. Instead, we fail to actualize the divine intention.
This contradiction between being the image of God and yet being tainted by
sin characterizes all aspects of human existence.
A Christian understanding of sexuality must therefore take into
consideration this fundamental understanding of human existence. Like all
aspects of the present human reality, our sexuality, our existence as sexual
beings, must be viewed under the dual dynamic of creation and Fall.

1. Sexuality Viewed under the Dynamic of Creation

Humans are the creation of God, the Bible maintains. Indicative of the basic
anthropology of the Bible as a whole, the creation narrative of Genesis 2
depicts the first human as an animated earthly being. This indicates that we
are the creation of God in all aspects of our existence, including the material or
bodily dimensions. As a result, we are God's creation as sexual beings.
Viewing our sexuality under the dynamic of creation leads to two related
assertions. First, our sexuality is given by God. Existing as male or femaleas
this particular male or female human beingis willed by God. Second, not only
is our sexuality given by God, it is affirmed by God. It is an aspect of our being
pronounced good by the Creator. Thus, our sexuality is a positive dimension of
who we are as God's creatures. It is foundational to our existence in God's
image and can be a means for reflecting the character and nature of God.
Because God gives and affirms our sexuality, we also are to acknowledge
and accept our existence as male or female. We are who we are because God
has created us so and wills us to be this male or female human person. Our
sexuality is not to be displaced, replaced, or denied. Rather, we are to see
ourselves as sexual beings by divine design.
Likewise, because God gives our sexuality, we are to be stewards of this
dimension of our existence. Repeatedly the New Testament issues a call to
responsible stewardship of our bodies (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31). and such
injunctions are often placed in the context of issues relating to sexual ethics or
conduct. Our stewardship, however, moves beyond the negative, beyond mere
avoidance of sexual sin. to include the positive aspect as well, for we are to
glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20). By extension this Pauline admonition
means that we are to employ our sexuality to fulfill God's intention, namely,
 Notes

that as sexual creatures we actualize the divine design, reflect the nature of
God, and thereby bring glory to the Creator.

2. Human Sexuality Viewed under the Dynamic of the Fall

Christian anthropology asserts that we are God's good creation. At the
same time, however, the Bible teaches that we are fallen creatures. The
Reformation emphasized the radical effects of the Fall through the doctrine of
total depravity. Simply stated, this doctrine declares that because of the Fall,
sin extends to every area of human existence. There is no aspect of our being
that escapes the crippling effects or influence of sin. As a result of the Fall our
sexuality lies under the domain of sin as well. Our fundamental fallenness,
which raises its ugly head in so many ways, is also expressed through our
sexuality.
The Reformation emphasis on total depravity forms a stark contrast to
much current thinking. Contemporary popular media, for example, often
present human sexual expression in a romanticized manner. Sex is depicted as
a dimension of human life that is pure, divine, or wholly ecstatic. It is the last
refuge for fulfillment and self-expression untainted by evil and corruption.
The contemporary romantic portrayal, however, is simply unwarranted.
As the doctrine of total depravity indicates, sin is given expression through
every dimension of our being. There is no area of human existence, not even
the sexual, to which we can escape and thereby find a haven of wholeness and
freedom from the downward pull of sin. Rather than being a last vestige of
primal innocence amidst an otherwise fallen world, sex is an area of great
vulnerability. As a result of the all-pervasive presence of sin. our sexuality,
which was intended to be a vehicle for expressing the nature of God, can easily
be twisted, Sexual passion, designed as the foundation for the bonding that
leads to community, can be misdirected and expressed in unhealthy and
damaging ways.
The twisting of sexuality is depicted in the narrative of the Fall in Genesis
3, which presents the effects of sin in the area of sex roles. The man and the
woman were created in order to supplement each other. But after the Fall,
mutuality digressed into competition. Now the desire of the woman is directed
toward her husband, but he exercises rulership over her. Sex roles, which were
given by God in view of the procreative and nurturing functions, are now
incomplete expressions of God's design and lie under bondage.
Like all dimensions of human existence, therefore, sexuality lies under the
dynamic of creation and Fall. It is ambiguous, sharing both in the dynamic
divine intent for humanity, that is, in the divine will directed toward the
establishment of the community of male and female, and in the uncanny
human capacity for selfish exploitation of others. Jersild and Johnson rightly
concluded:
 Notes

As sexual beings we are capable of establishing beautiful

relationships of mutual dependence and respect, but we are
also capable of reducing another person to an extension of
ourselves, creating excessive dependence because we need
to control. It is precisely as sexual beings that we are most
vulnerable to the desire to possess another person and to
reduce him or her to the object of our desire. 37

The good news of the gospel, however, speaks to human beings living in
the midst of the tension between creation and Fall. The gospel declares that
despite human sin and in the midst of human fallenness divine grace remains
evident. Although humankind is expelled from the paradise garden, God
nevertheless offers guidance for the proper channelling of our sexuality. The
Creator even employs our sexuality, despite its participation in the Fall, in the
service of the attaining of the divine redemptive goal. God's employment of
human sexuality in bringing about the divine intentionincluding the coming
of the Redeemer as the seed of the woman and the coining into being of the
community of God's people through the human drive toward bonding forms
the foundation for expressions of the divine design in the present, fallen world.
The following chapters explore two alternative contents for the expression
of human sexuality within the overarching divine will to community. First,
attention is given to the community of male and female within the marriage
bond as an expression of human sexuality. In the present era this life choice is
the more widely followed. In Part 3 an alternative life situation comes into view,
singleness within the community of the people of God as a context for
expressing human sexuality. While not as prevalent in our day as the option of
marriage, singleness is the chosen or de facto status of a growing number of
Christians.
 Notes

MARRIAGE AS AN
EXPRESSION OF
HUMAN SEXUALITY
3
Marriage in a Christian
Perspective

Human beings are sexual creatures. According to the Bible we are created
with the purpose of reflecting God's image. These two statements are related,
for our sexualityour existence as male or femaleis an integral part of the
way in which we reflect the divine nature. Human sexuality plays a role in the
reflection of the divine image and fulfills the divine intention, in so far as it
forms the basis for the drive toward bonding that leads to community. Despite
the Pall, the Creator uses our sexuality in the service of attaining the divine
goal for creation. God's employment of human sexuality in bringing about the
divine intention forms the foundation for the expression of human sexuality in
the present fallen world.
Actually, there are alternative expressions of human sexuality within the
context of the divine will to community, the fellowship of male and female
within the marriage bond and singleness within the fellowship of the people of
God. This section explores the first of these options, whereas its alternative is
the subject of Part 3. The goal here is to develop a Christian view of marriage,
the sex act, and the boundaries for this expression of our sexuality. This, in
turn, provides a basis for interaction with the significant ethical issues related
to human sexuality that we face today.
The opening chapters of the book of Genesis indicate that marriage has
been a part of human exercises from the beginning. And anthropological
 Notes

studies confirm that marriage in some form is present in all societies, 1

Marriage, therefore, is not a specifically Christian institution, even though by
including it among the sacraments the Roman Catholic Church has given to it
a special Christian status.2 Despite its presence among the orders of creation,
to use Luther's phrasedespite its nature as a general human institution
marriage does take on special significance in Christianity, for it wins a special
understanding within the Christian faith.

The Meaning of Marriage

In Matthew 19 Jesus offers a radical interpretation of the Genesis
narratives of the creation of man and woman. He asserts that according to the
design of the Creator marriage consists of the monogamous union of a male
and a female in a lifelong commitment to one another which is to be
characterized by fidelity. This view of the marital union, he declares,
summarizes what has been the essence of the divine intent from the
beginning. Jesus then articulates a far-reaching assertion concerning the depth
of this bond: "'So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has
joined together, let man not separate'" (Matt. 19:6).
Christians maintain that this radical teaching of Jesus forms the heart of
the biblical understanding of marriage and as such constitutes the ideal in all
eros. But how is this central teaching concerning the marital relationship to be
understood? In order to draw from Jesus' declaration a basis for the
development of a Christian perspective on marriage, we must place this saying
within the context of two significant biblical emphases, community as God's
ultimate intention for humanity and the marital bond as a metaphor for deeper
theological truth. Then we can offer some concluding comments concerning
the implications of marriage for our understanding of the triune God.

1. Marriage in the Context of God's Ultimate Intent

The primary consideration in developing an understanding of the marital
relationship must be God's intent in instituting marriage. As has been noted,
God's ultimate goal can be described as the desire to enter into covenantal
fellowship with human beings who thereby enjoy community with each other
and with the Creator. This intent will find its highest fulfillment in the
consummation, when the community that will characterize the reign of God
arrives in its fullness.
Yet, in history there are foreshadowings or precursory experiences of this
eschatological enjoyment of community. Certain of these earthly experiences
are integral to the divine activity which brings about the establishment of the
community that will characterize God's reign. Biblical history gives an
indication of this.
a. The primary expression of God's intent: the Old and the New. As
was indicated in the previous chapter, in the Old Testament, family and tribe
were the primary focal points of community. The primacy of the marital bond in
the Old Testament is already visible in the creation narratives. Genesis 1:27
offers a hint concerning the role of marriage as an expression of community:
 Notes

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
What is only implicit in Genesis 1 is made explicit in chapter 2. The
description of the creation of the first human pair indicates that the husband-
wife relationship is to be seen as the primary expression of the God-given
human drive to bonding and thus to community. The creation of the man and
the woman as similar and yet different is intended to be viewed as a step in
the direction of the establishment of community. The narrator indicates that
God's desire is that a natural fellowship arise between Adam and Eve in the
garden, a fellowship which God as the Creator would likewise enjoy.
After the Fall (Genesis 3) the divine intention for sexuality in the
establishment of community takes on added significance. Human sexuality,
with its procreative ability, now is shown to be the means God will utilize in the
establishment of a redeemed humanity. The Redeemer will be the Child of the
woman.
The New Testament asserts that this Old Testament expectation is fulfilled
in Jesus of Nazareth. In this way the story of Jesus marks the true
interpretation and confirmation of the Genesis protoevangelium. A fitting
climax to this New Testament commentary on Genesis 3:15 comes in the book
of Revelation. The promise of God that the offspring of the woman would crush
the head of the serpent forms the background for the imagery of the birth of
the Child in Revelation 12:1-9.
On the basis of the fulfillment of God's promise concerning the coming of
the Child of the woman, the New Testament, in contrast to the Old, maintains
that the greatest earthly expression of the divine will to community is now the
community of Christ, not the family. For the Christian, therefore, the fellowship
of believers is intended to be the primary locus of the experience of
community and the primary orientation point for personal identity. This is
evident, for example, in Jesus' declaration that those who do the will of the
Father are his true family (Matt. 12:50) and in Paul's emphasis that the
primacy of service to the Lord be the chief consideration in decisions
concerning entering into marriage (1 Cor. 7:29-35)

b. The role of marriage in the New Testament. Although the New

Testament maintains that after the coming of the Child the church replaces
family and tribe as the central expression of the establishment of community,
marriage is not for this reason rejected. Nor is it afforded an unimportant
status. On the contrary, it retains a vital, albeit different role in the light of
God's saving work. Specifically, marriage continues to be important for the
ongoing development and expansion of the divine community as it is focused
in the church. This role, however, is no longer to be understood in terms of
bringing the community of God into the world, as in the Old Testament era.
 Notes

Rather, it is now to be viewed from within the context of that community.

Marriage is an expression of the expansive nature and outreach mandate of
the church, and it functions quite naturally as a vehicle of that mission.

The New Testament speaks of this new role for marriage as operative in
two directions. First, marriage serves as an agent for the expansion of the
church through the influence of the believer in the home. Such influence may
come in the form of the witness of a believing spouse. This dynamic motivates
the admonition to wives in 1 Peter 3:1-6 Peter maintains that through a holy
lifestyle, the believing partner (in the first century, generally the wife) may be
able to win her spouse:
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so
that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be
won over without talk by the behavior of their wives, when
they see the purity and reverence of your lives. (1 Peter 3:1-
2)

The same possibility forms the background for Paul's admonition that a
believer not separate from an unbelieving spouse so long as the latter is
willing to maintain the marriage (1 Cor. 7:12-16). The presence of a believer in
a marriage entails a special occasion for the working of the gospel in the life of
the spouse, as the unbeliever is able to see the embodiment of allegiance to
Christ in the believing partner.
In addition to the influence of the gospel within the marriage itself, the
New Testament speaks of the influence of godly parents on children. This
understanding may in part lie behind Paul's somewhat obscure assertion that
children of marriages in which one spouse is a believer are "holy," not
"unclean'' (I Cor. 7:14b). This remark ought not to be interpreted as suggesting
that such offspring are automatically members of the believing community.
Recent exegesis finds the background for the statement in the post exilic
problem of unholy marriages involving the returning Jews and their pagan
neighbors.3
At the same time, Paul may have in view the special working of the gospel
that is present in the lives of such children because of the embodiment of the
gospel in the believing parent. If this is the case, then the text bears
resemblance to the admonition to fathers in the Ephesian epistle. Reminiscent
of the Old Testament understanding of the home as the focus of religious
training, they are commanded to rear their children "in the training and
instruction of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4). In short, the faith of parents is to exercise a
positive influence on the children, disposing them to subsequent membership
in the believing community.
Second, the New Testament speaks of marriage as a vehicle for the
outreach mission of the church, This occurs through the influence of godly
families in the wider society. Repeatedly in the New Testament era the homes
 Notes

of Christians became bases for the launching of the church in specific

locations. The Philippian congregation, for example, began with the baptism of
the households of Lydia and the jailor (cf. Acts 16:11-15, 25-54, 40). Further,
families often offered their homes to provide facilities for house churches (e.g.,
Philemon 2). Priscilla and Aquila comprise the most vivid example of the
influence of a married couple for the cause of the church. These two believers
are mentioned several times in the New Testament documents, and on each
occasion indication is given that they were working together through their
home to advance the gospel (Acts 18:2-3. 26; Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19).
Whether within the family relationship or in moving from the home into
society, marriage performs a significant role within the context of God's intent
for the expansion of the community of believers. Within the marriage
relationship this expansion moves from person to person, as marriage
becomes the vehicle for the incarnation of the gospel in the life of a spouse so
that the believer's partner is drawn into the fellowship. This expansion likewise
moves from generation to generation. Marriage becomes an important vehicle
for this, as the family forms the context for the training of the next generation,
so that children eventually express the same faith as their parents. The
expansion of the gospel also moves from the family outward, as the marriage
itself and the home that the marriage partners establish serve as the
foundation for ministry beyond their boundaries.

2. The Metaphorical Meaning of Marriage

Marriage derives its meaning from its role in the divine program for the
establishment of the community of the people of God. The Bible also employs
the marriage bond as a metaphor of certain aspects of the spiritual
relationship between God and God's people. Like the first, this theme is also
presented in both Testaments.

a. Marriage as metaphor in the Old Testament: Yahweh's

relationship to Israel An interesting description of the relationship between
God and his people is developed by the Old Testament prophets. In the
prophetic movement, marriage came to be viewed as a metaphor for Yahweh's
relationship to the nation Israel. The plot of the story they told through this
metaphor consists of three acts.
Act one describes the betrothal of Israel to Yahweh. The prophets utilize
the experience of engagement and becoming married to picture the special
covenantal relationship that Yahweh intended for Israel as his people. The
introduction of the marriage metaphor added the idea of love and willing
fidelity to the concept of covenant that in the ancient world originally carried
the connotations of a contract between a king and his vassals. God's
relationship to his people was to be more than legal contract: it was to be a
 Notes

relationship of mutual love. The link between love and covenant is aptly
portrayed through the picture of marriage. The marriage metaphor is likewise
significant in that it could reflect the idea of the permanence of the
relationship. The intention of Yahweh was that Israel be like a virgin bride who
gives herself willingly, continually, and exclusively to her husband (Jer. 2:2)
and thereby becomes his delight (Isa. 62:5).
But in act two, Israel shows herself to be an unfaithful spouse, forsaking
Yahweh for other gods. Jeremiah is an important example of the prophets who
employed imagery of adultery to speak of the idolatry of Israel and Judah:
During the reign of King Josiah, the Lord said to me, "Have
you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on
every high hill and under every spreading tree and has
committed adultery there... . Yet I saw that her unfaithful
sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed
adultery." (Jer. 3:6, 8)

The prophet finds in adultery and divorce an appropriate metaphor for the
apostasy and divine judgment of the northern kingdom. He declared that
Yahweh "gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away
because of all her adulteries" (v. 8), a fate which he sees as threatening Judah
as well.
The most heart-rending use of this theme, however, is found in the
prophecy of Hosea, whose own marriage paralleled the sad tale of the
relationship of Yahweh to Israel:
"Rebuke your mother, rebuke her, for she is not my wife, and
I am not her husband. Let her remove the adulterous look
from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her
breasts. ... I will not show my love to her children, because
they are the children of adultery. Their mother has been
unfaithful and has conceived them in disgrace." (Hos. 2:2, 4-
5)

Nevertheless, the story does not end on this negative note, for act three
follows. Despite Israel's "adultery" Yahweh has remained faithful. And this
faithfulness of Israel's husband forms the basis for the future restoration
envisioned by the prophets. They hold out the hope that God will bring about a
renewal of the relationship some day in the future. In the words of Hosea, "'I
will show my love to the one I called "Not my loved one." I will say to those
called "Not my people," "You are my people"; and they will say, "You are my
God"'" (2:23).
In this way, then, in the prophetic community marriage serves as a
metaphor of the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh to his people. But this theme
does not lose its poignancy with the completion of the Old Testament. Paul
quotes verbatim the promise in Hosea in reference to the church (see Rom.
9:25), and in speaking of the community of believers Peter employs a mixture
 Notes

of metaphors from the Old Testament, including allusions to the marriage

theme (see 3 Peter 2:9-10).

b. Marriage as metaphor in the New Testament: Christ's union with

the church. Not only does the New Testament understand marriage within the
context of the expansion of the church, but, following the example of the Old
Testament, it also finds theological significance in the marriage bond. Marriage
was used as a metaphor to speak of Christ and the church. This idea comes
forth in two basic ways in the New Testament documents.
The first employment of the relationship of male and female in marriage as
a metaphor depicting the relationship of Christ and the church is found in
Ephesians 5. The author develops a reciprocal connection between the spiritual
and the marital aspects. Thus, the bond between husband and wife serves as a
metaphor of that between Christ and his people. Rut the analogy moves in the
other direction as well. The roles fulfilled by the Lord and the church in their
relationship provide a model for husbands and wives.
The context out of which the discussion of marriage emerges in this text is
the general admonition concerning all relationships within the church: "Submit
to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21). Within the context of
the general principle of mutual submission. Paul cites marriage as a specific
case. The husband-wife relationship, he asserts, is to follow the pattern of the
relationship between Christ and the church, becoming thereby an object lesson
of that deeper spiritual reality.
This means, on the one hand, that wives are to respect and submit to their
husbands, as the church responds to Christ. Husbands, on the other hand, are
to love their wives after the pattern of Christ. Christ's self-sacrificing and
cherishing love for the church becomes the model for a husband's care for his
wife. Husbands, Paul adds, should care for their wives, just as they care for
their own bodies. Again he draws analogy from Christ who cares for us as
members of his body. The discussion climaxes with a quotation of Genesis 2:2-
1. Paul, however, moves beyond the original application to marriage of the
"leaving and cleaving" (in the Old Testament text), declaring that the mystery
involved is in reference to Christ and the church (v. 32).
This text is significant because of the parallel it draws between the primal
focal point of human communitythe community of male and female in
marriage, which is given elevated status in the Old Testamentand the
primary focus of the New Testament, namely, the church as the body of Christ.
In so doing, Paul sets the order of marriage, which according to the Old
Testament has been central to human fellowship since creation, within a
broader and far-reaching theological context, namely, salvation history as it
comes to light in the church. This situating of marriage within the dynamic of
Christ's relationship to the church gives to the male-female bond a special
status as a metaphor of the gospel. This bond must not be treated lightly. On
 Notes

the contrary it is to be viewed with all seriousness, because of the theological

truth it is able to convey. As the primal human bond, marriage points to the
spiritual bond that God desires to enjoy with humankind, a bond created
proleptically by Christ's bond with the church.
As a man and a woman enter into and then maintain the marital union,
they offer a picture of the great mystery of salvationthe union of Christ and
the believing community. In so far as the marriage partners relate to each
other properly, through mutual submission (the submission of the wife to the
husband and the love of the husband for the wife), they portray the mystery of
Christ's self-sacrifice for the church and the church's submission to Christ.
As is developed in subsequent chapters, the metaphorical significance of
the marriage relationship is an important dimension in marital faithfulness.
Unfaithfulness is a serious matter, because it destroys the metaphor and mars
the picture that marriage is intended to provide.
The metaphor, of course, ought not to be pushed too far. Marriage is a
picture of a significant spiritual reality, but the marital bond does not portray
every dimension of Christ's relationship to the church. The most obvious
aspect not found in marriage is the sanctifying function that belongs to the
self- sacrifice of Christ (Eph. 5:21-27), which finds no parallel in the husband's
love for his wife. Nevertheless, to the extent that this human institution can
function as a picture of a divine reality central to "God's saving design,
marriage is an apt metaphor, offering a visible representation of the spiritual
bond between Christ and the community of faith.
Related to the theme of the mystery of Christ's relationship to the church
is a second, the imagery of the bridegroom and the bride. This imagery is
implicitly present in Ephesians 5, where Christ appears in the role of the
bridegroom, even though he is never referred to as such. Veiled references to
Jesus as the bridegroom are found in several places in the Gospels. In his final
address, John the Baptist refers metaphorically to his relationship to Jesus in
terms of that between the friend and the bridegroom: "The bride belongs to
the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for
him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine,
and it is now complete" (John 3:29). Likewise, Jesus uses this terminology in
responding to those who criticize his disciples for not fasting: "'How can the
guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them?'" His reference to himself
is made obvious as he continues, " the time will come when the bridegroom
will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast'" (Mark 2:19-20).
At the climax to the book of Revelation this theme is most pronounced and
most explicitly employed. Reference to Jesus as the bridegroom first appears in
Revelation 19 where the great multitude shouts forth praise to God, ""for the
wedding of the lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready'" (19:7).
Later an angel shows to the seer "'the bride, the wife of the lamb'" (21:9),
 Notes

namely, "the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"
(21:10. cf. 21:2). This bride is the new city of God, in which complete fellowship
between God and humankind is enjoyed. In other words, the bride of the lamb
is the consummated new society of redeemed humans, the bringing into being
of which is the goal of the work of the incarnate Christ.
The significance of this metaphor is unmistakable. The marital bond as the
pristine focus of human fellowship is thereby linked metaphorically to the
eschatological bond between God and humankind. The fellowship which God
intended from the beginning in the divine creative act is consummated in the
new society at the end of salvation history.
Viewed in this light, marriage stands as a symbol of that consummated re-
amity and thereby gains an eschatological orientation point. As a male and a
female enter into the matrimonial bond and maintain that bond in all fidelity,
they offer a picture of the fellowship of the eschatological redeemed humanity
with the Creator. Marriage is an apt symbol of this because of the dialectic of
sameness and difference that this bond entails. The man and the woman come
together as persons who are alike ("bone of my bone"), yet different
(male/female). This dialectic forms the basis for the bonding that occurs in
marriage. In a metaphorical way the fellowship in the reign of God is likewise
characterized by a dialectic of sameness and difference. Individual redeemed
persons are brought together in the redeemed society and thereby form a
unity of diversity. And they enjoy fellowship with the One who created them as
beings who are different from God. but who nevertheless are able to reflect the
divine image. Marriage is an apt symbol of the eschatological new society,
likewise. because the community of this male and this female is a foretaste
and sign on a small scale of the great future community God is bringing to
pass.

3. Marriage and the Triune Nature of God

The meaning of marriage arises out of the place of this institution within
the purposes of the Creator. This meaning is enhanced by the biblical use of
marriage as a metaphor of God and God's people. However, there remains yet
a further dynamic, one which brings together the Old and New Testament uses
of the male-female bond. Both in itself and in its relationship to the church,
marriage can be a fitting symbol or metaphor of the triune nature of God.
As was noted earlier, the divine community is a dialectic between
sameness and difference. God is a unity of three persons who share the one
divine nature but who are distinct from each other. This aspect of the
trinitarian life of God is reflected in marriage itself. When God determines to
create what would reflect the divine nature, he forms as the divine image
bearer humankindas male and femaleand through marriage he joins the
two together. This dimension arises out of the Old Testament presentation of
 Notes

marriage as the primal form of intimate human bonding. The marital bond is
able to reflect the intimacy of the relationship that is present within the
Godhead among the trinitarian persons.
God's program to bring into existence the divine image bearer does not end
with the institution of the male-female bond in the Garden of Eden. Rather, the
divine design reaches completion only in the human community, the society of
redeemed persons who through fellowship with Christ enjoy community with
one another and thereby experience fellowship with the Creator who is
likewise their Savior. This dimension is most closely tied to the church, the
body of Christ, which according to the New Testament constitutes the highest
form of human fellowship in this age and most closely approximates the
consummated fellowship of the future reign of God.
The coming of the church does not mark the end of the meaning of
marriage in the divine program, however. Even within the fellowship of
believers the primal human bond found in marriage plays a role, for it
symbolizes the relationship between the Redeemer and the redeemed
community, the church. Because of this twofold importance of marriage, this
institution belongs both to the order of creation and to the order of salvation.4

The Purpose of Marriage

Marriage is a significant institution because it arises out of the divine

program for humanity, is a metaphor of deeper spiritual realities, and is
intended to mirror the inter trinitarian relationship. This understanding of the
meaning of marriage provides a context in which to view a related issue, the
purpose of marriage. Despite the phenomenal rise in divorce during the last
decades, marriage continues to be popular in our society. In fact, people have
high expectations for the marital relationship.
There are today several competing suggestions concerning the central
goal of marriage. Vance Packard, for example, concluded that marriage has
taken on enhanced importance, as a way of meeting the needs for the warmth
arising from attachment to another, for personal identity, and for a sense of
stability in an uncertain world.5 Christian ethicists, however, have offered four
main purposes for marriage.

1. Marriage as the Context for Sexual Expression

The Bible provides the basis for a first suggestion concerning the purpose
of marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul indicates that marriage provides the
proper context in which to direct the human sex urge. His advice arose largely
out of concern that the Corinthian believers not become involved in the loose
moral practices for which their city was famous. Thus, he offers a general
principle: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his
 Notes

own wife, and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). On the basis of this
principle, he advises the unmarried and widows, "It is good for them to stay
unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,
for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (vv. 8-9).
Paul is not alone in seeing marriage in this light. The position of the
biblical writers is that marriage is the proper context for the sex act and forms
the boundary within which the sex drive is to be exercised. The Old Testament
law codified this view. And Jesus and the New Testament reaffirmed it.
"We must acknowledge the importance of marriage as the context for the
expression of the sex drive. The drive for expression through sex. to use the
phrase preferred by Lester A. Kirkendall, is undeniably strong. And its
unbounded employment has been rightly viewed by every culture as
dangerous to human communal life. For this reason marriage has become a
nearly universal phenomenon, and most societies have viewed the marriage
relationship as in some sense a sacred or inviolate bond."
Despite its biblical sanction, this understanding cannot be put forth as the
only, nor the highest purpose of marriage. There are other aspects of the male-
female bond. beyond its serving as the outlet for the human sex drive. In many
cases, the marital bond remains strong even after the sex drive has weakened
or in situations where for physical or psychological reasons one or the other
partner is unable to engage in the sex act. This phenomenon indicates that
other dimensions of marriage are equally important. 8 Even more significantly,
viewing it solely as the context for the expression of the sex drive robs
marriage of its theological meaning described previously.

2. Marriage as Directed Toward Procreation and Child-

Rearing
Augustine spoke of marriage as encompassing three dimensions, the
fidelity of the spouses, the procreation and rearing of children, and a holy
sacrament. Building on the thinking of the patristic era. the Roman Catholic
Church has long viewed the second of these dimensions as the chief purpose
of marriage.9 In Catholic thinking this emphasis has been taken a step further,
for the sex act has often been affirmed solely in terms of its role in procreation.
Church teaching generally declares that the possibility of or openness to
procreation forms the only context in which sexual intercourse is legitimate.
The centrality of procreation to marriage was given renewed expression in
the 1987 Vatican statement on human reproduction, Donum vitae, which
applies contemporary Roman Catholic understandings of the nature of the
human person and marriage to several crucial ethical issues surrounding
human reproduction.10 The primary purpose of the document was to maintain
the mystery of human procreation in the face of the unchallenged intrusion of
technology into human life. The burden of the argument presented by the
 Notes

magisterium rests on the meaning of the sex act within the context of
marriage. It insists that the "unitive meaning" of the act. which the document
acknowledges. cannot be separated from the "procreative meaning." In so
doing the magisterium in essence reaffirmed the traditional Roman Catholic
understanding that elevates procreation as the central meaning both of sexual
activity and of marriage itself, despite the changes in outlook that we have
developed in the church in the twentieth century.11
As in the case of the first proposal, we ought to affirm the viewpoint that
sees marriage as designed for procreation and child-rearing. The validity of this
view is confirmed by studies that indicate the importance of stable marriages
to the development of children. Children mature best when good role models
of both sexes are present in the home, most specifically in the form of parents
who share together the marital bond.12
This viewpoint also carries biblical precedence. The ancient Hebrews
clearly emphasized the importance of having and raising children. In fact, to be
"barren" constituted a source of shame, even a "reproach" for a Hebrew wife.
The Hebrews considered children to be a gift or blessing from Yahweh and
valued them as such (Ps. 127:3). Parents, and especially fathers, were
therefore commanded to train their children in the fear of Yahweh (cf.
Deuteronomy 6:6-9). Although the family is not elevated to the same degree in
the New Testament, the command to train children is repeated in Ephesians
6:1-2.
Nevertheless, procreation and child-rearing, while important to marriage,
cannot be elevated to its central meaning. Two arguments substantiate this
conclusion. The first relates to the permanence of the marital bond beyond the
child-rearing function. During the early years of marriage, procreation and the
raising of children occupy a crucial position within the marriage. But, with the
increase of life expectancy characteristic of our era, a couple can expect to live
together nearly as many years after the "nest is empty" as they did with
children in the home. The completion of the child-rearing function, then, does
not signal the end of the marriage bond.
Secondly, procreation and child-rearing do not represent the sole nor the
central meaning of marriage, in that they fail to embody the theological
understanding of the marital bond described earlier. As the primal expression
of the drive toward bonding, marriage constitutes a picture of the divine plan
of fellowship in community. Procreation and the rearing of children serve this
intention, rather than being served by it. And although the presence of
children as the fruit of the marital union gives added expression to this primary
intent, the intent is ultimately found in the marital bond itself, and therefore it
is present even when no children are produced. It is instructive to note in this
context that the longest presentation of the beauty of marital love found in the
 Notes

Bible, the Song of Songs, makes no mention of procreation in its celebration of

sexual relations.

3. Marriage as the Focus of Companionship

Western society in general has adopted a third understanding of the meaning
of marriage, namely, companionship. The ideal marriage is now pictured as
that in which the husband and the wife become for each other closest friends.
According to current thinking, the truly happy marriage partners are those who
experience intimacy, who enjoy being together, and who share in the interests,
goals, and dreams of their spouses.
The predominance of this understanding of the meaning of marriage is
partially due to the influence of nineteenth-century Romantic ism. But its roots
go deeper, including the Protestantism which has played such an important
role in shaping the understandings of the Western world.
Companionship as the central meaning of marriage can also be defended
by appeal to the social sciences. Psychology emphasizes the importance of
stable primary bondings for the release of the full personhood of the individual.
The marital bond can be a fruitful relationship as husband and wife are freed
from the need to compete with others and to prove themselves to each other.
As they live in an atmosphere of complete acceptance and mutual
companionship, they are able to express themselves freely, leading to a
wholeness of existence. And the companionship of marriage provides a source
of identity and intimacy in an otherwise impersonal society.13
This viewpoint can appeal to the biblical materials for support as well. The
story of the creation of the female in Genesis 2 provides an important
foundation for seeing marriage primarily in terms of companionship. The
creation of the woman was precipitated by God's desire to provide a suitable
companion for the man. We can almost hear Adam's expression of joy
reverberate through the garden when he met his partner: " This is now bone of
my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called "woman," for she was
taken out of man" (Gen. 2:25).
The same theme is implicitly present in the stories of the Hebrew
patriarchs. The narrator gives the sense that the relationships between the
spouses in these marriages were characterized by intense companionship.
Examples include Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and
Rachel, as well as the tender love story of Ruth and Boaz.
Although perhaps not as pronounced, the New Testament likewise
implicitly presents the theme of marital companionship. Peter's wife apparently
accompanied him on his missionary journeys (I Cot. 9:5). Priscilla and Aquila
shared together in the ministry which radiated from their home. Above all, the
injunctions to spouses given in Ephesians 5:21-33 would be best facilitated by,
and even quite naturally lead to, a relationship of companionship within the
marital bond.
 Notes

While this understanding is likewise crucial to the marital bond, it is not

without dangers. As Diana and David Garland have noted, in contemporary
Western society the companionship model can easily fall prey to "the
overemphasis in our society on the you-me relationship and issues of intimacy
in marriage." which runs the risk of "turning marriage into a self-centered
system that mirrors the individualistic, self-actualizing goals of our society."14
Dangers such as these have led some Christians to look to other models
for the primary purpose for marriage. The Garlands, for example, have called
for a movement beyond companionship to a partnership model, with focuses
on "the purpose and calling of the relationship, the task of husband and wife to
make their relationship meaningful in the context of God's will."15
Attempts to find new models for the purpose of marriage are surety
correct. The considerations offered in this chapter indicate that the spiritual
metaphor which marriage is designed to be forms a basis from which to
develop such a purpose. Understanding marriage as a picture of the
overarching intent of God to fashion the community of male and female within
creation for the sake of the reflection of the divine reality offers a perspective
which can bring the various dimensions of the marital relationship together.
Sexual activity, procreation, and companionship are all important as
expressions of the primary intent of marriage, namely, to express the divine
will to community.

4. Marriage as a Spiritual Metaphor

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the primary meaning of

marriage is found in its function as a spiritual metaphor. As has been de-
scribed above, this metaphor moves in two directions, both of which are
related to the divine design of community. First, marriage forms a picture of
the community which is present in a prior way within the triune Godthe
community of Father, Son, and Spirit. Just as the Trinity is a community of love,
so also the marital relationship is to be characterized by love, thereby
revealing the love inherent in God. Marriage accomplishes this in that the
bonding that brings man and woman together incorporates a dialectic of
sameness and difference not totally dissimilar to the dialectic present in the
Trinity. One specific dimension of the divine Jove, its exclusiveness, is to be
reflected in marriage. The exclusive relationship of love found within the Trinity
(there is no other God, but the Triune One) and the exclusive, holy nature of
God's love for creation are to be reflected in the exclusive love shared by
husband and wife.
Secondly, marriage is intended to be a picture of the divine will to
community among humankind and between humanity and God. As the
primary expression of the drive toward bonding, marriage is closely related to,
even instrumental in. the bringing to pass of the corporate fellowship God
 Notes

intends for humans. In this context marriage becomes a picture of the mystery
of redemption. the love of God expressed through Christ, which gives rise to
the church.
Here again marriage has a divinely given role as an instrument to bring about
what it symbolizes. Historically, it was through the fruit of the marital bond
the procreative functionthat the Christ Child came into the world. But until
the consummation of the age, marriage continues to serve as a vehicle for the
expansion of the church from person to person and from generation to
generation. And the husband-wife relationship is intended to function in every
era as a picture of certain aspects of the relationship between Christ and the
church.
This being the case, marriage is to stand as a constant symbol of these
spiritual realities. The forming of the marital bond and the With of children
ought to serve as reminders that God chose marriage as the context in which
to work the miracle of the coming of the Son into the world. The establishment
of a home must occur within the realization that this union is to bee a vehicle
for the expansion of the fellowship of believers as a dimension of the divine
design for bringing about human community. And as husbands and wives live
together in the marital relationship, they should be conscious that their life
together is intended to be an important picture both of the mystery of Christ
and the church and of the mystery of the divine love. Marriage, in short, is to
be viewed with high regard, because the divine intent is that it function as a
picture of great spiritual realities.
Within this contextmarriage as a picture of the divine will to community
the bond between husband and wife can indeed become in the present an
experience of community, the community of male and female. Lewis Smedes
indicated the depth of relationship that comprises genuine community:
The trick is to find a real community, not an insider's club.
Not a group that makes believe it is a community just
because everyone recites the same creed. But a community
where people care enough to give each other permission to
be strugglers, wounded strugglers, who are hanging on to
their commitments by their fingernails. A community that
cares enough to permit people to fail helps people dare to
reveal their own struggles, including their failures as well as
successes.16

The development of this depth of community ought to be the goal of

husband and wife.

What Constitutes Marriage?

Marriage was instituted by the Creator and therefore has been endowed
with a purpose in the context of the divine intention for humankind. To this
point, our discussion has focused on marriage in general. No thought has been
 Notes

given to what may appear to be a prior issue, namely, that of the inception of
the marriage relationship. Now we must ask: When are a man and a woman
married? What is required for a bona fide marriage? And what actually
constitutes the marital bond?

1. The Constitutive Elements of Marriage

In the Old Testament era, a well-ordered pattern developed for the

establishment of marriages.17 Finding a suitable marriage partner was
accomplished either by the prospective groom himself or by his family (e.g.,
the selection of Rebekah to be the wife of Isaac, Gen. 24). The wedding was a
festive occasion that could last a week or longer (Judg. 14:12; Gen. 29:28). The
wedding night carried two sociolegal functions. As the occasion for the
consummation of the marriage through intercourse, it sealed the marital
contract between the two families. The bloodstained bedsheets passed among
the guests and set aside for possible future reference (Deut. 22: 1321)
proved that the bride's father and family had fulfilled their duty to preserve her
integrity.
For the ancient Hebrews the formation of the marital bond was a relatively
straightforward matter: Marriage consisted of a family contract plus its
consummation in intercourse, all of which transpired within the context of the
interested community. Changing cultural patterns, changing values on matters
such as virginity prior to marriage, and a heightened sense of individualism
prevalent in Western society have altered this ordered pattern greatly. As a
result an important question has been left unclarified. At what point are a man
and a woman married?18

a. Contemporary options. The movement away from ancient emphases,

understandings, and customs concerning marriage has resulted in changing
viewpoints concerning the constitutive elements in a bona fide marriage. In
contemporary society, three basic elements in various combinations emerge
as the most generally acknowledged ingredients.
A first proposal elevates the private, inward commitment of the two
consenting parties. This idea, more than any alternative, reflects the modern
understanding, which views marriage as the bond entered by the free and
personal choice of two people. This understanding shapes our dating and
courtship customs. And it often becomes the foundational principle to which
appeal is made in the face of various related ethical questions, such as
premarital sex, adultery, and divorce. The contemporary emphasis on
marriage as constituted by inward commitment sets our world apart from
ancient Hebrew society, in which not only sexual intercourse but also love
itself was seen as following, not preceding, marriage.
 Notes

Second, the public ceremony continues to play a major role next to inward
commitment as an important element in the forming of the marital bond.
Despite the sexual revolution of the 1960s, "living together" has not made the
public ceremony obsolete. Most people continue to book to the wedding,
whether it be a large gathering or merely a small ceremony, as an important
occasion and as necessary if a couple would be truly married.
The continued acceptance of the wedding ceremony, while differing
greatly from the weddings of biblical times, nevertheless forges a link between
the ancient world and ours. The public nature of the wedding offers a modern
affirmation of the public aspect of marriage. This institution is not merely a
private affair, a matter between two consenting adults. Rather, there is a
sense in which the wider society also has an interest in the forming of this
intimate bond.
Less widely followed today but more closely connected to the ancient
Hebrew outlook is a third element in the forging of the marital bond, namely,
its consummation in sexual intercourse. Some would maintain that the
marriage is not yet fully inaugurated until the sex act. This understanding
forms part of the basis for the Roman Catholic practice of granting marriage
annulments in certain circumstances.

b. The essence of marriage: inward commitment expressed in

outward act. Despite the dangers inherent in its abuse, the modern
movement toward viewing the essential element of marriage as being the
inward commitment of the two persons must be hailed as a positive
development. Rather than being a falling away from the biblical view of the
marital bond, the emphasis on inward commitment actually comprises a
movement back to the understanding of marriage presented in the stories of
creation in Genesis 2 and of the marriages of the patriarchs in subsequent
chapters. These stories give the impression that these early marriages,
although generally arranged by the respective families, were constituted
above all by the love and devotion of the spouses for each other.
Of course, it would be correct to argue that romantic love as we view it
today is not an essential element in marriage.19 This understanding of love,
which we take for granted, has actually gained wide acceptance only in recent
times and only in westernized societies. Therefore, while romantic love may
form a dimension of the inward commitment that constitutes marriage, this
commitment must also take other forms in addition to romantic love. But what
other forms are necessary to constitute marriage?
Many Christians look to agape, defined as the unconditional giving of
oneself to the other and unconditional acceptance of the other, as the essence
of inward commitment.20 While agape is without a doubt the New Testament
ideal for all relationships and specifically for marriage, it always remains an
unachieved ideal. Therefore, while the ideal ought never to be lost, agape
 Notes

alone is too lofty a concept to serve as the actual basis for marriage. There
have been many lasting marriages in which neither this nor romantic love has
characterized the marriage partners* relationship. What depth of inward
commitment is present in such marriages? What minimum commitment is
necessary to constitute a marital bond in the absence of the ideal? At the very
least, marriage requires some rudimentary commitment on the part of each
spouse to the other person and to the marriage itself. This commitment must
include the willingness of the husband and wife to continue in the marriage
state and contribute what he or she can in order to foster a successful life
together. When this degree of commitment is present, marriage can become a
reality.
Inward commitment forms the basis of marriage. But by its own nature
such commitment calls forth outward acts in some form. Lying behind this
assertion is a principle that is operative in various dimensions of human life,
namely, that the inward life must come to outward expression. The Epistle of
James, for example, applies this principle to the area of faith: "In the same
way. faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. ... Show me your
faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do" (James 2:17-
18). John echoes this same idea with respect to love: "This is how we know
what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to by down our
lives for our brothers... Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but
with actions and in truth" (1 John 3:16, 18). In the same way, the commitment
that two persons sense inwardly to each other leading to the bond of male and
female calls forth outward expression.
The inward commitment of male and female that Heads to the sealing of
the most intimate human bond. marriage, finds outward expression in many
ways. Yet, two actions are so foundational so as to lie at the heart of the
others. The first, the declaration of covenant in the presence of witnesses, is
the outward act that constitutes the actual beginning point of the marital
bond, for it comprises the public formalization of that bond. The second act,
which will be discussed in greater depth in the next chapter, is the physical
expression of personal commitment in the sex act. This act forms the repeated
reenactment of the covenant felt between the two partners and formalized in
the wedding ceremony. These two outward acts, the wedding vow and sexual
intercourse, form the most symbolic outward expressions of the inward marital
commitment.

c. The significance of the wedding ceremony. During the sexual

revolution of the 1960s many couples raised the question concerning the
importance of the wedding ceremony. "Of what value is a piece of paper?" was
the repeated cry. Since those turbulent years, many people have gained a
renewed appreciation for the marriage license. This rediscovery of the public
declaration of vows is significant.
 Notes

As has been indicated above, essential to marriage is the inward

commitment of the partners to each other and to the marriage bond. But the
marriage license and the wedding ceremony are reminders that marriage
entails more than the purely personal. It is not merely a private covenant
between two persons. As all societies in all eros have known, marriage has a
social or public dimension. The wedding ceremony, with its publicly witnessed
reciting of vows and its legally signed marriage certificate, functions in our
society as the social recognition of the married status of the new husband and
wife. The relationship between the inward and the outward, or the private and
the public dimensions, was aptly summarized by Kari Jenson's conclusions
from her observations of various long-term nonmarital relationships:
In fact, the promise of marriage is anything but private. As
marriage is the most profound commitment between two
persons, so its public declaration is the most profound action
we can perform in the world of men. The public promise to
love is the remarkable merging of the private with the public,
of the individual with the universal, of the world of thought
with the world of action. For in the public sphere, actions
rule, in the private, thought. To assume that one can promise
love in private is seriously to misunderstand the nature of
promise. Promise is action and therefore an essentially
public undertaking.21

In addition to the social dimension implicit in the wedding ceremony, there

is for the Christian understanding another aspect of the importance of the
public act. A public vow solidifies an inward commitment. This principle
operates in at least two ways.
First, a public declaration of commitment before witnesses assists the
individual in determining whether or not that inward commitment is actually
present. To stand in public and recite a wedding vow means that two persons
have advanced in their relationship with each other to the point where they are
ready to commit themselves to lifelong growth together. The declaration of
such a vow in the presence of witnesses calls the two persons to determine if
they indeed mean what they now are asserting and what they likely have
already spoken to each other in private.
Second, the public declaration of commitment to another person and to
the marriage relationship, coming as it generally does after a time of
preparation and planning and occurring within the context of a celebration,
offers the couple an event to remember. When the difficult times arise and the
temptation to bail out of the marriage haunts them, the marriage partners can
mentally return to their wedding day and remind themselves of the vow they
spoke in the presence of witnesses. Such a bold reminder can provide a source
of renewed strength to continue to be faithful to the covenant they share.
In each of these aspects, the wedding ceremony operates in a way
analogous to baptism. Baptism, too, is a public affirmation of an inward faith
and commitment, faith and commitment to Jesus as Lord. As such it is a
 Notes

solidification of that commitment and can become a day to remember for the
baptized believer.
The wedding and baptism are analogous in a further way as well.
Ultimately faith, not baptism, is what taps into the resources of God's grace
and opens the door to salvation. As the apostle declared. "For it is by grace you
have been saved, through faith" (Eph. 2:8). Nevertheless, without baptism as
its divinely ordained outward expression inward faith remains incomplete and
tentative. So also with marriage. Ultimately the commitment of two people to
each other forms the primal human bond. Yet, this inward commitment
remains incomplete and tentative without its corresponding outward
expression, the marriage ceremony, whatever form that ceremony may take.

2. Is the Marriage Ceremony a Matter for Church or State?

A question that carries importance in current ecumenical discussions of
marriage concerns the governing order that has primary interest and
responsibility in the inauguration of the marriage bond. Are the wedding
ceremony and the acknowledgment of married status under the Jurisdiction of
the civil or the ecclesiastical government? In the United States and Canada
there is no practical problem associated with this issue, for in church weddings
officiating clergy function not only as representatives of the church but also as
agents on behalf of the civil magistrate. Because of this dual role of the clergy,
civil and church ceremonies occur simultaneously.
The situation is quite different in certain European countries. There a civil
ceremony, which marks the point at which a couple is legally married, is
required in addition to whatever church wedding they may have planned. This
situation poses a problem for the Roman Catholic Church because of its
tradition of viewing marriage as a sacrament and therefore as coming under
the jurisdiction of the church.22
The considerations put forth in this chapter suggest that marriage is a
matter of interest to both the civil and the ecclesiastical spheres, for it crosses
whatever boundaries exist between church and state. First, the marriage bond
is both a social and legal contract and a spiritual union. The civil sphere has
been delegated authority to govern in the affairs of the wider society. The
contractual nature of marriage means that the state is entitled to stipulate the
legal and social dimensions of the entrance and continuance of marriage, in so
far as these matters affect society as a whole. The church, however, is
interested in the spiritual union that marriage is intended to mark.
Second, marriage is related to both the civil and the ecclesiastical realms,
because it crosses the boundary between creation and salvation history.
Throughout its history, the church has maintained in one form or another the
assertion that both the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities are expressions
of the rulership of God. The state carries jurisdiction under God over all
 Notes

persons within its domain, and thus it is related more closely to what all
persons share by virtue of their creation by God. The church, in contrast, is the
product of, and the witness to the salvific work of God in Christ. Its authority
and interest, therefore, is more closely connected to the believing community,
which comprises its membership. As has been developed previously, marriage
be- longs to both orderscreation and salvation. It is divinely instituted for
humankind in general, but because it has a special purpose within the context
of salvation history, it carries a special meaning for Christians. The general and
special aspects of marriage indicate that both state and church share an
interest in this institution.
The marriage ceremony, therefore, is an act of the state and of the church,
yet each with differing interests and emphases. The civil authority is involved
in the forming of the marriage bond in terms of its status as a civil, legal
contract. At the same time, the ecclesiastical authority is involved as well. The
church is active in the wedding in view of the status of marriage as a spiritual
metaphor. In addition, the church seeks to act in the interest of the marriage
partners. The goal of the church's action is that the husband and wife
experience the blessing and grace of God, so that they may enjoy community
with one anothera community of male and femaleand may form a home
which can serve as the basis for the expansion of the community of God in the
world.
 Notes

4
The Sex Act within the
Context of Marriage

We, as created sexual beings, may fulfill the divine intent and reflect the
divine image in the community of male and female constituted by the marriage
bond. This foundational affirmation calls forth the development of a Christian
view of marriage, which, in turn, can provide a basis for interaction with
contemporary ethical issues related to human sexuality. Such a view maintains
that ideally marriage is inaugurated by means of the private, inward
commitment of the two consenting parties as it is expressed in the outward act
of the wedding vows, that is, in the declaration of covenant in the presence of
witnesses. This forms the context for the consummation of the marital union in
the sex act. Marriage is maintained through the steadfastness of that inward
commitment, as each spouse remains faithful to the other and to the marriage
itself.
Related to, but not required for the establishment and continuation of
marriage is a second outward act, the physical expression of personal
commitment in sexual intercourse. This act forms the repeated reenactment of
the covenant between the two partners as formalized in the wedding
ceremony. Therefore, just as marriage is significant as a central expression of
the drive toward bonding that characterizes us as sexual beings, so also within
marriage the sex act serves as a primary means of expressing not only our
fundamental sexuality but also the mutual commitment of the marriage
partners. The act, therefore, must likewise understood in the context of
Christian theology.

The Sex Act and Meaning

The sexual revolution has raised anew the question concerning the meaning of
the sex act. The wake of the changes of the 1960s has splashed on the shore
of sexual ethics, offering attempts to provide a theoretical rationale for the
more permissive attitude toward sexual exploration. In their intent to sanction
a broadening of sexual expression beyond the boundaries of marriage, such
proposals often articulate outlooks toward the sex act that ultimately only
serve to reduce the meaning of intercourse. The Christian understanding of
human sexuality, however, cannot condone any reduction of the meaning of
sexual intercourse. Rather, this act must be viewed in terms of its deep
meaning within the context of marriage as intended by the Creator in
accordance with the divine purpose.
 Notes

1. The Sex Act and Anthropology

Current proposals which attempt to provide a foundation for more

openness toward sexual expression beyond the context of marriage tend to
accomplish this goal by offering some alternative understanding of the
meaning of the sex act. Such alternative understandings often draw from
aspects of Christian doctrine. But in effect they truncate the full meaning given
to the act as an expression of the whole person, a meaning that must be
emphasized in any truly Christian sex ethic.
At times the newer openness is defended by appeal to the sex act as a
vehicle for self-expression or self-actualization. Episcopal priest Raymond
Lawrence, for example, articulating a position he termed "the principle of
Jephthah's daughter." claimed that "sexual self-actualization is a value superior
to the values of 'innocence' and 'purity.""1
Others defend a more open practice by reducing the act to the purely
bodily sphere, suggesting that sexual intercourse is to be viewed solely as a
function of the body that can be satisfied without involving the real person. 2 As
a purely bodily act, intercourse carries no meaning beyond being an expression
of the needs of the body, it is argued.
This outlook has been put forth repeatedly in the history of Western
thought and often with two quite opposite ethical conclusions drawn from it.
On the one hand, some have argued from this premise that all sexual
expression should be avoided. Such a view apparently had infiltrated the first-
century church in Corinth, set forth with the slogan, "It is good for a man not to
touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1 nasb). Today the opposite conclusion is far more
likely to emerge, namely, that a person may engage in sex freely and with few
restraints, should one so desire, for sexual intercourse is of no consequence for
the acting agent. Others state the matter even more strongly, declaring that in
the interest of personal well-being we ought to give expression to our human
sexual needs.
However defended, the contemporary indulgent attitude toward sexual
expression is simply incompatible with the view of sexuality that arises from
the Christian understanding of the nature of the human person. Regardless of
the claims of its proponents to the contrary, it is ultimately based on a dualistic
anthropology that divides the human person into two parts, body and soul,
puts forth the soul as the focus of the "real" person, and reduces the body to
being at best the vehicle for the expression of the "true" person. Dualisms of
this type are quite foreign to the basically holistic or unitary anthropology
developed by the ancient Hebrews, as reflected in the Old Testament and
assumed by the writers of the New Testament. In fact, it was this type of
dualistic view that several New Testament epistles seek to combat.
Not only did the church in Corinth harbor an ascetic party, as noted above.
There may likewise have been teachers who, on the basis of the mistaken idea
 Notes

that what a person's body does has no effect on one's spirituality, argued that
they could simply indulge the body without restraint. In response, Paul
admonishes the Corinthian Christians to honor God with their bodies, for the
body belongs to the Lord. He applies this general principle specifically to the
sexual area. On the basis of Genesis 2.24, Paul concludes that the sex act is
more than an insignificant and inconsequential bodily function. In some way it
actually is able to effect a personal union between the partners (1 Cor. 6:12-
20). Paul insists that at the very least this act be viewed as highly meaningful.
The conclusion that the sex act is meaningful, and not merely a function of
the body, is gaining a hearing within the human sciences. An increasing
number of psychologists, for example, now maintain that sex without
"commitment" is dehumanizing. As Richard Hettlinger concluded, "there can
be no question that recreational sex is always in danger of treating people as
merely convenient objects for pleasure."' 4 Such a use, or misuse, of another
person's body is a blatant denial of his or her humanity as an embodied being.

2. The Sex Act and the Nature of Meaning

Christian theology, with growing agreement from the human sciences,

asserts that the sex act is meaningful and cannot be dismissed as a "mere"
bodily function devoid of meaning. But a full Christian understanding must
probe deeper concerning the meaning of the act. Is the significance, whatever
it may be, intrinsic to the act? That is, does the act carry its meaning within
itself? Or if not, from what does sexual intercourse derive its meaning?
A helpful point of departure lies in a contemporary understanding of
meaning itself and of how meaning arises, which relates to an understanding
of the nature of history and historical events in general.
Basically, this view maintains that events carry meaning as they form a
part of a larger context. No event carries its significance simply within itself.
There are no "brute facts" of history, for every event always transpires within a
context. By extension, the meanings of human actions are always dependent
on the context in which they transpire. No act carries its own meaning within
itself. No meaning is conveyed by a solitary "brute" act. Rather, all acts occur
within a context and are dependent on their context in order to be meaningful.
Further, this context is closely related to the intent of the actor in performing
the action. Meaning, therefore, is the product of the union of two elements, the
physical action itself and the context in which it occurs, which is related to the
intent of the actor.
This theory concerning the nature of meaning has important ramifications for
the question of the meaning of the sex act. The meaning of any participation in
sexual intercourse is dependent on the context in which it occurs and on the
intent of the persons involved. The participants pour meaning into the sex act
by the intent that motivates them and by the context they create when they
 Notes

engage in the act. Abraham Ma slow, himself no committed proponent of

traditional sex ethics, nevertheless confirmed thus view in declaring,
It would appear that no single sexual act can per se be
called abnormal or perverted, it is only abnormal or
perverted individuals who can commit abnormal or
perverted acts. That is, the dynamic meaning of the act is far
more important than the act itself.5

As a result of this relationship of act, context, and intent, the sex act
cannot be separated from the entire human being who engages in it. Sex is not
something that happens "out there," at a distance from the person who
participates in the act Rather, like human actions in general, the sex act is an
expression of the intent of the actor who creates a context for the action, from
which, in turn, the act derives its meaning. Just as there is no "brute fact of
history" and thus no "brute act," so there is no sex act apart from the context
in which it transpires. To attempt to separate the sex act from the personhood
of the participant, then, is doomed to failure. Instead, the participants must
engage in the act cognizant of what this specific act of sex is intended to
declare.
The general meaning of the sex act is that it is an expression of our
existence as sexual beings. The Christian asserts, however, that this act as an
expression of human sexuality carries even greater significance. Similar to
every action the Christian performs, sex is to be understood within the context
of the Christian life as a whole. Like every dimension of life, sexual expression
must be placed under the parameters of our fundamental commitment to the
lordship of Christ. As a result, the Christian seeks to understand the sex act
theologically. that is. in terms of what is being said thereby about the self, the
nature of life, and ultimately about God.
The Christian ethic maintains that the fundamental meaning of the sex act
is derived from its sitting within the marriage relationship. Its meaning is
constituted by its practice within a proper context, marriage, and with a proper
intent, an expression of covenantaI love under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Sex Act within the Marital Bond

The context of the sex act is crucial in giving to it the meaning it is
intended to carry. According to the Christian understanding, this act denotes a
variety of negative meanings when it is practiced within improper contexts.
When engaged in improperly, sexual intercourse is no longer the
positively meaningful, beautiful act it is designed to be, but becomes instead
an expression of self-gratification, adultery, infidelity, or exploitation. The
divinely intended, positive meaning of this act is found only when it is enjoyed
within its divinely given, proper context, namely, marriage. This assertion,
 Notes

however, raises the question concerning the relationship of the sex act to the
marital bond. What is the meaning of the act within the context of marriage?

1. The Sex Act as the Sacrament of Marriage

The positive meaning of sexual intercourse is related to its employment as

an act of marital union. When practiced within this content, the act can
become a beautiful statement of the total bond and covenant between
husband and wife. The enjoyment of sex within the marital bond can become
the reenactment, reaffirmation, and symbolic embodiment of the marriage
vow. This dimension of the meaning of sexual intercourse within marriage
suggests that the sex act may be termed the sacrament of marriage.7

a. The meaning of the term. The phrase, "the sacrament of marriage,"

is intended to build from the patristic understanding of the nature of the
Christian sacraments. Since at least the time of Augustine, a sacrament has
been defined as an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible grace. That is,
a sacrament is a physical act that seeks to give visible expression to a spiritual
reality. As an outward sign, however, a sacrament does not merely depict the
inward dimension; it also seals in a symbolic way the spiritual reality of which
it serves as a sign.
This understanding of the relationship between the rites of the church and
the underlying spiritual reality of union with Christ, which the sacraments
signify, forms a basis for understanding the relationship between the sex act
and marriage. The physical act of sexual intercourse can become a visible
expression and symlx)lic sealing of the marriage bond uniting husband and
wife.
The symbolic dimension of the sex act has become a topic of interest
among psychologists in recent years. One scholar, J. Richard Udry, even
claimed that "failure to understand the symbolic functions of sex in the marital
relationship is a failure to understand the human sexual relationship at all." He
found in the sex act "a symbolic affirmation of the exclusive news, privacy, and
psychological intimacy of the husband-wife relationship." And it serves to
reaffirm booth the male and female difference and complementarity. 8
In affirming the symbolic or sacramental nature of the sex act within
marriage, two cautions are in order, however. First, to use the term sacrament
is not to affirm that marriage itself is a sacrament. 9 that is, a means of grace.
Through a process that began in the patristic era and came to a climax in the
Middle
Arcs, the Roman Catholic Church erroneously elevated marriage to a
sacrament and at the Council of Trent codified its status as such.10
The Christian tradition knows a threefold criterion for bona fide
sacraments. A sacrament is an act that was ordained by the Lord, was
 Notes

practiced as such by the early church, and is so closely bound up with the
gospel so as to be a vivid picture of the gospel story. When judged according to
this traditional criterion, marriage simply cannot be considered a sacrament of
the church.
The second caution is equally important. The sex act likewise ought not to
be viewed as a sacrament. That is, the act itself is not a means of grace.
Sexual intercourse is not a sacred act, understood in terms of being linked with
the worship of God or with the reception of grace in some magical way, nor
ought it to be seen as holy in some mystical fashion.
This assertion stands in contrast to certain ancient religions, which viewed
sexual intercourse as a religious act linked to religious fertility rites. In these
religions, "sacred" sexual relations were established and nonmarital
intercourse condoned. The biblical documents from the patriarchs to Paul,
however, repeatedly reject the deification of sex. In fact, one of the definitive
characteristics that was to separate the Hebrews from the surrounding peoples
was the assertion of one God who as the only God was beyond the sexual
activity other ancient religions ascribed to the deities.11
Nor ought the sex act be viewed as a "means of grace" understood in
terms of the marriage itself. As important as it is to the ongoing functioning of
a good marriage, sex alone cannot infuse vitality into an ailing relationship, nor
can sex be the "glue" which holds a marriage together, as some people today
mistakenly believe.
The assertion that the sex act is the sacrament of marriage is to be
understood in a metaphorical sense. It is a way of describing the relationship
between the act and the underlying marital bond. And it serves as a way of
characterizing the meaning of the act within that bond. Within the marriage
relationship, sexual intercourse functions in a manner analogous to the
Christian understanding of sacramental acts. The rites of baptism and the
lord's Supper signify and seal the covenant of believers with each other and
with God. In a somewhat analogous way, the sex act is meaningful as it
signifies and seals the marriage covenant. More specifically, analogous to
participation at the Lord's table which reaffirms the covenant made in baptism,
participation in the sex act is a reenactment of the wedding vow.

b. The basis of the relationship between the sex act and

marriage. This understanding of the relationship between the sex act and the
marital bond has a twofold source. It arises out of the nature of the triune God
as the primary community of love and out of the divine intention that marriage
as the community of male and female serve as one means of actualizing the
creation of humankind in the image of God.
As has been argued earlier, God is the primary community of love.
Throughout all eternity the triune Godas Father, Son, and Holy Spiritforms
 Notes

the perfect community, for the three trinitarian persons are bonded together
eternally through love. Further, classical trinitarian theology asserts that the
relationship of Father and Son, as the dialectic of sameness and difference,
forms the basis for the trinitarian distinctions in the Godhead.
Because God created humankind in the divine image, by God's grace
humans can reflect the divine nature and being. We express the central aspect
of the divine naturebeing the community of lovein various ways. According
to the Genesis creation accounts, the primal reflection of the divine essence is
the community of male and female which we call marriage, the bonding of two
people to form a unity.
The sex act is intended to be an expression of the bonding of male and
female in the community of love. In fact, it comprises the most intimate and
meaningful act embodying the deep union of husband and wife that lies at the
basis of marriage. But not only does it express that bond, the sex act also
serves to solidify the unity of male and female in marriage. As the unity of
husband and wife is formed and expressedthat community of male and
female which God intends to serve as a reflection of the divine naturea
picture is presented of the higher unity of the divine life.
On this basis, the sex act may be seen as the sacrament of the marriage
covenant. It is an outward act which signifies an inward commitment and also
seals that inward commitment. Something changes when a couple engages in
sexual intercourse. The act has altered their relationship. They have become
one in body and therefore have symbolized their becoming a unity of persons,
as Paul indicates to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:15-16), building from Genesis
2:24. When practiced within the context of the covenant of marriage, engaging
in the act has deepened the commitment of the partners to each other and to
their life together. They have in this act truly become one.

c. Aspects of the relationship between the sex act and marriage.

The unity of marriage which constitutes the community of male and female is
designed by God to be an expression of the divine community of love. Within
marriage the sex act can become a reenactment, reaffirmation, and symbolic
embodiment of the marriage vow. En this context, it may be viewed in terms of
being the sacrament of marriage. The sacramental meaning carried by the sex
act within marriage arises in two major ways.
(1) First, the sex act receives meaning from its context within marriage as
it becomes a visible expression of the marital covenant between husband and
wife. Whenever the couple engages in sexual intercourse they are reaffirming
the pledge made on their wedding day and are giving visual representation of
the content of that vow. This may be seen by looking at the nature of the
marital covenant and then by viewing the sex act as an enactment of that
covenant.
 Notes

The marital covenant has many dimensions. But in each of these

dimensions the intent of the covenant is to produce in marriage a foundational
community in which male and female live together in fellowship. To this end,
the covenant includes a commitment on the part of the covenant partners to
give and receive freely. Ideally the marital state is one in which the free
exchange of the partners can transpire in daily life together.
Further, the covenant includes a commitment to transparency. The human
sciences have documented the importance of such personal openness as a
means to the fostering of healthy relationships. In forming the marriage bond
the partners commit themselves to seek to be transparent to each other,
sharing with each other their deepest needs, dreams, and goals.
Likewise, the marriage covenant includes a commitment to total and
unconditional acceptance. This, too, is crucial to a good marriage and is a sign
of genuine community. In forming the marriage bond the partners covenant
together to move toward full acceptance of each other.
A commitment to this goal helps to release the marriage partners from the
performance orientation characteristic of contemporary society. that is, from
the need to live up to the expectations of another in order to gain for oneself
the acceptance of the other. Rather, acceptance by one's spouse forms the
context in which each marriage partner is free to act. Within this context of
acceptance both partners are able to function according to their gifts,
responsibilities, and abilities. In this way, the human community of marriage
becomes a reflection of the divine nature, which includes God's unconditional
acceptance of us despite our finitude and God's perfect forgiveness of our sin
in the midst of our fallenness. Just as God justifies the sinner by grace apart
from works, so also marital commitment is based upon unconditional
acceptance apart from the "performance" of one's spouse.
The sex act is a visible enactment of these various dimensions of the
marriage covenant. In sexual intercourse intimacy is freely given and received.
The commitment to give of oneself freely and to receive from the other in
freedom is visually and physically enacted through this intimate sexual
relation. As this occurs the sex act points to the various ways in which the
partners give to and receive from each other in day-to-day life together. And
by this act the partners renew their commitment to the task of giving and
receiving freely, which they expressed in their marriage vows.
Further, sexual intercourse is an act of physical transparency. This act
forms a return, as it were, to the transparency of the Garden of Eden, for
husband and wife are "naked and not ashamed." Physically they are fully
transparent to each other, for in the nakedness of the sex act the most private
aspects of one's physical being are no longer hidden from the partner. This
physical transparency symbolizes the deeper transparency between the
marriage partners, to which they have committed themselves in the marriage
 Notes

covenant. And through physical transparency the partners commit themselves

anew to the development of the full transparency they promised to one
another in the marriage vow.
Likewise, sexual intercourse is an act of total acceptance. This moves in
two directions. On the one hand, it includes acceptance of oneself and of one's
own sexuality. In coming to this self-acceptance a marriage partner is often
assisted by one's spouse. This is especially important in situations in which a
person has been conditioned, whether by upbringing or through some
traumatic experience, to deny or be embarrassed by one's sexuality. As one's
spouse accepts the partner's sexuality, however, the partner is moved in the
direction of self-acceptance and self-affirmation as this embodied, sexual
being.
On the other hand, in the physical sex act a partner acknowledges and
accepts the other for the person he or she is. And each affirms the maleness or
femaleness of the other.12 In so doing, through the physical act of mutual
acceptance the marriage partners reaffirm the commitment they made in their
marriage vow to accept each other in all areas of life.
The acceptance aspect of the meaning of the sex act within the context of
marriage is of special importance in the postsexual revolution era in which we
live. In contemporary society, sexual intercourse has increasingly become
oriented toward preconceived standards of performance. In an age of multiple
and ever-changing partners, persons are forced into a performance mentality.
Each actor is continually conscious of the need to maintain his or her
performance rating. A sexual partner not only competes with oneself, but with
the previous partners of one's "lover" and with all potential rivals for the
affections of that "lover."
When the sex act is viewed in the context of the marriage covenant,
however, this performance mentality is dissipated in the grand solvent of
mutual love. The commitment that binds husband and wife is directed toward
permanence and full, unconditional acceptance. Within this context each
partner in the sex act is released from being absorbed by concerns about
measuring up to expectations and is released to seek in freedom to please
one's lover. The desire to please one's spouse in the sex act, in turn, opens the
door to the second aspect of the sacramental meaning of the sexual
intercourse within marriage, pleasure.
(2) The sex act within marriage carries sacramental meaning as an act of
pleasure. Recent research has confirmed what many people have known for
some time: the sex act can be uniquely and intensely pleasurable. 13 The
pleasure of sexual intercourse arises in part from its physical dimension, for we
have been designed biologically to derive pleasure from this act. This
biological design is not limited to the male, as is sometimes suggested, but
includes the female as well. In fact, as Letha Scanzoni pointed out, drawing on
 Notes

the work of Masters and Johnson, "only women have a sexual structure that
has absolutely no other function than to provide sexual delight."14
The pleasurable aspect of sexual intercourse is enhanced when the act is
intertwined with love. For this reason, marriage, as the bond of love uniting
male and female, can provide the context for the mast fulfilling enjoyment of
the act. Practiced within this context, sexual intercourse can become a
physical act carrying deep significance. For it can declare that true pleasure is
a by- product of relationship or covenant.
In contrast to popular misconceptions, the Bible presents a pleasure-
affirming, not a pleasure-denying, message. The biblical authors maintain that
God's concern is not to eliminate this dimension of embodied existence, but to
direct it properly in the interest of the enjoyment of true pleasure. In the same
way the pleasures of sex are celebrated in the Bible.
Although there are hints of this celebrative dimension repeatedly in the
Bible, the most explicit affirmations of sexual pleasure are found in the wisdom
literature of the Old Testament. Several of the Proverbs, for example, are
devoted to the theme of finding true sexual pleasure. This theme is expressed
both through warnings against seeking sexual fulfillment outside of marriage
and through assertions concerning the delight that the married person should
find in one's spouse.
Above all, however, the Song of Songs is significant in this regard. Despite
attempts throughout both its Jewish and its Christian exegetical history to view
it as an allegory of God and God's people, the book is best seen as an
extended description of the celebrative dimension of sexuality. 15 This literature
is erotic in the positive sense of the term. It celebrates sexual pleasure and
eros, the attractiveness that a lover finds in the beloved.
As a declaration that pleasure arises from commitment within relationship
(the concept of covenant), marriage as a covenantal bond brings together the
two aspects of love, agape and eros. Within the context of marriage the sex
act declares that the desire for the other, the physical attraction that two
persons may sense toward each other (so central to eros), can truly be fulfilled
only in the total giving of one to the other and the unconditional acceptance of
the other (agape). As the love of the other characterized by desire for the
other (eros) merges with the love of the other characterized by self-giving
(agape), love in its highest form emerges. Sexual intercourse constitutes a
visible object lesson of this reality.
Similarly, sexual intercourse is the celebration of the marital bond. It is an
act of joyous pleasure in which the partners delight in one another and in their
relationship of love. This aspect of love between spouses is likewise
emphasized in the wisdom literature of the ancient Hebrews. The Song of
Songs provides an extended commentary on the beauty of the sex act within
the context of marriage. This same beauty forms the basis of the admonition
 Notes

of the Preacher to his son to find in his own spouse a continual source of
celebrative sexual relations and thereby to avoid seeking such fulfillment in
other women (Prov. 5:1519).
Here again agape and eros are joined in the sex act by means of the de
sire to give and receive. This occurs in the deep sense of mutual pleasure
that comes in fulfilling one's partner (agape) while having one's own desire
(eros) fulfilled.

2. The Sex Act as an Expression of Mutual Submission

The sex act is the "sacrament" of marriage, the reenactment,
reaffirmation, and symbolic embodiment of the marriage vow. Closely related
to this meaning is a second. Sexual intercourse is likewise a meaningful
expression of the commitment of the partners to the principle of mutual
submission.
The concept of mutual submission within the marriage relationship is put
forth most explicitly in Ephesians 5:21-33. There the ideal of mutual
submission is evident in two ways. First, the statement of this principle found
immediately prior to the author's presentation concerning the roles of husband
and wife forms the context for his discussion of marital relationships. The
preceding verses (5:18-21) speak of being filled with the Spirit, one hallmark of
which is mutual submission. Thus, the apostle declares, "Submit to one
another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21). Mutual submission, therefore,
is to be the guiding principle in all interpersonal relationships in the church.
The roles of husband and wife, in turn, are to be viewed in the context of, and
comprise a specific application of this principle. However understood,
therefore, these roles cannot be seen as contradicting the principle of mutual
submission which forms their context.
Second, although the command of submission is specifically given only to
wives in the text, the love command directed to husbands actually moves in
the same direction. Husbands are enjoined to love their wives in accordance
with the model given by the self-sacrificial love of Christ for the church. This
kind of love quite obviously includes one dynamic central to submission. For
submission is in the final analysis giving deference to the other or setting aside
one's own prerogatives for the sake of the other. Precisely this constitutes the
kind of attitude that Christ put into action.
Another text applies the principle of mutual submission directly to the area
of sexual intercourse in marriage: "The husband should fulfill his marital duty
to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not
belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way. the husband's
body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife" (1 Cor. 7:3-4). Paul's
admonition rings as radical today as it must have in first-century Corinth. In
contrast to both the self-possessive attitude of the "me-generation" and to the
 Notes

widely held double standard that elevates the male, he declares that the body
of each marriage partner belongs to the other and therefore that each should
fulfill one's marital duty to the other. The radically of his statement is
enhanced in that Paul specifically addresses not only wives, but husbands as
well, declaring that the husband's body belongs to his wife. Not only is the wife
to be submissive to her husband in sexual matters, which would be the
situation if submission were her role alone, but the husband is to submit to his
wife as well. Here is a clear example of the outworking of the principle of
mutual submission in marriage.
As Paul's admonition indicates, the sex act is a physical, visible expression
of mutual submission. It symbolizes in a vivid manner the desire of each of the
marriage partners to give freely and completely for the sake of fulfilling the
other. In this way it pictures what is to be true of the marriage relationship as a
whole. Marriage is intended to be a most intimate human fellowshipthe
community of male and femalein which each person gives freely for the sake
of the other.
The giving of self for the sake of the good of the other is to be expressed
in the mundane aspects of daily life together. But the highest symbol of this
aspect of the fellowship within marriage, the most expressive symbol of the
willingness to give of self freely and totally for the sake of the pleasure and
well-being of the spouse, is the sex act. In this act a person gives fully and
unashamedly and becomes fully vulnerable and open to the other.17
As an expression of the giving of self for the other, the sex act also
becomes a physical embodiment of the meaning of marriage as a spiritual
metaphor. Like the relationship to which it is intimately tied, this act is a vivid
reminder of the self-giving love of Christ for the church, which is described by
analogy to marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33. The sex act. as a sign of the desire
to give completely for the sake of the other, which desire is to characterize the
marriage relationship as a whole, is an appropriate reminder of the spiritual
truth that Jesus has given himself completely for his church. The coming
together of the marriage partners with the intent to please and satisfy each
other in this intensely intimate act speaks of Jesus' act of total self-giving in
living and dying for others. As a person's first desire in the sexual act should
be to please the other, so also Jesus sought to meet the ultimate human need
for spiritual intimacy with God.

3. The Sex Act as an Expression of Openness

Within the context of the sex act as the embodiment of the marriage
covenant and as an expression of self-giving in the marriage relationship, yet
another meaning to sexual intercourse arises. This further dimension is derived
from the link between intercourse and procreation. Because of this connection.
the sex act is an expression of the openness of the spouses individually and
 Notes

jointly to new life as a possible outworking of the marriage bond.18 This

openness, in turn, may readily be extended beyond the child as the product of
marriage to other dimensions of marital life.
Of course, sexual relations do not always result in pregnancy and
childbirth.
This is especially true in contemporary Western society, which has
increasingly separated the sex act from procreation both physically and
psychologically. And even in marriages in which the couples are open to
pregnancy, procreation results from sexual intercourse only on a few
occasions, if at all.
Nevertheless, the relationship between the sex act and procreation is
never completely erased. Sexual intercourse continues to be the most
common means whereby children are procreated. And even when intercourse
does not lead to pregnancy, the lovers cannot escape the realization that
precisely in this way procreation is normally accomplished. This enduring
relationship between the sex act and procreation endows this act with an
additional meaning, namely, its function as a sign of the couple's willingness to
open their relationship beyond themselves.

a. The sex act and openness to others. One important aspect of the
marital union is the openness for the expansion of the love of the spouses be
yond themselves. The beginning point for this openness arises as the marriage
partners become open to expand the marital bond into a family bond, as they
include within their horizon the offspring who are the product of the love
dynamic they share together. This expansion of the horizon of the marriage
bond is most readily depicted in sexual intercourse, for this act is the means
that effects procreation and through procreation brings new life into the
marriage relationship as its product.
Sexual intercourse symbolizes the love of the spouses for each other. At
the same time, through this expression their mutual love is expanded, for it is
the sex act that procreates the child produced by their union. The joining of
these two dimensions in the sex act makes it an apt and beautiful picture of
expansive love. But precisely in this way, as a symbol of the openness of the
marriage partners to new life, sexual intercourse, through its link to
procreation, constitutes an apt human analogy to the expansive love of God,
which likewise creates the other as its product. The sex act offers an analogy
to the divine expansive love both in a general and in a specific way. Each act of
intercourse constitutes a picture of a truth concerning the nature of marital
Love in general. It declares that through this act of mutual love, the love
between spouses is expanded to include the new life of the child formed
through this act. By analogy thus picture of marital love in general depicts as
well God's expansive love. In the context of the statement it makes concerning
the marital union in general, the sex act then becomes an affirmation of the
 Notes

specific role of this marital couple in God's design for marriage in general.
Sexual intercourse becomes a declaration of the will of the couple to allow
their love to be expansive, to overflow the limits of their two lives and flow out
to others.
The sex act functions in this manner even when pregnancy cannot or does
not follow. In the case of a childless couple, for example, sexual intercourse
remains a statement concerning their will to allow their love to include what
would he the product of that love. Their will to expansive love could take other
practical forms, such as adoption. Hence, their expression of the will toward
creative, expansive love is not dependent on the ability of the act to become
procreative. The same is true for the continued practice of sexual intercourse
even after the family is complete. In such cases, the act serves as a reminder
and reaffirmation of the will toward expansive love that earlier resulted in the
birth of children to the marital union. Through this act the couple is reminded
likewise of the parental responsibilities that the procreative dimension of the
sex act has brought to them.

b. Procreation as the central meaning of the act? But do these

considerations mean that procreation is either a necessary or at least the
central meaning of the sex act? The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has
traditionally emphasized the procreative dimension of the sex act, recognizing
that as the central meaning of sexual intercourse. This position was affirmed
anew in the 1987 Vatican statement, Donum vitae. While acknowledging other
meanings of the sex act, specifically its "unitive" meaning, the document
places all such meanings within the context of the procreative meaning,
asserting the "inseparable connection ... between the two meanings of the
conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."19
To elevate procreation as the central meaning of the sex act. however,
results in a truncated and therefore potentially damaging understanding of its
meaning within marriage. The 1987 Vatican statement serves as a case in
point. By insisting that the "unitive meaning" cannot be separated from the
"procreative meaning." the magisterium is maintaining virtually unaltered the
unacceptable traditional understanding of the church that works to limit sexual
activity to procreation.
Such a reduction of the meaning of intercourse to the procreative function
is truncated, for within the marriage bond sexual activity can carry other
equally significant meanings, as noted above. These other aspects of the
meaning of the sex act may all exist apart from the procreative intent. In fact,
rather than the procreative meaning being determinative for the unitive
meaning, as is implied in Donum vitae, these other aspects of the sex act form
the context for procreation. It is because self-giving love is creative that the
giving of oneself in the marriage act can be procreative within the context of
the marital covenant. And because covenant faithfulness releases the
 Notes

creativity of the covenant partners the reaffirmation of the marriage covenant

in the sex act forms the context for the acceptance of the creative fruit of that
act.
The elevation of procreation as the sole or at least central meaning of the
sex act, as in the Vatican document, is also dangerous. By maintaining the
inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of the act, it fails to see
that the latter properly belongs in the context of the other, more profound
meanings. The outworking of the position of Donum vitae is an unwholesome,
tacit condemnation of marital sexual relations where no "openness to
procreation" is possible or intended. By extension this works to preclude the
enjoyment of sex for a great many married couples, including those who are
seeking to practice responsible family planning or are beyond the childbearing
years. The end result of such a position is the reintroduction in a slightly
altered form of the asceticism of an earlier era.
In contrast, however, the Bible does not promote sexual asceticism. The
wisdom literature celebrates the expression of human sexuality in the sex act.
And even Paul, for whom celibacy was the personal choice, never discourages
the practice of sexual relations within marriage. In combating the Corinthian
ascetics, he offers only one concession, abstinence for a short period of time
for the purpose of concentrated prayer (1 Cor. 7:3-5). 20 Procreation, therefore,
is an important dimension of marital sexual relations. But it certainly is neither
the only nor the central dimension.

4. The Relative Value of the Sex Act

The sex act has been described in these pages as a meaningful and
therefore valuable symbolic act within the context of the marital union.
Nevertheless, a cautionary word is needed. We must continually keep in mind
that sexual intercourse is not the "end all" of marriage. This conclusion arises
from several related considerations.
First, marriage does not exist merely for the enjoyment of sexual
intercourse. Rather, the sex act gains its meaning from marriage as its
sacrament, as an expression of mutual submission, and as the normal means
for the expansion of marital love in the form of the procreation of children.
Likewise, marriage is not dependent on the sex act for its well-being. The
marriage bond can remain strong even without sexual intercourse. It is
especially important to keep this in view when debilitating physical problems
arise in one or the other partner due to illness, accident, or the aging process.
This consideration also gains importance when normal sexual relations are
temporarily disrupted, because the marriage partners are separated for a
length of time.
Further, there is more to the marriage relationship than the sex act.
Marriage has other dimensions as well as this specific sexual expression. In
 Notes

fact, the major tasks of marriage, apart from procreation (which is but the
beginning of parental responsibility), lie fully outside this dimension. And as
the relationship between the spouses grows, the dynamic and importance of
sexual intercourse changes, even deepens. Through the deepening
relationship that emerges through the journey of life together, coming together
in the sex act comes to be less important in cementing the marriage bond and
becomes instead the deepest act of celebration of that bond.

5. The Enjoyment of the Sex Act to the End of Married Life

In the past it was thought chat sexual intercourse was to be enjoyed only
by younger married persons. Consequently, sexual relations among middle-
aged couples and especially the elderly were considered an aberration and
were therefore discouraged. Fortunately, these old stereotypes are slowly
being discarded. We are coming to realize that although sexual relations may
change with the aging process, couples at most any age may still both desire
and find enjoyment in the sex act.

a. Sexuality and aging. Recent studies indicate both a much higher

physical possibility and a much keener personal interest in sex among older
persons than was formerly thought. The research of William Masters, for
example. indicated that no biological limitation normally arises in the aging
woman and that the changes in the male do not substantially diminish the
potential for sexual satisfaction in men. A Duke University study found that
there were individuals who had remained sexually active in every decade of
the human lifespan up to age 100.21 While the interest in, and the capacity for
sexual intercourse remain present, the ways of expression of human sexuality
may change with the coming of older age; the presence of one's lover and his
or her gentle touch become more important when the passion of youth
subsides.22 Even in this dimension of sexual expression, we remain sexual
beings throughout life.
b. Sex and the older couple. The continuing presence of both the
capability and desire for sexual expression suggests that the sex act can be an
enjoyable part of the marriage relationship at all stages of adult life. Although
its frequency will likely diminish, sexual intercourse remains pleasurable.
To older couples sexual intercourse can continue to be a meaningful act. In
fact, it may take on meanings not associated with the act in younger years. In
terming it "the second language of sex." Butler and Lewis stated several such
possible meanings. Sex can be a means of affirming one's body and its
continuing capability of functioning and providing pleasure or of feeling in
charge of one's life despite the experience of physical and social decline.
Likewise, it may provide a way of feeling masculine or feminine and therefore
of being valued as a person. Finally, sexual activity can be a way of protest, of
defying stereotypes of the process of aging
 Notes

Apart from the possible addition of meanings such as these, sexual

intercourse can continue to express the significance it carried earlier in life.
Actually, its significance could intensify for the couple that has enjoyed a
lifelong partnership within the marriage bond. Now the sex act becomes an
affirmation of a lifetime bond, the community of male and female that has
weathered the storms and enjoyed the beauty of life together.

The Public Dimension of the Sex Act

It has been argued in these pages that the sex act carries a
multidimensional meaning. Above all, it is the sacrament of marriage, a
reenactment of the wedding vow which signifies and seals the covenant
between husband and wife. Further, it is an expression of the principle of
mutual submission within the marital relationship. And it is a declaration of the
married couple's openness to receive new life, to widen the marriage bond by
forming a family bond. At first glance this understanding appears to emphasize
the private nature of the sex act. Do these meanings of sexual intercourse,
therefore, make that act solely private, appropriately viewed only in terms of
its hiddenness within the secret confines of individual decision?
During the 1960s the declaration that sex is a private matter was touted
as a first principle of the new religion of sexual freedom. "What occurs
between two consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom is nobody's
business," declared one popular slogan of the sexual revolution. In recent
years, however, there has arisen a growing uneasiness with the complete
privatization of sex. As a result of various influences and concerns, not the
least of which is the surge in cases of sexually transmitted diseases, a
movement is developing in Western society away from free sexual expression
under the banner of the right to privacy. Now the call is to social responsibility
in sexual expression.
The new mood in society makes this an appropriate setting in which to
reaffirm that there is a public dimension to this intimate expression of human
sexuality. But the question arises concerning the basis of such an assertion.
What gives rise to the public aspect of the sex act? And what are the
implications of its public dimension?

1. The Case for a Public Dimension of the Sex Act

The previous chapter affirmed that marriage entails a public dimension.

This public aspect is seen, for example, in the wedding ceremony as a public
event. The wedding declares that the joining together of two persons is not
merely a private affair, a matter between two consenting adults. It has a social
or public dimension as well, for the wider society also has an interest in the
forming of this intimate bond. Marriage is not merely a private covenant
 Notes

between two persons, but is a private covenant made within the context of the
social community. All societies in all eros have expressed the public interest in
this private covenant through the social regulation of marriage. If in addition to
the private aspect a public dimension is inherent in marriage, it would seem
quite natural to anticipate as well a public aspect of the sex act, in addition to
its very private nature. Of course, such a public character does not
overshadow, but nevertheless augments its personal, private aspect. Several
considerations support this conclusion.
First, the public nature of the sex act arises from the public contractual
nature of marriage. In addition to being a covenant between two lovers,
marriage is a legal contract. To the ancient Hebrews the marital contract went
beyond the bride and groom to encompass the families of the wedding couple.
The sex act served as a ratification of the contract between the families of the
couple.
Western societies have moved away from the emphasis on the familial
nature of the contract. From the legal perspective marriage is now defined
solely in terms of a contract between two independent individuals. likewise, in
our society sexual intercourse is neither legally nor socially tied to the
marriage contract as in former times. Despite such changes, however, the
wider social dimension of the legal contract and of sexual intercourse as
somehow linked to that contract have not been totally lost. The sex act still
retains some status as the expression of the marital contract, and it therefore
continues to retain some aspect of the public dimension associated with this
status.
The public dimension of the sex act as associated with marriage as a
contract is especially evident when extramarital sexual intercourse threatens a
marriage. In this situation the sex act indeed becomes a public matter,
because the breakup of a marriage in the form of divorce always has public
implications. The wider society expresses its interest in such cases in the form
of court settlement of matters relating to property and child custody.
Second, the relationship of the sex act to procreation gives rise to a public
dimension of the act. Sexual intercourse remains the way in which procreation
generally occurs. Because this act has the potential of creating a new life, it
carries implications for the society in which it is practiced and thereby gives
rise to a public interest in its practice. Raymond J. Lawrence offered this terse
summarization of the matter:
What happens in any bedroom is always potentially the
business of the whole human family. Whoever decides to
have a child in some way or another affects the community
because they bring into being and they shape another
member of the community with whom the community must
relate.24
 Notes

Thirdly, the public dimension of the sex act arises from its connection with
morality. If there are both proper and improper contexts for the exercise of
sexual intercourse, then this act is a moral act. Morals, however, are always to
some extent a public concern. The contexts in which its members practice
sexual intercourse- eventually affect the morals of the wider society.

2. Implications of the Public Nature of the Sex Act

The public dimension of the sex act indicates that society has an interest
In the practice of sexual intercourse among its members. This public concern is
given expression by all societies, in that they not only regulate marriage, but
also set some limitations on the practice of the sex act. Such regulation comes
in various forms, ranging from taboos and informal social customs to actual
civil laws. But at the heart of all regulation is the importance of marriage and
the special sexual privileges and obligations associated with this institution. As
Frank A. Beach concluded, "There is not and can never have been, a true
society without sexual rules."25.
The public dimension inherent within the sex act indicates that there is a
legitimate social interest in its practice. If Beach's thesis that a "true society"
requires sex rules is correct, then some regulation of sexuality is always
necessary, even in a permissive society such as ours. Of course, proponents of
the new morality will continue to agitate for sexual freedom. And a great
latitude in sexual matters will in all likelihood continue, so long as the
emphasis on personal choice remains indicative of Western society. The
defense of the principle of choice is, of course, right and necessary.
Nevertheless, as our society is now coming to see, individual choice must
always be tempered with responsibility, for freedom is always subject to
abuse. This is as true in sexual matters as in any other aspect of human life
together.
The current situation indicates that the development of sexual mores that
can balance freedom and responsibility for the sake of social well-being stands
as one of the pressing challenges of contemporary Western society. In this
matter, the church must take the lead by serving as a model. Our challenge is
to show to the broader society what it means to articulate in word and practice
an understanding of marriage that views this institution as a community of
male and female, a means to reflect the divine image, and therefore as the
sole context in which the sex act can be fully and truly meaningful.
Marriage is a divinely designed and divinely sanctioned institution.
Together with the sex act practiced within its context, marriage overflows
salvation history to encompass the order of creation itself. At the same time,
however, there remains a specifically Christian understanding of marriage and
of the sex act as the sign of the marital bond. In the context of Christian faith,
marriage and sexual intercourse undergo a deepening of meaning, as the
 Notes

marital bond comes to be viewed as a dimension of the saving work of God in

history and as the sex act comes to be seen as the sign and seal of that
special bond.
Living with one's spouse as persons of faith, therefore, is important for the
establishment of a marriage that probes the depths of the divine design for
this expression of human sexuality. But this does not mean that personal faith
and presence within the Christian community in and of themselves insure a
carefree, happy marriage. On the contrary, as Emil Brunner so perceptively
noted,
Even the marriage of the best of Christians is not the
renewal of Paradise; here, too, there is sorrow, conflict, pitiful
sinking of heart, shortsightedness, and inadequacy. Indeed,
the happy marriage in particular contains special hidden
dangers, the danger of being cut off from others, the danger
of a wrong kind of self-sufficiency, and of a Pharisaical denial
of solidarity with suffering, erring, curse- laden humanity. 26

Thus, while marriage contains a particular grace of creation it also contains

a particular need for redemption. With this in view, we must now turn to the
negative side of the marriage relationship that is experienced when the solemn
covenant is violated.
 Notes

5
The Marital Bond
Fidelity versus Adultery

We are created by God as sexual beings. This fundamental dimension of

our existence is expressed in many ways. Yet the most intimate expression of
our sexuality is sexual intercourse. When practiced within the context of the
marital bond this act conveys its intended meaning. Within marriage the sex
act can be a joyous celebration of the marital covenant, for it can serve as a
symbol and seal of that bond, as a declaration of mutual submission, and as an
expression of the partners' openness to new life.
In our fallen world, however, sexual intercourse often occurs outside the
context of marriage. In such situations it no longer signifies the marital bond
that unites husband and wife in the community of male and female. According
to the Christian sex ethic, when the sex act is practiced by a married person
with someone other than one's spouse, the act becomes the symbol of the
violation of the marriage covenant. But this ethic has come under attack in
recent decades. Sexual activity outside of marriage is not always viewed as the
violation of the marital bond, for some voices argue that marriage does not
necessarily require a commitment to exclusiveness in sexual activity.
This newer concept of marriage raises anew certain important questions,
several of which will be explored in this chapter and the next. The first issue
concerns the boundaries of sexual expression. Ought sexual intercourse be
limited to the marital bond, or are there legitimate contexts for its practice
outside of marriage? On the basis of a response to this foundational question,
we will discuss adultery as the breaking of the marriage convenant, followed
by a delineation of the deeper theological implications of fidelity and infidelity.
Finally, in chapter 6 we will focus on the issue of divorce as the ultimate
severing of marriage.

The Boundaries of Sexual Expression

Viewed from what many see as the traditional Christian perspective, the
question of the legitimate context for the sex act can yield only one
conclusion. The proper context is the permanent, monogamous relationship
called marriage. This perspective is the basic teaching of the Bible in both Old
and New Testaments. The biblical writers do not present this sexual ethic
 Notes

without reason. On the contrary, as the findings of the human sciences

confirm, permanent commitment plays a vital role in providing the boundaries
and thus the context for the practice of the sex act.

1. Boundaries and the Biblical Sex Ethic

From Genesis onward, the Bible elevates a specific sex ethic as the ideal
for humankind, even though because of human sin it presents the ideal in a
realistic fashion. Repeatedly the biblical writers either explicitly enjoin or
implicitly assume that the institution of marriage joins together a man and a
woman in what is intended to be a permanent, monogamous union.
According to the second creation story (Genesis 2) this ideal was part of
the original intent of creation. Jesus reaffirmed the ideal as reflecting the
original intent of the Creator (Matt. 19:4-6). The early Christian community
continued the practice (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:2; I Thess. 1:36; 1 Tim. 3:2). And it
formed the model for the divine-human fellowship found in the apocalyptic
vision of the eschatological renewal (Rev. 21:2, 9-10).
Despite the emphasis on the ideal of permanent, monogamous marriage,
two concessions to the human fallen situation are likewise reflected in the
Bible. Neither monogamy nor permanence was strictly followed by all
members of the ancient Hebrew society. This situational reality called forth a
realistic response from the biblical authors.
One concession related to the failure of the society to live up to the ideal
of monogamy. Among the ancient Hebrews, the principle of monogamy was set
aside through the incorporation of polygamy and prostitution into the social
fabric. Polygamy gained entrance into the community quite early. It is present
among the patriarchs (although neither Abraham nor Isaac were polygamists).
The story of Jacob, for example, presents his marriages to Leah and Rachel
plus his begetting of children by concubinage as a matter of course. No explicit
condemnation of these practices is found in the text, only indication that his
polygamy originated through the trickery of Laban and resulted in jealousy
between his two wives. By the era of the monarchy, polygamy is viewed as an
accepted practice, at least among royalty and the wealthy.
The monogamous ideal was also violated by the tolerance of prostitution
within Hebrew society. As with polygamy, the presence of this practice dates to
the patriarchs, as is indicated by the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38). In
contrast to polygamy, however, prostitution never came to be an accepted,
sanctioned dimension of the community, but was always relegated to the
fringe of societal life and even became the object of legal stricture (e.g., Lev.
19:29).
Despite the presence of polygamy and prostitution within Hebrew society,
neither ought to be viewed as a positive development. On the contrary, when
evaluated from the perspective of the New Testament, each must be judged as
 Notes

forming a blight on the commitment of the ancient Hebrews to the ideal of

monogamy.
The presence of these practices among the ancient people of God was due
to certain cultural factors in the ancient societies. Specifically, both were
related to the relative positions of male and female in community life.
Polygamy and prostitution found their way into society as attempts to respond
to the generally lower status of women in the economic and social order and
woman's more fragile situation in the community.2
The position of a woman in society was generally a function of her place in
the household of a man, whether the man be her father, husband, or a male
member of her extended family.5 In this context, polygamy served a useful
function. It was a way of providing sufficient marriage opportunities or marital
households for the women of the community, so that there would be a
minimum number of unattached women. Prostitution, on the other hand,
formed a type of economic safety net, for it was one of the sole available
means of livelihood for women who had no fixed position in a male household
or who, for whatever reasons, had lost their status within their former
households.
The presence of these two practices in the biblical stories ought not to be
interpreted as a divine sanction on them. As the prohibition in the Mosaic law
indicates, prostitution constituted a violation of God's intent, even for the
ancient Hebrew society. As for polygamy, a movement toward monogamy
developed already in the Old Testament era and had become the norm prior to
the writing of the New Testament. This development indicates that even
though polygamy met a specific need in the ancient society, it was never
intended to become a permanent pattern.
The second concession to the reality of ancient Hebrew society as
deviating from the biblical marriage ideal came in the form of divorce. The
presence of this practice indicates that the ancient people compromised the
ideal of the permanence of marriage. According to the narrative of Genesis 2,
the Creator intended from the beginning that marriage be an inviolate bond.
However, in ancient Hebrew society, as in ours, this bond was not always
permanent. At times it was severed, a reality that was codified and
institutionalized in the regulations concerning divorce found in the Mosaic law.
As Jesus' discussion of this subject with the scribes and Pharisees
indicates, the Mosaic allowance for divorce came about as a concession to the
sinful reality of human life, not as an expression of the divine intent. Rather
than giving sanction to, or continuing the right to divorce, the Mosaic
concession ought to be seen as an attempt to regulate a practice already
present in Hebrew society. The purpose of such regulation was not to make
divorce easy or to elevate it to an accepted practice, but to make the situation
 Notes

more humane for the divorced woman by demanding that her status be clearly
spelled out by the man who was putting her out of his household.
Polygamy, prostitution, and divorce indicate that exceptions to the marital
ideal arose even among the ancient Hebrews. The development of these
exceptions, however, does not serve to deny that a marriage ethic did indeed
provide the basis for life in the Old and New Testament communities. On the
contrary, these violations of the norm and concessions to human sin actually
highlight the commitment of the biblical documents as a whole to the ideal of
the permanent, monogamous relationship between male and female as the
foundational context for the expression of human sexuality.

2. The Importance of Permanency

As has been noted above, the biblical sex ethic elevates marriage as the
central context for human sexual relations and views marriage ideally as a
permanent, monogamous relationship. Although in recent years proponents of
the sexual revolution have waged a relentless attack on this ethic, even in the
contemporary situation the traditional viewpoint retains its importance.
The wisdom of the biblical ethic of marital permanence has been
confirmed by anthropological studies. Margaret Mead, for example, asserted,
"No known society has ever invented a form of marriage strong enough to stick
that did not contain the 'till-death-do-us-part' assumption." 4 With its emphasis
on permanency of relationship between one man and one woman, the
Christian sex ethic carries continuing validity, because it offers the most
constructive means for developing relationships between male and female.

a. Permanency and freedom. The constructive nature of the biblical sex

ethic may be seen through consideration of the link between permanency of
relationship and personal freedom. The biblical emphasis on marriage as a
permanent commitment is helpful, in that the permanency it enjoins provides
freedom to the marriage partners to develop true community. As was
discussed in the previous chapter, permanency frees us from the syndrome of
needing to perform and compete. In so doing the marital bond provides the
context in which true fellowship between the partners can arise.
The assertion that commitment to permanence brings freedom applies to
many areas of the male-female relationship. But it is especially evident in the
dimension of the sex act. In the wake of the sexual revolution, increasing
importance has been placed on sexual performance. This has often brought the
opposite of the freedom its proponents promise. Anxiety concerning personal
abilities and concern over being compared with other partners has a
debilitating effect, for it destroys true sexual freedom.
A marriage characterized by commitment on the part of both partners to
the exclusiveness and permanence of the marital bond, in contrast, provides
 Notes

freedom in the sexual dimension of the relationship. The commitment to

permanence offers a context of full acceptance of the marital partner. In this
context we are free to fail, learn, develop, and relax. This freedom allows for
the development of a beautiful and fulfilling sexual relationship between the
marriage partners. From the findings of Clark and Wallin, Vance Packard
concluded,
Unless there is the day-to-day warmth and love, sex is a
matter of mechanics. There is no evidence that an adequate,
tension-releasing relationship in bed will sustain a good
marriage; but there is an abundance of evidence that if there
is a good personal relationship, the in-bed aspect of
marriage will improve with the years.5

The importance of freedom for sexual performance has been confirmed by

modern psychology. This human science indicates that full acceptance by
another, acceptance in which an individual is free to fail and to learn, forms the
very context in which fulfilling sexual expression can occur. As a result of such
freedom, the sexual partners are free to enjoy sexual community in the fullest
sense. In his eloquent treatment of the significance of marital love as fidelity,
freedom, and conjugality, Eric Fuchs touched the depth of the relationship
between permanence and sexual freedom:
Thus the experience of being a couple allows each of the
conjoined to know the freedom which is discovered through
a liberating trust in each other. Here again, sexuality can
express this trust which frees the other from his fears and
his anguish, and allows him to express joy and tenderness,
pleasure and play, even by means of his body. 6

b. Permanency and celebration. The constructive nature of the biblical

sex ethic may be seen likewise by viewing the relationship between
permanency of relationship and sexual celebration. The previous chapter
presented the sex act as the vivid portrayal of the bond of community between
male and female. In this way sexual intercourse becomes a festive celebration
of that bond. But if celebration is the proper meaning of the sex act, then it
follows that permanency of relationship is required for the conveyance of this
meaning. The true celebration of the bond between male and female, which
the sex art is intended to be, can only occur within the context of a permanent
relationship. Only as an expression of the permanent marital bond can the sex
act become the celebration of the covenantal relationship. In the words of
Sidney Callahan, "the Yes to the mate is built upon and strengthened by the No
to everyone else."7
In summary, the monogamous, permanent marriage relationship between
male and female is often attacked as an antiquated sex ethic which stifles
individual development and sexual expression. This attack, however, is
misdirected. It simply cannot be leveled against the ideal presented in the
 Notes

Bible. On the contrary, this ideal is important to human well-being. It offers the
best context for the development of the sex partners and of the sex act as a
true celebration of the intended meaning of the sex act. As Emil Brunner
noted:
Genuine love is single-mindedindeed that is its power.
Genuine lovestill apart from all ethical demandsalways
feels: "it is with this particular person that I wish to live alone
and for always."8

Adultery as the Violation of the Marital Covenant

Given this understanding of the permanent, monogamous marital
relationship as the proper context for the sex act viewed as an expression of
human sexuality, the rejection of adultery as a violation of the marital
covenant follows. The rejection of adultery has likewise come under attack in
recent decades by proponents of the sexual revolution. In spite of this stance
by certain segments of contemporary culture, the traditional viewpoint
concerning extramarital sexual relations carries lasting value and therefore is
worthy of reaffirmation.9

1. Fidelity in an Era of "Open Marriage"

Contemporary critics of the biblical sexual ethic generally do not maintain

that the institution of marriage itself should be discarded. Rather, their call is
for more flexibility of sexual expression beyond the context of marriage.
Raymond J. Lawrence, for example, articulated this position:
The issue of sexual exclusiveness is one of the most
intractable problems for any form of pair bonding. No other
issue so powerfully threatens committed relationships. The
threat comes from two sides, from the anxiety stirred up
when sexual exclusiveness is loosened, and from the burden
of oppression experienced when exclusiveness is rigidly
adhered to. Recent literature increasingly supports the
viability of pair landing that is not absolutely exclusive
sexually.10

Lawrence called for what he terms "flexible monogamy," which replaces

the exclusive genital sexual relationship characteristic of traditional
monogamy with a "primary genital sexual relationship." 11 Despite its apparent
positive evaluation of marriage, this proposal offers a radical challenge to the
view of marriage as an inviolate bond.

a. Extramarital sex and the health of the marriage bond. As

Lawrence's statement indicates, the intent of many proponents of a more open
attitude on sexual matters is positive. They are not necessarily seeking to
undermine marriage, but often are motivated by concern for its continued
 Notes

vibrancy as an institution and for the enhancement of the relationship between

the marriage partners.12 Although these contemporary voices desire to attain
the same goal as proponents of the traditional ethic, they differ radically as to
the ways to best insure good marriages. Within this context, the question
concerning the actual effect of extramarital relations is highly significant. Are
sexual relations outside marriage destructive or helpful for the marriage bond?
This question forms the crux of the difference of opinion between proponents
of the traditional ethic and advocates of the newer openness.
The contemporary outlook declares that the future of marriage as an
institution and the well-being of the marriage partners is best served by an
ethic that is at least open to sexual relations beyond the marriage bond. Nena
and George O'Neill popularized this view in terms of fostering an "open
marriage." Proponents of this concept work from the premise that no individual
can hope completely to fulfill all the various needs of one's spouse. Therefore,
we ought not look to marriage as the only focus of fulfillment of physical,
emotional, and even sexual needs. In fact, it is argued, those marriage
partners who realize this and therefore agree together to allow each other to
find certain dimensions of fulfillment outside the marital bond enjoy more
stable and wholesome marriages. This premise, however, is then extended to
the sexual sphere. Proponents of the "open marriage" position advocate
sacrificing sexual exclusiveness within marriage for the sake of marital
permanence, for, it is assumed, both cannot be maintained together. This
position calls for an evaluation encompassing several points.
(1) Positive features of the open marriage concept.
The concept of "open marriage" is correct in one point. It rightly reminds
us that marriage was never intended as the vehicle of individual fulfillment.
The romantic view of marriage, which is a relatively recent development,
actually places undue expectations on this institution, by expecting marriage
to be the instrument of the fulfillment of the spouses, we doom it to certain
failure. We ought not to look to the marriage relationship as the sole source of
personal fulfillment. In so far as it serves as a reminder of this, the concept of
open marriage offers an important critique of the romantic view that sees in
the marital bond the ideal of interpersonal relationships.
In contrast to the modern romantic view, the Bible and the entire Christian
tradition redirect the search for ultimate personal fulfillment from other
humans to God as the wellspring of fullness of life. No one person can ever
hope to be the source of total fulfillment for another, for only God is our final
resting place. As Augustine declared, a restlessness remains in the human
heart until it finds rest in God.
In addition, the fulfillment that each person seeks is in the final analysis an
eschatological reality. A foretaste may be experienced in the present, but its
 Notes

fullest enjoyment lies in the future, when the reign of God is consummated and
God's dwelling is with humankind (e.g.. Rev. 21:3).
The fulfillment offered in the marital relationship must be understood in light of
this eschatological divine fulfillment. Husband and wife ought to find within
their marriage a fulfilling relationship, a community of male and female. Yet
even the best marriage can offer only a partial reflection of the glorious future
state. And marriage serves the goal of human fulfillment only as one means in
reflecting and advancing the interpersonal relationships that will characterize
the society of humankind in God's eschatological reign.
While not discounting the marital bond. the New Testament puts forth
another community, the church in so far as it fosters community with Christ, as
the primary sign of the future human fulfillment. In fact, as has been noted
previously, the New Testament places primary emphasis on the fellowship of
the people of God in the church, not on the marriage bond, as the focal point
of human community in this age. As a result, the Christian spouse should find
in marriage a source and means toward a partial experience of the
eschatological fulfillment which is ultimately derived from God. But beyond the
marriage bond, the community of Christ is to form an even more primary
community of fulfillment and identity for all believers, whether married or
single.
(2) Shortcomings of the open marriage concept.
Despite the important critique that the open marriage proposal offers of
the romantic conception of marriage, in the final analysis it too must be
rejected. As generally articulated by its proponents, the new openness builds a
faulty position on faulty presuppositions.13
First, the proposal is often human- and person-centered. It tends to be
human-centered in that it generally eliminates the divine dimension and looks
instead solely to humans as the source of personal fulfillment. It becomes
person-centered whenever it looks to personal fulfillment as the highest good.
In contrast, the biblical ethic places human involvement in the process of
fulfillment within the context of God as the ultimate source of human well-
being. Further, this ethic refuses to see the individual as the highest good.
Rather, it places individual fulfillment within the context of a corporate, social
fulfillment. And it understands the corporate in terms of the final glory of God
found in the consummation of history in the reign of God.
Second, the concept of open marriage may be faulted as being too
pessimistic concerning marriage. It declares that the marital relationship
cannot enjoy both permanence and sexual exclusiveness. This presupposition
of the newer openness has been called into question by a host of good
marriages that have brought together these supposedly mutually exclusive
characteristics. It is simply not true that a healthy marriage, in which both
partners are seeking to give of self for the other and in which the purpose of
 Notes

marriage within the context of God's work in history is understood and

advanced, needs adultery to survive. Nor is it true that such a marriage could
be enhanced by the introduction of extramarital sexual relations. Such a
marriage is already functioning in basic accordance with its divine design.
(3) The potential harm of the open marriage concept.
In contrast to the claims of proponents of the "open marriage" model, it
must be concluded that extramarital relations are harmful to the marriage
bond. Basically, this destructive influence is due to the fact that such relations
are detrimental to the fellowship or community which is to characterize
marriage. The marital bond is intended to foster a deep sense of community
between male and female. This task, however, is made more difficult
whenever the marriage bond is violated. It is simply the case that extramarital
sexual relations undermine the fellowship of the marriage bond.
First, extramarital sexual relations undermine marital fellowship because
they are often devastating to the sense of self-worth of either or both partners.
This devastation is obvious in the case of the partner who has not engaged in
an extramarital affair. Knowledge that one's partner is looking outside the
marriage relationship for sexual fulfillment deals a blow to personal self-
esteem, a blow which is difficult to overcome. The destruction of the spouse's
self- esteem comes as a result of the inclusion of a third party into the
relationship. Nonexclusiveness implies the willingness of a married person to
share the deep intimacies of sexual intercourse with someone other than one's
spouse, which carries the implicit suggestion that the spouse is no longer as
important as he or she once was. But an affair can also injure the self-esteem
of the adulterous partner as well, when that person comes to grips with the
motivation and consequences of the affair. As a result of the introduction of a
third party, therefore, the security of the marriage relationship is diminished
both in fact and in the perceptions of all three persons.
Second, extramarital relationships are harmful to marital fellowship in that
an affair produces feelings of guilt. Here again both marriage partners are
affected. The situation of the partner who entered into an affair is readily seen.
The affair leads to a sense of having violated the marriage bond and one's
marital partner. But a deep sense of guilt can arise in the faithful partner also,
who may be plagued by anguished questions: Did I drive my mate into an
extramarital affair? What part of the blame is mine!
This person's guilt feelings may even grow to be deeper than those of his
or her spouse. The one who has engaged in an affair may be able to overcome
the matter by means of asking for and receiving forgiveness. But the injured
partner cannot deal with the violation of the marital bond in such a decisive
manner. This person may be plagued for some time with nagging doubts and
fears concerning his or her own complicity in the affair of the spouse and
concerning the uncertain future of the marriage.
 Notes

Third, extramarital sex is detrimental to marital fellowship in that it

undercuts trust and openness between the marital partners. This is quite
obviously the case during the life of the affair. Generally such relationships
must be carried out in secrecy, often by means of covert action and duplicity; a
less than honest atmosphere is required in order to maintain the marriage and
the affair simultaneously. The O'Neills rightly put forth trust as "the most
important qual- ity two partners can share in a marriage." 14 Yet, trust and the
openness required for true community are often the first casualties of
extramarital relations.
Contrary to the claims of its proponents, open marriages are difficult to
maintain in the long run. A person may indeed contract together with another
that he or she will be the primary, but not the exclusive sexual partner for the
other. Hut these contracts are difficult to keep intact. Recent psychological
research indicates that such marriages simply lack the basis in commitment to
fidelity necessary to the building of a lasting bond. And in the end. as Joseph
Allen rightly concluded, "It would a rare marriage in which the couple's
agreeing to sexual nonexclusiveness were not a sign of weakness in the
marriage and a harbinger of its further deterioration."

b. The basis of ethical decision making. The contemporary call for a

more open understanding of marriage raises a second ethical question, that of
situational versus universal ethics. Are personal sexual acts to be determined
situationally or is there some universal norm which is applicable? This issue
probes deeper than the specific question of the impact of extramarital
relations to the well-being of marriage, for it asks concerning the basis on
which ethical decisions themselves are to be made.
The situational approach was popularized in the 1960s especially through
Joseph Fletcher's explosive book. Situation Ethics.^ Fletcher maintained that
no norms can be devised which cover all cases of interpersonal relationships. 17
Rather than rules, Fletcher argued that love is the sole good and therefore the
sole norm .This means that no norms can govern all cases of male-female
relations either. Rather, decisions concerning sexual expression between
persons must be decided in each situation in accordance with the single norm
of lovewhat is the most loving act in the specific situation. The "most loving
act" in a specific situation could conceivably include adultery. Fletcher stated,
"But if people do not believe it is wrong to have sex relations outside marriage,
it isn't, unless they hurt themselves, their partners, or others."19
It must be admitted that Fletcher rightly appealed to certain strands in the
Christian, especially the Protestant, ethical tradition. His viewpoint has
unfortunately suffered misunderstanding. Proponents have taken it beyond the
bounds he intended and opponents too casually have dismissed the case he
established. Yet despite Fletcher's argument to the contrary, throughout much
 Notes

of Christian history the Christian sex ethic has been nonsituationalor, at

least, situational only within the context of certain rules. Until recent years
Christian ethicists have generally agreed that certain universal principles are
to govern human sexual expression. These principles have emphasized
permanent, monogamous marriage and have rejected adultery in any form.
Christian tradition has been wise in its rejection of the pure situational
approach to sex ethics. It is true that ethical decisions are made in the
individual situations of life and that as a result ethical laws cannot be devised
that will cover every conceivable situation. But nevertheless, certain principles
can be staled which serve to guide ethical decisions in most cases.
Pure situational approaches, in contrast, not only disavow the attempt to
devise ethical rules for action, they also reject the attempt to set forth ethical
principles that could offer parameters for decision making. In the case of
Fletcher's situational ethic, one dictum is put forth as a governing principle
love. He is surely correct in elevating the ethic of love, for it is in keeping with
the teaching of Jesus. Yet, Fletcher's proposal remains too nebulous, in
contrast to Jesus' teaching, it lacks concrete guidelines as to what constitutes
the loving response in the situations of life. Such guidelines are crucial,
because all humans, even conscientious believers, remain tainted by sin.
Because of sin, we are all too easily led astray by less than loving motives.
Because of sin we are susceptible to mistaken motives, and we too readily
become blinded to our actual less-than-altruistic motivations for our actions.
Ethical guidelines, while not an end in themselves, serve a useful function.
They indicate to us where the boundaries lie within which loving conduct can
be truly found.
The application of this understanding to marriage and adultery is obvious.
The Christian sex ethic offers guidelines for married persons concerning loving
conduct. The traditional ethic declares that love for spouse cannot be
expressed through extramarital affairs. The Christian ought indeed to ask in
each situation what is the most loving act, and to seek in every situation to act
in the most loving manner, as Fletcher pointed out. But the Christian ethic
declares that the most loving action in any situation cannot be an act of
adultery. To commit adultery in the name of love is simply to be deceived or
deceptive.

c. The purported inconsistency of the Bible. The traditional Christian

rejection of adultery in favor of fidelity within a permanent, monogamous
marital bond claims to derive its principles from the Bible. The biblical
documents, Christians traditionally maintain, present marriage as forming the
boundary for the sexual act. Proponents of the newer openness, however,
often point to a perceived internal inconsistency within the biblical documents
themselves, which they believe undercuts the Christian position.
 Notes

The charge of inconsistency generally focuses on the claim that the

people of God practiced a double standard, at least in the Old Testament era.
Hebrew males, among them certain patriarchs and other prominent biblical
figures, readily engaged in extramarital relations, whereas women are strictly
forbidden from such practices. Even the injunction against adultery in the Old
Testament, critics argue, did not arise as an attempt to offer a just sex ethic.
Rather, the law was motivated by a social situation in which women were
viewed as the property of males. Adultery, then, was not condemned because
it was a violation of the woman, but because this act constituted a violation of
the property rights of another male.20
This presentation of the Old Testament material, as unflattering as it may
he, is to a certain extent valid. Such attitudes are indeed reflected in the
documents, although they are not necessarily condoned by the writers.
Nevertheless, the presence of unwholesome attitudes within Hebrew society
does not invalidate the stand of the Bible against adultery and the importance
of this biblical ethic. Several considerations point in this direction.
First, the critique of the biblical ethic fails to differentiate what arose in the
ancient society and what the Old Testament presents as the intention of the
Creator. Here the Genesis creation narratives must be given central emphasis
as offering the understanding of the community concerning the intent of God
and as providing a critique of societal practices, even among the Hebrews.
Laws designed to govern sexual conduct, in contrast, do not present the ideal,
but are attempts to mitigate the evil, unjust effects of human failure to follow
that ideal.
Second, the New Testament, as reflecting and expanding the sexual ethic
of the Old. must be given priority over the practices of the ancient society.
Whether or not they reflected Hebrew attitudes, the double standard and the
injunction against adultery as solely based in male property rights is clearly
not the position of the New Testament community. Rather, beginning with
Jesus, the community appealed to the meaning of Genesis 2 to develop an
ethic which called for a return to the intent of the Creator.
This ethic elevated fidelity within the monogamous marriage bond as the
standard for both partners. It viewed women as coheirs with men of "the
gracious gift of life," to use the words of Peter (1 Peter 3:7). And it viewed
adultery in any formwhether with another married person or with a prostitute
of either genderwithin the context of that divine intent. For this reason, the
early church, following the teaching of Jesus, spoke of adultery as the violation
of God's design.
The biblical outlook concerning marriage and sexual relations, therefore, is
quite different from the "open marriage" advocated by some persons today. It
is undeniable that the biblical writers did not condone extramarital sex in any
form or for any reason, however noble. At the same time, the Bible reflects the
actual conditions within the ancient societies. The marital ideal presented as
 Notes

the divine intent was discarded and violated by people then as it is now. The
failure of the people of God in the past to live up to the divine ideal does not,
however, negate that ideal. Rather, it offers a context in which to attempt to
biblical evaluation of all such failures.

2. The Meaning of Adultery

The biblical sex ethic with its emphasis on she original intent of the Creator
offers a vantage point from which to view the practice of sexual intercourse
beyond the boundaries of marriage. Simply stated, such activity constitutes
the violation of the marital bond. The understanding of adultery developed
here will build from conclusions reached in previous discussions. The most
foundational of these is the assertion that the context of the sex act is
determinative of its meaning.
It was argued earlier that acts are dependent on their context in order to
establish their meaning. Applied to the sex act. this principle suggests that the
act is intended to be a highly symbolic and meaningful expression. The
meaning the sex act carries is. however, dependent on the context in which
persons engage in it.
When the sex act is enjoyed within the context of marriage, it has been
argued. it carries its divinely intended meaning. Within this context sexual
intercourse constitutes a reaffirmation of the vow and covenant into which the
marriage partners entered on their wedding day. Further, the sex act within
marriage becomes a beautiful celebration of the marital relationship enjoyed
by the marriage partners as well as an expression of their openness to the new
life that may arise from their bond.
Whereas the sex act enjoyed within the context of marriage can carry
these important meanings, outside of marriage the meaning of the act is
radically altered. On the one hand, the adulterous sexual relation cannot carry
the meanings indicated above. It cannot symbolize the marriage covenant nor
be a reaffirmation of the marriage vow, for no such covenant unites the
adulterous pair. It cannot be the joyful celebration of the relationship of
fellowship and community between two persons who have bonded themselves
together, for no explicit commitment to each other has been made. On the
contrary, such a commitment was made by at least one of the two persons to
another person, who is now physically absent.
No adulterous relationship can state what the sex act is intended to
declare when practiced within the marriage relationship. On the other hand,
the adulterous sex act is not for that reason devoid of meaning. Within the
context of an extramarital relationship the act can carry several specific
meanings.
Ultimately the act is a declaration of the violation of the marriage bond.
This violation is staged by both partners in the act. Through it the unfaithful
spouse is declaring the will to violate the marriage covenant made at an
 Notes

earlier time. The adulterous act symbolizes the actor's personal disregard for
the prior commitment made to one's spouse. The one who engages in the sex
act with a married person is likewise acting in contempt of the marriage bond.
Both parties thereby violate the personhood of the married person's spouse, to
whom the pledge to form the community of male and female was made.
In addition to carrying this primary meaning, namely, disregard for the
prior marriage commitment, the adulterous sex act symbolizes the fallenness
of the marriage community and of the actors. Through this act the married
person proclaims the fallen nature of his or her marriage relationship. Adultery
declares that a relationship that was intended to be an embodiment of the
community of male and female and stand as a witness to the will of God
toward the establishment of community has actually failed to reflect the ideal.
Adultery symbolizes as well the hopeless abandonment on the part of a
spouse of the marriage relationship. It declares that one marriage partner has
concluded that true community cannot be found within the marriage bond or
with his or her marriage partner, for such community is now being sought
beyond the marriage relationship and with another person who is not the
spouse. In this act a married person is voicing an unwillingness, or at least a
hesitancy, to work at restoring the fallen marriage.
Within the context of adultery the sex act likewise speaks about a
marriage partner's fallen relationship to one's spouse. In the context of
marriage the act symbolizes the desire of the spouses to give and receive
fulfillment simultaneously. In the context of adultery the act symbolizes the
desire of one spouse to seek personal sexual fulfillment apart from the spouse
and apart from the desire to fulfill one's spouse. In short, with respect to the
spouse, adultery declares the triumph of eros over agape, as personal desire
for another outside the marriage relationship is placed above the desire to
accept unconditionally and to fulfill the needs of the other with whom he or
she has previously entered into covenant.
Through adultery the married adulterous person proclaims the fallenness
of the marriage situation. The one who engages in sex with a married person
declares thereby personal willingness to participate in that fallen situation.
Further, through this act, this person proclaims personal complacency
concerning the adulterous partner's disregard and abandonment of the
marriage covenant. In this way both parties share together in the sin of the
act.

Fidelity and Promiscuity in a Theological Context

The discussion of marriage and adultery can be viewed from another

vantage point as well. These two choices may be located within a theological
context by means of a consideration of the related concepts of fidelity and
infidelity. These, too, carry theological significance.
 Notes

1. The Nature of Promiscuity

The contemporary rejection of the traditional Christian ethic by the

architects of the sexual revolution has often sought to endow promiscuity with
the social respectability afforded chastity and fidelity in the past. Already in
1963 Rollo May criticized this situation, terming it somewhat erroneously "a
new Puritanism":
in our new Puritanism bad health is equated with sin. Sin
used to he "to give in to one's sexual desires"; now it is "not
Jo have full sexual expression." It is immoral not to express
your libido. A woman used to be guilty if she went to bed
with a man; now she feels vaguely guilty if after two or three
dates she still refrains from going to bed; and the partner,
who is always completely enlightened (or at least plays the
role) refuses to allay her guilt by getting overtly angry at her
sin of "morbid repression." refusing to "give." And this, of
course, makes her "no" all the more guilt-producing for her. 21

The perspective developed in these pages forms a basis for evaluating the
contemporary elevation of promiscuity. The new view is faulty at three points.
First, as developed earlier, rather than being an expression of the new
freedom, promiscuity, with its tendency to separate "what I do" from "who I
am." is in actuality an expression of the new dualism. 22 The biblical sexual
ethic, in contrast, is the outworking of a holistic anthropology. According to the
biblical understanding, the human person is created by God as a whole, a
unified entity. Therefore, the acts of the body cannot be separated from the
acts of the person. In keeping with this understanding, biblical writers such as
Paul maintain that sexual intercourse is an act of the person as a whole. It
cannot be relegated to the status of being merely an act of the body apart
from and having no affect on the person.
In the new emphasis on promiscuity, however, the body is often seen as a
type of tool or vehicle for the use of the person. It is a means to personal
"experience" and pleasure. Such an understanding has more affinity with the
ancient Greek view, which gave rise to Gnostic theories of bodily indulgence,
than to the holistic view of the body as integral to the self, found in the Bible.
The dualism and externalization of sexual expression characteristic of this out-
look are epitomized in the jargon that refers to sexual relations as "having
sex." From the perspective of a unitary anthropology, however, "sex" is not
something one can "have." Rather, sexual expression is an act of the entire
person.
Second, the new promiscuity undercuts the building of community
between male and female. This community is destroyed in many ways.
Promiscuity encourages viewing others as sex objects and not as persons with
worth and value. In a promiscuous framework, value comes to be viewed in
terms of external beauty and the potential for affording sexual pleasure. The
breakdown of community is found even in the sex act itself and even within the
 Notes

context of marriage, as the new emphasis on promiscuity and infidelity gives

rise to a performance orientation in sexual relations. Sex partners must
continually seek to measure up to the sexual expectations of the other.
Fellowship is further threatened by the sense of competition; partners must be
concerned about being compared with others.
Third, the new promiscuity claims to have destroyed the double standard
and liberated women as well as men to engage in the sex act. Of course, the
old double standard is unworthy of defense and ought to have been laid aside
long ago. Yet, the claims of the new outlook are an illusion. Rather than being
the Ulceration of women, the move toward female promiscuity actually
constitutes a victory for dualism. As James Nelson aptly stated:
Yet. if women are ... to learn a casual and physical
orientation toward sexual expression, if they are encouraged
to take up the quest for orgasmic experience divorced from
the integrity of the person, then the mind-body alienation
will continue.25

And rather than being a victory over the double standard, female
promiscuity is actually the triumph of the double standard. As many women
have come to realize, the emphasis on sexual liberation has worked on behalf
of male promiscuity. "Freeing" women from their former "bondage" to chastity
before marriage and fidelity within it serves the interest of the promiscuous
male, for it merely increases the pool of available, willing females.

2. Fidelity vs. Infidelity: the Deeper Implications

Apart from these matters concerning adultery and promiscuity, the
question of fidelity versus infidelity carries deeper implications. Each of these
terms speaks not only of personal choice and lifestyle, but also symbolizes a
personal outlook concerning the nature of the human order and even of
ultimate reality. Each is an enactment of fundamental theological beliefs.

a Fidelity and personal theology. A person's attitudes and actions in

the area of sexual expression are related to one's personal theology. They
reflect in a vivid way certain fundamental outlook concerning ultimate reality.
Two important aspects of personal theology are revealed through the choice of
fidelity or infidelity.
First, a lifestyle of fidelity or infidelity reveals a person's fundamental
belief concerning the nature of humankind. To practice or even condone
infidelity and promiscuity is to declare that the solitary ego constitutes the final
human reality. To engage in promiscuous sexual practices is to set out on the
path to sexual solitude. Sex without long-term commitment readily leads to a
reduction of one's sexual partners, and thus, of others in general, to objects
that move in and out of one's life. In the end, other persons easily come to be
 Notes

perceived as objects to be used for fulfilling the perceived needs of the ego-
self.
Sexual fidelity, in contrast, affirms the significance of community as
fundamental to the human reality. To practice fidelity is to declare that
community, not the solitary ego. is the ultimate dimension of humankind, that
is, that community is more primary than the solitary individual. Fidelity likewise
emphasizes the importance of reciprocal relations among humans and the
coincidence of give and take. It asserts that fulfilling the other while being
fulfilled by the other lies at the heart of human existence. To be human, then,
means fundamentally to be human in community.
Second, fidelity and infidelity are related to a person's understanding
concerning the nature of the divine reality. To practice or condone infidelity or
promiscuity is to imply that ultimate realitywhatever one perceives as
standing behind the world or merely the world in its totalityis in the final
analysis capricious. Infidelity asserts that the universe (or whatever powers are
thought to be at work in the world) is characterized fundamentally by
unfaithfulness and that despite the seeming order in the world, the world is
ultimately disorderly and untrustworthy. In short, promiscuity declares that
God either does not enter into covenant with humankind or lacks faithfulness
to this covenant.
This connection between sexual infidelity and personal perceptions of the
nature of ultimate reality is reflected in the link made in the biblical materials
between idolatry and sexual unfaithfulness. The Old Testament prophets
developed the theme of the marital relationship between Yahweh and Israel:.
Yahweh, the prophets declared, remained a faithful spouse, but Israel
committed adultery through idolatry, that is, through the worship of other
gods. The metaphorical use of sexual language was appropriate, in that the
idolatry against which the prophets warned was generally some form of
fertility religion which often incorporated sexual acts within worship.
The New Testament authors employ the theme of sexual fidelity to
encourage holy living within the Christian community. Paul, for example,
argues that because the body of the Christian belongs to the Lord, sexual
immorality must be avoided (1 Cor. 6:18-20). The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews understands keeping the marriage bed holy to be an important
dimension of the disciple's larger fidelity to the Lord (Heb. 13:4).
In contrast to promiscuity, sexual fidelity affirms the eternal faithfulness of
God. For this reason the covenant between male and female in the fellowship
of marriage constitutes a fitting analogy of the relationship between Christ and
the church (Eph. 5:22-33). Faithfulness between the spouses within that
covenant proclaims their faith in the faithfulness of the divine covenant
partner to his people. As a result, to practice fidelity is to offer a profound
declaration of the fundamental faithfulness of God.
 Notes

b. The social Implications. In addition to being assertions of theological

meaning, attitudes and actions in the dimension of sexual practice carry social
implications. Sexual practices form the wider out workings of a person's
theology, that is, of one's understanding of the human person and the nature
of ultimate reality. Such practices carry social implications, because personal
actions are never merely Isolated, but affect others and eventually even
extend to the broader society of which one is a part.

Stated broadly, personal sexual practices affect the general well-being of

society. Fidelity between spouses and stable marriage relationships are crucial
to fidelity in society and for this reason to social well-being. Promiscuity and
infidelity, in contrast, work to undermine social stability and well-being.
Important in this context is the broader social outworking of the opposing
theological commitments reflected by fidelity and infidelity. Christians affirm
that God designed us for existence in community and that God is a faithful
covenant-maker. These affirmations ought naturally to affect our attitude
toward society and our role in it. They ought to lead to personal involvement in
the wider human society that is characterized by the same emphasis on
commitment and the same presupposition of the underlying dependability of
reality expressed in marital faithfulness.
Sexual infidelity, in contrast, expresses other basic understandings of
reality. Foremast among them are the ultimacy of the individual ego to the
exclusion of the fellowship of persons in community and the ultimate
unfaithfulness of reality. These convictions likewise work their way out in the
wider social dimensions of life. They dispose a person to deemphasize
constructive involvement in society. And they readily foster a pessimism not
only about sexual relationships but also about social relationships on many
levels. In the end, social breakdown and anarchy form the ultimate expressions
of the conviction that reality is fundamentally unfaithful, as depicted by
promiscuity.
Two further, practical considerations also come into play. First, a crucial
relationship between marital faithfulness and social well-being. This
relationship arises out of the crucial importance of marriage for the
development of social bonding in the experience of most people. Marriage
forms the foundational, interpersonal community for the majority of citizens of
the nation. As a result, marriage and family life readily become a microcosm of
the larger society and the attitudes and patterns of relationship found there.
The manner in which one relates to one's spouse in this primary field of
community life will quite naturally shape and mold the way a person relates to
others in the wider social life beyond marriage. Faithfulness to another, learned
by practicing faithfulness on the deep level of sexual fidelity within the marital
bond, assists the individual in learning and practicing faithfulness in the
various levels of life with others in society. On the other hand, if a person
 Notes

develops a pattern of infidelity in the primary social relationship of the

marriage bond, he or she may likewise practice unfaithfulness in other areas of
social life. Marital infidelity, therefore, can carry an unwholesome outworking
in the broader social context.
Second, the relationship between social well-being and fidelity arises out
of the role of the marital relationship in the rearing of children. In our society,
the family remains the primary training ground for the future citizens of the
land, who are the future participants in the society. Children learn primary
attitudes about fidelity and relationship from their parents, specifically from
the way in which their parents treat each other. The human sciences have
indicated the crucial role played by parents in the formation of altitudes in
their children. Marital fidelity is crucial for healthy child development. Erik
Erikson, through his widely known concept of "basic trust," set forth the thesis
that a covenantal relationship is necessary for the development of a sense of
self in the child. A relationship of trust, however, must exist between father
and mother before it moves between parent and child.24
Further, children first learn their fundamental attitudes toward
relationships in the home from their parents. For this reason, the choice of
sexual fidelity or infidelity by spouses has a profound effect on the children.
Children carry the basic attitudes they develop from observing their parents
into their own social contexts. It is no wonder that even secular authors such
as Vance Packard have called for a return to faithful monogamy:
Extramarital affairs, if widely tolerated, would threaten the
family, especially during the child-rearing phase, and this in
turn would threaten society. If we accept the highly
suggestive evidence of anthropologists, we can assume that
in permitting monogamy to be optional we might well be
undermining the advance of Western civilization. 25

Marriage is a covenant, an agreement on the part of husband and wife to

create, as far as passible in a fallen world, a community of male and female.
The sex act is an intimate expression of their intent and therefore finds its
proper context only within the marital bond. When a married person engages
in sexual intercourse with someone other than one's spouse, the marital
covenant is violated and the marriage bond is threatened. The importance of
sexual faithfulness of spouses is aptly summarized by Joseph Allen:
If a husband and wife are seeking to build a good marriage,
and if they desire to be faithful to each other in the most
fundamental marital sense, they will find that the way to do
so lies in affirming each other with all possible loyalty and
patience and resourcefulness in a sexually exclusive
relationship. This is true not simply because it is traditional;
rather, at this point the tradition has grasped the reality of
the matter. In such mutual self-limitation is true marital
freedom foundthe freedom to be themselves with each
Notes

other, confident that each is unconditionally and dependably

affirmed by the other as spouse.26
 Notes

6
Divorce
The Ultimate Severing of the Marital
Bond

The divine will is directed toward the establishment of the community of

male and female. The intent of God for humans as sexual beings is that male
and female live together in fellowship with each other and with the Creator.
Marriage constitutes one divinely ordained context in which to express this
community. It is therefore natural that persons give expression to the divine
intention by forming communities of one male and one female in the marriage
relationship.
Its connection with the divine intent means that marriage is more than a
formal, legal contract It also carries theological significance. For as the
covenant and bond between man and woman, marriage is intended to reflect
certain dimensions of the nature of God. Because of the theological
importance of marriage, the divine ideal is that this expression of the
community of male and female, the marital bond, be characterized by
permanence and fidelity. In God's ideal, the marital bond in turn forms the
context for the sex act, which is to be the celebration of the marital
relationship.
Any discussion of the divine intent for human community in terms of the
ideal for marriage cannot avoid the reality of the impact of human fallenness
and sin. Not all married persons experience the divine ideal of permanence
and fidelity. Many marriages do not reflect the community of male and female
intended by the Creator. The outworking of fallenness sometimes grows so
great that the partners terminate their marriage. In fact, even the concept of
the permanency of marriage is increasingly on the defensive in contemporary
Western society. As the divorce rate continues its unrelenting upward trend,
marital breakup is not only becoming increasingly viewed as totally acceptable
increasingly people anticipate that it will be the inevitable outcome of most
marriages.
The presence of unsuccessful marriages and the explosion of divorce,
even among Christians, raises a crucial issue. How can a Christian sex ethic
come to terms with the brokenness of community that arises in the midst of
 Notes

marriage? How can we understand divorce within the perspective of the

Christian ethic?

Divorce as a Modern Phenomenon

A widespread breakup of marriages has come to characterize life in

Western society. As a result, we must place this modern phenomenon of
divorce within the context of a theological perspective of marriage.

1. Historical Overview

The divorce explosion in contemporary society is a recent phenomenon,

unparalleled in human history.
The Old Testament documents include the establishment of laws
concerning divorce. These indicate that the practice was present to an extent
sufficient to warrant its regulation. Rut divorce nevertheless remained the
exceptional situation in the ancient Semitic world.
In the patriarchal society of the Hebrews, divorce was primarily an option
for the husband, so that the possibility of a woman instigating divorce was
virtually unheard of. And divorce, although carrying legal sanction, never
enjoyed widespread acceptance within the community itself.
By contrast, divorce was frequent in the Greek and Roman societies of the
late ancient period.1 Yet, the practice was. largely an indulgence of the
attitudes of the upper classes and apparently did not become common among
the masses. Many people viewed marriage and family stability as very
important, Further, although women did at times divorce their husbands, the
general tendency paralleled that of the Hebrews, with divorce largely a male
prerogative.
The early Christian community formed a stark contrast to the wider
society of the Roman Empire. 2 The church taught a high view of marriage, and
divorce was rare among Christians. This attitude was carried over into the
wider society when Christianity came to be the dominant cultural influence.
During the Middle Ages and even into the Reformation era, ecclesiastical
strictures against divorce were paralleled by civil laws and social sanctions in
European society as a whole. Not until the Enlightenment did divorce reemerge
in Western culture. And only in the twentieth century have popular attitudes
concerning the practice begun to change.

2. Reasons for the Modern Phenomenon

The rise in divorce in the contemporary world is a curious phenomenon.

There are many theories as to why divorce has suddenly become so prevalent.
Donna Shaper, for example, found the proposed causes "as numerous as the
breakfast cereals on the supermarket shelf." Those she cited include extended
 Notes

adolescence, women's liberation, masculine shortcomings, economic issues,

genetics, lack of commitment, the rise in sexual expectation, apocalyptic atti-
Hides, peer pressure, and escape/avoidance.3 Several factors, all of which
are characteristic of modern society, warrant further elaboration.

a. Lengthened life expectancy. A first factor contributing to the rise in

divorce in the modern world is the phenomenal increase in the length of the
human life span. In 1850, for example, the average life expectancy for people
in the United States was less than forty years. By 1900 it had only risen to
about fifty years for whites, whereas the life expectancy for nonwhites was still
less than thirty-five years. A baby born an 1986, in contrast, could expect to
attain the age of seventy-five years. Equally significant, a person who was forty
years old in 1985 (and thus may have already been married ten to twenty
years) could anticipate living at least another thirty-seven years.4
The fact that people simply live longer means that people who are
committed to permanency in marriage must now took to being married longer
than in past eros. In early twentieth-century America, for example, the average
marriage lasted a mere fifteen years before being cut short by death. often the
death of the wife. Now, however, when two people say their wedding vows
they can anticipate a half-century of life together. Given the fast pace of
technological and social change, a fifty-year commitment will need to carry
with it a sufficient supply of flexibility, if it is to maintain the bond throughout
the multitude of changes the couple will witness. Further, the greater possible
length of marriages today also increases the length of time during which
marital tensions may lead to divorce.
On the basis of this new phenomenon of the great lengthening of life
expectancy, some have argued that marriage never was intended to last fifty
years. Therefore, they argue that a twenty-year marriage followed by divorce
and remarriage ought to be viewed as normal and expected.
b. Contemporary demands on marriage. A second contributing factor
in the modern increase in divorce is the modern view of marriage. Demands
now placed on the marital bond are quite different than in previous eros. These
demands are sometimes too great for the relationship to bear, especially over
the length of years that marriages can conceivably now last. This consideration
lied sociologist Talcott Parsons to deny that high divorce rates mark a decline
in the importance of marriage. Rather, "divorce is an index of the severity of
the burden placed on the marriage relationship in modern society, and hack of
that, of the importance of its functions."5
(1) Companionship. One heightened demand placed on marriage in the
contemporary world is the expectation that spouses be companions. In
previous eros, marriage was largely oriented toward economic goals. In
agricultural societies these goals were related to the maintenance of farm or
 Notes

agrarian life. The rise of industrialization shifted the focus from farm to factory,
but the basically economic orientation of marriage remained intact. In both
cases marriage was intended to provide workersspouse and childrenwho
could shoulder responsibilities and thereby assist in providing economic
stability for the family, both in the present and in the future. The twentieth
century, however, has altered the role of the family from that of being the
foundational unit of economic production to that of being the unit of economic
consumption.
Prior to the contemporary era, companionship was generally found in
relationships beyond the marital bond. The social structure was more static;
people were less mobile. As a result, stable relationships with other persons in
the social structure, including members of a large extended family close at
hand, fulfilled the need for companionship.
In contemporary Western society, however, families are highly mobile.
Friendships are made, only to be interrupted by the relocation of the nuclear
family. As a result of this mobility we now place a greater emphasis on
marriage and the nuclear family as the source of abiding companionship. In
this social context, the marriage bond becomes the chief relationship, and a
spouse looks to his or her mate as the chief companion. At the same time, in a
mobile environment divorce is easier because the couple is likely living away
from friends and family whose concern would strengthen a faltering marriage. 6
Further, the goal of family bonding is less likely to be based on common
involvement in the family economic enterprise. Spouses no longer see each
other as economic partners; they are expected to fulfill each other's emotional
and psychological needs.
(2) Sexual satisfaction. Coinciding with the emphasis on companionship
has been an emphasis on the fulfillment of sexual needs. Contemporary
society has become increasingly oriented toward sex. People now tend to
define sex in terms of determining what constitutes "sexiness," and they
answer this question in terms of youthful vigor and appearance. As a result,
married persons look to their spouses to be partners who wilt provide sexual
fulfillment, and spouses increasingly sense that they are in competition with a
fantasy idealization presented in the media.7
Expectations such as these place increased pressure on the marital bond.
Spouses today sense a burden of responsibilities and desires quite different
from those shouldered in past eros. These pressures, added to the longer life
spans, contribute to the breakdown of marriage characteristic of our society.

c. Orientation away from life-long relationships. A third factor

contributing to the contemporary rise in divorce is a new understanding of
relationships and commitment. The general orientation today in all areas of life
is away from permanency and toward the short and intermediate term. Social
mobility has rendered lifetime friendships, a common experience in the past,
at best difficult to maintain and for many persons even obsolete. In this
environment, virtually all personal relationships and commitments are now
viewed as short-term contracts.
At the same time, a fundamental shift in the focal point of personal
identity has occurred. "Whereas in the past, identity was derived from a
 Notes

person's role and participation in a wider social network, today emphasis is

placed on the autonomous individual and the quest for self-actualization. As a
result, people do not approach relationships from the perspective of their role
in identity formation, but in terms of how they enhance the individual person
who willfully enters into them.
These changing attitudes obviously affect perceptions of the marital bond.
Marriage is often viewed as an example of the relationships entered for the
convenience of the short or intermediate term, rather than as a permanent
commitment designed for the enhancement of both spouses, the rearing of
children, and the betterment of society. This outlook deemphasizes the values
associated with permanency, such as "sticking with it" during difficult times.
When the marriage is no longer meeting the needs of the contractual parties,
it is often assumed, the relationship is to be terminated.

d. Lack of positive role models. Divorce breeds divorce. With the

increase in marital breakup, fewer positive, permanent marriages are available
as role models for others. In fact, our society has created a new type of role
model, the media celebrity. These "stars" rarely exemplify any semblance of
marital commitment, but generally practice serial monogamy, entering into
marriage on the basis of the personal and professional advantages the
relationship offers at the time.
The creation of media celebrities as the new role models may be viewed in
part as an expression of the bias in society against the elderly. In contrast to
past eros, older persons are no longer revered, but marginalized and set aside.
It is the elderly, however, who are more likely to have lived many years with
one spouse, thereby offering positive role models of the permanency of
marriage.

e. Changes in societal attitudes toward women. Finally, the changed

attitudes toward women in general have contributed to the increase of
divorce. The women's movement has produced a more accepting attitude
toward the presence of women in realms that were traditionally seen as
belonging to the male domain. Great changes have also occurred in the
economic status of women. Although they have yet to attain parity with men
in certain areas, women are more independent economically than they were in
the past. Recent years have witnessed the rise of a more accepting attitude
toward divorce itself as well. Thus, the divorced person, especially the
divorced woman, is no longer viewed in the negative light to the degree that
predominated earlier. Nor is she as economically dependent, as was the case
in previous eros.
The results of these changed attitudes and statuses have been
phenomenal. Women are now less likely to remain in abusive situations or in
marriages in which their needs are not being met. The divorce rate, therefore,
may not be simply an indication that marriage as an institution is in decline.
The increase in divorce may also indicate that women are now able to take
action when they perceive their marriage to be unfulfilling, a prerogative that
in the past was largely reserved for men.
 Notes

3. The Effects of Divorce

Although present in many societies and in many eros, divorce is largely a

modern, Western phenomenon. Many of the factors which have given rise to
this phenomenon are understandable and indicative of contemporary society
as a whole. To state these factors, however, does not mitigate against the fact
that even in the contemporary world divorce carries a deeply fell negative
impact, an impact which ought not, therefore, to be glossed over.
Divorce inevitably affects the spouses involved. Even in a difficult
marriage situation, the breaking of the marital bond comes only with pain.
Living with another always entails the development of a pattern of life, a
pattern that is disrupted when the other person is suddenly absent. More
significant than the pain of lifestyle change, however, is the pain associated
with the loss of innocence and the dashing of dreams that comes with divorce.
The marital partners, who had entered the relationship with such high
expectations of self, spouse, and the marriage itself, now are forced to admit
defeat. No wonder, as the Garlands noted, "Many couples who go through
divorce find it more painful than the death of a partner."8
Divorce likewise carries a negative impact on the children of the broken
marriage. In fact, recent studies indicate that the burden children bear may
even outweigh that of the divorcing spouses. Craig A. Everett reached this
chilling conclusion:
There is little question that the children in divorcing families
carry the greatest vulnerability and often sustain the
greatest pain and anguish during and after the divorce
process, in fact it is the adjustment crisis that the children of
divorce experience which may linger well into adulthood.
Disillusionment, anger and fear may shape their own adult
mate selection processes as well as the parenting and
interactional patterns of the next generation. 9

Full awareness of the long-lasting effects of divorce on children is only

slowly emerging.10 Divorce also affects society. This effect is in part legal, for
divorce generally includes legal ramifications. Being the disruption of a legal
contract, each divorce carries a judicial cost and potentially an added burden
on the law enforcement agencies responsible for insuring compliance with the
divorce settlement. But more significant is the wider toll in social well-being
brought about by divorce. Divorce is never a merely private matter between
two individuals, but brings about a social disruption in family, neighborhood,
career, and the like. And each divorce constitutes a negative model for those
who observe the marital breakup.

Divorce as the Breakup of Marriage

Regardless of the context in which it occurs, divorce remains, in the final

analysis, the breakup of a relationship that carries theological importance. For
this reason, Christian ethics cannot avoid speaking to the issue. The following
discussion will move from two central biblical texts to the development of a
 Notes

theological understanding of divorce, followed by an attempt to offer certain

principles for decision making.

1. The Biblical Data

Divorce as it is currently known is a modern phenomenon. Nevertheless, it

is not without rootage in ancient societies. Its presence in the ancient world
gave rise to interaction with the practice by the authors of the biblical
documents.

a. The Old Testament: the regulation of divorce. The discussion of

divorce in the Old Testament centers around two basic assertions. On the one
hand, the foundation for the way in which the Hebrew community came to deal
with divorce lay in the Genesis creation narratives. These stories express the
intent of God in terms of the permanent relationship between husband and
wife. Beginning with Genesis, the Old Testament clearly articulates a marital
ideal, and tills ideal includes neither unfaithfulness nor divorce. On the
contrary, unfaithfulness and its climax in divorce serve as a metaphorical
expression of the unfaithfulness of Israel to Yahweh found in Israel's idolatry.
On the other hand, in addition to the ideal, the Torah includes the
practical. the legalization of divorce. Divorce was a reality among the ancient
Hebrews. Its presence required that the religious leaders deal with the
problem. As a result divorce was institutionalized and codified in the law. Yet,
as Jesus' encounter with the scribes indicates, the legalization of divorce ought
not to he interpreted as a sanctioning of the practice. Rather, it was an
attempt to assist women, whose status in the patriarchal society was
jeopardized by the Ioose way in which divorce was practiced. 11 Divorce, then,
came under legal structure, which required that the former husband give
formal acknowledgment of a divorced woman's status.

b. The New Testament: the intended permanency of marriage. The

New Testament was written in the context of an era in which divorce was
readily practiced. In contrast to the attitudes widespread in the Greco-Roman
world, however, the early church emphasized the permanency of marriage and
viewed divorce as being contrary to the divine will. Two texts stand out as most
significant in forming the basis of the position of the early church.

(1) Jesus' view of divorce (Matthew 19:1-9 and parallels, cf. Matthew 5:31-
32). The most explicit Gospel text concerning Jesus' view of divorce is Matthew
19:1-9. His statement occurs in the midst of a discussion of the subject with
the Jewish religious leaders, who themselves may have been divided on the
issue as to what constituted the proper grounds for divorce. 12 Three features of
Jesus' response are significant.
 Notes

First, Jesus placed the discussion of divorce within the context of Genesis
2. In keeping with the creation story, he reaffirmed that the divine intention
entails the permanency of marriage. By placing the discussion in this context
Jesus refused to become involved in the debate concerning legalisms which
characterized the discussions of the Pharisees. Rather than siding with either
of the two options advocated by his rabbinical contemporaries, he avoided
sanctioning divorce under any circumstances. Jesus elevated God's ideal,
indicating thereby that divorce always and in all circumstances constitutes a
departure from that ideal.
Second, in contrast to the parallel text in Mark and in keeping with the
statement in the Sermon on the Mount, the Matthew account includes what
appears to be one acceptable basis for divorce, namely adultery. This addition
has led some exegetes to assert that Jesus (or the early church) put forth
adultery as proper grounds for terminating a marriage. This conclusion will be
addressed later.
Third, the intent of Jesus' teaching on divorce does offer a marked break
with Jewish thought at one significant point. Me overturned the double
standard. Jesus set forth the same requirements for both sexes, placing men
and women equally under the double law of love and thereby affirming the
fidelity of both husband and wife. Divorce, therefore, was equally treacherous,
whether at the hand of wife or husband (Mark 10:11-12). In this egalitarianism,
however, Jesus saw himself as merely reaffirming the implicit teaching of the
second creation account and the insights of Deuteronomy.
(2) Paul on divorce (1 Cor. 7). Paul shared with Jesus an abhorrence for
divorce as being contrary to the divine intent. His discussion of the subject,
however, moves in a more pragmatic direction. In the text as a whole the
apostle's chief goal is to encourage Christians to remain in whatever social
situation they find themselves (v. 17). As an outworking of this principle, the
married should remain married, and the unmarried should consider remaining
single.
To this general rule, however, Paul offers one exception. If because of the
religious difference between them introduced by the conversion of one partner
a Christian's unbelieving spouse is not willing to continue the marriage, then
the believer is not bound to remain in this social situation, i.e., in the married
state. Paul's statement has been interpreted as allowing for what is known as
"the Pauline privilege," that is, as viewing desertion as a grounds for divorce.

2. A Theological Understanding of Divorce

The Bible in both the Old and New Testaments views divorce as contrary to
the divine intent. These biblical considerations together with the conclusions of
the previous chapters provide the basis for the development of a theological
understanding of divorce.

a. The context in human sexuality. Divorce cannot be understood in a

vacuum. Rather, the context for the development of a theological
understanding of divorce must be the understanding of human sexuality
delineated previously.
 Notes

We are created sexual beings, and our sexuality forms the basis for the
drive toward human bonding, one expression of which is marriage. Thus,
marriage is an outworking of human sexuality understood as the drive to form
a community of male and female. The marriage bond is formed by covenant,
namely, the covenant between husband and wife, which therefore lies at the
foundation of the marital union. As a result, the drive toward bonding implicit
in human sexuality carries theological importance. God's intent for marriage is
connected with the divine will to establish community with humans and among
humans. The human community God intends to be established in marriage is
to be characterized by a permanent bond and by covenant fidelity. In this way,
marriage serves as a reflection of an important aspect of the divine reality,
namely, the exclusive nature of the relationship God seeks to establish with
human beings.

b. The divine intent and the violation of the marital bond. This
understanding of the divine intent for marriage as a reflection of the divine
reality forms the context in which to understand the violation of the marital
covenant. In the previous chapter the gravity of the violation of the bond
through adultery was discussed. Adultery constitutes an open breach of the
marital bond, and as such it marks the highest act in the violation of that bond.
For this reason adultery must be treated with seriousness.
Adulteryoven sexual unfaithfulnessis not the only violation of the
marriage bond, however. There are other breaches as well. In fact, all attitudes
and actions on the part of the spouse's that undermine or destroy the
community that marriage is designed to fulfill contribute to the fissuring of the
covenant. These violations include even the seemingly harmless attitudes
readily found in marriage, such as taking one's marriage and one's spouse for
granted. Left unchecked, such attitudes easily translate into hurtful words and
harmful actions. The most blatant of these are abusive language and.
ultimately, physical abuse.
A marriage, therefore, is not only undermined by adultery, but by a host of
what may appear to be more minor offenses. A spouse may practice sexual
fidelity and yet be violating the marriage covenant. For the covenant that lies
at the foundation of marriage is the pledge to create a community of male and
female, of husband and wife, through which the divine reality may be
reflected.

c. Divorce as the final declaration of the violation of the marital

bond. Viewed in this context, divorce is not an abrupt termination of a
marriage. Rather, it is but the final statement concerning the process whereby
the marital bond has been violated over time. As such, it is a declaration about
the broken state of a marriage and the status of the marital partners vis-a-vis
their marriage relationship. This declaration moves in several directions.
First, divorce is a declaration that through a series of actions or displays of
attitudes a marital bond has been irreparably broken. The final parting of ways
 Notes

constituted by divorce confirms that the community of male and female this
marital bond was intended to form has been effaced and destroyed to the
point that whatever community may have been present in the past simply no
longer exists.
Second, divorce is a declaration that one spouse (or both) now views the
situation as beyond repair. The spouse who has initiated divorce proceedings
thereby declares that he or she has given up hope for the marriage and
therefore is simply no longer willing to expend any further energy in seeking to
maintain some semblance of community or to reestablish the community that
has been lost.
Thus, third, divorce is the declaration of failure and sin. The sin involved in
divorce is multifaceted. One focus lies with the marital partners. It is, of
course, possible that the greater responsibility for the breakup of the marriage
must be laid at the feet of one spouse. He or she has failed the other by
violating the marriage bond to the extent that the community of male and
female the marriage was designed to be has been irreparably marred. More
likely, however, both partners share in the responsibility for the destruction of
the marriage.
In addition to being a sin against one's partner, divorce is ultimately a
declaration of sin against God. Of course, any sin against another human is at
the same time against God. But the sin acknowledged by divorce goes beyond
this dimension. It marks the failure and sin not only of the individual covenant
partners, but of this specific community of male and female that the two
marriage partners set out to establish. Divorce is the final declaration of the
failure of this marriage to mirror the divine reality. The permanent separation
of the marriage partners is a confession that their marriage has failed to fulfill
the divine intention, namely, that the community of this male and this female
reflect the exclusive love of God and the divine will to community.
d. "No-fault divorce." These considerations form a context in which to
view the concept of no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce has arisen as a response
to the earlier approach to the legal aspect of divorce in which it was necessary
to affix blame for the marital breakup on one or the other of the marriage
partners. No-fault divorce, in contrast, asserts that no single party was
responsible for the situation.
The intent lying behind no-fault divorce carries a certain degree of
validity. There are situations, of course, in which the greater responsibility for
the marital demise can be placed without question at the feet of one of the
marriage partners. In such situations it is valid to speak of the "innocent
partner." for one spouse may indeed have made every reasonable attempt to
maintain the marriage, even at great personal sacrifice. In many cases,
however, the destruction of community in marriage is more complicated.
Mistakes are generally made by both partners, and both are often involved in
the sin and failure that in the end led to the final breakdown of the marriage.
 Notes

In such situations, it is both unhelpful and dishonest to attribute the marital

breakup to one partner. No-fault divorce is an attempt to give legal recognition
to this reality.
Viewed from the theological vantage point outlined above, however, the
idea of no-fault divorce is a misnomer. The name implies that no one is at
fault, no one must bear the responsibility for the breakup of the marriage. But
this is never the case. There simply is no situation in which divorce comes at
the fault of no one. for divorce is always the declaration of failure. The term
"no- fault" conveys the impression that the divorce simply "happened," that it
was inevitable, that the marriage itself was the problem rather than the
attitudes and actions of the marital partners. Of course, it is conceivable that
such a situation could arise, that a marriage could have been doomed from
the beginning. Yet such situations are rare. Most generally the marriage itself
is not the problem that leads to divorce; nor is the institution of marriage to be
blamed. Rather, divorce occurs because the marital partners fail to live up to
the commitments they made in covenanting together to create a community
of male and female.
Related to the theological difficulty, is a more "secular" one. The concept
of no-fault divorce is questionable from a social perspective. It constitutes a
denial of the interest of society in the maintenance of marriage and family.
Ellen Wilson Fielding stated this problem well. Concerning no-fault divorce she
wrote,
Without even a pro forma announcement that one or both
parties are doing something blameworthy, there is nothing
to demonstrate society's recognition that something is at
stake when marriages fail.
The development of the term "no-fault divorce" is in keeping with an tin-
fortunate mood of contemporary society. People today have a tendency to
deny personal responsibility for their own failures, choosing instead to point to
someone else, society as a whole, or social institutions as the culprit. Some
other designation, such as "mutual-fault divorce," might belter serve us.
Generally a divorce is the climax of a process in which a marriage is
dismantled by the actions of both partners. In such situations, both spouses
share mutually in the blame acknowledged by the divorce.

e. Divorce as a possibility. God's ideal is that those who enter in the

marriage covenant create a permanent community of male and female and
thereby reflect a significant aspect of the divine reality. Yet, the setting forth of
this ideal and the conclusion that each breakup of a marriage constitutes a
failure to actualize the ideal do not mean that divorce is never an option.
Openness to the possibility of divorce within the context of a sex ethic that
affirms the divine ideal arises from a consideration of the relation of the ideal
of marital permanence to God's overarching intent. God's design for human
community includes the inviolability of marriage. But this inviolability is not an
end in itself. The permanence of the marital bond is but the means to a higher
 Notes

goal, the establishment of a community of male and female that is able to

reflect the divine reality.
In certain situations in which the divine intent has been effaced by sin and
failure, the principle of marital inviolability may need to be balanced by other
principles. This is especially the case when the continuation of normal marital
arrangements endangers spouse or children. Situations arise in which God's
ideal for marriage is being effaced and human failure and sin are causing great
sufferingeven to the point of endangering human life. Such situations could
reach a stage in which continuation of the relationship would actually bring
great harm to the persons involved. At this stage, the principle of God's
compassionate concern for the persons involved, God's intent to establish
shalom or human wholeness, must take precedence over the concern to
maintain the inviolability of marriage.14
Yet, even in these seemingly hopeless situations, the awfulness of divorce
must not be overlooked. Divorce must never be initiated lightly; it must always
be viewed as the last resort, employed only when all other methods and
attempts have been of no avail. Likewise, divorce must never be greeted as a
positive act. In such situations it may be a liberating act, freeing a spouse from
a tyrannizing relationship. Yet even then, divorce is nothing less than the
declaration that a marriage has failed, that the attempt to create a community
of male and female with the purpose of reflecting the divine reality has ended.

3. The Nonlegalism of the New Testament

The Christian must always elevate the inviolability of marriage as the divine
ideal and oppose any casual approach to divorce. At the same time, however,
Christian ethics must avoid constructing a new legalism to replace that of the
scribes and Pharisees.15 The New Testament documents undermine any
attempt to construct a new Christian legalism. This may be seen by looking
again at the two major texts that deal with divorce.16

a. The antilegalism of Jesus' statements. The tenor of the New

Testament is evident in Jesus' response to the query about divorce brought to
him by his enemies. Several aspects of his statement indicate that his intent
was to replace the legalism of the Pharisees with a deeper nonlegalistic
understanding. Rather than being a source of appeal for a new Christian
legalism, therefore, Jesus' statement in actuality carries an antilegalistic tone.
The antilegalism of the Master is evidenced in Jesus' refusal to become
involved in the legalistic debate of his opponents. The stricter school of
Pharisees limited divorce to adultery, whereas a more liberal school allowed a
man to divorce his wife for virtually any reason. Rather than joining this
debate. Jesus relumed the discussion to the question of the original intent of
the Creator. In contrast to the shared presupposition of both positions, namely,
that Moses gave to husbands the right to divorce their wives (albeit under
certain circumstances), divorce for Jesus is never in keeping with the will of
 Notes

God. It never carries the sanction of divine law. According to Jesus, divorce is
always a tragic sign of human sin.
The antilegalistic stance of Jesus is evidenced by the absence of the
adultery clause in Mark. This raises the question of the authenticity of its
insertion in Matthew (does the statement reflect Jesus' own intention, or is it
Matthew's addition?). Regardless of the answer, the absence of the clause in
Mark indicates that Jesus' intent in answering the Pharisees is not to set down
a new legalism. but to place the question of divorce within its proper
theological contextGod's design for marriage. Any violation of the marriage
bond is a breach of this design, Jesus asserts. In this way he stands opposed to
the scribes' position. They maintained that in certain circumstances the
marital bond could be, or perhaps even should be legally broken. In such
cases, they claimed, divorce was not a violation of the divine willit was not
sinfor the act carried the sanction of divine law. Not so, Jesus declares.
Divorce is always a concession to, and declaration of. human failure.
The significance of the omission in Mark forms the basis for understanding
the presence of the adultery clause in Matthew. The Matthew text ought not to
be interpreted in a manner that would bring it into conflict with Mark. The
adultery statement, therefore, must not be interpreted as Jesus' authorization
of a new legalism.
This assertion runs counter to the exegesis of those who see in Matthew
19 the institution of a Christian legalistic approach to divorce. In the case of
adultery, it is sometimes argued, divorce is permissible; it is not to be viewed
as a violation of the intent of God, because it is allowed by Jesus. 17 Such an
understanding, however, contradicts the tenor of the Jesus-word in the text.
God's design is for permanency in marriage. Even in the case of adultery,
therefore, the divine intention has been violated when the couple divorces.
Even in adulterous situations divorce remains a declaration of sin. It might
occur, as a declaration of the irreparable destruction of the marital bond, but
divorce can never be viewed as sanctioned by divine law, whether that be the
law of Moses or the law of Jesus.18
In his reply as a whole, Jesus is arguing for a reinstitution of the high
regard for the marital bond given in the design of the Creator. This means that
the marital partners (in a first-century context, especially the husband) should
be committed to working out the problems of the relationship. Divorce should
always be viewed as a last resort and always in recognition that the divine
design has not been actualized.
What, then, is the significance of the divorce clause inserted in Matthew?
Perhaps two meanings emerge. The central point of the clause appears to
move in the direction of indicating the new situation that adultery introduces
into a difficult marital relationship. It is meant to indicate as well that the
adulterer must shoulder the greater personal responsibility for the failure of
the marriage.
The inclusion of the adultery clause asserts that the dissolution of a
marital bond is raised to a new level, whenever adultery is introduced.
 Notes

Unfaithfulness constitutes the ultimate breach of marital trust. In the face of

adultery it becomes much more difficult to stop the deterioration of the
community of male and female which was to characterize the relationship. The
adultery clause, therefore, adds a pessimistic note to the reply of Jesus. As a
grave breach of the marital bond, adultery compounds the problem. It does
not make divorce inevitable. But it increases the risk.
As a result, including the adultery clause indicates as well that the
adulterer carries the greater blame for the marital failure. Jesus' statement
introduces the concept of the so-called "innocent party," or better stated, the
"more innocent party." Both spouses may carry responsibility for the marital
demise, for each may have sinned against the other and failed in the attempt
to establish community. Yet, the adultery of one partner increases the difficulty
of reconciliation in a troubled marriage. For this reason, the unfaithful spouse,
who introduced this additional burden into the relationship, must assume the
greater burden for the divorce.
The inclusion of the adultery clause adds an individualist tone to the
process that climaxes in divorce. Yet we must not lose sight of the other
dimension. Divorce always carries the corporate dimension as well as the
individual. It remains a declaration of the failure of the community of the
married partners to reflect the divine reality. One or the other partner might
carry the greater responsibility, but in the end divorce marks the final
statement that husband and wife were not able to establish a community of
male and female. Rather than setting forth a new legalism to give sanction to
divorce cases, then, Jesus' statement emphasizes the violation of the divine
design which is inherent in every divorce.
b. The antilegalism of the Pauline privilege. The other major New
Testament text permitting divorce, the so-called Pauline privilege found in 1
Corinthians 7, shares the tone of the Jesus-word in Matthew.
The goal of the Pauline statement concerning divorce differs from that of
Jesus" discussion. The Gospels indicate the attempt by God's messenger to
reestablish the original design of the Creator against the scribal legalization of
divorce. Paul's goal, in contrast, is not that of returning the discussion to "first
principles." His task is to apply the gospel pragmatically, to work out the
implications of those "first principles" to a specific situation.
The situation Paul sought to address arose in the Gentile churches. As one
or the other marriage partners left the old religions to join the Christian
community, a two-sided problem emerged. One side was the problem of the
desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving partner. The other was the
question as to whether a new believer ought to remain with an unbelieving
partner.
Both problems are understandable, given the new situation that a change
of religious adherence introduced into first-century marriages, because of
conversion to Christianity, the believing spouse came to view the marriage
from the perspective of a new understanding of the nature of the marital
bond, which the unbelieving spouse did not share. Such "religious
 Notes

incompatibility" apparently encouraged many unbelievers to terminate their

marriages or tempted believing spouses to find no compulsion to maintain
their marital status.
Paul's application of the Christian marital ethic to this situation comes in
two parts. First, the believing spouse was to live out the Christian
understanding of marriage within the context of the marital bond, he
maintained. The Christian spouse was to view marriage, and therefore his or
her marriage, as a permanent commitment. As a result, the believing partner
was to remain with the unbeliever, so long as the unbeliever was willing to
stay married. In short, Paul cautioned against the believing spouse appealing
to religious incompatibility as a reason for ending the relationship, even
though the believer had a higher view of the nature of marriage.
Second, however, should the unbeliever choose to terminate the
marriage, the situation changed radically, Paul argued. Then the believing
spouse had no alternative but to grant the divorce, even though it constituted
a violation of the marital bond as the believer had come to view it. In such
cases the principle of the Christian's calling to peace, Paul indicated, took
precedence over the inviolability of marriage.
In this response to a specific situation. Paul refused to institute a new
Christian legalism. Rather, he followed a path similar to the one Jesus look in
his discussion of divorce. When possible, Paul in essence argued, the divine
ideal of permanency in marriage is to be actualized, and the believing spouse
is to stay in the marriage. Yet. situations arise in which human sin (here the
unwillingness of the unbelieving partner to maintain the ideal) undermined the
community of male and female that marriage is to establish. In such cases,
divorce indeed occurs, forming thereby but the definitive statement that
community has been destroyed.
Like the Jesus-word, the statement of Paul must not be read as bestowing
on divorce the sanction of divine law, in this case the law of Paul, for Paul is
not a law-giver. Divorce, even in the case of desertion, does not carry divine
sanction. Even then it remains a testimony to the reality of human sin. While
not condoning divorce in this case, Paul, again in harmony with Jesus, gives
place to divorce as a reality of the fallen human situation.

4. Principles for Christian Decision Making

The permanence of the marriage bond is the divine ideal. Yet, sin and
failure climaxing in divorce are realities of human existence. Christian ethics
responds to the contemporary casual approach to divorce by demanding that
this reality be taken seriously. On the basis of the conclusions outlined above,
several principles for approaching situations of life can now be offered. These
principles are an attempt to incorporate what the New Testament texts say on
the issue of divorce within the entire biblical context of the nature of marriage.
 Notes

(1) The inviolability of the marriage bond as intended by God. The

foundational principle operative in both Old and New Testaments relates to
God's intention as the designer and instigator of marriage. As the Genesis
creation story asserts and Jesus confirms, God intends that marriage be a
permanent bond of fidelity through which husband and wife establish a
community of male and female.
As a result, divorce is always a breach of God's ultimate intention, and no
conditions may be seen as carrying divine sanction of divorce. It is a product
of human sin and human failure to actualize the divine intent and is always the
final declaration that a community of male and female has not been
established. Therefore, divorce should never be celebrated as a victory, but
should always be viewed with sadness and a sense of tragedy. Likewise, any
movement in the direction of divorce and all reflection on the completion of a
divorce should be accompanied by humility and repentance, as well as
gratitude for God's forgiveness of sin and failure.
(2) The nonultimate status of marriage. God's design for marriage is that
the marital relationship be characterized by permanence and faithfulness. The
principle of the inviolability of marriage, however, ought not to be made
absolute. It must not be interpreted as conveying to marriage the status of
being the highest good. Nor does the principle of the inviolability of marriage
mean that a marital relationship is to be maintained at all cost. Although
divorce is always a declaration of human sin and failure, in certain situations it
could Ioom as a better course of action than any available alternative.
This principle is operative in the Pauline specific, desertion. Paul's advice
to the deserted spouse carries an important implication: If one partner has
terminated the marriage in an irrevocable fashion, the marriage is terminated,
despite the desire of the other to continue the bond and to view it as
inviolable. In short, it takes two to be married.
Likewise, it must be admitted that divorce is at times but the formal
declaration of the actual state of affairs. In certain circumstances it is but the
final owning of the fact that the community of male and female has been
destroyed, the bond has been violated, and the marriage is a failure, for it no
longer reflects the divine reality it was intended to mirror.
This principle is perhaps reflected in the addition of the adultery clause in
Matthew's account of Jesus' discussion with the teachers of the law. Adultery is
to be viewed here as the intentional (and perhaps repeated) breach of the
marital bond and its attendant violation of marriage as the reflection of the
divine reality.
Even when divorce would be but the formal declaration of the actual
situation, however, this act must never be undertaken lightly. Even when it is
but a formalization of the brokenness of a marriage, divorce does alter the
situation. It carries a finality that is lacking in the maintenance of the status
quo. It has the effect of making permanent the marital breach which may have
 Notes

de facto characterized the relationship for some time. For so long as the legal
contract of marriage has not been dissolved, there remains a faint hope of
healing and reconciliation, even in the midst of the sickest marriages. Once
divorce has been finalized, however, the breach has in all likelihood been
made permanent as well.
(3) Considerations for Christians facing difficult marital situations. Two
considerations follow from this discussion for Christians living in the midst of
deteriorating marriages. First, the believer must remain committed to the
divine ideal, which includes that marriage is intended to be a permanent
community of male and female. Such a commitment will mean on the one
hand that the Christian seek to do whatever possible to maintain the
relationship. The believer, in other words, will "figh" for one's marriage, rather
than give up easily.
In this context it should be noted that the termination of a marriage
through divorce is rarely an unavoidable necessity, so long as one's spouse
does not end the relationship. Even in the face of the violation of the marital
bond by his or her spouse through adultery or abuse, the violated partner is
not required to seek divorce. Generally speaking, then, the believer will not be
the party initiating divorce proceedings. And a Christian ought never to view
divorce as an easy solution to marital problems. Rather, in the midst of a
difficult marriage the Christian looks first for workable options which are less
permanent than divorce. Even situations of adultery or abuse could be
opportunities for the Christian spouse to seek to demonstrate Christlike
forgiveness and endurance, within the limits imposed by concern for all
persons affected by the conduct of one's spouse.19
The advantages of separation as an alternative to divorce ought not to be
overlooked. In abuse situations, for example, separation provides an
opportunity for a spouse to remove herself (or himself) and endangered
children from an abusive situation without ending all hope of healing and
reconciliation. Separation allows a believer to take defensive action while
continuing to express personal commitment to the inviolability of the marital
bond. This step, however, ought to be viewed as an interim measure and not
as the permanent solution to marital difficulties. Separation provides an
opportunity to gain time for the sake of the restoration of the relationship. It
allows occasion for counseling and evaluation of the situation, and, one could
hope, for the beginning of the process of healing.
Second, the Christian must always pursue the path of peace. 20 Paul's
admonition to the Romans, "as far as it depends on you. live at peace with
everyone" (Rom. 12:18), finds practical application in 1 Corinthians. Paul's
advice sets forth a principle. In the case of a partner who is no longer willing to
remain in the marriage relationship the pursuit of peace may mean that the
spouse becomes resigned to divorce as a last resort, for when all else has
failed it is the only possible route to follow. This principle continues to apply
even beyond the finalization of a divorce. In subsequent relations to a former
spouse, the path of peace must always be followed, as far as is possible.
 Notes

Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce constitutes the final declaration that the attempts of husband and
wife to establish a community of male and female have ended in failure. While
it is the end of the marriage, divorce is not the end for the former spouses as
individuals. The good news of the gospel is that God loves us despite our
failure and sin. There is. therefore, life after divorce.
Life after divorce, however, raises certain important questions. Each
person who goes through divorce must face the basic existential question:
What now? What lies beyond divorce for me? Although for a divorced person
this may be the most crucial personal question, Christian ethics must deal with
the issue concerning the possibility of remarriage after divorce. We may
confront this issue through two related questions.

1. Does Divorce Entail Freedom to Remarry?

The possibility of remarriage after divorce is dependent on a positive
response to the question as to whether or not divorced persons are free to
remarry. Although mainline churches readily answer this question in the
affirmative, Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants are generally more
cautious. The Roman Catholic stance is related to the sacramental
understanding of marriage, and therefore a crucial question in this tradition is
whether the remarriage of a divorced person can carry sacramental status. 21
Conservative Protestants rarely frame the question in these terms, finding it
instead purely a matter of biblical interpretation.

a. Central texts. The debate in evangelical circles largely centers on the

interrelation of the two texts discussed above, Matthew 19 (together with
Matthew 5) and 1 Corinthians 7. Evangelicals often view these texts as
providing a basis for determining under what circumstances a divorce may
considered "proper" and thus permissive of remarriage. Although there are
differing positions concerning what the texts actually present as proper
divorces, all such views approach the issue by constructing some type of "new
legalism" to replace the old legalism of the Pharisees.
(1) The textual basis for the "legalistic" approach concerning remarriage.
Perhaps the dominant position among evangelicals finds in the two texts clear
teaching that in two and only two situations, adultery and desertion, divorce
entails the right to remarry.22
The first text is Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage (Malt. 19:1-9).
Jesus' response to the Pharisees, it is argued, closes the door to remarriage in
divorce situations with one exception, marital unfaithfulness on the part of
one's spouse. Proponents maintain that this saying gives warrant for a
differentiation between the guilty and the innocent parties, giving the right of
remarriage to the faithful partner, but denying it to the unfaithful spouse.
The second case in which remarriage comes as a right arises from the
Pauline privilege (1 Cor. 7:12-17). According to Paul if a believing spouse is
deserted by an unbeliever, the believer "is not bound." This is interpreted to
 Notes

mean that the deserted believer is free from the constraints of the marital
bond, and thus free to remarry.
This understanding of the proper grounds for remarriage, while
widespread in conservative Protestant circles, is not universally held. Some
conservatives reject this view as too loose. They offer a narrower
interpretation of the texts, claiming that Jesus and Paul allow for separation or
divorce but not remarriage. As a result they envision virtually no situation in
which a divorced Christian could freely remarry. Rather, regardless of the
circumstances, once one's marriage has ended, the only options are remaining
single or being reconciled to one's former spouse. 25 Others, however, criticize
this view as too restrictive. Based on their reading of these two texts and
others, they argue for a greater openness to remarriage after divorce, so long
as certain criteria are met.
(2) Evaluation. As will be seen subsequently, it is surely proper to
conclude that in both cases mentioned above remarriage is an option. When
the marriage bond has been broken through adultery or desertion, the divorce
has forced the faithful partner to return to the unmarried situation. In this
light, the interpretation that allows remarriage under such circumstances is
indeed correct. Further, this position may offer certain advantages in pastoral
situations. It casts a seemingly charitable light on the situations of faithful
partners who find themselves the victims of divorce, while taking seriously the
actions of the guilty party.
Apart from such positive considerations, however, all forms of the legalistic
approach to this questioneven the position that allows for remarriage in
cases of adultery or desertionare not without problems. A first difficulty is
exegetical. All such approaches move directly counter to the intent of Jesus'
remark to the Pharisees. As noted earlier, the Master's goal was not to set up a
new legalism, but to return the understanding of marriage to the level of the
original design of its Creator. With this in view, it is simply contrary to the spirit
of the text to derive from it a new set of stipulations, whatever that set be, by
means of which to judge whether or not a divorced person is entitled to
remarry.
That Jesus' goal is to combat any loose view of the permanence of the
marital bond may be seen in the way he framed his response. He appealed to
the creation stories which state the high intent of the Creator. Then he
commented on the situation in which a person divorces one's spouse with the
intent of marrying another. The one who treats this matter lightly, the one who
divorces one's spouse and remarries, commits adultery, he declared. There is
no discussion of the "innocent partner" and no comment concerning the
possibility of divorce for the sake of remaining single. Jesus' concern was
directed solely toward combating the loose regard of the marital bond he
perceived as motivating the question posed to him.
The same conclusion arises from the Pauline text. Paul's main purpose was
to admonish his audience not to think that becoming a Christian altered their
social relationships. The married, therefore, were to remain married and to
carry out normal marital relationships. In other words, all were to remain in
whatever relationships they were in when they became believers. "The Pauline
privilege" arose from the cases in which this basic admonition could not be
followed, due to the fact that the unbelieving spouse was unwilling to maintain
the marital relationship. Paul's intent, therefore, is not to act as a new law-
giver and establish the grounds for a proper divorce with the attendant right of
 Notes

remarriage, but to deal with an exceptional case in which a believer's social

relationship had been altered by another.
The second difficulty of any legalistic approach to this issue is pastoral.
Such viewpoints are helpful only in situations of blatant disregard of the
marital vow by only one partner. These situations do arise, of course. However,
many cases faced in pastoral ministry are not so simple.
More often, divorce is but the final stage of a lengthy process that has
included mistakes, sins, and failure on the part of both spouses. Legalistic
approaches, therefore, run the danger of viewing complex marital problems
too simplistically. A legalistic structure seeks to force the situation into
categories of "guilty partner" versus "innocent partner" which simply may not
fit the case at hand. The determination of the "innocent partner" in many
cases of marital breakup is difficult, if not impossible. It may well be that both
partners share in the guilt.

b. Principles concerning divorce and remarriage. The attempts to

draw from the New Testament parameters for divorce and remarriage are
significant in that they arise out of a desire to take both this issue and the
biblical teaching seriously. For this reason they are not to be disdained.
Nevertheless, it seems that an approach more in keeping with the spirit of
Jesus and Paul would delineate from the Bible guidelines for use in situations
of marital breakup. Such principles cannot determine in advance what
circumstances entail a proper divorce and the right to remarriage. These
questions must be answered in the midst of the situations of life, in which
divorce is never "proper." Rather, they provide the foundational considerations
for the decision-making process. Two such principles are central.
(1) Reconciliation. The first principle to be considered in each situation
focuses on what should be the primary goal of all action, the reconciliation of
the two persons. This principle is in keeping with the fundamental Christian
commitment to the inviolable nature of marriage. God never sanctions
divorce, As a result, the chief concern of a believer experiencing the trauma of
marital breakup ought to focus on the continuing possibility of reconciliation
with one's spouse.
In practice this principle would mean that proposed actions are to be
evaluated according to their possible effect on the reconciliation process. How
will my taking this step affect the possibility of reconciliation? Will this act
further jeopardize reconciliation? Obviously, a believer would hesitate to enter
into a new marriage, so long as there remains both the possibility and the
hope that the breach could be mended and the relationship between the two
persons could lie restored.
(2) Peace. Despite the best and most sincere attempts, hope for renewal
of the marriage may eventually fade. When this occurs the principle of peace
(shalom) must temper the search for actual marital restoration and define the
nature of the reconciliation that must now be pursued. This quest for peace
must move in several directions.
 Notes

First, attempts must be directed toward the establishment of peace

between the two marriage partners. This peace includes the honest
recognition and acknowledgment that they cannot live together as husband
and wife, as painful as this recognition may be. Peace by necessity includes a
peaceful parting and a resolution of lingering responsibilities of their marriage,
including a fair division of material goods and a just arrangement for providing
for the children. Finally, interpersonal peace must work toward a normalization
of their relationship as two separate persons, including the cessation of
whatever hostilities the marriage breakup may have engendered.
Second, attempts must be directed toward the establishment of peace in
the heart of each former marriage partner. A believing partner would seek to
uphold the former spouse in prayer and to maintain a credible Christian
witness in all contacts with him or her. Important as well is the establishment
of a peaceable attitude toward the former marriage and its demise. While not
sidestepping personal responsibility nor denying the evil that each divorce
actually is, a divorced believer who has repented of personal wrongdoing and
truly sought reconciliation must come to the quiet assurance that despite all
personal efforts no return to the marriage is now possible.
The door to reconciliation may have been permanently blocked by the
remarriage of the former spouse. Such a step introduces a new factor into the
situation. Restoration of the marriage could come only through the dissolution
of another marriage, one which, however formed, is now to be viewed as
inviolate.
Third, attempts must be directed toward the establishment of peace in
terms of the wholeness and well-being of all persons affected by the marital
dissolutionone's former spouse, one's children, and oneself. This concern
may include the possibility of remarriage, if the establishment of a new
relationship would contribute to the shalom of all persons concerned.

c. implications. Seen in the light of these principles, allowing remarriage

only in cases of adultery and desertion fails to reflect the intent of the New
Testament to uphold the inviolability of marriage and the concern for personal
well-being. On the one hand, viewing adultery or desertion as biblical grounds
for divorce and remarriage could serve to encourage the "innocent party" into
a hasty divorce and even a premature remarriage. This person may think that
he or she had been wronged by the former mate and therefore is entitled to
break the marital bond and enter into a new relationship, even though her or
his spouse has experienced a genuine change of heart and as a result senses a
desire to repair the damage and restore the broken marriage.
On the other hand, limiting remarriage to cases of adultery or desertion
may disallow a person suffering in a marriage that has in fact ended from
seeking a new life with a new spouse. A person's spouse may have lost all
 Notes

interest in establishing the community of male and female that marriage is

designed to be, but may not have violated the bond through either adultery or
desertion. Despite sexual fidelity, the marriage may have died through years of
neglect, open hostility, or even abuse. A legalistic approach would limit the
alternatives of the believing spouse to maintenance of the status quo or
separation until such a time as the other partner commits adultery, files for
divorce, or dies.
Although the believing partner ought to be cautioned against entering too
hastily into divorce and another marriage, such steps must not be categorically
ruled out. It may be that God's concern for the well-being of both persons in
this marriage, not to mention the children, could include the remarriage of the
believing spouse to another who is indeed committed to the building of a truly
God-centered marriage.

2. Should a Divorced Christian Remarry?

To this point the discussion has focused on the question concerning the
possibility of remarriage after divorce. Vet to be mentioned, however, is the
issue as to whether a divorced person should remarry.

a. Biblical principles. The Bible does not directly address the question
as to whether a divorced person should remarry. Some exegetes explain this
silence as an obvious result of what they perceive to be a New Testament ban
on the remarriage of divorced persons. This position, however, is an
oversimplification of the biblical outlook. The question for Jesus and Paul is not
whether divorced persons have the right to marry again, but whether divorce
is condoned by God.
A more helpful approach to this silence is afforded by consideration of the
similarity between being divorced and being widowed. Both divorce and the
death of one's spouse return a formerly married person to the single life, both
carry similar difficulties, such as raising children as a single parent and dealing
with the changed dynamics of personal sexual expression. These similarities
suggest that the principles offered by the New Testament to those who have
lost their spouses through death apply to divorced believers as well, even
though it must be kept in mind that the circumstances surrounding their return
to singleness are different.
Widowhood is addressed in two Pauline epistles, which set forth two basic
principles. Neither comes in the form of a command, but appear as guidelines
or considerations for those facing the return to the single life.
First. Paul offers for consideration his own preference for singleness as a
permanent lifestyle (I Cor. 7:8). He argues that the single life allows for single-
minded attention to the work of the Lord (vv. 32-35). Widows are happier if
they loo remain single (v. 40), he declared, although they are free to remarry,
if each marries a believer
By extension, this advice is applicable to divorced believers as well. Any
decision about entering into a new marriage ought to be preceded by
considerations of the Pauline advice. The crucial question arising from Paul's
 Notes

discussion is whether the proposed marriage or a continuation of the single life

provides to the persons involved greater benefit for ministry and for the
development of personal well-being.
This consideration is tempered in the Pauline literature by a second, the
importance of providing a proper context for sexual expression. Paul states this
concern in a somewhat negative fashion: "But if they cannot control
themselves, they should marry" (1 Cor. 7:9). A similar outlook appears to
motivate the injunction in 1 Timothy that the younger widows marry again (1
Tim. 5:14).
Again by extension these considerations apply to divorced believers. They
must come to terms with their own calling within the kingdom of God, whether
it entails the married or the single life. For those not called to celibacy,
marriage should be looked to as the alternative. But, as Paul adds, the new
mate must "belong to the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39); only marriage to a believer is
advised,

b. The special situation of the divorced. The similarities between a

return to the single life by the loss of one's spouse through death or through
divorce suggest that certain principles that apply to the widowed are
appropriate for the divorced as well. Nevertheless, divorce and widow(er)hood
are not entirely parallel. This realization ought to form an important
consideration in any discussion of whether the divorced should remarry.
The obvious difference between the two situations is the means by which
the individual reentered the single life. In widow(er)hood, the loss of the
spouse came through death, whereas for the divorced person it arose through
a process that climaxed in the legal breakup of the marital bond. Bitch
situation involves pain, but the pain of each is of a different sort. The pain of
the widow(er) is the grief experienced in the face of death, whereas the pain of
the divorced is the grief of a relationship which ended in failure.
This difference can work a profound and lasting effect on the psychological
state of the now single person. A widowed person often carries few scars from
the now-ended marriage, for that relationship, though not perfect, did stand
the test of time and did include the fulfillment, as partial as it may have been,
of the marriage vow of commitment "till death do us part." For this reason the
widowed person faces the future with a high value of marriage and a high
sense of personal integrity. Nevertheless, these positive feelings toward the
first marriage do introduce certain adjustment difficulties for remarriage.24
The divorced person leaves marital life under different circumstances.
Regardless of how healthy it once was, the marriage ended in failure. The
process that eventually led to divorce probably has taken a toll and left deep
scars in the psyche of the divorced person. 25 The situation is often
compounded by a lingering sense of guilt and even of abandonment. The
divorced person might have a somewhat negative view of marriage based on
his or her bad experiences.
The difference between them at this fundamental point means that an added
consideration applies to any contemplated marriage involving a divorced
person. Whether consciously or unconsciously, a divorced person will bring
into any subsequent marriage a certain amount of "baggage" from the failed
 Notes

relationship. Residual guilt, mistrust of the other sex, and low self-image
readily raise their heads in the new marriage, becoming thereby additional
factors requiring understanding and attention, if the new relationship is to
succeed.
Divorce, in other words, is a traumatic experience. A broken marriage
always wounds its victims. The trauma of adjusting to a new marriage is
compounded by these wounds. And often they are not limited to one of the
marriage partners. Rather, the remarriage might be that of two wounded
people entering into a new marital relationship.
A further complicating factor is added whenever the new family unit
produced by a marriage of formerly married persons includes children of the
previous marriage(s). They, too, must adjust to the loss of one parent and the
entrance of a new authority figure. Where this situation has arisen because of
divorce rather than death, the children have also experienced the unique
trauma of marital and family breakup. Their wounds add additional strains to
the new marriage.
Remarriage, then, is not to be entered into lightly. It can be God's gracious
provision for the well-being of those who have gone through the deep waters
of divorce. At the same time, the divorcers) the partners bring into a new
marriage can affect their relationship for many years. 26. For such marriages to
be successfulto bring about the establishment of a true community of male
and femalerequires an additional measure of sensitivity and commitment of
all a fleeted personshusband, wife, and children.

Divorce and the Church

Divorce is a growing phenomenon. For this reason there is increasing need

for the church to deal with the problems associated with it. In fact, the church
is no longer being afforded the luxury of ignoring the phenomenon as a
problem found only in the world. Rather, the number of divorced people in the
church is steadily increasing. The great commission bestows on the people of
God an important responsibility to minister in divorce situations and to
divorced persons. More specifically, when viewed from the perspective of
Christian ethics, the phenomenal rise of divorce in modern culture poses a
twofold challenge to the church.

1. Developing a Redemptive Outlook Toward Divorced

Persons
In the attempt to respond to the current situation and to fulfill its responsibility,
the church often senses that it is caught in a dilemma. How can the people of
God unequivocally maintain God's ideal if the inviolability of the marriage bond
and remain compassionate toward those who have experienced the trauma of
 Notes

marital breakup? To deal with this perceived dilemma, the church must
develop a redemptive outlook toward divorced persons.27
For some churches, the development of such an outlook would necessitate
a move beyond current understandings. Sometimes church policies focus on
the question as to when divorce could receive sanction. This focus is
characteristic both of more restrictive and of more tolerant approaches. More
restrictive approaches are prevalent among conservative Protestants and
Roman Catholics, who focus on the issues of what circumstances constitute
proper grounds for divorce and who are the innocent partners who then can
enjoy the right of remarriage. More tolerant approaches are often found in
mainline Protestant bodies. Both approaches, however, often move from the
same foundational question, namely, in what circumstances may divorce be
sanctioned, differing only concerning the conclusions they reach.
The redemptive approach offers a helpful alternative to that often
currently followed, its goal is not that of determining when divorce can be
sanctioned nor which marital partner is right and which is in the wrong. Rather,
it elevates to central concern the question as to how relationships and
individuals can be redeemed, how they can be restored to wholeness and
peace.28
Focusing on redeeming relationships and persons does not mean that
divorce is taken lightly. Actually the more legalistic approaches are the ones
that fail to consider the full gravity of divorce. In this sense, both the restrictive
and the more tolerant attitudes prevalent in the church are similar, for both
seek to define the conditions under which divorce is proper. As has been
argued earlier, to take divorce seriously means that no divorce can ever be
sanctioned. Divorce is always an offense against the divine ideal for marriage,
and therefore it is always sin.
Despite the sinfulness connected with any divorce, the church is called to
be a community that meets all people where they are, even in their sin, with
the message of the grace of God. The proclamation of the church, therefore,
following the example of Jesus, emphasizes God's forgiveness of the sin and
failure of the past, God's available power for genuine change in the present,
and hope for the future. Although it is a declaration of God's grace freely given,
this proclamation is not a message of cheap grace. It never simply condones
sin and failure. Rather, it is the declaration that forgiveness and new life are
available for those who repent of their past and desire a new start.
The church, then, ought never to excuse divorce. Each dissolution of the
marital bond must be dealt with radically. For this reason divorces may not be
categorized according to those which are proper and those which are improper.
Instead, the church seeks to minister in the midst of the reality of divorce to
persons who are in need of reconciliation and healing. Focusing attention on
this ministry must become a crucial task of the church if it is to meet the
challenge of the divorce explosion in our society.

2. Delineating the Role of Divorced Persons in the Church

A related task facing the church is that of delineating the role of the
divorced within the life of the church. This ticklish issue has at least two
dimensions: It must be resolved both in terms of church life in general and in
terms of the participation of the divorced in the office structures of the church.
 Notes

a. Divorce and the general life of the church. It has been argued that
the church is to take seriously every instance of divorce and thereby to refuse
to condone divorce in any form. But does this mean that all divorced people
are to be doomed to second-class status in the church?
This has been the ease in many churches in the past. There has been a
tendency among Christians to be less compassionate when responding to
persons who have experienced the trauma of divorce or who have fallen into
sexual offenses than when responding to offenders in other areas. In fact, a
convict who is gloriously converted in prison is often more welcome and may
more readily rise to leadership and influence in the church than a divorced
person. This tendency is not without foundation. The violation of the marriage
bond is a serious matter, because, as has been noted earlier, it mars a divinely
given picture of the divine reality and the metaphor of the relation of Christ
and the church.
The seriousness of divorce, however, offers the church, as the redemptive
community, opportunity to model the compassion of the God of new
beginnings. The church's ranks include not only "respectable people" but
believers whose former lifestyles involved many types of sin, including sexual
sins (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Therefore, the task of the church is not that of
dividing the former sinners within its membership into categories. Rather, the
goal of its ministry is to bring about the full inclusion of all believers,
regardless of past failures, into the life of the congregation.

b. Divorce and church offices. The ultimate expression of the

acceptance of the divorced and of an openness to their participation in the
church's life comes as they are welcomed to serve as leaders within the
church. And the most difficult question the church must wrestle with is that of
the inclusion in or barring from ordained offices of such believers. As in the
case of other issues, a proper response must move within the creative tension
of the church's commitment to the divine ideal for marriage and its mandate to
be a redemptive, ministering community of pardoned sinners.

Congregations have sought to resolve the issue as to whether or not

divorce disqualifies a believer from certain church offices in various ways. At
the opposite ends of the continuum are (1) the position that sees divorce as
permanently debarring a person from any church office and (2) the view that
finds a person's divorced status irrelevant as a criterion for church office.
Between these poles lie a variety of alternatives. These lend to differentiate
among the possible offices in which divorced persons may serve or among the
circumstances which determine whether divorce debars one from such service.
Thus, one alternative would allow divorced persons to function in less
authoritative church offices, but not, for example, as ordained clergy. Another
position would limit ordination to persons who were divorced prior to
conversion or perhaps to the "innocent party" in a divorce. The considerations
outlined in this chapter lead to a position between the extremes, one which
incorporates two principles. A circumstance such as divorce may indeed bar a
believer from holding church office for a period of time. Nevertheless, divorce
 Notes

in and of itself ought not permanently to disqualify anyone from any office,
even from ordained offices.29
(1) No permanent disqualification. The question of permanent
disqualification of a believer through divorce should be viewed first. The
conclusion that divorce ought not to lead to permanent disqualification from
any office is consistent with the New Testament understanding of the nature of
the church and its outlook about who may serve as a church officer. First, the
church is a fellowship of redeemed sinners, persons who have been Iiberated
from all types of sin. The past of every believer is marred by sin and failure.
There are no righteous ones in the church. The disqualification of a believer
from an office solely because a divorce is found in that person's past elevates
this one expression of sin and failure to a status of sinfulness beyond all
others. Although given in a different context, James's declaration nevertheless
decries any such construction of a hierarchy of sin:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just
one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)

Second, this conclusion follows from the New Testament outlook toward
church offices. The general tenor of the New Testament views officers as
providing leadership to the congregations for the purpose of corporate
fulfillment of the common mandate. In keeping with this, the texts that set
down guidelines for the selection of officers focus on three basic prerequisites
giftedness for leadership, spirituality and character, and public reputation
(e.g., 1 Tim. 3.1-13). While the history of the candidate is a component in this,
these criteria give central emphasis to the importance of one's present life of
faith. This emphasis on the present arises out of the firm belief that qualifying
a believer for service and leadership is the prerogative of the Spirit and
therefore is a function of the individual's walk in the Spirit. The past becomes
important only in the third area, that of public reputation. Only in this context
do the sins of the past have any bearing on fitness for service. Neither in the
ancient nor in the contemporary world, however, does divorce by necessity
permanently mar one's public reputation.

(2) No hasty selection. Divorce should not itself constitute a permanent

impediment to service within church office structures. Nevertheless, divorce
does entail a temporary disqualification, following from three considerations.
First, any divorce is a traumatic experience which leaves hurt and scars
that require healing. This healing process is often protracted and extracts
energy and concerted action from the individual who must go through it. For
this reason. it is simply in the best interests of the persons involved that they
progress through the time of readjustment free from the demands that
leadership roles in the church require. Second, this conclusion is in keeping
with the New Testament emphasis that persons in church leadership enjoy a
good reputation both in the church and in the wider society. A temporary
period of inactivity in the church gives opportunity for the healing of whatever
interpersonal scars the divorce process has produced. Third, the presence of
 Notes

divorce, while not a permanent disqualification, ought nevertheless to be a

consideration in any church leadership position, especially in ordained offices.
This follows from the concern of the church to preserve the future integrity of
its offices.
The Pastoral Epistles offer helpful advice in warning the church against
hasty ordination (1 Tim. 5:22). The injunction is intended to insure a proper
testing of potential officers so that possible future problems can be avoided (I
Tim. 3:10). because church officers carry pastoral care responsibilities, it is
important that they be proved worthy of the trust of the congregation. While
applicable in every situation, this principle is especially important for
candidates whose past is marred by sexual offenses. In all cases, a time of
service in other capacities prior to holding church leadership positions or
ordination is crucial-
Divorce is never to be taken lightly. Regardless of the circumstances, it is
always a declaration of the failure of a marriage. The community of male and
female desired by God has been marred. While being a declaration of failure,
divorce is not a declaration of the boundaries of divine grace. God's
forgiveness and healing meet fallen human beings where they are. As a result
the people of God are called to do likewise, to minister to the victims of divorce
for the sake of their inclusion in the higher community of male and female
the church.
 Notes

7
Technology and the
Prevention of Pregnancy

Many of the most controversial ethical dilemmas we face in contemporary

society focus on human sexuality. Among these, few are more difficult than
those related to procreation. In this area scientific advances have allowed
human beings to relegate to ourselves capabilities and prerogatives hitherto
seen as belonging solely to the divine domain. We are, to use the hackneyed
phrase, in a position to "play God."
The current situation raises acute questions for Christians, who desire to
be open to the benefits of modern technological advances while sensing the
dangers that lurk among the blessings technology brings. A step forward for
concerned Christians is to place the technological dimensions of procreation
within the context of a Christian sex ethic. What does the understanding of
marriage and the sex act within marriage say about the use of technological
means either to diminish or enhance the chances of procreation? In this
chapter and the next, the issue of the use of technology is viewed in
connection with various dimensions of the procreative process.

The Ethics of Birth Control

One dimension of the procreative process which technology has invaded is

the area of the prevention of conception. This intrusion of technology to inhibit
the process of human reproduction is neither new nor unique to modern
society. Some form of birth control has been practiced in nearly every age and
culture. Nor is the attempt to grapple with the ethics of birth control unique to
contemporary ethicists. Christians have interacted with the ethical validity of
various means of birth control since the early centuries of church history.
At the same time, the current situation is in a sense new, or at least quite
different from past eros. This new situation has been produced by the
introduction of artificial or technological processes which greatly reduce the
chances of pregnancy occurring through normal sexual relations. Only a few
options were available to couples in past generations, and these were largely
"natural"that is, they did not interfere with normal bodily functioning. Today,
however, a variety of measures are available, several of which thwart the
process of conception by disrupting the natural functioning of either the male
or the female. As a result, the question of birth control has taken on new
meaning in our day and the problem of birth control has become acute.
 Notes

In discussing the ethical questions concerning birth control, we must keep

in mind that they relate to two quite different situations. As a result, two basic
questions emerge, the propriety of the use of such measures within the
context of marriage and their use outside the marriage. Here we will limit the
discussion to the first general situation, the use of such measures by married
persons. Is it proper for a married couple to employ technological methods in
an attempt to prevent conception while engaging in normal sexual relations?

1. Birth Control and the Churches

Christians today are divided concerning the propriety of the use of birth
control in marriage. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church, for
example, allows certain "natural" birth control practices (such as the "rhythm
method"), but rejects as sinful the use of artificial contraceptives. This stance
prohibits church members from using any artificial means that would prevent
conception (although many Catholics in the United States do not adhere to this
prohibition). A somewhat similar viewpoint is put forth by certain contemporary
sectarian groups, who for theological reasons require that their members not
only refrain from using artificial contraceptives, but also disavow most medical
treatments.
Most Protestants, in contrast, display a general openness to the use of
contraceptives within the marriage relationship, finding no overriding
theological reason to ban all such birth control methods. This divergence of
viewpoint among Christians on the question of the propriety of birth control is
rooted in theological history.

a. The rejection of contraceptives. The strict rejection of artificial birth

control on the part of the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in the patristic
era. In his essay De bono conjugali (The Good of Marriage), written in 401 A.D.,
Augustine articulated the theological basis for the subsequent rejection of birth
control. In this work the influential church father set forth procreation as the
legitimate purpose of the sex act1 and termed all other incidences of sexual
intercourse within marriage, including intercourse for the purpose of satisfying
concupiscence, a venial sin.2 Although he himself did not treat the question of
birth control in this essay, Augustine's understanding of the sex act offered a
theological basis for the prohibition of artificial birth control developed by the
church.
The position of Augustine formed the foundation for the discussion of the
subject in the fourteenth century by the "angelic doctor of the church."
Thomas Aquinas. Like Augustine, Thomas asserted that the sex act is not
sinful when connected to procreation, which is the proper goal of intercourse. 3
Lust, on the other hand, "consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in
accordance with right reason," he declared. This sin could even be present in
marriage, whenever a couple engages in the sex act in a way that is
inconsistent with the goal of the act (procreation): "Every venereal act from
which generation cannot follow" entails a "vice against nature."4
 Notes

As in the case of Augustine's essay, Thomas's Summa Theologica does not

specifically address the question of birth control. Yet, his understanding of the
connection between the sex act and procreation as its only proper goal, like
the position of his forebear, calls birth control into question. The use of
contraceptives quite obviously indicates that a couple is intending to do what
the doctor of the church prohibits, namely, to enjoy sexual intercourse while
reducing the possibility of conception that normally accompanies the act.
What is implicit in the writings of Augustine and Thomas has been the
explicit teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to the present day. Even within
the context of marriage, the goal of the sex act is procreation, from which the
"unitive" meaning of the act ought never to be separated. On the basis of this
understanding the church rejects artificial birth control, because it separates
the sex act from its intended goal.
In the twentieth century the church has reaffirmed the traditional position
in several official statements. The papal encyclical Casti connubii (1930), for
example, declared artificial contraception to be "criminal abuse" and
"shameful and intrinsically vicious."5 Even the reform-minded church leaders
at the Second Vatican Council were unwilling to move much beyond the older
teaching, for they affirmed that marriage and conjugal love are ordained for
the procreation and education of children. 6 The same view was elaborated in
1987 in the controversial Vatican statement on human reproduction, Dottum
vltae. Although acknowledging that there are "two meanings of the conjugal
act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning," the document
declared that there must be an "inseparable connection" between the two. As
a result, the magisterium again voiced condemnation of artificial birth control,
arguing that through such methods the sex act can occur without "respect for
its openness to creation."

b. The acceptance of contraceptives. In contrast to the total rejection

of artificial birth control on the part of the Roman Catholic Church most
Protestants today are open to the use of such means within the context of
marriage. The roots of this more open stance lie within the Reformation itself,
for this movement served to introduce two principles which have had a great
impact on subsequent understandings of the purpose of marriage and of the
sex act within marriage. These principles led to an altering of the close
connection between sexual intercourse and procreation characteristic of
medieval thinking.

First, Protestant theologians, most of whom were themselves married,

differed with the Augustinian-Thomist tradition concerning the value of
marriage. Augustine articulated the good of marriage in terms of fidelity
(fides), offspring (proles), and sacrament (sacramentum). The Reformers
rejected the sacramental significance of marriage, at least as it had come to
 Notes

be developed in medieval theology. At the same time, they offered a

heightened view of the importance of the marital relationship as a source of
companionship and pleasure. This opened the way for a broader
understanding of the role of the sex act in marriage. No longer was its use tied
exclusively to the goal of procreation. Rather, sexual intercourse could also be
viewed as a dimension of the companionship enjoyed by the marriage
partners.
Second, the Reformation spawned a movement in the direction of greater
individualism. Although the social dimension of life was not discarded,
emphasis came to be placed on the individual and on the responsibility of each
human being in the various aspects of existence. As a result, sexual relations
within marriage came to be seen as a private matter, best decided by the
marriage partners themselves.
Despite the introduction of these principles, the Reformers themselves did
not automatically or wholeheartedly welcome the use of contraceptives.
Luther, for example, had a high regard for procreation. In commenting on
Genesis 3, he suggested that the general limitation of one child each year is a
result of the Fall: "If the human race had continued to remain in innocence, the
fertility of the women would have been far greater," for "if there were no sin
women would have given birth to a much more numerous offspring." 8 This
regard for conception forms the basis for Luther's one-sentence
disparagement of contraceptives, abortion, and childlessness. While
commenting on Genesis 25:14, he wrote:
How great, therefore, the wickedness of human nature is!
How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill
and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of
God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together in a
respectable manner have various ends in mind, but rarely
children.9

Rather than being a direct consequence of the Reformation, the openness

to birth control widespread today is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the
United States its rise was enhanced by developments such as the women's
suffrage movement and the medical advancements of the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. These in turn led to legislation in the 1930s allowing
the sale of contraceptives.10

2. The Debate Concerning Birth Control

In addition to these considerations, several specific issues have often been
raised concerning the use of birth control methods of any type. These must be
looked at before developing a positive apologetic for the employment of such
practices within the marriage relationship.
 Notes

a. Objections to birth control. The various objections that have been

raised regarding the use of birth control center on three areas: biblical texts,
theological understandings, and practical considerations.
Biblical arguments against birth control arise largely from the Old
Testament. Christians who oppose the use of all birth control methods,
including such "natural" means as coitus interruptus, point to the one situation
in the bible in which a man employed this method, the story of Onan (Genesis
38). After the death of his brother this second son of the patriarch Judah was
instructed to engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar, his brother's widow, in
order to fulfill his duty as her brother-in-law to produce offspring in his
brother's stead. The narrator declares, "But Onan knew that the offspring
would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his
seed on the ground to keep from producing offspring . . (v. 9). This, the
narrator concludes, "was wicked in the Lord's sight," and as a result Onan died
(v. 10),
God's judgment on Onan is interpreted by opponents of birth control as
expressing divine displeasure of all birth control practices. However, the issue
in the text is not birth control as such. The narrator intends to condemn Onan's
unwillingness to follow the social code that required that he fulfill his
obligations to the wife of his deceased brother. The exact means by which
Onan violated the social code is irrelevant.
The Old Testament emphasis on the importance of children forms the
basis for another objection to birth control. The Hebrew attitude toward
progeny is reflected in the declaration of the psalmist, "Sons are a heritage
from the Lord, children a reward from him" (Ps. 127:3). This same attitude is
revealed in the creation narrative, as God commanded the first humans, "'Be
fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'" (Gen. 1:28a). This
emphasis on the importance of children extends beyond the boundaries of the
Old Testament, for Jesus himself blessed the children (e.g., Matt. 19:13-15).
Yet, acceptance of the importance of children does not in itself necessitate
a rejection of birth control, nor dies it imply a total ban on the use of all forms.
What it does demand is an openness on the part of married couples to the
coining of children into their relationship. To this attitude of openness other
considerations must be added, when a couple is facing the decision concerning
the conception of offspring.11
In addition to biblical objections such as these, some opponents argue
from theological considerations. One objection is based on an understanding of
the origin of the soul put forth already in the patristic era by the Greek church
father, Origen.12 A modern reformulation of the theory is an important tenet of
the belief system of the Mormons. According to Mormon theology, at the
beginning God formed many human souls out of preexistent matter, and these
souls exist in heaven until bodies are procreated for them through human
 Notes

intercourse.13 Birth control, therefore, ought not to be used, for it inhibits the
process of bringing these souls into the world, which is the task of married
couples. This position, however, has never gained wide adherence in the
church.
More significant is another theological argument. Some Christians object
to birth control, because its use constitutes human interference with the pro-
creative process which is solely the divine prerogative. The argument goes this
way: Because God is the one who blesses a couple with children, attempts to
upset the procreative process through birth control run the risk of thwarting
God's intentions.
In response, two considerations ought to be mentioned. First, this
argument could be (and has been) used to reject human action in nearly every
area of life. Death, for example, also belongs to the divine prerogative, and
therefore by extension of this argument all attempts to heal sickness or
forestall death would constitute meddling in matters which belong to God.
Second, in many areas of life God has given to human beings certain powers
of decision and the responsibility to make decisions wisely. One area of human
responsibility is procreation, over which each person does indeed exercise
some degree of control. Virtually all human beings have some say in their
involvement in sexual intercourse. Further, most persons decide whether or
not to marry, and married couples decide the time and frequency of sexual
intercourse. Likewise, single persons choose whether or not to remain
abstinent. Decisions made in these areas entail a certain degree of birth
control. Medical science has only added to the degree of decision and to the
responsibility each human being is called to exercise in the matter of
procreation.
A third type of argument against birth control arises from practical
concerns. Here the objection is not based on biblical or theological
considerations, but on concern for the welfare of either the couple or one of
the spouses. Birth control techniques, it is argued, can be harmful to those
who use them. This harm might be either physical or psychological, in both
dimensions the woman is especially at risk. Certain contraceptives could
involve damaging side effects that could affect her health or reduce her future
chances of pregnancy. Negative psychological effects include the possible
emotional changes caused by certain contraceptives or the personal or social
stigma she might sense at the prospect of remaining childless.
While these dangers are not to be discounted, they do not form a
compelling case against birth control in general, but rather offer a caution
concerning the use of certain methods. Although physical risk remains,
advances in medical science have increased the options for those couples who
desire to practice family planning. A variety of contraceptives are now
available, many of which have been proven to be medically safe, posing little
 Notes

or no risk to those who use them. The social stigma connected with being
married but still childless has been on the wane in recent years. Today it
appears to be more closely connected to individual family traditions than to
widespread societal attitudes.

b. The validity of using birth control. As has been argued above, most
persons do exercise some power of decision in the area of procreation,
regardless of conscious use of specific birth control methods. Most people,
therefore, already practice birth control, albeit for some not as a result of
conscious deliberations. What remains, however, is the development of a basis
for the conscious employment of such means on the part of Christian married
couples. This basis is found in two considerations.
The first opens the way for the use of birth control practices, insofar as
such practices do not destroy the meaning of the sex act. This conclusion
arises from an understanding of the sex act within the context of marriage
which views intercourse as signifying more than procreation. Such an
understanding runs contrary to the traditional Roman Catholic viewpoint which
maintains that there can be no separation of the unitive and procreative
meanings of the sex act.
In chapter 5, an explanation of three meanings of the sex act led to an
alternative understanding of sexual intercourse within the context of marriage.
Within marriage, sexual intercourse can be a beautiful statement of the
covenant between husband and wife, becoming thereby the "sacrament" of
the marital bond. Further, this act can serve as an expression of the mutual
submission of the marriage partners. Finally, sexual intercourse may be an
expression of openness beyond the marital bond. Only in this third dimension
does a close connection between the sex act and the procreative possibilities
entailed in it become visible.
Because sexual intercourse includes these several meanings, it is too
much to demand that the unitive and procreative meanings always be kept
together, which demand forms the basis of the major religious objection to
birth control. Within marriage the sex act retains its meaning even when no
possibility of pregnancy is present. The connection between the act and its
procreative potential is most important to the third meaning of sexual
intercourse, the sex act as an expression of the openness of the marriage
partners to the expansion of their love beyond themselves. Nevertheless, even
this meaning remains intact, when for various reasons, including because the
couple is using some method of birth control, the specific act of intercourse
cannot result in procreation.
The other meanings of the sex act are less closely bound to its procreative
potential. Therefore, their significance is not destroyed when the possibility of
procreation is lacking, such as through the use of birth control techniques.
Regardless of whether or not pregnancy is feasible, therefore, sexual
intercourse remains a reenactment of the marriage covenant, as well as an
exchange of giving and receiving on the part of the mutually submissive
partners.
 Notes

(153)
the meanings intended by the sex act. At the same time, using the two
methods togetherfull intercourse practiced on "safe" days and coitus
interruptus whenever sex occurs other times during the monthmay be a
viable way of practicing natural birth control.
It must be noted, however, that these two methods do not provide the
degree of protection against pregnancy offered by artificial means. Coitus
interruptus demands a great degree of will power, and the possibility of some
sperm being deposited in the vagina before withdrawal is always present. The
uncertainties surrounding a woman's monthly cycle and the monitoring it
requires make the rhythm method somewhat unreliable. Some couples,
however, may find that the uncertainties involved in these methods make
them a preferable birth control plan, for their use emphasizes the openness to
new life that unites the sex act with the procreation process bound to it.

b. Contraceptives. Perhaps more widely utilized than the traditional

natural means of birth control are the artificial contraceptives developed by
modern medical research. Narrowly defined, contraceptives are preconceptive;
they seek to reduce the risk of pregnancy by preventing conception, by
reducing the chances of sperm and egg coming together.
Older contraceptives include devices such as condoms and diaphragms,
which place a barrier between the penis and the vagina. Other techniques,
such as foams, attempt to kill the sperm after being deposited. A widely
acclaimed breakthrough was the development of a birth control pill, which
prevents conception by disrupting a woman's reproductive cycle. Newer
research has been directed toward the development of corresponding pills for
men, which curtail sperm production.
Of these various techniques, "the pill" has been both the mast successful
in preventing pregnancyand the most controversial. The other devices have
been found problematic in that they introduce an unnatural element into the
sex act (e.g., foreplay must be interrupted in order to put the device in place),
while offering only a limited degree of protection. None of these difficulties,
however, lies in the realm of ethics.
The pill, in contrast, does introduce certain ethical dimensions, two of
which are most crucial. Some ethicists object to the use of birth control pills, in
that it moves birth control beyond the realm of natural or mechanical means of
preventing conception. Its use is not external, but internal to the bodly, in that
contraception is avoided by actually interfering with normal bodly functioning.
Others reject the use of such means because of the risks of harmful side
effects.
It would seem that the second of these two objections is the more
important. The argument against the pill on the basis of interference with
normal bodly functioning is not to be lightly discounted. Nevertheless, this
assertion would by extension eliminate many procedures of medical science.
While it
 Notes

(155)
none has become as emotionally charged and divisive as the practice of
abortion and certain capabilities which the availability of abortion unleashes.
This issue in the United States raises not only practical concerns, but also
theological questions of great magnitude, world-view questions concerning our
understanding of what it means to be alive, what it means to be human, and
who we are in relationship to others, to the unborn, and even to God.

1. The Abortion Debate

Since the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, and
continuing through the aftermath of the 1989 decision, Webster v.
Reproductive Health Services abortion has remained a divisive issue. 16 Two
diametrically opposite positions have been vying for public support. The
absolutist position holds that abortion is always wrong, except when the life of
the mother is threatened. The permissivist position claims that because the
question of the "interruption of a pregnancy" can only be answered by the
pregnant woman herself, abortion ought to be permitted for nearly any cause
the woman herself deems as warranting the act. Between the two is the vast
middle ground of opinion which would allow abortion under certain
circumstances and until the attainment of a some specific stage of fetal
development. The broad middle, therefore, although including differences of
opinion concerning exact circumstances and stages of pregnancy that would
allow abortion, is united in rejecting absolutist legislation that would prohibit
virtually all abortions, while desiring to place some limits on the practice.
A moderate solution was given legal sanction by the Supreme Court in the
notable Roe v. Wade decision, which declared unconstitutional a Texas law
prohibiting abortion during the first six months of pregnancy. This decision
stood for over a decade, despite heated and vocal opposition from those who
saw the decision as going too far in allowing abortions. In 1989 the Court
reopened this explosive issue.

a. Major arguments in the debate. Many arguments have been

articulated both pro and contra in the abortion debate. Several of these have
been persistently presented.
(1) Arguments favoring abortion on demand. Three basic types of
arguments have generally been put forth in favor of liberalized abortion laws.
First, abortion on demand is said to be a means toward certain humanitarian
goals, serving for example as an important method in the fight against
overpopulation and against severe genetic retardation. Similarly, abortion is
praised as a way to minimize the effects of pregnancies resulting from criminal
acts such as rape and incest, for it prevents the additional injustice of
 Notes

requiring the victim of a sexual crime to give birth to the product of forced
intercourse.
Second, abortion on demand is said to be warranted by proper consider-
ation for women. Liberalization, it is argued, replaces illegal, dangerous
abortions with safer, legal abortions. Proper consideration for the total health
of women would allow for the abortion option not only when life itself, but also
when psychological well-being is threatened by continued pregnancy. It is
argued further that a mother has a fundamental right to a private decision as
to whether or not to bear her child.
A third type of argument appeals to equal justice for all. Strict abortion
laws, it is asserted, discriminate against the poor and minorities, who are less
likely to have the resources needed to obtain access to abortion should they
elect that option. The rich will always have an option; the poor will not.
(2) Arguments against abortion. The various arguments raised in favor of
strict abortion laws fall into four basic categories. First, it is suggested that due
consideration for the mother naturally leads to strict laws, in that abortion
always carries inherent physical and psychological dangers. Second, abortion
is seen to be at best an inferior means of attaining worthy humanitarian goals,
when compared with other options such as adoption of the unwanted and
adequate care for the handicapped. Third, a direct relationship is posited
bettween abortion and morality, for this practice promotes promiscuity,
threatening thereby stable family life; and it sets a dangerous precedent for
other issues, such as euthanasia and infanticide. And fourth, antiabortionists
appeal to a concern for the unborn, stating that abortion constitutes murder of
the innocent.

b. The fetus and personbood. The fourth argument set forth by

opponents of abortion, that abortion constitutes murder, is of added
significance, in that the legal controversy has often centered around its
validity. In response to what appears to be a strong claim on the part of
antiabortionists. proponents of abortion repeatedly declare that abortion need
not constitute murder because the fetus is not a person with full legal rights. In
this way, the question of abortion has introduced a deeper question, that of
the fetus and personhood: When does the fetus become a person? This issue
has been the subject of debate within several academic disciplines.17
For philosophers and theologians the issue is traditionally articulated in
terms of the soul: When does the fetus possess a soul? One tradition, which
perhaps could be traced to Aristotle, claims that the human "soul" is received
through a process that climaxes with the presence of the "rational" soul at
quickening (the point at which the fetus makes its first independent
movements within the womb), which possibly leads to the conclusion that a
fetus is a person only after this stage has been attained. The opposite
conclusion flows from another longstanding tradition, which dates as early as
 Notes

the time of Tertullian. This view asserts that the reception of the soul is not a
process at all. but that human persons beget human persons in their entirety,
so that the soul is present already at conception.
In keeping with the modern elevation of natural science as the source of

(157-159)
offer an opportunity to one who has been victimized to extend the gift of
concern motivated by self-sacrifice to the new life whose procreation, though
unintended, nevertheless is now a reality.
For the same reason, however, Christian concern cannot cease with the
unborn. Rather, it must encompass pregnant women in unique situations.
Often the Christian community has been perceived as being concerned for the
un- born but not for those bearing unwanted children; it has been tragically
guilty of casting shame on the victims of sexual crime or on young girls who
have sought affection by selling themselves. Such an attitude stands in stark
contrast to Jesus' response to the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11). The
Christian community ought to minister God's acceptance and healing to
mothers in distress, counseling them toward nonabortion options, if these are
feasible, within an atmosphere of understanding, but standing beside them no
matter what decisions they ultimately make.
Further, the Christian's concern must extend to the unwanted child and the
handicapped. Yet all too often the Christian community has rightfully been
perceived as championing the unborn but snubbing the outcastthe abused,
the handicapped, the children of the poor. In contrast. Christians ought to be
ministers of God's acceptance and care, standing ready with open hearts to
receive the unwanted. In short, the Christian's concern must encompass all
humanity, for each one, regardless of his or her stage in the process of life
old, middle-aged, young, child, or yet in the wombis a potential participant in
the coming community of God.

3. Eugenics, or Selective Birth Control

The dream (or nightmare) of improving the human race through a

combination of selective breeding and selective birth control has been
articulated since ancient times. Although he was unaware of the role of genetic
material in the inheritance of characteristics, Plato was one of the early voices
calling for the improvement of humankind through manipulation of the genes.
In the Republic he advocated bringing together persons with good traits in
order to produce children with such characteristics, and for limiting intercourse
among those of inferior stock.19
The modern rebirth of Plato's dream may be traced to Francis Galton, who
introduced the term eugenics. Building on the theories of his cousin Charles
Darwin, he proposed the improvement of human populations by decreasing
the reproduction of defective individuals and increasing the reproduction of
 Notes

better ones.20 In America, Herman Muller advocated that society take

purposeful control of the human evolutionary process. 21 Although the public
outcry over Nazi breeding experiments caused a temporary setback, the
advent of modern abortion procedures has made the idea technologically
feasible.
The attempt to manipulate genetic material of living organisms carries the
general name of genetic engineering. Such manipulation by humans in the
animal and plant world lias become commonplace in modem Western society
and has apparently brought certain positive results, including stronger
varieties of grains which have increased food production.
In the wake of the discovery that certain diseases are related to genetic
defects, scientists have proposed applying manipulative techniques to the
human species as well, with the goal of improving the genetic makeup of
humankind. This eugenic endeavor has already given rise to new practices,
many of which raise ethical problems. It is beyond the scope of this hook to
provide a full treatment of the topic. Certain dimensions of the program of
eugenics, however, are more closely bound up with questions surrounding
abortion and birth control and therefore demand some comment.

a. Eugenics and abortion. Of the various practices directed toward the

improvement of the human genetic pool, two are related to abortion.
(1) Genetic counseling. One means to improve the human genetic pool,
sometimes called "negative eugenics," seeks to prevent individuals with
known genetic defects from passing them on to their children. This process
may include several steps.
A first step is preconceptive, as medical counselors inform such
individuals of their genetic makeup and of the risks they will encounter if they
choose to have offspring. Once aware of their situation, prospective parents
are entrusted with the determination as to whether the risks warrant choosing
not to produce offspring. Viewed from the ethical perspective, this practice is
laudable. When offered without coercion, it encourages informed, responsible
decision making on the part of the people who will be primarily affected by the
results of the decision. The couple can then choose whether or not to open
their marriage to the new life their relationship could produce, knowing that
the choice to have a child could possibly entail additional pain for them and
their offspring.
Once pregnancy has occurred, a second step is also possible. A couple
could elect to use a process such as amniocentesis to detect the presence of
certain genetic disorders in the developing fetus. Should abnormalities l>e
present, the couple would be faced with the option of either carrying the child
to birth or seeking an abortion.
Although the use of amniocentesis itself is not ethically problematic, the
knowledge it mediates could place a pregnant woman in an ethical dilemma,
 Notes

namely, that of bearing an abnormal child or employing a questionable birth

control method. If the knowledge of the presence of an abnormal child in the
womb would lead to such a dilemma, it is perhaps best to avoid using the
procedure. If on the other hand the couple is committed to bearing the child
regardless of the findings of amniocentesis, then knowledge at an early stage
of their child's disorder could assist them in making preparations for the birth
and care of their baby.
(2) Sex selection. The development of amniocentesis and abortion
procedures have introduced another dimension of eugenics, that of sex
selection. By means of amniocentesis it is often possible to determine the sex
of the developing fetus. Persons who for various reasons have a strong
preference for either a boy or a girl may then abort, if the fetus is of the
undesired sex. From the point of view of ethics, it is impossible to condone
such a practice. The openness to expand the marital bond to include the new
life produced by the love of husband and wife that is symbolized in the sex act
ought to welcome that new life regardless of its sex.

b. Other techniques of eugenics. Genetic counseling and sex selection

raise the question of abortion. Other dimensions of the enterprise of eugenics,
however, are not necessarily related to this practice.
One possibility which has yet to gain sufficient technological precision to
be viable is fetal therapy. Scientists hope that one day they will be able to
apply treatment in the womb to babies with known genetic defects. Should
such capability arise, great caution will need to be exercised lest technicians
take to themselves too much power to decide which traits indeed require
treatment. Nevertheless, advances in this area hold out the promise of
developing a welcomed way of improving the quality of life for persons who
otherwise would suffer from severe abnormalities.
Other techniques currently being developed involve in vitro fertilization.
We will reserve comment on them for chapter 8, in the discussion of artificial
pregnancy enhancement.
 Notes

8
Technology and
Pregnancy Enhancement

In previous centuries the debate over technology and procreation focused

largely on birth control. Today, however, another dimension of the relationship
between technology and procreation is becoming increasingly important,
namely, technological assistance for the process of conception. Is it proper to
seek to enhance the chances of a pregnancy through technological means? In
recent years several dramatic cases have been reported about single women
who have been impregnated by artificial means. Although these situations
raise significant ethical questions, more important in the context of this
chapter is the use of technological means among married couples.

Technology and Infertility

Few problems faced by married couples are as heart-wrenching as
infertility. In a world in which unwanted pregnancies end in abortion and
unwanted children are abused, battered, and abandoned, the unfulfilled desire
of a couple to have a child of their own to love and nurture seems so unfair.
Estimates put the number of married couples in the United States who are
touched by problems of infertility at 10 to 15 percent, and the number is
rising.1
In attempting to come to terms with their situation, infertile couples often
experience a host of emotionsloneliness, hurt, crushed expectations, despair,
doubt, anger, frustration. They receive much well-meaning but ignorant advice.
They endure the trauma of visits to doctors and bear the financial costs
involved.
Infertile couples are increasingly turning to technology to improve their
chances of pregnancy. Given the traditional Christian openness to new life and
emphasis on children as a "heritage from the Lord," what Christian would not
desire that such couples be enabled to experience the joy of giving birth? In
keeping with this desire, many Christians readily welcome medical
advancements that hold out the promise of overcoming infertility. Yet such
advances are not without ethical considerations.
 Notes

1. The Causes of Infertility

The inability to conceive is not a new problem. Even the ancient Hebrews
wrestled with this phenomenon. The Old Testament relates the stories of wives
who suffered reproach because their wombs were "barren." Such stories then
celebrate the joy that was felt when the Lord would hear their prayers and
"open the womb." In fact, some of the significant heroes of the Bible
including Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptistwere conceived by previously
infertile women.
Despite its presence in ancient times, infertility is becoming more acute in
contemporary Western society. Between 1964 and 1984 the incidence of
infertility rose almost 300 percent, and the trend has not abated. The increase
has been so dramatic that one medical doctor has termed it an epidemic. 2 And
there is no reason to be hopeful that the number of infertile couples will
diminish in the foreseeable future.
Doctors cite several factors as responsible for the increase of infertility. 3
Barrenness in women is often the result of blockage of the fallopian tubes or
scarring of the tissue of the ovaries or uterus. These conditions are often the
result of genital infections. In fact, estimates suggest that 75 percent of these
cases arise from two venereal diseases, chlamydia and gonorrhea. By placing
women at risk, liberalized sexual practices have contributed to the incidence
of infertility.
The sharp increase in infertility is likewise caused by the trend toward
postponing pregnancy until the mid- to late-thirties, for generally the ability to
conceive has decreased at this stage. The emphasis on fitness is also a
contributing factor, in that athletic women sometimes experience temporary
infertility, if their body fat falls below the level needed to produce estrogen.
Infertility among men is generally due either to low sperm count or to
blocked sperm ducts. It is now suggested that certain chemicals, including
insecticides, can also reduce sperm production.
Not to he overlooked in the case of both men and women is the role of
stress in the rise of infertility. The pace and demands of contemporary life
have produced a degree of stress unparalleled in the past. The presence of
stress among couples in their prime child bearing years is compounded by the
rise in the number of two-career marriages. According to Robert R. Bell,
studies found that "working wives had higher incidence of fecundity
impairments than those who did not work." 4 Of course, it remains an open
question as to whether or not stress interferes directly with the reproductive
process and thereby is a direct cause of infertility. Stress and the fast pace of
life today might only indirectly contribute to infertility; modern couples simply
find less time for each other. However, whether its impact is direct or indirect,
stress cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.
 Notes

While such factors are partially responsible for the rise in infertility to
epidemic status, it must be remembered that in some specific situations, none
of these may actually be the culprit. Sterility continues to be caused as well by
personal biological problems unrelated to any of these factors associated with
modern life.

2. Technological Assistance and the Christian

In the second half of the twentieth century medical science has responded
to the problem of infertility with several technological procedures aimed at
enhancing the prospects of conception for barren couples. Yet each procedure
developed in recent years has been the object of heated debate not only in
society as a whole but also within the church. Before looking at several of
these procedures a more basic question must be addressed: the propriety of
employing any technological means to enhance possibilities of pregnancy.

a. The rejection of all technological assistance. Opposition in

principle to all technological procedures in the area of procreation has been
voiced from diverse sources within the Christian community.
The most often cited of these objections focus on the relationship between
sexual intercourse and procreation. Some critics argue that technological
procedures ought not to be employed, because through such means human
beingse.g., doctors and the married coupletake to themselves God's
prerogative in conception. Others claim that these procedures constitute an
unwarranted intrusion of science into the realm of nature. But the most basic
formulation of the argument reasons that such processes separate sexual
intercourse and procreation, the joining of which are the intent of the Creator.
Perhaps the most lucid assertion of this argument has been offered by the
Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic position on the latest technological
advancements was outlined in the 1987 Vatican statement on human
reproduction. Domini vitae.5 Although the document's specific subject is
artificial insemination, the catholic magisterium in effect spoke against any
type of technological assistance in the procreative process.
Foundational to the rejection of the technological means is the
statement's reaffirmation of the traditional church position concerning the
goal-directedness of the sex act as demanding an "inseparable connection ...
between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning." Technological fertilization undermines the origin of the
human person as the result of "an act of giving," the fruit of the parents' love;
it results in the child being "an object of scientific technology." In short, "such
fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of
doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the
origin and destiny of the human race."
 Notes

b. The case of openness to technological assistance. The

understanding already set forth in this volume concerning marriage and the
sex act within the context of the marital relationship leads to a conclusion
quite different from that presented in the Vatican statement. As in the case of
birth control, this wider understanding of the meaning of the sex act within
marriage suggests that the magisterium's objection to technological assistance
in the procreative process is unwarranted. All Christians ought to applaud the
Roman hierarchy for launching a commendable attempt to maintain the
mystery of human procreation in the face of the unchallenged intrusion of
technology into human life. Yet, the wholesale rejection of all types of
technological assistance in the natural human drive to produce offspring is
unfortunate.
As is readily evident from the discussion in earlier chapters, the rejection
voiced by Donum vitae reflects a truncated and therefore damaging
understanding of the meaning of the sex act within marriage. By insisting that
the "unitive meaning" of the sex act cannot be separated from the "procreative
meaning," the magisterium is maintaining virtually unaltered the Augustinian-
Thomist understanding that works to limit sexual activity to procreation.
"The document's understanding of the meaning of the sex act is truncated,
for within the marriage bond sexual activity can carry other equally significant
meanings. Several of these have been presented in chapter 4. The sex act may
serve as an expression of the marriage covenant the partners share, and
thereby as the "sacrament" of the marriage covenant, an outward act which
repeatedly seals and signifies their inward commitment. It can be an
illustration of the mutual submission that is to characterize marriage, thereby
forming a spiritual metaphor, a beautiful reminder of the self-giving love of
Christ. These aspects of the meaning of the sex act may exist apart from the
procreative intent. In fact, rather than the procreative meaning being central
for the unitive meaning, as is implied in the Vatican statement, the other
aspects of the sex act are what form the context for procreation. As self-giving
love is creative, so the giving of oneself in the marriage act can be procreative
within the context of the marital covenant. Even the meaning most closely
bound to the pro- creative process, namely, the couple's openness to the
broadening of their love beyond the marital bond, remains when there is no
possibility that pregnancy will result from the sex act.
In contrast to the position of Donum vitae, therefore, it would seem that a
fuller understanding of the meaning of the sex act within the marital bond
would welcome as God's gift, rather than discourage, technological assistance
in procreation, so long as the process is not objectionable on other moral
grounds.
Technological assistance as such, therefore, is not ethically questionable.
Rather than a wholesale rejection of technological assistance in tolo, such
assistance, within certain limitations, in the process of pregnancy can be a
 Notes

great benefit to childless couples and therefore ought to be welcomed. The

ethical issue, in other words, does not lie with the idea of assistance from
medical science. Rather, each specific means must be ethically tested.

3. Alternatives to Technological Procreation

Of course, the availability of technological assistance does not mean that

conscientious childless couples ought to sense a compulsion to resort to it.
The Vatican document goes too far in asserting that infertile couples are called
to find in their situation "an opportunity for sharing in a particular way in the
Lord's cross... Nevertheless, the suggestion that this be a valid attitude is
surely correct. In addition to turning to technological assistance, two other
options are worthy of consideration by couples touched by infertility: adoption
and remaining "child free" for the sake of service to Christ.6

a. Adoption. Adoption ranks as the preferred option for couples who

cannot have children through natural means. This practice carries biblical
precedence. Moses, for example, was adopted. And the implication of the
doctrine of the virgin birth is that Jesus was adopted as well (by Joseph).
Further, the adoption of a child who for some reason is given up by his or her
natural parents becomes a gracious act, for therein a couple extends a home
to a homeless little one. In this way the act can serve as a reflection of the
gracious compassion of God, who provides home for the homeless. Finally,
adoption can also serve as a metaphor of God's adoption of human beings into
the divine family.
Because of the picture of spiritual truth that it offers, adoption is a viable
option. As John and Sylvia Van Regenmorter aptly declare. "For the Christian
infertile couple adoption is not 'second best.' It is simply the way that God in
his wisdom can choose for us to be parents. Whether one Incomes a parent
biologically or through adoption, the fact is that children are not a right but a
gift from God."7
Nevertheless, adoption is not without its difficulties."
One major problem is that of completing the adoption process. The
availability of abortion and the trend toward single mothers electing to keep
their babies has reduced the number of adoptable babies in the United States.
As a result, waiting periods have lengthened from two to, at times, eight
years. Many couples find the length of the wait, which draws out the adoption
process, simply too great an obstacle to overcome. An alternative to which
many have turned is the adoption of children from impoverished countries.
Others have been willing to take into their homes children who are either
physically or mentally disadvantaged or rejected from some other reason. 9
Such an act requires great fortitude, but also becomes an example of great
love.
 Notes

A second difficulty focuses on the expense surrounding the adoption

process. Although some institutions may offer their services at little charge,
the costs of adoption through other agencies can be high. These expenses
often come after a couple have already spent a large sum of money on
infertility treatment.
Finally, adoption brings a certain amount of trauma not associated with
biological birthing. An adopting couple will need to cope with the implications
of their pursuance of adoption, for thereby they are acknowledging that their
efforts to give birth have been unsuccessful. Family and friends might find it
difficult to accept the adopted child, adding to the stress of the adjustment.
And in later years the family will need to assist the adopted child in coping
with the knowledge that the biological parents gave the child for adoption. 10
Despite these difficulties, adoption can be a laudable expression of the
openness of the marriage partners to broaden their bond in order to welcome
new life in their midst.

b. Remaining child free. Another alternative for the infertile couple is

that of remaining child free. The ancient Hebrews viewed childlessness as an
unfortunate, even a reproachful situation. A similar viewpoint was widespread
in American culture until recently, in that children were viewed as crucial to
the economic well-being of the family. But as the focus of the nature of the
family shifted from production to consumption, attitudes toward childlessness
began to change as well. On the heels of such changes, this option has
become more acceptable and more commonplace.
Viewed from a Christian perspective, a case could be made for choosing to
remain child free. A New Testament foundation for this option arises by
extending Paul's argument regarding the single life (1 Cor. 7:25-40) to the
already married who are contemplating having children. Just as marriage can
distract a person from full service to the Lord (the point Paul raised), so also
parenting is a time consuming, potentially distracting occupation.
Consideration of this principle could motivate a couple to remain child free for
the purpose of devoting more energy to the Lord's work, just as a single
person may choose to forego marriage for the same reason.11
It must be added, however, that just as it is not to be assumed from 1
Corinthians 7 that all Christians are to choose to remain single, so also being
child free is not the norm for Christian couples. It may well be that many
couples will conclude that having children in fact enhances their ministry in
the Lord's work. At the same time, the choice of remaining child free for the
sake of devotion to the Lord docs offer an opportunity to infertile couples to
see their situation as the vehicle to what for them may be greater service in
the fellowship of Christ.
As in the case of adoption, the option of remaining child free is not without
difficulties. First, the couple will need to cope with lingering negative attitudes
 Notes

from both family and society toward such a decision. It is often assumed that
all couples have children and that those who do not are motivated only by
selfishness. Child free couples will need to learn to pass off rude and unloving
comments by others, which reflect such judgmental attitudes.
A second danger is that of falling into the temptation to live only for oneself or
for one's spouse. Without the cares and financial burdens involved in raising a
family, child free couples can get caught in the trap of focusing on themselves.
Therefore, they might need to make a conscious effort to open their
relationship beyond themselves by discovering ways of giving of themselves to
others. Children who for various reasons are in need of the support and love of
replacement "parents" or adult friendship and guidance offer one important
means to this end. By ministering to such children, a couple with no children in
the home can both extend a type of parental love to children and experience in
a unique way the joys of being "parent."
Both adoption and remaining child free for the sake of devoting greater
time, money, and energy to the Lord's work are worthy options for the infertile
couple and therefore ought to be given careful consideration. Nevertheless,
they must not be cited as the only options. For some infertile couples the
desire to experience the joy of being partners with God in the mystery of
procreation is a divinely given impulse that ought to be facilitated, so long as it
is morally proper and technologically feasible. By developing the means to
accomplish this, modern medical technology now offers hope to many infertile
couples that this joy may be realized.

Methods of Technologically Assisted Conception

The battle against infertility has produced several technological means of
assisting in the process of procreation.12 These offer to many otherwise
childless couples the hope of experiencing the joy of procreation and
parenting.

1. Representative Methods

Medical technology has advanced at an astounding rate. Although new

possibilities seem to emerge almost constantly, several basic procedures are
now widely accepted.

a. Artificial insemination. Several causes of infertility, including the

situation in which the sperm count in the husband's semen is insufficiently
high to bring about pregnancy, can at times be rectified through artificial
insemination. This process involves the injection of sperm by artificial means
rather than by normal intercourse either into the vagina or into the uterus.
(Intrauterine insemination is used when the sperm are unable to survive in the
wife's cervical mucus.) A semen specimen is collected during masturbation
and either brought directly to the doctor for insertion or stored first in a sperm
 Notes

bank. At times methods may be introduced to enhance the sperm count of the
fluid that is employed in the process.
There are actually two types of artificial insemination currently in practice. The
difference between them lies in the source of the sperm used to impregnate
the wifewhether that of the husband (AIH) or that of a "donor" other than the
husband (AID).

b. In vitro fertilization (IVF). Infertility may be caused by certain

difficulties in the woman's reproductive system, such as blocked fallopian
tubes. In these situations an egg can be drawn out of the woman's ovary and
placed in a solution of sperm. In this way. fertilization occurs external to the
woman's body, in a petri dish, hence, in vitro (in glass). After two or three days
the developing embryo is placed in the uterus, and the pregnancy is
established.
To increase the chances of pregnancy, drugs are generally administered to
the woman to induce the production of more than one egg in the given month.
Multiple fertilizations are attempted in vitro, so that preferably three embryos
may be placed in the uterus. Current technology also allows for the freezing of
embryos for possible implantation at a later time.
A variation of this technique allows for fertilization to occur in the fallopian
tubes. Rather than placing the withdrawn eggs in a glass dish, eggs and sperm
are squirted into the fallopian tubes, where fertilization is to occur. This
procedure is known as gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). In a third related
procedure, zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), an embryo created in a petri
dish is placed in the fallopian tube.

c. Embryo transfer and surrogacy. Two related procedures have been

developed in response to an assortment of other problems surrounding
concept ion and pregnancy. In embryo transfer, embryos conceived in one
woman are removed and transplanted in the uterus of another. Through this
procedure, a woman who cannot conceive in her body can nevertheless give
birth to a baby she has carried in her womb. Women who have the opposite
difficulty, who are able to provide an egg for conception but for a variety of
reasons cannot carry a fetus, can elect to employ a surrogate mother. If the
genetic mother has functional ovaries but no functional uterus, embryo
transfer can be employed in order to move the fetus from her to the surrogate.
Or the surrogate's egg is inseminated by the husband's sperm, whether in
vitro or through GIFT.
These various procedures open the door to multiple parenting situations.
Perhaps the most complicated arrangement imaginable is the situation in
which the sperm from a male donor fertilizes an egg from a female donor,
which is then placed in a surrogate mother, all on behalf of a married couple
consisting of a husband with a low sperm count and a wife who has neither
functioning ovaries nor uterus.
 Notes

2. Ethical Considerations
In a sense, technological procedures such as those described above are blind
to ethical considerations. The process of assisting in the combining of sperm
and egg inside a woman's womb or in a laboratory, for example, is oblivious to
the source of the material being brought together and to the relationship
between the donors of that material. But the purported biological neutrality of
such procedures does not necessarily make them ethically neutral. Nor does a
theoretical openness to the efforts of modern medicine in assisting infertile
couples in these ways require that Christians conclude that all such techniques
are ethically acceptable.
The mere fact that medical research has made a process possible does
not mean that it is morally justifiable. Whereas medical technicians may on
occasion find ethical considerations irrelevant to their task, the Christian dare
not. The methods put forth by the medical community must be tested not only
by whether they are able to assist in the process of conception, but by
whether or not they maintain Christian ethical standards.

a. Technological procreation within the marriage bond. For many,

artificial insemination and IVF/GIFT loom as the gateway to the strange world
of technological procreation. In a sense this perception is valid, for when
viewed from an ethical perspective, they stand on the border between
technological assistance that remains strictly within the bond of marriage and
that which moves beyond this bond.
The boundary characteristic of the process arises from the ethical
importance of the source of the sperm and egg brought together in these
procedures. Viewed from the technical dimension, of course, the source of the
elements sperm and egg is irrelevant. From the ethical perspective, however,
this factor is more significant than the technological differences among the
various procedures. because they employ sperm derived from different
sources (for example, AIH and AID are distinct acts). AID introduces sperm
from a third party, with the result that the genetic makeup of the offspring is
the product of the combination of the genes of a woman and those of someone
other than her husband. In AIH, only the husband's sperm is used to
impregnate the wife, thereby maintaining the closed nature of the marital
relationship in the procreative process. In the same way, practices such as IVF
and GIFT carry differing implications depending on whose sperm is being
united with whose egg.
Some ethicists have rejected all these procedures on the basis that they
employ masturbation in the process. This objection, however, is not warranted.
The ethical problem with masturbation does not lie in the act itself, but in the
dangers that surround the practice, such as the risk of developing into a self-
gratifying habit, dependent on pornography to maintain. The act of
masturbation that provides sperm for procedures such as artificial
 Notes

insemination, however, generally does not carry these dangers. The potential
problems with these procedures lie elsewhere.
Unless there are other complicating factors, procedures that use a wife's
egg and a husband's sperm are gaining widespread acceptance.
Of these, AIH is the simplest, and it generally engenders no grave
concerns for Christian ethicists.13 The use of the husband's sperm maintains
the integrity of both the marriage relationship and of the genetic inheritance of
the offspring produced by the process, in fact, when utilized within the
covenant of marriage, AIH ought to be greeted as a helpful means that assists
in the formation of new lifethe natural offspring of the marital uniongiving
expression to the creative love present in the union of that husband and wife.
Whenever it uses only the wife's egg and the husband's sperm, GUT could
also gain wide acceptance among Christians. In vitro fertilization (IVF) may
likewise serve as a helpful way of bringing together the elements from an
otherwise infertile married couple. But it introduces certain other complications
that increase the potential for ethical problems. These will be discussed later.

b. The introduction of a third party into the marriage bond.

Although many Christians find AIH relatively uncomplicated in Its ethical
implications, the situation with other practices, beginning with AID and
including IVF and surrogacy, is somewhat more complicated.
Some ethicists argue that these various practices produce an adulterous
situation, in that the sperm of the husband is not combined with the egg of the
wife. Although there is a sense in which this suggestion poses an important
ethical question, the charge of adultery as generally proposed offers an
oversimplified prognosis of the ethical problem involved. The technological
combining of sperm and egg, regardless of their source, does not entail
adultery simply because neither the intent to be unfaithful to one's marital
vows nor the act of intercourse is present.
On another level, however, the charge of adultery does raise a difficulty
inherent in all technological processes that employ sperm or egg from
someone other than the marital partners. Each of these methods introduces a
third party not directly into the marriage bond itself (as in adultery), but into
the procreative process. Does this introduction of another person in the
procreative process constitute a violation of the marital convenant? An
affirmative response to this question was succinctly articulated by the 1987
Vatican statement: "The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage
involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only
through each other,"
The perspective offered by Judeo-Christian history on this issue is not
totally unambiguous. The ancient Hebrews were characterized by a double
standard. They viewed marriage as giving to the husband exclusive rights to
his wife in this regard, but the exclusiveness was not reciprocated. Polygamy
 Notes

was practiced in the Old Testament era, but not polyandry. The church,
however, has rejected this double standard. By appeal to various sources, not
the least of which is the creation story in Genesis 2, it has consistently
championed the practice of monogamy. In Christian history, it became simply
assumed that the marriage covenant means that each of the spouses may
become father or mother only through the other.
Yet, the witness of history does not confirm the Vatican statement without
further consideration, for there is a sense in which the contemporary situation
lacks historical precedence. Once the church came to adopt monogamy, the
only way in which a married person could become a parent apart from one's
spouse was through adultery. This link to adultery, perhaps more than any
other consideration, led to the viewpoint reflected in Donum vitae. Now,
however. procreation can occur within the context of marriage yet apart from
the union of the sperm and egg from the marriage partners without thereby
introducing either the intent or the act of adultery. The only way to find
technological procreation to be adulterous is to define adultery not as the
willful violation of the covenant of sexual faithfulness, but as the violation of
the assumed right of each spouse to become parent only through the other.
Contrary to the language of the Vatican statement, however, the New
Testament does not emphasize rights. Instead, its speaks of the willingness to
give up one's rights for the sake of another. This viewpoint appeals to the
example of Jesus who put aside his divine prerogatives in order to fulfill his
mission and die on the cross (Phil. 2:7, 8). On the basis of this example and the
New Testament emphasis, a case be made for practices involving donor sperm
or egg within the context of marriage.
Modern technological capabilities allow a married person, motivated by
the desire to facilitate the wish of one's spouse to give birth to biological
offspring, to choose willingly to ,set aside his or her "right" to be the sole
means whereby the spouse is able to become a parent. And this can he done
without introducing the physical act of adultery into the marital relationship.
Thus, a husband could choose to allow the technological introduction of the
sperm of another male so that his wife may become the biological mother of
the child they welcome into their marriage. Or a wife might consent to the
introduction of the egg from another woman, for the sake of allowing her
husband to be the biological father of their child. This decision need not be
viewed as consent to an intrinsically unethical act, for the introduction of the
sperm or egg of another occurred apart both from any intended or actual
physical act of marital unfaithfulness. It is the absence of both intent and act
that sets the technological process apart from situations in which actual sexual
intercourse involving a third party is employed to bring about conception.
The technological introduction of a third person into the procreation
process is not unethical, insofar as it does not constitute a violation of the
marital bond. Nevertheless, other difficulties potentially arise from the
procedure. These ought to be considered by any couple contemplating the use
of such methods of technological procreation.
Several potential difficulties are psychological in nature. The knowledge
that the new life was produced by neither their physical nor genetic union may
make it difficult For one or the other of the spouses to extend full acceptance
to the child. Similarly, the fact that one partner, but not the other, was able to
be involved in the procreative process could result in feelings of guilt or
 Notes

incompetency14 that potentially place undue and lasting strain on the marriage
relationship.
The potential for legal complications is likewise present. For example, the
question of progenitorship could become a factor should the trauma of the
experience eventually lead to marital breakdown and divorce. In such a
situation would each spouse continue to view the child as his or her own? And
how would the attitude of each of the parties affect the divorce settlement?
Likewise, the introduction of other persons into the procreative process
introduces questions concerning the legal status of all such persons, which
could conceivably trigger litigation. Recent court cases have indicated the
legal muddle that can occur when the prerogatives of each of the partners, the
donor(s), or a surrogate mother must be juggled. The potential exists as well
for legal entanglements in the more distant future, if the anonymity of the
other person(s) involved is challenged because of the child's need to know his
or her full genetic heritage for medical reasons or in order to insure against an
unintentional incestuous union.
A third area of possible difficulties is the trauma which the child conceived
through such means will face. This trauma arises from the fact that not only is
a third party introduced into the marital relationship, but a third "parent" is
added into the horizon of the child. This difficulty could be nothing more than
the need to deal with the questions the child might raise concerning his or her
genetic inheritance. Yet, the child's interest could develop beyond the natural
inquisitiveness motivated by the desire to know about oneself and one's
biological background. The couple might eventually need to deal with the
issues surrounding very practical situations in which genetic history is crucial
to the health or well-being of the child.
The addition of a third party into the procreative process potentially brings
a third parent into the child's life. This could occur through the initiative of the
child, who sets out to discover his or her genetic father or mother. But it could
also arise should the genetic parent later seek to establish contact with the
child.15
While none of these potential problems is inherently insurmountable, each
ought to be considered seriously by any couple contemplating the use of these
technological means.

c. Problematic dimensions of technological practices themselves.

When contemplating the possible use of donors, a couple will want to give
consideration to the weighty complications cited above. In addition to these,
several other more technologically oriented factors add to the problems
inherent in certain procedures.

(1) Problems of IVF. Apart from the potential for difficulties within the
marriage and family relationships, the process of in vitro fertilization introduces
several ethical problems.16 One of the most perplexing of these is the question
of "waste," which arises in several different ways. The problem of waste can
emerge through the inefficiency of the process. Whereas in natural
reproduction as few as 25 percent of the embryos produced actually become
 Notes

implanted in the uterus of the mother, the failure rate of IVF is even higher. As
many as fifteen eggs may be required for a successful implantation.17
A more widely known waste problem is that of disposing of the multiple
conceptions that regularly occur outside the woman through IVF. In the United
States all of the embryos produced in vitro are generally placed in the uterus
(which introduces the risk of a multiple pregnancy); however, the possibility is
always present that some embryos may be destroyed.
Third, the problem of waste is potentially present each time human
embryos are frozen for future disposal or use. Several recent court cases have
involved the bizarre problems of the rights of various parties to determine
what is to be done with the products of IVF which have been placed in storage.
These various dimensions of the question of waste raise foundational
issues, such as when life begins as well as the intrinsic worth and rights of
embryos.Does life begin at conception? Is a human embryo to be treated with
the full respect due to a human being? And do embryos have the right to be
placed in the womb so that they can possibly develop and be born? William
and Priscilla Neaves offered a succinct summary of the relationship of IVF to
these issues:
If the intrinsic worth of an early human embryo is no less
than that of a newborn infant, IVF cannot be rationally
justified. On the other hand, if the principal value of a human
embryo derives from its ability to become a baby, IVF may
be seen as a moral way of awakening this potential where it
would not otherwise exist.20

The issue of waste requires that certain minimum guidelines be followed

in all IVF situations. The practice of placing in the womb all the embryos so
produced is surely correct. Thereby all embryos are given opportunity to
implant and develop. Beyond this step, great caution must be exercised in
placing embryos in storage for future use.21
Although certain cautions ought to be used as a general practice
whenever IVF is used, it would be ill-advised to argue against the procedure
solely on the basis of the high percentage of embryos placed in the womb that
do not finally attain implantation. Even in natural reproduction a great number
of embryos are wasted. It seems that even God is willing to risk the loss of
embryos in the process of bringing new life into the world.
(2) Problems of technological procreation in general One crucial question
must be raised concerning all procedures involving third parties: Is it ethical to
use a person's reproductive capacities apart front procreating offspring within
the context of marriage?
Here the issue of personal motivation arises. It is conceivable that a donor
or a surrogate could be motivated purely by altruism, by the desire to assist a
childless couple in having a baby. Nevertheless, it is questionable if such pure
motives actually govern any such action. Technological procedures introduce
 Notes

the temptation of allowing less laudable motivations to surface and offer the
heinous possibility that the process of procreation could be commercialized, as
donors sell their wares and surrogates rent their bodies.
Steps in this direction are already visible. Donors, for example, are often
students who sell sperm for economic reward. Many past donors have
apparently later undergone a change of altitude, sensing both a greater
responsibility for and a greater interest in their AID children. 22 Regardless of
the actual motivation of the donor, the child conceived by such means may
never be able to overcome his or her negative feelings toward the donor
parent. As one AID child who undertook a search for her genetic father asked,
"Didn't he feel any sort of responsibility for the life he was creating?"23
A further issue raised by technological conception in general is that of
final outcome: Where will it lead? Current capabilities are already producing
radical changes in societal attitudes and outlooks. Sperm banks, for example,
are already a reality. Will their acceptance, together with the use of
technological procedures, lead to a complete separation of procreation and
childbearing from the traditional context of the inviolate bond between
husband and wife that is so crucial for the psychological and spiritual
development of children? Already single women and lesbian partners have
sought children by AID. If such practices increase dramatically, they will call
into question widely held, traditional understandings of the basis of
parenthood and the nature of the marital union. Is our society prepared to deal
with such changes?
Other changes are also on the horizon. Practices such as IVF and embryo
transfer that provide "waste products" open the door to experimentation with
embryos on the basis that they will be discarded anyway. Experimentation has
already indicated the potential of fetal parts in the fight against certain
diseases. Will we eventually create a society in which embryos are produced
for the purpose of providing for the medical well-being of the living?21
Technology also holds the possibility of increased interest in eugenics.
Current procedures already enable some degree of gene selection. One sperm
bank was established specifically for the purpose of collecting sperm from
persons of high intelligence. Future possibilities are mind boggling. For
example, by combining IVF and gene-splicing procedures, technicians could
attempt to eliminate genes that are considered undesirable.25
Some scientists are beginning to advise caution concerning the
possibilities that loom in the not-too-distant future. Oxford University zoologist
William D. Hamilton for example, after contemplating the current trend of
"unnatural human reproduction," concluded at the 1987 Nobel Conference at
Gustavus Adolphus College, "I would like to see sex kept not only for our
recreation but
Notes

(177-179)
 Notes

SINGLENESS AS AN
EXPRESSION OF
HUMAN SEXUALITY
9
The Single Life

The divine design for humanity includes the development of the

community of male and female as an outgrowth of our creation as sexual
beings. The previous chapters viewed marriage as a central, divinely ordained
context for the expression of human sexuality. As such, marriage can be a
reflection of God's nature and of God's design for human community. Marriage,
therefore, is one expression of the divine will to community. But not all people
are married. Does this understanding of marriage as the reflection of the divine
will to community mean that single persons do not share in the image of God,
that they are merely second-class citizens of the kingdom of God, or that they
are not living in accordance with the will of God?1
The thesis of this section is that there is another expression of the divine
will to community, singleness. At first glance it may be questionable as to how
the single life could be related to human community. In fact, the emphasis on
marriage presented in the previous chapters may he interpreted as raising the
question of the role of the single life and of the single person in the divine
economy. Closer inspection, however, reveals that singleness is indeed an
expression of the divine will, for it too can be a means for the realization of the
human destiny as the community of male and female and thereby a reflection
of the divine nature.
This chapter seeks to interact with the role of the single person and the
single life. It attempts to develop a theological understanding of singleness,
which in turn can provide a basis for interacting with several ethical issues that
relate largely to the single life.

Singleness, Marriage, and God's Design

Most persons are married. Yet, a significant percentage of people are single. In
fact, the number of single persons is growing. Statistics gathered by the United
States Bureau of the Census indicate that the 1970s was a decade of
phenomenal growth in the number of single persons in the U.S.A. As a result,
 Notes

by 1980 persons living alone constituted 23 percent of all households. 2 And the
number keeps rising.
The phenomenal upsurge in the number of single persons is due to several
factors. The emphasis of earlier generations on marriage as virtually the sole
option for everyone except "old maids" is on the wane in contemporary
society. Increasing proportions of the population are postponing marriage or
never marrying. As a result, singleness is becoming increasingly accepted as a
valid lifestyle. But not only are more people choosing the single life, the ranks
of singles are being swelled by the formerly married, a trend fueled by the
ever-expanding number of broken marriages.
In this context of an upsurge in the ranks of single persons the question
concerning the design of God emerges in full force. The attitude of the recent
past maintained that God's intent was that nearly all marry. Is this indeed the
case? Is God's will for all persons the same, namely, that they marry and raise
a family? Is the single life an option, but only for a select few, and then only as
a lesser choice of lifestyle? Or ought singleness to be afforded a place
alongside marriage as equally belonging to God's purposes?

1. Varieties of Single Existence

Before looking more specifically at the issue of the place of the single life
in God's design, we must clarify what is meant by singleness. In actuality
several quite different situations of life may be grouped together under the
term. Four of these are representative.

a. Youth/early adult singleness. A first state of singleness is that

experienced in one's "growing-up" years, that is, before one is even eligible for
marriage. All of us enter the world as single persons and remain single for
several years. This singleness almost always extends beyond adolescence,
thereby including the first several years of our potential child-bearing state.
The current trend of postponing marriage until a person has reached the mid-
to late- twenties means that for many, singleness likewise includes several
years of one's adult life.
This stage of life is crucial to personal development. These years offer
opportunity for the individual to discover one's identity, develop one's
potential, and prepare for one's future role in society. Except perhaps for the
final years of this stage, its characteristic singleness is not so much chosen as
it is a de facto reality. People at this point in life are single simply because they
have not yet chosen to marry, rather than because they have made a
conscious determination to be single.
The de facto nature of the single life of youth forms the context for the
attitudes toward singleness often found at this stage. Singleness, in the view
of this young generation, is not an end in itself, but the prelude to a married
life that might loom in the future. Further, although this stage is often
characterized by sexual inactivity, the young single person is likely to view this
inactivity, like the single state itself, not as a personal commitment to
celibacy, but as a temporary abstinence that will give way to genital sexual
activity at a later stage in life.
 Notes

b. Unchosen singleness. Singleness can likewise refer to a second

stage of life, ongoing unmarried existence. In some respects this stage could
be rightly viewed as merely the extension into adulthood of the singleness of
youth. It can arise as the continuation of the unmarried state beyond the
normal marrying age.
For many people, the continuance of the single state of existence that
characterized their youth is not based on a willful decision in favor of the
single life. Rather, like the singleness of childhood and youth it often emerges
in a de facto manner. Because of several different reasons, the single person
simply did not get married. Perhaps no opportunity of marriage emerged. Or,
more likely, he or she rejected the opportunities that did come. Maybe "the
right person" never appeared, or commitments to parents or to personal goals
preoccupied the individual during the prime marrying years. In any case, the
older single did not explicitly will or positively choose the life of singleness as
such. Rather, this situation slowly emerged as the result of other factors.
The unchosen nature of this state of existence influences the attitude
toward singleness that comes to characterize the person. As in the case of the
singleness of youth, the single young adult often does not view the unmarried
state as an end in itself. In fact, the person's attitude toward marriage might
not have changed significantly over the years. He or she might not have given
up the desire to be married, but only the hope of Incoming married in the
foreseeable future.
Likewise, the unchosen nature of this state can influence one's outlook
toward sexual relations. Often the individual does not sense a commitment to
celibacy as such. If he or she is practicing sexual abstinence, such abstinence
is likely not a positively chosen way of life. It might be a "forced abstinence"
resulting from the unavailability of sexual partners. Even those who choose
abstinence are often motivated by moral considerations, such as the
commitment to the principle that sexual relations are to be reserved for
marriage (which they may anticipate for some future time), and not by a
commitment to celibacy as a chosen lifestyle.
Some unmarried persons, however, come to terms with the "unwilled"
dimension of their existence by affirming their singleness. In so doing, they
begin to will an existence that first arose in a de facto, unintended manner.
When this occurs, singleness becomes for them an end in itself, a chosen
lifestyle. But even such an affirmation of one's singleness does not necessarily
include a commitment to celibacy. Some who come to terms with their
singleness by transforming it into a chosen lifestyle are actually sexually active
or wish to be active. And even those who practice abstinence as a definite
choice are sometimes motivated by a commitment to a specific sex ethic,
rather than by a commitment to celibacy as a personal calling.
 Notes

An individual can, however, move beyond the choice of the single life and
likewise affirm abstinence as a means to a higher end. When this willful choice
is made on the basis of a personal commitment to celibacy as a means to the
fulfillment of one's calling, a new type of single existence arises.

c. Willed celibate singleness. Some men and women are both single
and celibate, because they have chosen this life. They have at one point in life
made a transition from de facto singleness to celibate singleness as a volitional
decision. For some, the transition is made during childhood or youth, opening
the way to a lifetime of celibacy. Others come to this decision later in life. In
either case, this transition includes setting aside marriage as a personal option
for the intermediate future, if not for the remainder of one's lifetime.
The choice of celibacy can arise as the outworking of several different
factors.3 The decision may be motivated by the belief that celibacy is the best
means to accomplish certain life goals. Often these goals are religious, or
perhaps altruistic in nature. Examples of religious goals include service to the
church in clergy or missionary roles. The Roman Catholic Church, for example,
continues the tradition of celibate clergy established formally at the First
Lateran Council in 1123.4
Although celibacy is not a requirement among Protestant groups, many
celibate persons have served well in various aspects of church endeavors.
Altruistic goals could include dedication to providing service to underprivileged
people. The choice of the celibate lifestyle, however, might also be motivated
by less lofty goals, such as the desire to devote oneself entirely to occupation
or the quest for fame or monetary wealth.
Some people choose celibacy in the belief that it affords them a way to
offer an important statement or because it embodies an important truth. For
example, they might see celibacy as a means to speak out against some
aspect of modern Western society, such as the so-called middle class values
and life the nuclear family of husband, wife, and two children forming the
basic unit of consumptionperceived to be dominating our society. Others
choose celibacy in order to express a theological truth. This dimension will be
developed subsequently.

d. Postmarriage singleness. A final situation subsumed under the term

singleness is the unmarried existence that follows when one's marriage has
ended. This situation shares certain characteristics with the others. With the
exception of those cases in which a person files for divorce simply because of a
personal desire to return to the single life, postmarriage singleness.
like youth and unchosen singleness, is generally entered involuntarily or
arises de facto.
Despite similarities and affinities with the other situations, however, post-
marriage singleness differs from them in that this existence follows marriage,
 Notes

rather than either precedes or sets it aside. Because of this important

difference, postmarriage singleness us characterized by several unique
attitudes and requires certain unique adjustments.
The most significant dimension that affects the attitudes and adjustments
that mark postmarriage singleness is that men and women in this state of
existence bring to the single life firsthand experience of marriage. Their
experiences as married persons varyfrom being generally positive, which is
more likely the case for widows and widowers to being highly negative, as can
readily be the case for those whose marriage ended in divorce. In either case,
however, perceptions of the nature of married life gained through personal
experiences greatly affect one's perceptions of the single state as a viable
alternative. And one's outlook toward singleness is likewise affected, being
seen either as a permanent, chosen way of life or a temporary condition to be
endured during the quest for another spouse.
The above discussion does not exhaust the varieties of single existence. It
does, however, indicate that singleness ought not to be viewed in an
oversimplified manner. The term encompasses several quite different
situations of life, each of which entails unique attitudes toward marriage and
sexual activity. The remainder of this chapter focuses on three situations of
adult singleness. Adolescence and youth come into closer view in the next
chapter This division of the material follows the basic traditional Christian sex
ethic concerning the single life, which treats adult singleness, however
entered, as a unit and views adolescent singleness as a separate category.

2. The Alternatives of Marriage and Singleness

Foundational to the issue of singleness in general is the assertion that
God's intent is that not all partners marry; there is a place for singleness in the
divine program. Lying at the foundation of this assertion, which appears almost
self-evident, is a specific understanding of marriage and singleness which
requires exploration.

a. Marriage and singleness as alternative expressions of human

sexuality. Lying behind the declaration that singleness stands next to
marriage as a valid expression of the divine intent is an understanding of the
complementarity of these two ways of life. Marriage and singleness constitute
two equal and reciprocal options for expressing our identity as sexual beings.

A theological view of marriage and singleness which sees them as

alternative

(186-187)
 Notes

indicate that John is to be viewed in the context of the background of the

Old Testament Nazirite tradition, for the angel told Zacharias that John was to
abstain from strong drink (Luke 1:15). His lifestyle as reported by Matthew
(Matt. 3:4), however, lends credence to the conclusion that John abstained
from sexual relations and marriage as well.
Paul's single status, at least during his postconversion life, is widely
acknowledged. He indicated to the Corinthians, for example, that unlike Peter
and others, he was not accompanied by a wife (1 Cor. 9:5). Later, when the
movement to a celibate clergy was gaining momentum, the unmarried status
of Paul came to be one New Testament example to which appeal was made.
More important than either John or Paul, however, is the case of Jesus, He
has always been the most powerful exemplar of the single person in service to
the divine program. That Jesus remained unmarried is nearly uncontested. The
Gospels nowhere explicitly mention that he had a wife. The absence of any
such reference is especially revealing in the descriptions of the circles of
women present at the intimate scenes of his life, such as the crucifixion and
the empty tomb. Jesus' unmarried status is indirectly indicated by Matthew's
recounting of Jesus' response to the report that his mother and siblings were
seeking him: "whoever docs the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and
sister and mother" (Matt. 12:50).
John the Baptist, Paul, and especially Jesus stand as examples that
singleness is no barrier to service in God's program. In his discussion of
marriage, Paul took this matter a step further. He declared that the single life
may in certain circumstances be preferable to marriage, for it can be more
advantageous for divine service:
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man
is concerned about the Lord's affairs how he can please
the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of
this world how he can please his wifeand his interests
are divided. ... I am saying this for your own good, not to
restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided
devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:32-35)

Paul clearly preferred the single life. He advised widows and unmarried
persons to consider singleness as a valid alternative to marriage or remarriage
(1 Cor. 7:8, 26, 40). Yet, in expressing his preference and this advice, Paul did
not present singleness as a higher manner of spirituality. On the contrary, the
teaching of a group of ascetics in Corinth, who sought to prohibit single
persons from entering into marriage and married couples from engaging in
sexual relations, probably occasioned his discussion of this topic. 7 Rather than
declaring the single, celibate life a higher way, Paul set forth a pragmatic
argument. Those who are unmarried should remain so "because of the present
crisis" (v. 26).
The chief argument Paul put forth in defense of his preference for
singleness appeals to flexibility to do the Lord's work (1 Cor. 7:32-35).
 Notes

Marriage, he declared, adds additional concerns to one's life, namely, concerns

for the world and for one's spouse. Singleness, in contrast, allows for
undivided concern for the Lord's work. For this reason, remaining unmarried is
a wise choice for the disciple, in his view. For the previously married, he
offered the same advice, based, however, on his observation that "she is
happier if she stays as she is... (v. 40).
In spite of the new status afforded singleness in the New Testament,
remaining unmarried is never presented as a new law. Believers as a whole
are never commanded to abstain from marrying. Even in his seemingly strong
preference for the single life. Paul was careful to declare that for others to
many is no sin and that for some, marriage might even be preferable (i.e.,
because of immorality1 Cor. 7:2). Nor is singleness enjoined on Christian
leaders in the New Testament. Paul indicated that most of the apostles,
including Peter, were married and were even accompanied by their wives on
their journeys. And the criteria for church officers (overseers and helpers) laid
down in the Pastoral Epistles gives the impression that most office holders
were married, for they were to be persons able to manage their households
well (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 12).
In the New Testament, then, single persons are welcomed as full
participants in the work of the Lord. Their single status even offers pragmatic
advantages for such service. But neither the single option nor a commitment
to lifelong celibacy are ever set forth as the higher road to spirituality for
believers.

Singleness In a Theological Context

The New Testament brought an important change in outlook toward

singleness and the potential role of the single person in the economy of God.
Paul. John, and especially Jesus stand as models of fulfillment in singleness
which have served as patterns for many Christians throughout church history.
The New Testament, however, does not contain explicit theological reflection
on this matter. Offered instead is a purely pragmatic approach. This is most
obvious in 1 Corinthians 7. which constitutes the most explicit discussion of
singleness found anywhere in the New Testament documents.
A theological treatment of human sexuality cannot end with the
pragmatic consideration of the subject of singleness, however. It will, of
course, incorporate this perspective. But it must likewise move beyond the
pragmatic to the theoretical and seek to understand the single alternative, like
marriage, in a theological context. The question concerns not only whether
there is a place for singleness in God's design (which has already been
answered from the practical perspective), but also how singleness fits in the
divine program. The answer to this question emerges from consideration of
two related themes.

1. Singleness and Human Sexuality

En route to an answer to the question concerning how the single life fits in
the divine will to community, consideration must be given to singleness within
 Notes

the context of human sexuality as a whole. A theological understanding of the

single life, in other words, must place singleness within the context of this
dimension of the human reality.

a. Single persons as sexual beings. Any attempt to understand

singleness within the broader category of human sexuality raises a question
which at first glance seems almost arrogant, but which on closer inspection
turns out to be foundational; To what extern are single persons sexual beings?
The answer to this question appears to be self-evident, single persons, like all
persons, are always sexual beings.
Yet what appears obvious in thought is not always so self-evident in
practice. We have little difficulty affirming in theory that all persons, regardless
of marital status, are sexual beings. And we readily ascribe sexuality to single
people who are in the prime marriage years or who are between marriages.
But to ascribe sexuality to those who are voluntarily celibate or who remain
single past the prime years of eligibility for marriage is often more
problematic. To put it bluntly, our society finds it difficult to view priests and
"old maids" as sexual creatures.
As was delineated in chapters 1 and 2, however, all persons are sexual
creatures. To be human means to exist as male or female, to be an embodied
being. And embodiment means sexuality. Singles, then, are sexual beings. And
they remain so whether or not they engage in genital sexual acts, for affective
sexuality is not dependent on genital expression. Even voluntary participation
in a celibate lifestyle does not necessitate a denial of one's fundamental
sexuality. On the contrary, it can actually comprise a concrete way of
expressing it.
Singles remain sexual beings. They continue to see themselves as male or
female. Their way of relating to the world, to other persons, and to themselves
is affected in a fundamental way by their biological sex. And their fundamental
sexualitytheir existence as male or femaleis readily noted by others.
b. Bonding; the specific sexual expression. In addition to the basic
sexual dimension of relationship (seeing oneself and being seen by others as
sexual), the deeper level of human sexualitybondingis operative in the
single life as well as in marriage. Although singles do not engage in the primal
human sexual bond (marriage), bonding nevertheless remains. As has been
developed in previous discussions, sexuality is the dynamic behind the drive
toward bonding in all its forms, even in the bonding that characterizes
singleness.
The bonding indicative of the single life is, of course, quite different from

(191)
the church and express this individualism in a loose affiliation of the group to
the host congregation. It is important therefore that single persons take
seriously the church covenantal relationship.
 Notes

In the midst of contemporary culture the people of God would do well to

rediscover the covenantal, community nature of the church as a fellowship of
people bonded together and bonded to Christ. Such a rediscovery would assist
single Christians in viewing their bondedness as an important expression of
their fundamental sexuality.
(2) Close friendships. The New Testament teaches that the primary
binding fellowship for believers lies in the church. At the same time, individuals
quite naturally form bonds with certain persons within the larger fellowship.
For the married this "inner community" is most naturally that of their marriage
and, by extension, the family formed thereby. Ideally such bonds develop
within the context of the church, as a Christian seeks a believing spouse and
as the resultant family is "Christ-centered," that is, takes its identity from the
wider church community.
In a somewhat similar way, single Christians often develop close ties with
a few others within the context of the church community. One example of such
bonding is the sharing of living accommodations. Such bonds may even
include a type of formalized covenant. Sharing an apartment for example, can
include some sort of public agreement, perhaps even a legal contract. Unlike
marriage, however, most cases of single bonding lack public formalization. Nor
do they include the genital sexual activities characteristic of marriage.
The reason is apparent as to why single bonding is informal in nature and
cannot be expressed through genital sexual acts. These friendship bonds have
purposes that differ from those of the marital bond. They are directed toward
furthering the mission of each as a single person, which is, as will be seen
subsequently, the task of each to express the inclusive love of God. This
expression of the divine reality is not dependent on the bond itself. Rather, the
bond arises as a way of fostering the higher goal. Its purpose is to assist in the
fulfillment of the task by each individual who participates in the bonded
relationship. In marriage, in contrast, the task of the covenant partners to
express the intimacy and exclusivity of the divine love and of the divine will to
community cannot be fulfilled by either person apart from the bond.
Further, the purpose of the bonds formed by single persons differs from
marriage in two sexually related ways. In contrast to the marital bond, single
bonding is not designed for procreation and child-rearing. Likewise, single
bonding is not intended to include the celebration of the bond formed by the
dialectic sameness/difference present in marriage.
(3) Single bonding and sexuality. As has been argued earlier, sexuality lies
at the foundation of all human bonding. This relationship between sexuality
and bonding is present in single existence as well, even though the sex act as
the "sacrament" of* the bond is absent. For the drive toward bonding is
nevertheless present, and this drive is always based on our existence as
 Notes

sexual beingson our fundamental incompleteness, our inner restlessness,

out desire for love and intimacy.
To understand this we must remind ourselves about the dynamics of
sexuality and bonding. To exist as a human being is to exist as male or female,
that is, as a sexual and a sexually determined being. It is this dimension of the
human reality (being a sexual being, being male or female) that provides the
impetus toward bonding, for the desire for bonded relationship arises out of
our sexuality. To be sexualto male or femalemeans to be incomplete as an
isolated individual. For as isolated individuals we are unable to reflect the
fullness of humanity and thus the fullness of the divine image. We see the
other who is sexually different from us, and as this occurs we are reminded of
our own incompleteness.
The fullness of humanness, therefore, is reflected only in community. As a
result, our existence as sexual beings gives rise to the desire to enter into
community, and thereby to actualize out design as human individuals.
Sexuality, then, is an expression of our nature as social beings. We are not
isolated entities existing to ourselves; nor are we the source of our fulfillment.
On the contrary, we derive fulfillment beyond ourselves. This need to find
fulfillment beyond ourselves is the dynamic that leads to the desire to develop
relationships with others and ultimately with God.
This dynamic is present in a person's life regardless of marital status.
Married persons have entered into this intimate bond as a result of their
sexuality. But the drive toward bonding as an expression of human sexuality is
operative in the single life as well, albeit in a less formal way. Just as bonding is
a dynamic of the single life, so also this drive to bond with others in
community is an expression of our fundamental sexuality, a sexuality that goes
deeper than body parts, potential roles in reproduction, and genital acts.

2. The Theological Significance of Singleness

The single lifeeven voluntary celibacydoes not constitute a setting

aside of one's fundamental sexuality. This negative conclusion calls forth the
search for its positive correlation. Can we also conclude that singleness has
positive theological significance?
The search for the theological meaning of singleness looms more difficult
than the discovery of the significance of marriage. As has been argued in
previous chapters, as a central, divinely ordained expression of human
sexuality, marriage is a reflection of God's nature and design for human
community. The intimacy of bonding found within marriage and which
motivates two persons to join together in the marital relationship reflects the
intimacy of relationship within the Godhead. The general statement that
marriage makes concerning God links marriage both to the church as the
central expression of God's work in salvation history and to the order of
 Notes

creation. As a result, marriage is both an institution of the church and of the

state.
But what about the theological significance of singleness? In what sense
does this way of life also reflect the divine nature and the divine will to
community? To answer, we must notice that marriage is not the only divinely
ordained expression of human sexuality. Nor does marriage constitute the sole
reflection of the divine nature or of the divine will to community. On the
contrary, the marital bond represents only one aspect, albeit an important
aspect, of the nature of the God who designed human sexuality.
Singleness represents another dimension. The divine nature and the divine
will as reflected in the single life must be viewed individually before a
conclusion concerning the whole can be offered.

a. Singleness and the divine nature. Just as marriage speaks about

one major aspect of the divine reality, so also singleness represents a
complementary dimension. Both contexts can reflect the love of God. This
occurs, however, in two different ways.
Marriage reflects the divine love as the dialectic of similarity and
difference. The dynamic of the intertrinitarian life lies in the relationship
between the Father and the Son as a relationship of divine trinitarian persons
who are of the same essence but who nevertheless are differentiated from
each other. This relationship is that of divine love, which is both the essence of
the one Godhead and is made concrete in the third person of the Trinity, the
Holy Spirit.
This divine relationship is reflected in the human marriage relationship, in
that the bonding which brings man and woman together incorporates a similar
dialectic of sameness and difference. Marriage is the joining of two persons
who share a fundamental sameness as "flesh of one flesh" and yet differ from
each other as male and female.
Marriage is likewise intended to form a reflection of God as the One who
loves. Specifically, the exclusive nature of the divine love is presented in the
marital bond. As it incorporates its divinely given design to be the intimate,
permanent bond arising out of the dialectic of sameness and difference,
marriage reflects the exclusive relationship of love found within the Trinity, for
there is no other God but the Father, Son, and Spirit. Marriage is likewise an
apt metaphor for the exclusive love of God for creation. It is a picture of the
exclusive love relationship that God desires to share with the people of God, a
theme developed by the prophetic movement and reiterated in Ephesians 5. Of
course, the marriage partners are open to the expansion of their bond to
include the new life that their love might produce. Yet, this expansive love is
built on and always remains grounded in the exclusive love inherent in the
husband-wife relationship.
Singleness, on the other hand, constitutes an equally powerful image of
 Notes

(195)

c. Conclusion. Marriage and singleness represent different but equally

important aspects of the divine nature. For this reason both are significant.
Both are legitimate options for Christians. Both have a gift to offer the one
people of God as the body of Christ seeks to reflect the divine nature. Susan
Annette Muto summarized this point well in declaring:
In the Church today we need single men and women of
profound spiritual depth who, out of the resources of their
own interior life with the Lord, live as other Christs in the
world and radiate that power to a population hungry for true
Christian formation. Singles do have a mission in life to fulfill,
a special yet foundational task fashioned for them by God.
No matter how narrow or expansive their circumstances, no
matter how limited or gifted their ability, they can and must
radiate a meaning no other person can give to the world in
present and future times.8

And this meaning, this task, is to reflect the expansive love of the
Redeemer, who wills that all share in the eschatological community of male
and female that even now may be found in proleptic fashion in the church.
Single Christians, therefore, who because of their abstinence from genital
sexual expression are often "in touch" with their affective sexuality, 9 have a
unique ministry of love to offer in service to the Lord within the fellowship of
the community of Christ.10

The Single Life and Celibacy

The discussion to this point has been oriented to the single life in general
without taking into consideration the differing types of the single state of
existence. The principles proposed have been simply viewed as applicable to
the varieties of singleness. But one way of being singlechosen celibacyis
somewhat different from the others. For this reason, the celibate life must be
viewed in itself.

1. Celibacy Versus Other Forms of Singleness

Although when viewed from the Christian perspective, celibacy shares with
all expressions of singleness certain common characteristics, there are also
important differences. These differences center on how the lifestyle is entered
and the depth of commitment it demands.

a. Mode of entry. Celibacy differs from other expressions of singleness in

the mode by which it is entered. A person may be single for various reasons.
Some are single by virtue of the fact that they are young. Others are single
because they are older; they have for various reasons not married and now
 Notes

have moved beyond the age in which marriage most generally occurs. Some
persons move from the married state to singleness through the death of their
spouses or through divorce.
Celibacy is entered in a manner that differs from all of these. A person is
celibate by positive choice. An individual can never be celibate in a de facto
manner, that is. simply because he or she is not yet married or was previously
married. Rather, the celibate person has chosen the single life as the best
option for the fulfillment of a personal calling.

b. Depth of commitment. The second difference between celibacy and

other forms of singleness is related to the first. For many people, the single life
is viewed as a temporary state of existence. They are not devoted to the life
for itself, but rather see it as impermanent, the life to be lived or the option to
be pursued until marriage or remarriage. For some, this stage cannot end too
soon, for their real desire is to be married.
The celibate life, in contrast, is characterized by commitment to this way
of living as an end in itself. The celibate person has made a decision to live in
celibacy as a life choice. There is no intent to leave the single life for marriage.

c Celibacy and personal motivation. An individual may enter celibacy

for various reasons. For the believer, this choice is religiously motivated. The
Christian understands celibacy in terms of being a divine call for the sake of
service within the divine plan. The believer chooses this life because it is the
way in which he or she can best fulfill a personal vocation in the kingdom of
God.11 Regardless of the exact motivation, the celibate life remains
distinguished from other expressions of singleness by its chosen and
(foreseeably) permanent nature.

2. The Significance of Celibacy

As a willful decision, based on theological and practical considerations, to
live as a single Christian and in abstinence, celibacy is a significant way of life.
It carries meaning in addition to that found in the single life in general. This
significance lies in two directions, one pragmatic and the other theological.

a. The pragmatic significance. As the willful choice of singleness in

response to a sense of divine call, celibacy carries a pragmatic function. The
pragmatic importance of this life context was emphasized by Paul in 1
Corinthians 7:25-38. He explained, "I am saying this for your own good... that
you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord" (v. 35). Of
course, Paul's point may conceivably be applied to the single life in general.
Singleness in any form offers certain freedom from the cares of spouse and
family, and thereby it allows for a more fully undivided devotion to service to
the Lord.
 Notes

In addition to the freedom afforded by singleness as a whole, however,

celibacy entails deeper freedom. The celibate person has spoken a positive,
willful "no," not only to the married life but also to the search for a spouse or
the quest for genital sexual intimacy with another human. The psychological
freedom this positive decision brings means that the celibate person can be
even more devoted to the service of the Lord. His or her attention to the Lord's
service is not diverted by the encumbrance of seeking or entering into sexual
relationships with another person. The celibate person is most able to follow
the advice of Paul.
It is not surprising, therefore, that a high number of celibate people have
formed the core of the missionary force of the church. Such persons have
offered effective service to the advancement of the gospel. Because of the
freedom from not only the concern for spouse and family but also from the
search for sexual relationships, celibacy indeed offers certain advantages in
specialized areas of church service, such as pioneer missions, work among the
destitute, or activity in especially dangerous or taxing circumstances.

b. The theological significance. In addition to the pragmatic meaning,

celibacy carries significance as reflecting certain theological truths about the
divine reality. This life context can be a vivid reflection of the self-sacrifice that
characterizes the God of our salvation.
The sacrificial dimension of the meaning of celibacy arises out of the
willful and permanent aspect of this life. In choosing celibacy a person must at
the same time give up the other alternative. The celibate sacrifices the
possibility of knowing the intimacy of the marriage bond and the joy of family
life. Such personal sacrifice is made in view of what for this person is a higher
good, namely, obedience to a personal divine calling. The celibate Christian
sacrifices marriage and affirms singleness in order to fulfill a personal vexation
in the kingdom of God.
Understood in this context, the choice of celibacy reflects an important
dimension of the divine reality. It forms a picture of the self-sacrifice of the Son,
who willingly laid aside all divine prerogatives in order to be an obedient
servant in effecting salvation for lost humanity. It offers a picture of the depth
of the divine love, which will go to great lengths in order to meet the needs of
humans. Celibacy reflects the divine will to community that takes upon itself
the cost of establishing community.

3. Candidates for Celibacy

We generally think in terms of persons in the prime marrying years as
those eligible to make the choice to live the celibate life. This understanding
carries
 Notes

(199)
10
Singleness and
Sexual Expression

As alternative contexts for the expression of human sexuality and thus

alternative means of expressing the divine will to community, both marriage
and singleness are related to the divine plan. In a way quite different, but not
for that reason less important, singleness, like marriage, can be a means for
the realization of the human destiny as the community of male and female.
Like marriage, it can in this way be a reflection of the divine nature.
The previous chapter sought to describe the relationship between
sexuality and singleness, focusing specifically on single adults. Likewise, it was
argued that our basic sexuality as the dynamic that leads toward bonding is
not limited to the bond that brings male and female together in marriage. It is
present in the single life as well. In this way single persons, as well as married
couples, give expression to the divine will to community and reflect an
important dimension of the divine love.
Yet unanswered, however, is the question concerning the limits for the
expression of sexuality within the single life. Are there boundaries to sexual
expression inimical to singleness, just as there are limits on the expression of
sexuality within the context of marriage? Related to this general consideration
is the matter of sexuality among (he not-yet-married. How ought persons in
adolescence and young adulthood give expression to their emerging sexuality?
To these questions we now turn.

Sexuallty in Adolescence and Young Adulthood

The previous chapter identified several varieties of singleness. One is a stage
of life that all must pass through, regardless of one's lifestyle choice, the
singleness of youth. It includes one's "growing-up" years, the period of life that
precedes eligibility for marriage. The years that extend from puberty into
young adulthood, including the teen-age years, are of great concern for the
ethics of sexuality. In our society, this time of life is intended to offer
opportunity to discover one's identity, develop one's potential, and prepare for
one's future role in society.
The singleness characteristic of this stage does not generally entail a
commitment to the single life itself, for in the minds of most young people,
these years are a time of preparation for marriage. The de facto nature of the
 Notes

singleness at this stage means that most young people do not view being
unmarried as an end in itself, but as the prelude to a possible future marriage.
As a result, some do not conclude that this stage requires abstinence from
genital sexuality activity. And even those who are not sexually active likely
view such present inactivity, like the single state itself, not in terms of personal
commitment to celibacy but as a temporary abstinence that will later give way
to sexual activity. Its temporary nature and the attitudes attendant to it make
this stage of life an ethically challenging one.

1. The Unique Situation of Modern Adolescence

Being young, of course, is not a recent phenomenon. All through history

people have been confronted with the need to cope with the feelings of
awakened sexuality that arise when a person reaches a certain stage of
physical and emotional development. Despite the ancient and universal nature
of this theme, however, there is a sense in which the contemporary situation
poses a challenge unparalleled in history. Certain factors have placed the
young person in the modern world in a unique situation.

a. The problem of adolescence. One factor that makes the situation

faced by persons growing up in the modern world unique is the advent of
adolescence. Adolescence is the stage in life between childhood and full adult-
hood, which is characterized by profound changes in one's total personal
makeup. The individual not only experiences the quick growth to the full
stature of adulthood, but also discovers a new force at work in the body, the
sex drive that comes with the emergence of reproductive capacities. The goal
of these physical changes is to endow the emerging adult with the physical
characteristics necessary to function as an adult member of the species. 1
Although growth to adulthood is not new, modern society has introduced a
problem into this process which is of quite recent origin. In our world, a gap in
time lies between the attainment of physical maturity and the recognition of
adult status in society. This is often most evident in the matter of economic
independence. Physical maturity precedes by several years financial self-
sufficiency. Generally by the late teen-age years this physical development has
been completed. Vet, the young person is not in a position to function as an
adult in society. Not yet having completed the process of formal education
which marks entrance into the work force as an independent person, he or she
remains economically dependent on parents or other authority figures.
As a result of this gap, the years between physical maturity and social
independence can be a period of frustration. This frustration extends to the
sexual realm as well. Young persons are sexually vibrant and physically ready
to engage in the sex act and in procreation. Yet, in the eyes of society, they
are still juveniles and are not yet ready to assume the economic responsibility
 Notes

of spouse and offspring, let alone the psychological responsibilities. The

difficulty of this situation is especially acute for young males, who reach the
height of the sexual drive at age seventeen, an age deemed too young to
engage in sexual activity.
One need not agree with his solution to see that Joseph Fletcher correctly
pinpointed a problem in the current situation:
Approximately forty percent of the sexually mature
population are unmarried. ... Social competition penalizes
early marriage, and the postponement required by a
lengthening period of training for career roles and functions
pushes marriage farther and farther away from the biological
pressure following puberty. Physical maturity far outstrips
our mental, cultural, and emotional development. . . . No
human culture in past history ever levied as much tension
and strain on the human psychological structure as ours
does.2

b. The pressures of secularized society. The difficult nature of

adolescence is augmented by certain forces endemic to our culture. Among
these, three interrelated pressures are most pronounced.
First, there is the impact of media. Modern mediafrom music to cinema
pervade all levels of society. Today youth are exposed to their influence to a
degree unmatched in any previous time. But unfortunately the media have
devoted disproportionate interest to the theme of sex. And their treatment of
sex is often distorted and misguided, glorifying the sex act and sexual
Ratification to the detriment of the traditional sex ethic. Because of their
natural interest in the subject due to the awakening of sexuality within them,
young people are especially vulnerable to media portrayals concerning sex. 3
A second force at work in the youth of today Is the dating game. 4 Already
in 1966, sociologist J. Richard Udry pointed out that "adolescent .social life is
increasingly oriented around heterosexual pairs." a phenomenon that adds
importance to dating for young people.^ This trend has continued into the
present. However, in recent years youth have gained increasing access to
automobiles. As a result, they are now more and more being entrusted with
the responsibilities of dating without the benefit of adult guidance. And for
many, dating has become the only activity that carries any real meaning at all.
The pressure this situation poses to young people adds to the difficulty
associated with this stage of life.
Peer influence is a third force that shapes the attitudes and actions of
youth today.6 In every generation friends have been influential in shaping
attitudes among young people. But the role of peers has grown larger in recent
years. This is so, in part, because "group consciousness" has increasingly filled
the place of influence and leadership in the lives of youth which adults once
held.7 The impact of this phenomenon is felt in the area of sexual behavior as
 Notes

well. Recent research indicates that a young person's decision concerning

involvement in premarital sexual activity is most heavily influenced by
perceptions of whether or not one's best friends are engaging in various acts. 8
The influence of peers means that young persons are making decisions largely
on the basis of input from those who are facing the same struggles as they are.
As a result, they find themselves coping with the difficulties of forming a
personal sexual identity without the benefit of assistance from those who have
already passed through that stage of life.9
As in every generation, youth today are naturally interested in matters
related to their sexuality. As never before, however, their attitudes toward
sexuality are the product of forcesmedia, dating mores, and peersthat are
not necessarily motivated by a genuine interest in what is best for the
emerging generation. Lying at the foundation of the popular media's message
is the profit motive. Because sex "sells," whereas programs, films, and music
that offer a wholesome perspective on sexuality may not, sex receives a
disproportional degree of media air time. The dating game as it is currently
played encourages the coupling of young people into a series of
semipermanent relationships, allows teens to spend time alone as couples,
and fosters experimentation with sex. The glorification of sex that is
proclaimed by the media and which forms the basis of the dating game is
reinforced by the most crucial influence on young lives"everybody"their
peers.
In this context, the Christian community seeks to offer guidance to the
youth of society. Such guidance ought to be both cautionarysetting
standards concerning the limits of healthy and helpful sexual activityand
future (goal-) orientedcounseling for the sexual expression that will be of
most benefit to young people themselves in the long run. The purpose of
Christian guidance is to assist the next generation as they enter into the task
of creating communities of male and female that are able to reflect the divine
love and the divine will to community.

2. Sexual Expression and the Young Adult

All recent surveys point to the same conclusion: young people are sexually
active today in a way unprecedented in previous eros. Recent statistics, as
cited by James Moore. indicate that as many as 85 percent of all university
students in the U.S. have had at least one experience of sexual intercourse by
the age of twenty-one.10 And a recent newspaper report asserted that half of
all teenagers may have had sex before graduating from high school, some as
early as age twelve.11 Other surveys concluded that religious convictions
apparently have little impact on the sexual behavior and attitudes of youth
who attend church.12 In light of this situation the question gains new urgency:
Are there parameters for sexual expression prior to marriage? If so, what are
these, and why are they valid?
 Notes

a. The question of sexual intercourse. Although the discussion of

premarital sex ought not to be limited to debating the propriety of the sex act
itself, the question of sexual intercourse is nevertheless foundational for the
issue of premarital sexual expression. Is it morally acceptable for young adults
to engage in the sex act prior to marriage? The traditional Christian sex ethic
maintains that sexual intercourse is to be reserved for marriage. Unfortunately
this assertion is often interpreted as the groundless prohibition by a religion
that condemns the enjoyment of the body in the quest for the salvation of the
soul. This caricature, while perhaps applicable to certain attitudes in the
church's history, is wide of the mark. The traditional Christian sex ethic does
proclaim a prohibition of sexual intercourse prior to marriage. But this stance
is not the product of a body-denying attitude. On the contrary, the admonition
to abstain from sex prior to marriage actually arises out of a positive intent,
which is body-affirming. The prohibition against premarital sex is the
outworking of the Christian concern for the protection of the meaning of the
sex act and for the full establishment of the community of male and female.
(1) The sex act and meaning. The traditional prohibition of sex prior to
marriage arises from the concern to preserve the meaning of the act. Sexual
intercourse must be reserved for marriage, because single persons cannot
express through this act the profound meanings intended by it.
As noted in chapter 4, the sex act is intended to be a beautiful means by
which a couple gives expression to the deep dimension of their relationship.
First, it is a recalling of their commitment to one another. Within marriage,
sexual intercourse is a reenactment of the public vows which formed the
outward seal of their inward commitment, designed both to represent and to
effect the bond between them. An unwed couple simply cannot express this
meaning. They may believe that in the sex act they are expressing love for
each other. But the intended meaning of the act goes deeper than felt love. As
Larry Richards correctly noted, "God didn't create sex to show affection. He
invented it to seal commitment." For "sex is inherently a sign of total
commitment."15
A second meaning of the sex act is mutual submission. Through sexual
intercourse, a married couple express their desire to please each other in all
areas of their relationship. Premarital intercourse, however, is rarely able to
reflect this meaning. Generally, persons engaging in sex prior to marriage are
not primarily motivated by the desire to express a willingness to give place to
the other in all areas of their relationship. More often than not, their motives
center on the gratification of self or the desire to manipulate the other.
Even when the couple is "in love," sexual intercourse can be manipulative,
the young man encouraging his partner thereby to prove her love, and the
young woman hoping that the act will serve to strengthen the commitment of
her partner to the relationship.14 In this way, one partner might agree to
engage in an act, which is actually intended to be a celebration of the bond of
 Notes

commitment between male and female, with the hope that it will bring the
other partner to the point of such commitment. This dynamic has been
capsulized by Mary Calderone in a statement that has received wide echo:
The girl plays at sex. for which she is not ready, because
fundamentally what she wants is love; and the boy plays at
love, for which he is not ready, because what he wants is
sex.15

The basic point of this statement has been confirmed by Diamond and
Karlen. Boys primarily want erotic satisfaction, and learn that to obtain it they
must develop relationships, which they may come to value. Girls primarily
want love, and through relationships learn to accept and perhaps value
eroticism.16
The third meaning of the sex act is equally lacking in premarital sex.
Sexual intercourse is intended as a vivid expression of the couple's openness
beyond their relationship. Even though they may use contraceptives, married
couples express in the sex act a willingness to welcome new life into the
relationship. including the new life that might come as the fruit of the marital
bond. However, unmarried couples generally approach the act with the
opposite outlook. Their intent is rarely that of expressing an openness to (he
new life which could emerge as the product of their union. On the contrary,
they are more likely to hope anxiously that no such new life is produced by the
act.
The assertion that premarital sex cannot fully reflect the deep meaning
intended by sexual intercourse does not suggest that the sex act is devoid of
meaning when engaged in by the unmarried. For them the act can give
expression to a Jove for each other which is deeply felt. In fact, one or both
partners might truly view his or her love, and perhaps even their relationship
itself. as permanent. Yet. until their commitment is given public expression and
receives societal sanction, it remains rather tenuous. The future could reveal
that neither their love nor their commitment was as deep or as permanent as
they had hoped. Therefore, while the sex act may be a declaration of love, it
cannot be the reenactment and reaffirmation of the publicly pledged
permanent commitment of each to the other that makes intercourse such a
beautiful act. Nor can the sex act serve as a sustaining reminder of that day
when the couple publicly recited vows of fidelity.
(2) The sex act and a future choice of marriage. The traditional stance
against sexual intercourse prior to marriage is motivated as well by the
concern far the ability of young persons to form healthy communities of male
and female in the future. Thus, the prohibition looks to the future. The sex act
must be reserved for marriage, because abstinence during youth allows the
young person to choose with dignity and integrity from the two alternatives
that will stand open to him or her in the near futuremarriage and celibacy.
 Notes

Most young people will eventually opt for the marriage alternative. The
prohibition of premarital sex is motivated by a concern for the future fulfillment
of this life choice, the possibility that the young person will eventually wish to
enter marriage. Abstinence is intended to protect the possible future marriage,
in that it presumes that lack of sexual experience on the part of both partners
prior to marriage offers a better basis for a good and lasting marital bond.17
This thesis, of course, has come under heavy attack in recent years.
Nevertheless, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that in the majority of
cases sexual experience prior to marriage is healthier for the relationship than
abstinence. As Richard Hettlinger concluded, "Contrary to widespread myth
there is no scientific evidence to prove that premarital intercourse leads to
successful marriage."18 On the contrary, marriages in which both partners
enter the relationship without prior experience of intercourse do have certain
advantages.
A first important advantage arises out of the link between sexuality and
bonding. In keeping with the imagery of the second creation story (Genesis 2),
the apostle Paul speaks of this link in terms of becoming one flesh (1 Cor. 6:12-
20), that is, the sex act is a bonding experience. Paul is surely correct, for
through the act a type of bond is formed; the act significantly alters the
relationship between the two people who engage in it.
Because of the bonding which occurs in sexual intercourse, the marriage
whose partners have not engaged in sex has the advantage of being free from
all extraneous bonds, which can be detrimental to the marital bonding process.
Previous experiences may bring to the marriage additional bonds that pose
psychological problems and thereby hinder the bonding process. For example,
they can introduce into that process the ghosts of third parties who haunt the
marriage relationship by being a constant reminder of a previously formed
bond tucked away in the memory of one or both partners. As the thoughts of
one or the other spouse wander back to previous partners, the formation of a
solid marital bond is complicated by such factors as guilt, regret, jealousy, or
the longing to relive the past.
Further, by virtue of the fact that they came to an end, previous
experiences are never without negative effects which can greatly affect the
present bonding process. As Tim Stafford rightly noted, "A nonvirgin has
already made, and broken, at least one bond, which makes the second bond
harder to form."19 This problem is compounded by experiences with several
lovers prior to marriage. From her research Audrey Beslow concluded that
"each new lover decreases the potential for intimacy." Even "serial
exclusiveness ... develops a pattern of restraint, a protective covering" which
hinders future relationships.20

(207)
 Notes

introduces the risk of robbing four peopleoneself, one's present partner,

and both future spousesof the privilege of sharing the first bonding
experience with one's spouse.
Related to this risk is the psychological damage that can ensue if
premarital sex does not eventually lead to the marriage of the two partners. By
engaging in premarital sex, an individual is increasing the premarital
experiences both of oneself and of another, thereby increasing the chance that
neither partner will enter into what remains in the minds of most people today
(especially males) as the ideal marriagea relationship between two persons
who have had no previous sexual encounters.25
Many young persons (especially young women) who engage in sex prior to
marriage truly believe that they will eventually marry the partner with whom
they are intimate, thereby avoiding the potential problems noted above. Two
factors compound this romantic notion, however. First, many men and women
who engage in sex do not marry each other, even though they may be "deeply
in love" at the time of intercourse. Second, even in those cases in which
marriage docs eventually follow, sex prior to marriage carries the potential of
future guilt feelings in one or both spouses as they later contemplate the
possibility that their relationship might just as easily have not led to marriage
or as they wonder why they did not save intercourse for marriage.
Premarital sex among those who do marry likewise carries the potential of
disrupting the normal process of marital bonding through the addition of an
unplanned child.26 Rather than having sufficient time to cement the
relationship prior to introducing offspring, couples who begin marriage
pregnant have the added burden of adjusting to parenthood while they adjust
to life together. This situation raises the potential for hostility and subsequent
abuse.
A third advantage offered by premarital abstinence is the practical matter
of freedom from sexually transmitted diseases. Simply stated, the best way to
insure that one's future marriage, not to mention one's own future health, will
not be complicated by certain health problems is through the practice of
abstinence. Sexually transmitted diseases can indeed complicate the delicate
process of marital bonding at its very beginning. In addition to the physical
problems, contracting such a disease through one's spouse brings
psychological difficulties that strain even the best of marriages. And the long-
term effects of such illnesses may be equally devastating including the risk of
sterility which could threaten the likelihood of the couple ever becoming
parents.
Even though medical advances offer hope of cure for certain sexually
transmitted diseases, the best course of action is to avoid all acts that open
one to the possibility of contracting them in the first place.
More likely than being a positive assistance to the marital bonding
process, then, previous relationships can be detrimental to the establishment
of a good marriage. The coming together of husband and wife to form a com-
munity of male and female which can reflect the divine will to community is
itself a difficult task. Previous sexual experiences so easily compound the
process. Abstinence has positive value. In the words of J. Richard Udry, "Those
who enter marriage with no premarital coital experience are most likely to
have high marital adjustment and are least likely to be divorced." 27 Although
the exact connection between premarital experience and marital
maladjustment is subject to debate, abstinence prior to marriage performs a
 Notes

positive function, for it is one way of saying, "I value my future marital
happiness, my future spouse, and my future family to the extent that I do not
want to risk the future for the pleasure of the moment." 28 As Vance Packard
aptly concluded from his discussion of the risks of premarital genital activity,
"the case for sexual freedom as it is commonly understoodwhere every male
and every female is free to behave sexually as he or she sees fit, as long as no
one is hurt seems to be a dubious goal."29
(3) Abstinence and a future choice of celibacy. Not only does abstinence
protect the possible future marriage relationship. It also serves to protect a
possible choice of the alternative vehicle for the building of the community of
male and femalethe single life within the context of the Christian community,
and the possibility of embracing celibacy. A young person who willingly
practices abstinence during this crucial stage of life keeps the door open to a
future choice of foregoing the marital bond, in order to choose a life of celibate
singleness, for the sake of service to God and others.
Abstinence protects this option, in that it allows the choice of the celibate
life to be made apart from the bonds that would arise from a sexual
relationship in early adulthood. Because the person is not entangled by the
intimate sexual bonding that the sex act constitutes, he or she is free to
choose unfettered the other alternative expression of human sexuality. This
freedom includes being unencumbered by the pull toward marriage that is
indicative of relationships in which sexual intercourse has occurred and being
unencumbered by the psychological effects that the bond of sexual intercourse
is designed to produce. As a result, abstinence protects the celibate option by
allowing this choice to be made apart from any lingering feelings of personal
guilt or responsibility to another. The person has no need to feel remorse for
not marrying a previous sexual partner. Nor need he or she sense guilt for
sinning against the Lord by entering into a sexual bond with another apart from
marriage.
This is not to suggest that virginity constitutes a more sacred state of
existence per se. Nor is it impossible for a sexually experienced person to
choose to live the celibate life from that point on. Virginity and abstinence
ought not to be elevated as a higher calling than sexual relations within
marriage. Rather, celibacy is significant because of the deeper freedom it gives
to the single life. Because the celibate person has spoken a definitive "no" not
only to marriage, but also to the quest for sexual intimacy, he or she is able to
devote this energy to service to the Lord and to others.

(210)
these discoveries. The importance of this phenomenon in our society
raises the question about the implications of the Christian sex ethic for dating:
How does the experience of dating relate to the limits and the proper
expressions of sexuality prior to marriage?

a. Dating behavior. The question of limits and proper expressions of

sexuality quite naturally raises the matter of dating behavior. How ought a
young person to conduct himself or herself while in the dating context?
(1) The purpose of dating. Foundational to a consideration of dating
behavior is an understanding of the purpose of this social activity. Three are
 Notes

paramount. First, dating is intended to provide occasion for young people to

enjoy the company of persons of their own age. In this manner such events
include recreational times within the schedule of school, work, and home life.
But not only does dating offer times of diversion from the routine, it also has
educational value, as dating events provide opportunities for young persons to
learn social skills.
Second, dating can assist a young person in the process of learning to
relate to others as a sexual being. The social activities involving young men
and women are to provide a sympathetic context in which they explore what it
means to give proper respect to themselves and to members of the other sex
as sexual beings. Such exploration ought to lead to a growing maturity in
personal social confidence and in the ability to relate in positive ways to
others. In this process young people often come to sense which option,
marriage or singleness, looms as the best personal choice for their futures.
Dating carries a third purpose as well, it is designed to provide opportunity
for young persons to determine the qualities that make for good marriage
relationships. They also come to see what qualities they ought to be
developing themselves as well as the characteristics they hope to find in their
spouses. As these discoveries are made, through the dating experience a
person sometimes finds the one with whom he or she desires to form the
community of male and female within the context of marriage.
(2) Considerations for determining limits. Apart from the prohibition of
sexual intercourse prior to marriage, there is a general hesitancy among
Christian ethicists to set clown explicit rules to govern conduct in all
situations.30 Nevertheless, several considerations are useful in assisting dating
couples to form helpful and proper parameters for behavior, beyond the
oversimplified approach that cautions them merely to maintain virginity. 31
The purposes of dating outlined above indicate a foundational
consideration about dating conduct. Basic in determining what constitutes
proper dating behavior is the concern that one's conduct be conductive to
building healthy relationships. The dating couple ought to give first
consideration to utilizing social events as a context in which to assist each
other in becoming mature persons who can relate to others in positive,
beneficial ways. Dating, then, ought to he constructive for each person
involved. For this reason, becoming preoccupied with physical sexual acts
easily works to the detriment of a dating couple. Focusing on the physical
dimension of their relationship directs them away from devoting themselves to
assisting each other in exploring their gifts and potentials as persons. And it
takes away from the joyous experience of growing as individuals through their
relationship.
The foundational principle, concern for dating behavior that will be
conducive to building a relationship that will foster each person's growth,
provides a context in which to raise the question asked by many couples in
 Notes

serious dating relationships, "How far can we go?" To what extent can a dating
couple engage in physical sexual expressions?
Here a second general consideration comes into view. Couples must keep
in mind that once they get out on the path of sexual adventure, they can find
it difficult to turn back. Further, it is rarely possible to return to a level of
physical involvement lower than that to which a couple has already moved. A
return to sexual expressions of a lesser magnitude than those currently
practiced is rarely satisfying, but often frustrating. In fact, to sustain the same
degree of pleasure and satisfaction often requires that a couple take the
physical dimension of their relationship even deeper, that they engage in an
increased level of physical activity. For this reason, a couple must exercise
great caution from the beginning of their relationship and ought to be careful
to move further along the way of increased involvement with deliberate
slowness.
Third, a couple ought to respect several boundary lines in their physical
behavior. For example, the line of respect for the other should never be
crossed. A couple ought not to engage in any activity that would result in
either one losing respect for the other, should the relationship come to an end.
Rather, the attitude of each should include the desire to be able to continue to
respect the other and be respected by the other, even after they are no longer
dating.
Further, the line of future regret should never be crossed. A couple ought
to avoid any activity that one or the other could possibly find to be a source of
guilt in the future. Such regret may not only arise in situations in which the
dating relationship ends. As has been indicated above, excessive premarital
activity can also have detrimental effects on a man and woman who end up
marrying each other. In addition, the line of uncontrollable passion dare not be
crossed. Physical sexual activity is intended to lead to intercourse, if not
willfully and deliberately arrested. For this reason, activities that raise the
degree of passion can easily result in an unintended involvement in the sex
act itself. Couples, therefore, must be careful to draw the line of activity well
below the point at which the passion of the moment could blur their vision of
their own ultimate good.

(213)
great wisdom when they refuse to allow the pressures of the present to
move them from a commitment to abstinence prior to marriage.

4. Masturbation

Masturbation, the act of "achieving sexual release by oneself through

stimulating the erogenous zones of the body,"35 has generated heated
controversy both among Christian ethicists and psychologists, from the Vatican
to Freud. It has been hailed by some as a way out of the dilemma of
adolescence, as "God's provision" for "a temporary substitute for the full joys
of sexual union."36 Hettlinger, for example, lauds the practice as
 Notes

an escape valve, however inadequate in itself, which makes

possible the survival of our society without the universal
debasement of heterosexual intercourse to the level of
purely animal satisfaction.37

With equal vigor, however, masturbation has been condemned by others

in religious terms as a sinful, or in psychological terms a perverted, behavior
pattern.38
Many Christian ethicists are moving away from either wholesale rejection
or enthusiastic acceptance of the practice. They favor instead a position of
qualified acceptance based on a differentiation of several types of
masturbation.39 The position of the Roman Catholic, John C. Dwyer, is
somewhat typical. Masturbation, he wrote, "should not be stamped as
'perversion' but neither is it a particularly healthy use of our sexual powers." 40
Similarly, the evangelical Protestant Lewis Smedes concluded: "It is not morally
wrong, but neither is it personally sufficient. It is not on the same casual level
with other activities, but neither is it a terrible secret sin."41
Any acceptance of masturbation, regardless of how qualified, however,
ought not to overlook the dangers that opponents of the practice point out.
Three interrelated problems are especially difficult. First, masturbation is often
practiced in connection with sexual fantasy, voyeurism, or even pornography.
When unchecked, these associations can lead to mental pollution or to overt
acts of aggression. Second, masturbation runs the risk of developing into a
difficult habit or of becoming a compulsive behavior pattern. In this way it can
lead to deep problems of guilt or self-abasement. 42 Finally, excessive
involvement in this act can eventually result in maladjustment in future sexual
roles. The masturbation habit might cause problems within the marriage
relationship or become a type of fetish or obsession among single persons.
Despite dangers such as these, masturbation does offer certain benefits,
as its proponents argue. Most importantly, when used within a context of
restraint. it provides a way of coping with pent-up sexual energy without
resorting to more dangerous or overtly aggressive practices. Hettlinger is
surely

(215)
among single people who have moved beyond young adulthood and have
not specifically dedicated themselves to the celibate life. The previous chapter
put forth the thesis that singleness does not constitute having an asexual or
nonsexual life. Single persons remain sexual beings. They too form bonds, the
highest of which is to be the bond of the community of Christ. But what is the
place of physical sexual expression in the lives of single persons?

1. The Single Life and the Sex Act: the Ethic of Abstinence
The central Issue concerning the single life and sexual expression relates
specifically to the sex act. Is it proper to engage in sexual intercourse?
 Notes

Previous discussion concluded that the marital bond requires sexual fidelity
and that youth ought to be characterized by abstinence. But what about those
who have passed the stage of young adulthood and are not married? Perhaps
their situation is sufficiently different from cither marriage or youth. Do older
singles form a special case, so that they may express their sexuality through
the sex act?
To this query, as to the question of premarital sex among young persons,
the traditional Christian sex ethic responds with a prohibition. The single life in
all its forms is to be characterized by abstinence. But this stance has often
been interpreted as a groundless prohibition. Is there good reason for a single
person to choose abstinence? The discussions in these chapters yield an
affirmative answer to this query. From what has been said already, three
considerations may be offered as a foundation for the choice of abstinence
among all single persons.

a. Singleness as an improper context for the sex act. A first

consideration approaches the question of sexual intercourse among singles
from a negative direction. The principles outlined thus far in these pages lead
to the conclusion that according to the understanding of the Christian sex ethic
presented here, the sex act is to be reserved for marriage and practiced only
within the context of the marital bond, because regardless of the age of the
persons involved, singleness simply cannot provide the proper context for
sexual intercourse. The limiting of the sex act to the marital bond and thus the
corresponding assertion that the single life must be characterized by
abstinence arises from a consideration of the importance of context for sexual
intercourse. In chapter 4 the thesis was presented that acts do not carry their
meaning wholly within themselves. Rather, meaning is a function of act and
context (which includes the intention of the actors). This principle is applicable
to the sex act. Within the context of marriage, sexual intercourse is able to
carry deep and positive meaning. When practiced outside its proper context
within marriage, however, the positive meanings it is designed to carry are
diminished, or even lost completely.
This is not to say that apart from marriage the sex act is devoid of
meaning. Were this so, a ease could perhaps be made for engaging in the act
outside of marriage merely for the sake of pleasure, a point that is sometimes
argued. But to assert that the sex act is purely recreational and totally devoid
of meaning is to deny our embodied existence, our fundamental sexuality. It is
to suggest that sexual intercourse is an act which our bodies engage in apart
from our real selves. But as was noted earlier, the sex act is not merely a
function of the body. It is an act of our whole selves as sexual beings. As a
result, it carries meaning whenever it is practiced.
When practiced beyond the boundaries of a loving relationship between
two married persons, the positive meanings the sex act is designed to carry
are replaced by other connotations, which are at best a poor substitute for the
ideal meaning the act is intended to carry. Quite often such connotations
constitute an actual denial of the intended meaning of the act. For outside of
marriage sexual intercourse expresses the concept of bonding without
 Notes

permanency, that is, of a nonpermanent, nonbinding covenant, which is simply

a contradiction.
Not only does it represent the permanent marital bond, the sex act is
designed to seal that bond. It is a "life-uniting act," to cite the phrase of Lewis
Smedes. Sex outside of marriage is a contradiction to reality, in that it entails
involvement in a life-uniting act apart from a life-uniting intent . 45 To engage in
sex as two single persons, in other words, is to bear false witness about the
depth of the relationship shared by the two. It is to proclaim that a life-uniting
commitment is present, where no such intent exists.

b. The relationship of abstinence to the advantages of singleness

for ministry. The second consideration approaches the question from the
positive side. Not only is singleness an improper context for sexual intercourse
because the meanings of the act cannot be expressed by an unmarried
couple. The single life is properly characterized by abstinence, because only
through the practice of abstinence can singleness maintain its pragmatic
apologetic. Paul argues in favor of the single life on the basis of the
advantages it offers for service to the program of God in the world. Single
people are freed from concern for the affairs of a spouse and thereby are able
to devote fuller attention to the Lord, he declares.

Singles who do not practice abstinence lose this advantage. Although he

or she remain legally unmarried, the presence of a "significant other," a sexual
partner, reintroduces the element of concern for the interests of the other
person, which Paul declares to be the characteristic of the married life. The
concern that arises in the life of a single person by the presence of a sexual
partner can actually surpass that found in marriage. In contrast to stable
marriage relationships, the relationship between a single person and a
"significant other" is inherently instable. The impermanency of this situation
leads to worries and anxiety over matters such as personal performance or the
future of the relationship and to a sense of competition, which the permanent
nature of marital commitment is intended to eliminate.

c. Abstinence and the single life as metaphor. Finally, the single life
is to be characterized by abstinence because of the theological metaphor
which singleness is designed to be. The single life, it has been argued, is
intended to serve as a picture of the expansive love of God and of the divine
will to inclusive community. Abstinence is crucial for the fulfillment of this
purpose. Within the context of the single lifestyle abstinence is an apt picture
of the nonexclusive nature of the divine love. By abstaining from the act which
celebrates exclusive bonding while remaining open to forming the bond of
friendship with many people, the single person provides a picture of the God
whose goal is the establishment of a human community, which although
intimate in a nonsexual way, remains expansive.
Just as infidelity effaces the image of the love of God which marriage is
designed to display, so where abstinence is not practiced, the intention of the
single life as a picture of the divine love and of the divine will to community is
effaced. To engage in sexual intercourse as a single person is to offer an
ambiguous assertion concerning the divine reality. Among other meanings, the
sex act, as the sacrament of the marital bond, is meant to represent the
 Notes

exclusive nature of the divine love and to reflect the divine will to establish an
intimate community.
The single life, in contrast, is meant to express the inclusive, expansive
nature of the divine love and the divine will to an inclusive community. As a
result, engaging in the sex act within the context of the single life constitutes a
denial of the theological significance of both the act and the single life. It gives
a sense of nonexclusiveness to an act that is to represent exclusiveness, and it
introduces a noninclusive dimension into a lifestyle that is to be open
inclusively to others. As a result, the pictures of the dimensions of the divine
reality the sex act and the single life are each intended to reflect are marred.

2. Abstinence and Contemporary Outlooks

The call for abstinence as integral to the single life is not a popular
position in the wake of the sexual revolution. But before this position is
dismissed, consideration should be given to the underlying world view of the
current ethical climate, which forms a stark contrast to that of the Christian
ethic of abstinence.
Foundational to the sexual revolution is an emphasis on personal rights.
Proponents of the modern ethic generally present genital sexual expression as
a "right" possessed by the individual. As a result any suggestion that certain
lifestyles warrant abstinence from genital sex is rejected out of hand as
constituting a violation of a fundamental right.
In actuality, however, genital sex is not to be viewed as one among
several rights intrinsic to the human person. 46 Rather, it is an act designed to
carry deep significance when practiced within its proper context. The essential
context which bestows on the sex act its significance is the marriage bond. In
this context the sex act carries the meanings outlined earlier. But even within
marriage, the sex act does not become a "right" to be demanded. Rather, it is
a gift instituted by the Creator in order to be offered freely by the partners to
each other.
Viewed in this manner, we must conclude that the assertion that the
single- life is to be characterized by abstinence is not a violation of anyone's
personal rights. On the contrary, the call to abstinence is an attempt to assist
single persons in attaining fulfilled lives as participants in the program of God.
In this context the call to abstinence functions in two directions. On the one
hand, it has a negative purpose. It comes as a call to set certain boundaries to
sexual expression, and thereby its intention is to help single people avoid the
mistake of engaging in a practice which is inappropriate for their life context.
But it also has an important positive purpose. The call to abstinence seeks to
assist singles in allowing their life context to reflect the theological meaning it
is intended to exhibit, namely, that of revealing a crucial aspect of the divine
reality.
Further, any discussion of abstinence versus sexual involvement on the
part of singles ought to avoid placing an undue emphasis on genital sexual
 Notes

expression as the path to the fulfillment of an innate human need. Lewis

Smedes correctly observed that "sexual intercourse is not single people's most
basic need. What takes top priority is the hunger for close personal
relationships."47 It is our culture, not biology, that places such great emphasis
on genital involvement as the only means whereby we can find the closeness
we all quite naturally desire.

3. Abstinence and Sexual Expression

At first glance, the call to abstinence as essential to singleness may

appear to eliminate all sexual expression from the single life. Closer inspection,
however, indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Singles remain sexual
beings, and it would be quite natural to expect to find evidence that this
foundational sexuality is being expressed even within the context of the single
life. The crucial question, then, is not whether single persons express their
sexuality. Instead, Christian sex ethics is concerned with the proper channeling
of that expression.

a. Affective expressions of sexuality. As has been repeatedly

maintained throughout these pages, sexuality is more than physical bodly
parts, and therefore there are significant dimensions of sexual expression
besides the sex act. The various affective dimensions of sexual expression
including the appreciation of beauty and cultural, social, or aesthetic activity
are readily present in the single life regardless of age.

(220)
This raises once again the question of the propriety of various sexual
behaviors. We have already concluded that the sex act ought to be reserved
for marriage. But short of sexual intercourse, what are the parameters of
sexual expression for such relationships? The suggestions offered in the
discussion of dating earlier in this chapter provide some assistance. Yet,
singles who are no longer young adults often discover that their stage of life
constitutes a situation much different from the teen-age or college-age years.
An appropriate beginning point for constructing a guideline for such
couples can be found in a suggestion articulated by Karen Lebacqz, namely,
the principle of vulnerability. According to Lebacqz sexuality involves becoming
vulnerable, and therefore it needs protective structures: "The more sexual
involvement there is to be, the more there needs to be a context that protects
and safeguards that vulnerability."49 But because it lacks the protections of
marriage, singleness is "an unsafe environment for the expression of
vulnerability."
 Notes

Lebacqz's insights lead to the conclusion that adult singles must balance
the depth of sexual expression they express within their relationship with the
level of vulnerability that their relationship is able to protect. As in the case of
daring in the earlier years, older singles must realize that their relationship
might one day end; it might not necessarily lead to marriage. Therefore, they
ought to give great care to the task of protecting the integrity and future well-
being of both self and the other. As it matures their relationship may involve
increased vulnerability on the sexual level, commensurate with the deepening
vulnerability on all personal levels. Yet, regardless of age, full vulnerability is
best avoided prior to the life-commitment of marriage.

c. Postmarriage singleness. Although this situation shares certain

characteristics with the others, the experience of those living in postmarriage
singleness is significantly different from that of other single persons. This state
of single existence follows, rather than either precedes or sets aside, the
experience of marriage. Postmarriage singles have a fundamentally different
relationship to the sex act than those who have never been married. This
different relationship means that the postmarriage state of singleness may be
the most difficult context in which to practice abstinence. The desire for the
experience of sex does not simply end with the loss of a spouse. Divorced and
widowed persons, therefore, are especially vulnerable to exploitation or to
mistaking sexual arousal with depth of relationship. As those who have
experienced the joy of a bonded relationship that extended to all dimensions,
including the physical, they likewise often discover that they are not content
with the prospect of living without sex.

Despite these special problems and difficulties, the Christian call for
abstinence apart from marriage extends to postmarriage single men and
women as well. Again here, however, the ethic of abstinence is not intended to
deny the fundamental sexuality of the individuals, but rather to provide
parameters for sexual expression which are in their best interest. For this
reason the considerations offered about the single life earlier in this chapter
are appropriate in this context as well. But beyond its importance for
singleness in general, abstinence offers an important vehicle for safeguarding
the integrity of postmarriage single persons whose special vulnerability to
exploitation and to self- deception potentially lead them into unhealthy or even
damaging situations during a tender time of their lives.
By refusing to yield to the temptation to enter prematurely into sexual
relationships, postmarital singles committed to abstinence outside of marriage
are freed to concentrate on those relationships that will facilitate the healing of
wounds and hurts with which they must now cope, because of their change of
status. Only after healing has occurred are such persons able to sense whether
or not they have gained the renewed strength and sense of personal identity
 Notes

necessary to give consideration again to the possibility of relationships that

might lead to another marriage.50
 Notes

11
Homosexuality
Sin or Alternative Lifestyle?

On June 28, 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar
frequented largely by persons of a homosexual orientation. While such actions
were not uncommon, this raid ended differently than previous ones, for this
time the customers retaliated. During the course of the incident the police
barricaded themselves inside the bar for protection from the angry mob that
had formed outside. The event at the Stonewall Inn is often viewed as marking
the beginning of a new chapter in the ongoing struggle over the issue of
homosexuality, the "gay activist era."
Homosexuality itself is not a new issue. Homosexual practices were known
already in the ancient world. Several Greek philosophers, for example,
reported their Involvement in homosexual acts. Homosexual practices were
also present in the ancient Semitic world, as is evidenced by injunctions
against them found in the Hebrew Torah. So widespread were such acts in the
Roman Empire that Paul listed them among the sins of the pagans that
Christians were to avoid. Nor did the Christianization of the Western world
mark the eradication of homosexual activity. On the contrary, church
theologians and ethicists have grappled with this issue from the patristic era
into the present.
Despite the apparent presence of homosexuality since ancient times, the
contemporary discussion is in several respects quite unlike that of previous
eros. Prior to modern times homosexuality was understood in terms of
activities, and such practices were generally viewed as deviant, a perversion of
normal sexual relations, if not blatantly sinful. As a result, engaging in
homosexual acts generally carried social condemnation. Two recent
developments, however, have brought sweeping changes in the outlook
toward homosexuality. The modern outlook defines homosexuality more in
terms of a personal orientation, a sexual inversion, seen as a lifelong pattern.
First, the rise of the modern discipline of psychology beginning in the
nineteenth century has brought a shift in the understanding of the
phenomenon. In fact, the first use of the term homosexuality is attributed to K.
M. Benkert a Swiss doctor, in 1869,1 The definition of the phenomenon that
views it as an orientation which may be normal for some people has gained
 Notes

wide acceptance in professional and academic circles, especially since the

events of 1969. This is evidenced by die 1974 decision of the American
Psychological Association, however motivated, to remove homosexuality from
its list of pathological psychiatric conditions.
In addition to the definitional change, a second development has emerged
since the Stonewall incident. A new social situation, gay activism, now forms
the context for the ethical discussion of this newly defined sexual orientation.
Since 1969 a movement has arisen which seeks to foster a revision not only of
the terminology of professional psychologists, but also the attitudes of society
as a whole. This new social context has witnessed an increasing number of
persons who have not only "come out of the closet" and publicly affirmed their
sexual preference but also actively assert that homosexuality as a sexual
preference stands on equal footing with heterosexuality. Gay activists now
demand that society not only tolerate homosexual acts, but accept the
homosexual orientation as a legitimate, alternative lifestyle.
The voices calling for this profound change in societal attitude are not
confined to radicals in the homosexual community, however. On the contrary,
they include persons within the church and even certain Christian theologians
and ethicists representing a broad range of traditions.2
The new social context in which homosexuality is put forth as a lifelong
orientation and as an alternative way of sexual expression presents a
formidable challenge to the development of a Christian sex ethic. Gay activism
raises a crucial ethical question: Is the widely held rejection of the homosexual
lifestyle valid, or is this outlook sorely in need of revision at this point? In other
words, gay activism raises anew the question, is homosexuality sin or an
alternative sexual expression?

Homosexuality as a Sexual Orientation

An appropriate point at which to begin the development of a response to

this central issue is with the sexual orientation itself. Crucial to the larger
discussion is a determination as to what homosexuality is. And related to an
understanding of the nature of this phenomenon is an attempt to determine
whether or not the orientation is to be viewed as intrinsically sinful.

1. The Nature of the Homosexual Orientation

What exactly does the term homosexuality refer to? And what is the
genesis of this sexual preference?

a. Orientation or behavior. Most contemporary attempts to define

homosexuality, whether by Christian ethicists or by researchers in the human
sciences, focus on homosexuality as a sexual preference, and not as specific
acts. The term, then, refers basically to the preference for sexual partners of
 Notes

the same sex or to the situation in which erotic feelings are nearly exclusively
triggered by persons of one's own sex. An example of this modern approach
with its emphasis on orientation rather than behavior is the definition offered
by the Roman Catholic ethicist, John Dwyer. Preferring that "homosexuality" be
used only to refer to the orientation, he defined the term as "a preference, on
the part of adults, for sexual behavior with members of their own sex."3
The focus on orientation apart from behavior has led to two important
results. First, the modern understanding has encouraged various researchers
to attempt to determine the extent to which the homosexual preference is
present in contemporary society. It is estimated that in the United States 3-5
percent of the adult male population, and a smaller percentage of females, are
homosexual in orientation. Some researchers dispute these findings as being
too high.4 Recent findings also suggest that one fourth to one third of adult
males have had some overt homosexual feelings or experience, generally
between the onset of puberty and age sixteen. 5 This finding has led many
researchers to differentiate between homosexual orientation as "a phase to be
passed through and a constant to be lived with." 6 Second, the modern
emphasis on orientation has led some ethicists to conclude that the biblical
authors lacked an awareness of homosexuality as a sexual inversion, as a
stable, lifelong sexual preference.7
The viewpoint that homosexuality is best understood as a lifelong sexual
preference rather than in terms of activities has not attained universal
adherence, however. Recently, the thesis has come under formidable attack.
Sociologist David Greenberg, for example, rejects all such "essentialist"
theories, He asserts that homosexuality is not an essence or condition that
some people have and others do not. Rather than a static orientation, it is a
behavior produced and interpreted in different ways by different societies at
different times. Homosexual identity, then, is a social label, he maintains. 8
Although Greenberg's critique warrants further reflection, the more widely held
differentiation between orientation and conduct will be employed for purposes
of the discussion in this chapter.

b. The source of the homosexual orientation: heredity versus

environment. Although recent discussions have led to broad agreement
(despite critics such as Greenberg) that homosexuality is to be viewed
primarily as a sexual orientation, the question concerning the source of the
orientation has remained controversial. Two basic viewpoints have been
defended in recent years. These two reflect to some extent the general
discussion of heredity and environment carried out by biology and psychology. 2
Since the early 1950s researchers have explored the thesis that certain
inherited features are responsible for the homosexual orientation. Proposals

2 For a helpful summary of the major positions, see Karl I). Wilson,
Counseling and Homosexuality (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), 54-73
 Notes

have included genetic makeup, abnormal prenatal or postnatal hormonal

levels, and distortions of the normal, unified development of various tissues
related to sexuality and sexual behavior. 9 Despite their repeated use by
persons sympathetic to the gay activist movement, 10 none of these proposals
has been able to prove itself to be the sole cause of sexual preference. 11
Research into possible inherited causes has resulted in a general consensus
that biological factors themselves are insufficient to produce the homosexual
orientation.12 To heredity must be added certain environmental stimuli. John
Money's conclusion is representative of many researchers:
... a prenatal disposition is probably in itself an insufficient
cause, which needs to be augmented by postnatal social
experience, in studying some, but by no means all, families,
it is relatively easy to implicate familial interaction as a
component factor in gender- identity maldifferentiation in
one of the offspring. This same statement applies to
obligative (as contrasted with facultative) homosexuality,
and also to transvestism, transexualism and related
psychosexual malfunctions.13
Others argue on the basis of the purported presence of homosexuality
among animals. But this theory has likewise failed to generate widespread
acceptance. Diamond and Karlen concluded that "homosexuality as we use the
word of people, is uniquely human."14 Building on the findings of the human
sciences, Ruth Tiffany Bamhouse declared, "it seems clear that arguments in
favor of the acceptance of homosexuality cannot be based on biological
evidence, either animal or human. On the contrary, if such evidence is
considered relevant at all, it points the other way."15
In the wake of the insufficiency of biological factors to explain sexual
preference, the thesis that homosexuality as the product of psychological
factors has gained importance. According to Masters and Johnson, it is a
learned preference.16
Foundational for this view has been the work of Irwin Bieber, who
suggested that disturbances in child development, especially in the area of
parent- child relationships, are responsible. 17 Such disturbances result in
confusion concerning the child's sexual identity. Possible situations that could
lead to a same-sex preference in males include a possessive mother, a remote
and unresponsive father, an early indoctrination with excessively negative
ideas about sex, or enforced isolation from women. In addition to disturbed
family relationships, some theorists point to other factors. They cite difficulties
in establishingor inability to establishsuccessful heterosexual relationships
in adolescence as triggering a movement toward homosexuality. This sexual
orientation frees the person from the perceived awesome responsibilities of
heterosexuality.18
Hettlinger aptly capsulized the current understanding of the causes of
male homosexuality:
It is possible that some inherited characteristics may render
a man susceptible to homosexual deviation; but without the
 Notes

contributing influences of inadequate family relationships

and cultural pressures, these potentialities do not become
decisive. Most authorities attribute the homosexual condition
to a combination of psychological and sociological factors
which prevent the individual from achieving full and free
personal relationships with the other sex.19

And Lawrence J. Hatterer claimed as early as 1971 that because

homosexuality arises from a confusion about sexual identity, homosexuals
"are made, not born."20

2. Homosexuality and Sin

The debate concerning the nature of the homosexuality and the causes of
same-sex preference forms a context for the theological question about the
relationship of homosexuality, however understood, and sin. At this point the
biblical documents enter into a discussion with the modern human sciences.
Crucial in this dialogue are questions relating to homosexuality as it was
known in the biblical era. What understanding of homosexuality is reflected in
the several texts that are often cited as referring to this phenomenon? And do
these texts declare that homosexuality is sinful?
a. Arguments against the sinfulness of homo sexuality. According to
some ethicists, the homosexual orientation is not sinful, for the Bible does not
condemn it as such. Therefore acts that express this sexual preference are
likewise not culpable. Two major arguments are offered in support of this
conclusion.
(1) Homosexuality as "natural." Proponents of an acceptance of
homosexuality argue that both the orientation itself and acts that express it
are natural. Those who claim that this sexual preference is natural often
appeal to the presence of the phenomenon in various societies and throughout
history. Proponents, however, are not always unbiased in indicating how
widespread the phenomenon is. In some societies it is virtually unknown. 21 And
the homosexual behavior present in non-Western societies is rarely similar to
the lifelong orientation that is claimed to be natural. Rather, such acts are
often associated with adolescent sexual development, becoming ritualized
rites of passage.22 The same was true of homosexual practices in ancient
cultures.23
Nor does the often-cited presence of homosexuality in ancient Greece
offer a model for the contemporary phenomenon. The Greek philosophers
routinely mentioned by proponents actually engaged in pederasty, that is,
homosexual

(228)
 Notes

This interpretation would fit with Ezekiel's characterization of the sins of

Sodom (Ezek. 16:4950). And the Jude commentary on Sodom, that the men
went after "strange flesh" (verse 7, KJV), might not focus on homosexuality
either. This reference follows immediately the mention of sinful angels (verse
6), which some scholars interpret as a reference to the cohabitation of angels
and humans, presumably found in Genesis 6:1-4. Jude, therefore, might have
in view the desire of the Sodomites to have sexual relations with angelic
beings.
Despite the positive assistance it offers at some points, the case
presented by contemporary exegetes is not without difficulties. The references
found in the Holiness Code form an example. II. Darrell Lance, who made the
point above regarding the practice of anal violation and who himself favors a
more open stance toward homosexuality, nevertheless concluded, "Both
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are unambiguous in their practical effect:
homosexual relations between Israelite men are forbidden and are punishable
by death." This prohibition is grounded not only in the connection to idolatry
which is likely not to be understood in terms of male cult prostitutes, as some
would maintain. 29 It is grounded also in creation: "Such acts violated the
created order of male and female and are t'ebah: they are an idolatrous
affront to the integrity of the deity." One need not advocate a continuation of
the Old Testament punishment by death (as some would erroneously claim
necessarily follows) to assert that the prohibition continues to carry its import
into the present.31
The question at issue in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the meaning of the Greek
words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, the latter of which is repeated in 1 Timothy
1:10. Many exegetes have been quick to accept the conclusion of John Boswell
that neither of these terms "connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for
centuries thereafter."32 Some do offer interpretations of the words that relate
them to specific homosexual behaviors, however, whether to the "callboy" and
his patron33 or to the Greek practice of pederasty (homosexual acts between
men and youths).
Boswell's conclusion, however, is not without its critics. From his survey of
the pertinent literature, David F. Wright, for example, concluded, "It is difficult
to believe that arsenokoitai was intended to indict only the commonest Greek
relationship involving an adult and a teenager." Rather, as its uses by Philo and
Josephus indicate, it was a more generic term for male activity with males.
Of the various texts, the exegesis of Romans 1 is most problematic. Those
who claim that Paul's condemnation of homosexual activity is not applicable to
the contemporary phenomenon generally follow one basic tactic. Paul, they
claim, was referring to individuals who pervert their own heterosexual
orientation and engage in homosexual practices (e.g., pederasty), and not to
 Notes

persons who find in themselves a "natural" homosexual preference (inversion),

concerning which Paul supposedly knew nothing.
This approach, however, fails to understand the development of Paul's
indictment of the pagan world of his day. As Richard Hayes noted in his
response to Boswel's book,35 it is highly improbable that the apostle had in
mind the life histories of a certain group of his contemporaries who had moved
from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Rather, his purpose was to offer a
corporate indictment of pagan society. The story he narrated is that of
humankind; he offered a general sweep of the corporate downward spiral into
an ever deeper pit of sin. Humankind had distorted even the basic sexual
identity which had been given in God's created order as indicated by the
Genesis story.
But on what basis did Paul assert that heterosexuality is "natural" and
homosexuality "unnatural?" Some exegetes, such as H. Darnell Lance, 36 have
argued that by "nature" Paul was not appealing to the created order, but to
what is "characteristic of a certain group or species." Although Lance's
characterization could possibly apply to 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, as he
asserted, it simply cannot be the case in Romans 1. The inclusion of same-sex
relations between women in Paul's indictment indicates that he had more than
the contemporary practice of pederasty in view. And the mood of the text with
its repeated emphasis of God's acting in judgment suggests that the
perversion Paul had in mind is far more serious than the violation of species
characteristics; it is rather the violation of God's intent in creation.
For Paul, then, the only proper model of sexual relations is that patterned
after the creation story in Genesis 1-2. In keeping with the injunctions of the
Holiness Code, Paul concludes that this model is natural, 37 for it alone was
instituted by the Creator. Homosexual relations, whether between men or
women, are against nature, because they are contrary to the pattern placed
within creation itself.
One final problem with the appeal to the naturalness of homosexuality
remains. Even if the homosexual orientation could be shown to be the
"natural" inclination for a certain percentage of the population in any given
society, that fact alone would not necessitate an acceptance of homosexual
activity. Ethics is not merely a condoning of what comes naturally. On the
contrary. Christian theology warns us that we dare not always entrust
ourselves to what we sense to be "natural." Our natural inclinations are not a
sure guide to proper human conduct, but share in our fallenness. Jesus himself
warned his followers that evil can proceed from the human heart (Mark 7:21).
For this reason, disciples of the Lord are often called to deny what they may
perceive to be their natural desires and inclinations, in order to follow the
radical ethic of the Master.
Caution is warranted as much in the area of sexual conduct as in any
other. Even though some researchers conclude that males are naturally
 Notes

promiscuous, this supposedly natural inclination does not set aside the biblical
ethic of fidelity. So also, the felt "naturalness" of same-sex preference among a
certain percentage of persons does not set aside the biblical ethic which limits
genital sexual expression to the context of monogamous heterosexual
marriage.
(2) Homosexuality as not the product of conscious choice. Closely related
to the argument that homosexuality is "natural" and therefore acceptable is
the assertion that it is an orientation that the person does not choose, but
discov-

(231-232)
of homosexuality, the tendency to be erotically aroused by members of
the same sex, while potentially dangerous and placing the person at certain
disadvantages, does not itself invoke the condemnation of God. Rather, sin as
the transgression of divine prohibition occurs only when this disposition is
allowed to express itself in actions contrary to God's intention that genital
sexual activity occur within the context of monogamous heterosexual
marriage.
Actually, the same principle is operative in the heterosexual orientation as
well. The Genesis narratives indicate that the male-female difference lies at
the basis of the forming of human sexual bonding. But even though
heterosexuality is in keeping with the intent of the Creator, not all expressions
of this disposition are ethically acceptable. On the contrary, the opposite-sex
preference, like the same-sex orientation, can lead to sinful acts. Lust,
premarital sex, incest, rape, and adultery are all condemnable, whether
perpetrated by persons of a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation. In
short, there are proper parameters for sexual expression. Sexual acts outside
their proper context must be judged inappropriate. This principle is applicable
regardless of the degree to which an individual was consciously involved in the
choice of sexual preference. We may have only limited control over our
orientation. We are nevertheless responsible for the choices we make about its
expression.
Although the homosexual preference need not be judged as condemnable
in itself, at the same time this orientation ought not to be put forth as normal
nor be accepted as an alternative on an equal level with heterosexuality. The
fact remains that the Bible sets forth heterosexuality as God's design for
creation.
Recent findings among the human sciences indicate that adolescents
move through a stage of development in which certain same-sex activities are
often present. But the ideal is for individuals to move beyond that stage,
rather than to develop permanent homosexual behavior patterns. 40 Ruth
Tiffany Barn- house, therefore, is surely correct in speaking of homosexuality
 Notes

as "immature," as constituting a less developed sexuality. In a similar way

Elizabeth Moberly classified homosexuality as a state of incomplete
development or of unmet needs."41 Theologically seen, this orientation
constitutes an unfortunate truncation of development into God's ideal as found
in creation.
Not only is homosexuality less than the divine ideal, an arresting of
normal sexual development at an immature stage, there is growing opinion
that it is "positively harmful" because of its effect on the young. Barn house is
again instructive at this point:
Adolescence is a period which requires the utmost of young
people in working their way through the enormously difficult
transition from childhood to adulthood... the anxieties
surrounding the psychosexual maturation process are
severe, and the temptation to opt for less than one is
capable of is very great. While it is probably true that one
cannot proselytize the invulnerable, there are a great many
youngsters whose childhoods have been sufficiently
problematic so that homosexuality presented to them as an
acceptable alternative would be convincingly attractive." 42
Homosexuality, then, is not in itself condemn able as an orientation. Yet, it
falls short of God's best for human beings and poses certain dangers. Persons
caught in this arrested stage of sexual development are not to be condemned,
but like all fallen human beings they are to be viewed as objects of God's
concern and in need of experiencing God's grace.

3. Can the Orientation be Altered?

The homosexual orientation apart from its expression in actions and
behaviors is not itself condemn able. Nevertheless, it falls short of God's intent
in creation. This conclusion raises the ticklish question of the possibility of an
alteration of the orientation. Can a homosexual person become heterosexual?
Researchers offer a mixed opinion as to the possibility of change in sexual
orientation. Recent statistics indicate anywhere from a one-third to two-thirds
success rate,43 apparently depending in part on the degree of motivation for
change.
Even evangelicals are divided on the issue of the possibility of a change in
sexual orientation. Groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous or Exodus
International, an umbrella organization for about fifty ministries, are part of a
fledgling ex-gay movement. The assertion that homosexuals can and ought to
change, as well as the ex-gay movement itself, is attacked by Evangelicals
Concerned, an organization that promotes monogamous relationships between
Christian homosexuals. Writing in Christianity Today, Tim Stafford concluded
his study of the various groups with "cautious optimism": He said, "The
degrees of healing vary. But the possibility of living an adjusted, hopeful, and
fruitful life in a sin-distorted worldand the possibility of growing more joyful
and consistent in liferemain."44
All researchers, however, are in agreement on one point. If change is to
come, it is difficult. According to Jones and Workman,
 Notes

No study suggests that change comes from willingness to

change or some simple set of procedures. There seems to be
a consensus of opinion that change is most likely when
motivation is strong, when there is a history of successful
heterosexual functioning, when gender identity issues are
not present, and when involvement in actual homosexual
practice has been minimal. Change of homosexual
orientation may well be impossible for some by any natural
means.45
Despite the difficult nature of the process, many hold out the possibility for
change. Psychotherapist Martin Holfman, for example, counsels his colleagues
who work with homosexual persons to begin by helping their clients assess
their motivation for change.46 Hoffman's next step is to aid patients in
accepting themselves as they are, while reminding them that acceptance does
not preclude, but may in fact enhance, change. The goal of such efforts is to
help them achieve a sense of their own value as persons.
Other researchers and counselors are even more optimistic. Elizabeth
Moberly has articulated a position that is widely held among evangelicals. She
focuses on the need to address the parental relationship that in her estimation
originally gave rise to a person's homosexual orientation. The homosexual
situation, she theorizes, arises from a deficit in same-sex, not opposite-sex
relationships. As a result, she advocates loving, nonsexual same-sex relations
as crucial for the process of changing a homosexual orientation. 47
Douglas A. Houck of Outpost, a ministry based in St. Paul, Minnesota, built
from Moberly's thesis a four-stage program. In the first, the homosexually
oriented person responds to God's call to obedience by changing one's
behavior. The second stage focuses on the establishment of self-esteem
founded on God's grace and including self-acceptance. Third, the individual
seeks to establish healthy same-sex relations in order to meet the needs of
same-sex love lacking in one's past. Only then can the fourth stage emerge,
namely, the acceptance of heterosexuality.
The basic position of Moberly finds echo in the approach of Paul D. Meier,
psychiatrist at the Minirth-Meier Clinic in Richardson, Texas. He too focuses on
the needs that remained unmet in childhood. In the case of males, "primary
emphasis should be on developing friendships with males their own age and
older, with whom they can begin to identify and from whom they can receive
emotional and spiritual affection to help fill the father vacuum,"48 says Meier.

Homosexuality and Sexual Expression

The discussion thus far has yielded several conclusions. Understood as a
stable sexual orientation, homosexuality falls short of God's ideal in creation
and constitutes a truncated sexual development. It docs not for this
reason, however, fall under divine condemnation.
 Notes

With this in view, attention must now shift from orientation to behavior. It
has already been suggested that certain expressions of a same-sex orientation
are ethically problematic. This thesis requires further elaboration, as we look at
expressions of a same-sex preference.

1. The Outward Expression of the Homosexual Orientation

The question the previous discussion raises is whether or not the
homosexual orientation can find proper expression. This question must he
raised in

(236-238)
Rather, it is every hit as likely that the love of man for man or woman for
woman bids them refrain from sexual intercourse as that it urges then to it." 55
And as the creation story indicates, the kind of sexual attraction that leads to
the sex act is meant to be between male and female.
(3) Same-sex behavior and the sex drive. The appeal to the creation story
introduces a third consideration. Not only do same-sex sexual relations express
an inadequate, even incorrect meaning, they constitute a misuse of the sex
drive.
As was developed in previous chapters, human sexuality is intended to
form the basis for the drive toward bonding. This bonding is to lead ultimately
to the bond of the people of God with their Creator, the foretaste of which is
now to be found in the community of Christ. Within that overarching purpose,
heterosexual marriage and singleness form alternative contexts for the
expression of human sexuality, only the former of which is to include exclusive
bonding and genital sexual expression. Homosexual relationships, however,
constitute a confusion of the single and marital alternatives. The sex drive,
which was intended to bring male and female together in marriage, now is
used to bring male and male or female and female together in a sexual
relationship.
Not only do such relationships move against the purpose of human
sexuality in general, in same-sex relationships the sex drive itself is misused,
for it often is reduced to sexual self-gratification. This difficulty is in part an
outworking of the inherent lack of the dimension of supplementary
completeness in all such relationships. As a result, the relationships are prone
to the erroneous dualist anthropology in which the body is used as an
instrument in the service of a self-centered goal. 56 In this context Hettlinger's
critique of male relations is insightful: "Because for most of them sexual
gratification is purely a physical relief and the other man holds no prospect of
being a true partner, far more of their encounters approximate to the level of
prostitution in the heterosexual's experience."'57
 Notes

In summary, homosexuality is at best an inferior or distorted expression of

human sexuality. It is perhaps this distortion that leads to the instability of the
homosexual relationship. The distortion of the relationship and of the sex act
inherent in same-sex behaviors go hand in hand. Hettlinger aptly summarized
this point with respect to male homosexuality:
Because the natural complementariness of womanhood is
divorced from one of the basic natural expressions of sex
vaginal coitus it is always incomplete and always to some
extent distorted. Because the natural complementariness of
womanhood is rejected, and the fulfilling bond of parenthood
impossible, the homosexual's appetite can never be
satisfied; he is always searching for "an ideal lover who
exists nowhere on the face of this planet."

As a result, "the average man with sexual drives of normal strength, who
chooses to accept the homosexual role, will probably seek physical satisfaction

(240)
lationships could only be characterized as "relatively monogamous" or
"relatively less promiscuous."62
Many relationships that appear stable from the outside are actually filled
with tension and uncertainty. In fact, Hettlinger went so far as to theorize that
such "marriages" are intrinsically unstable:
Even when two male homosexuals establish a "marriage,"
the permanence of their never-consummated sexual union is
always threatened by disruptive factors additional even to
those experienced by normally married people. Both parties
to the contract immediately become the object of jealous
younger suitors to whom they are easily attracted; and
lacking any binding obligation, the relationship has no
protection from dissolution.63

d. The deficiency of same-sex marriage. Finally, even under the best

of conditions, same-sex marriages suffer from a deficiency. This deficiency is
apparent in four dimensions.
First, because they do not encompass male and female, they cannot
represent or serve as models of the community of humankind. Such a marriage
may be, of course, a unity of friends, and thereby it may reflect to a certain
degree the dialectic of sameness and difference intrinsic in human beinding.
But the marriage remains deficient even on this level, for the dialectic of
sameness and difference present in it does not extend to the sexual realm,
which, however, is an integral dimension of our essential personhood.
Therefore, same-sex "marriages" can never be viewed as marriage in its full
sense, and for this reason can never be an appropriate symbol of what
marriage is intended to convey.
 Notes

Barnhouse aptly appealed to the author of the Song of Songs as one who
has understood that "sexuality itself is a symbol of wholeness, of the
reconciliation of opposites, of the loving at-one-ment between God and
Creation."64 Because it is not built from the union of male and femalethe two
foundational ways of being humanthe homosexual relationship cannot serve
as an appropriate symbol of reconciliation.
Second, same-sex marriages are deficient, because even on the
theoretical sphere they simply cannot be procreative. Such relationships
include genital sexual activities within the context of a deliberate choice to
forego procreation. As has been argued earlier, procreation is not definitive for
sexual union. But at the same time it is not for this reason inconsequential.
James Hanigan stated this succinctly: "for the sexual union of human
beings finds part of its Christian, human meaning in the procreative power of a
freely shared, embodied love to produce a new reality, one that participated in
and is yet different from the reality of the two partners."
Third, such marriages are deficient, because they are inherently
nonbinding. Even if same-sex marriages came to carry legal sanction and
received

(242)
Second, this limitation, while not unfair, does work against the widespread
contemporary emphasis on rights and self-expression. John J. McNeill stands as
an example of those who have defended homosexuality on the basis that
"every human being has a God-given right to sexual love and intimacy." 66
However, the ethic of the New Testament does not appeal to the actualization
of perceived rights, but to the willingness of the disciple to follow the example
of Jesus in freely laying aside rights for the sake of a higher good. Jesus himself
noted that certain persons would willingly set aside the sex act for the sake of
the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:12).
The possibility of practicing abstinence for the sake of a higher good is
confirmed by the modern human sciences, which conclude that sexual activity
is not a human necessity. In the words of Jones and Workman, "There is no
basis in behavioral science or Christian theology to suggest that abstinence is
detrimental to human welfare, or that expression of genital eroticism is
necessary for wholeness."67
Rather than possessing "a God-given right to sexual love," as McNeill
asserted. all human beings are called to give expression to their fundamental
human sexuality in ways that bring glory to God. This call requires chastity of
all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, a chastity that
is to be understood as being responsible creatures who know the boundaries
of sexual expression.68
 Notes

b. Sexual expression among homosexuals. To offer marriage and

abstinence as the only two proper alternatives for persons of a same-sex
orientation does not mean that their life is destined to be devoid of all sexual
expression. On the contrary, those who remain single, whether because they
are unable to undergo a change of orientation or who simply choose that
alternative, may experience the same dimensions of affective sexual
expression as other single persons.
At this point, however, it is important to reiterate the differentiation
between sexual desire and the desire for sex. Sexuality is the basis for the
drive toward bonding, and it is operative in the lives of all humans. Sexual
desire, then, refers to the need to form bonds with other humans, to live in
community with others and with God. This is natural and wholesome. Sexual
desire, however, need not lead to actual genital sexual activity, as most of our
day-to-day relationships with others indicate. Only the bonding of marriage,
which is but one form that results from sexual desire, provides the proper
context for the expression of the sex urge in terms of genital sexual activity
between persons.
Persons regardless of sexual preference may experience other types of
bonding besides marriage, the highest form being the bond of the community
of Christ. Within this primary bond of the community of Christ, bonding
between persons of same sex can occur, as they develop close, even intimate
friendships, albeit excluding sexual intimacy in the form of genital relations.

4. The Church and Homosexuality

Mention of the community of Christ as the context for the building of

caring, intimate friendships among persons introduces the topic of the church
and homosexuality. How ought the church to respond to the issue of
homosexuality? And more importantly, how ought the church to respond to
persons of a same-sex orientation?

a. The church and homosexuality in an age of AIDS. Unfortunately,

the relationship between the church in general and the homosexual
community, which has never been characterized by mutual openness to
dialogue, has become even more uneasy in the era of Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). When AIDS first became a public concern,
some Christians were quick to term it "the gay disease" or even to claim that it
is caused by homosexual acts themselves. Medical science, however, has
assisted in clearing the air about how the disease is and is not contracted. And
writings of several ethicists have attempted to assist Christians in overcoming
many widespread but incorrect assumptions and unwholesome attitudes.
Through the help of medical research, Christians are beginning to see that
although certain types of homosexual activity place one at greater risk, AIDS
itself is not a gay disease. And various Christian writers have called on the
church to see the AIDS epidemic as an opportunity for compassionate service
in the name of Christ. We can only hope that this horrible epidemic will be a
 Notes

analyst not for a wholesale rejection of homosexual persons on the part of

Christians, but rather for a new openness to look beyond sexual orientation
and see persons in need of God's grace.

b. The church's ministry in the face of homosexuality. The gay

movement, AIDS, and the rise in awareness of homosexuality provide a grave
challenge to the church for ministry. To be effective, this ministry must move in
at least two directions.
(1) A ministry of prevention. To meet the contemporary challenge, the
church must engage in a ministry of prevention. Recent findings indicate that
the same-sex orientation is not simply inlx>rn, but is in part the product of
socialization, especially, parental relations. If this is the case, Christians would
do well to seek to strengthen parents in the task of training their children
properly. This point is not the sole property of conservative Christians. It was
raised even by Derrick Sherwin Bailey, who concluded his epoch-making study
of homosexuality with a plea for both an even-handed treatment of all sexual
sins and the fostering of home life:
the only solution is to attack the problem at its rootto deal
with the social and sexual evils in which the condition of
inversion frequently originates. Promotion of good marriages
and happy homes

(245-146)
 Notes

Epilogue:
The Church and Human Sexuality

The Christian sex ethic finds its beginning point in the premise that
humans are sexual beings. Our sexuality is a dimension of our existence as
created beings. As a dimension of our creaturely existence our sexuality is
given by the will of God, and therefore it participates in the divine design for
humanity. This book has presented the thesis that the design of God for us as
arising out of our sexuality is related to the drive toward bonding, the highest
expression of which is the bond of the community of Christ. Because we are
created as sexual beings, we are called to become the community of male and
female. And the highest earthly expression of that design is the community
shared among the Master's disciples.
Despite the importance of sexuality for the dynamic of bonding that forms
that basis of the development of community, the contemporary church has not
always been cognizant of this dimension of the human reality. The church has
at times shown meager interest in reflecting within itself the importance of
sexuality to human existence. Nevertheless, an understanding of human
sexuality could provide an important dimension in the life of the church.

Sexuality and the Community of God

Because of its importance for the process of bonding that gives rise to the
community of male and female, human sexuality ought to play an important
role in the life of the church community. This role arises naturally out of an
understanding of the relationship between sexuality and the community of
God. Various themes outlined earlier in this volume contribute to such an
understanding.

1. Bonding and Community with God

One applicable thesis presented earlier is that community with God is the
result of the sexually related drive toward bonding. This thesis requires further
elaboration.
a. Community with God as the highest expression of the drive
toward bonding. God created us as sexual creatures with a purpose in view.
The divine purpose relates to the fundamental human drive toward bonding
that finds its fulfillment only in community with God. But how does sexuality
lead to community with God?
The first step in understanding the path to community with God charted by
human sexuality lies in the close relationship between our sexuality and
incompleteness. It is as sexual beings that we are incomplete. And because we
are incomplete as sexual beings we become aware of our need to be
 Notes

supplemented by the other, an awareness that leads us to enter into

community.
This twofold relationship between sexuality and incompleteness is
evidenced in the second creation narrative. Adam's solitude was a result of the
lack of an appropriate bonding partner for him: "But for Adam no suitable
helper was found" (Gen. 2:20). There was in him a void that none of the
animals could fill. Nor could his relationship with God eliminate the need for
him to exist in human community. A suitable other was needed as the remedy
for his fundamental incompleteness. Further, Adam's sense of solitude was
heightened with the creation of the female. Only at this point does he realize
that his solitude is due to the fact that he is a sexual being (in his case, a
man), for only as he gazes on the female, on 'ishshah, is he referred to as 'sh,
"male," and not 'adam, the earth-creature. Only in relationship to, or in
community with his counterpart, therefore, is Adam fully aware of his own
sexuality, of the sexually based nature of his solitude, and of the liberation
from solitude offered to him by the presence of the other human being.
The primal experience of solitude presented in Genesis 2 forms the basis
for the drive toward bonding which is characteristic of human life. As noted
earlier, this drive constitutes the foundation for various expressions of human
community, beginning with marriage and including society, for human beings
were designed to live in community. And the drive toward community
constitutes the basis even for the quest for the highest fellowship, life together
as a people in relation with God.
This, too, finds expression in the creation narrative. As sexual beings exist
in community, human community with God emerges. In the first narrative, the
divine desire to form a creature in the image of God results in the creation of
humankind as male and female. In the second narrative the point is less
striking, but nevertheless not absent. Prior to the forming of the female, God
gave Adam both a taskto care for the garden (Gen. 2:15)and a prohibition
not to eat of the one tree (2:17).
The task and the prohibition mark out a relationship of responsibility
before the Creator. But at this point there is no mention yet of a relationship of
fellowship with God. Despite the presence of some type of relationship
between God and Adam, Adam experiences solitude, a situation that is
remedied only with the creation of the female. The text gives no indication that
in his solitude

(249)
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of
heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for
her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne
saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will
live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will
 Notes

be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or
crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
(Rev. 21:1-4)

He describes the perfection of that coming time as due to the presence of

God within the human community:
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as
clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the
Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On
each side of the river stood the tree of life, tearing twelve
crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves
of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will
there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will
be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see
his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will
be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or
the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And
they will reign for ever and ever. (Rev. 22:1-5)

c. Community with God as the community of male and female.

Often the vision of the final reign of God pictures a nonmaterial, sexless world.
Proponents of such a vision appeal to Jesus' response to the Sadducees, in
which the Lord declares that in the kingdom era people will not marry, but will
be like the angels (Matt. 22:50). Yet it is instructive to note that Jesus'
statement does not declare that in the reign of God people will no longer be
sexual creatures. On the contrary, as has been argued previously, both Jesus'
own resurrection and the doctrine of the resurrection in general indicate that
human sexual distinctions (albeit in a transformed manner) are taken into
existence in the community of God.
In that community, we remain embodied persons, albeit people whose
embodied existence has been transformed through the resurrection. Because
sexuality is a crucial dimension of our existence as embodied creatures, we
remain sexual beings in the community of God. At the same time, our
sexuality, like our embodiment as a whole, is transformed. One important
result of this transformation, as Jesus indicates in his statement to the
Sadducees, is that we no longer will express our sexuality in genital
intercourse, for this act is related solely to the marriage bond, which will no
longer be present in the community of God.
Although genital sexual activity has no place in the eschatological reign of
God, sexuality will be present in various forms.
Sensuality, for example, will remain; in fact, we will experience even a
heightened appreciation of sensual joy, as is indicated by the use of sensuous
imagery in the biblical vision of the reign of God. Sexuality is present in the
form of the aesthetic sense, as is evidenced by the biblical vision of the beauty
of the place of God's eschatological reign. But of highest importance, sexuality
remains present in the form of mutuality. According to the biblical vision, the
 Notes

eschatological community is a bonded society, a city or a kingdom. It is the

society of transformed yet embodied human beings, the perfect community of
male and female, in which all experience the fullness of interpersonal
relationships.

2. Bonding and Community with Christ

The vision of the community of God, which will one day be present in its
fullness, has an important implication for our understanding of the church.
Although the fullness of community with God is future, a partial, yet real
fellowship may be enjoyed in the present. According to the New Testament, the
focus of the present experience of the eschatological reality is the community
of Christ, that is, the present experience of fellowship with Christ and Christ's
disciples. Community with Christ, i.e., the relationship of believers with their
Lord and therefore with each other, is designed to be a foretaste of the full
eschatological community, the society of humankind in fellowship with God.
For this reason, in the present time the community of Christ is to form the
context for both contexts for expressing human sexualitymarriage and
singleness.
The significance of the church of Jesus Christ arises in this context. The
church is related to the community of Christ as its visible expression. The task
of each local congregation is that of being the church of Jesus Christ in
miniature and thereby living out the mandate given to the church by its Lord.
This mandate includes seeking to be the community of Christ and in this way
being a concrete foretaste of the eschatological community of God in this age.
Each congregation is to be the churcha visible expression of the community
of Christ. Each is to be a place where believers experience community and
become community to one another.

The Role of Human Sexuality in the Church

As the visible expression of the community of Christ, the church is to be the
place where community may be experienced. This requires that the church
incorporate the sexual nature of humankind into its life, affirming our basic
sexuality and utilizing the gift of sexuality for the purposes of advancing its
divinely

(252)
of the mission of the people of God. Single persons must be encouraged to
minister within the congregation, in order thereby to fulfill their calling to
employ their lifestyle choice to serve the Lord. As both married and single
persons find places of service, the congregation is able to carry out its
corporate mandate to be the foretaste of the eschatological community of
male and female.
 Notes

2. As the Church Welcomes the Gifts of Both Sexes

The church can incorporate into its life the sexual dimension of human
nature as it welcomes and utilizes the gifts of both male and female. In the
past, the church has often been a male-centered and male-dominated
institution. Even today, many congregations relegate women to a lesser status
in the fellowship by limiting them to certain roles in church life. The
congregation that would truly be a foretaste of the eschatological community
of male and female, however, discovers the importance of welcoming the
contribution of both sexes in its life and mission. It is beyond the scope of this
volume to deal with the controversial contemporary issues of ordination and
office structure. Nevertheless, the conclusions presented in this study yield a
general principle regarding the role of men and women in the church.
As has been argued previously, men and women are different in ways that
are more fundamental than simply their roles in the reproductive process. The
differences lie even in the basic ways in which we view ourselves and the
world. Men and women think differently; they approach the world differently.
The fundamentally different outlooks toward others, life, and the world that
characterize males and females mean that the two sexes are supplementary.
Each sex needs the supplemental approach to reality offered by the other in all
the various dimensions of human life together.
This observation is readily applicable to the church. If it is to be the
foretaste of the community of God, the church must welcome the unique
contribution of both male and female in its midst. This is both a theological and
a practical necessity. Theologically, the presence and activity of both sexes is
vital, if the church is to point toward the perfect community of God, the
fellowship of God with humankind that will characterize the eschatological
reign of God. Because this future reality will be the society of human beings
existing in supplementary community with each other (the community of male
and female), the church must strive to reflect that eschatological vision in its
present life.
The mutual contribution of both sexes is vital on the practical level of
church life as well. If the church is to develop a well-rounded ministry that can
serve all humankind, it must value the gifts and contributions of both sexes. No
congregation can genuinely expect to complete the mandate given by the
Lord, if its structures allow only the male voice to be heard during the planning
and decision-making process. Important to the ongoing ministry of the people
of God are the wisdom and insights of male and female, which are born out of
experiences filtered through quite different approaches to life. The
congregation that is intent on being the reflection of the community of God
and on fulfilling its mandate to worship God, edify its membership, and reach
into the world, therefore, would do well to welcome the contribution of both
male and female in all areas of its corporate life.
 Notes

3. As the Church Includes the Sexual Dimension of Life

Finally, the church can incorporate our basic sexuality in its life as it
consciously takes this dimension of human existence into the heart of its
ministry. The worship aspect of the church's mandate offers an appropriate
example of this principle.
Because of its foundation in the Reformation, Protestant worship is
generally word-oriented, focusing attention on the hearing of the proclaimed
message. This orientation is basically correct, for the spoken word is rightly
foundational to the fulfillment of the church's mandate as a whole. And the
proclamation of the word must form the context for all the various ingredients
of Christian worship, if these are to remain understandable to the worshiping
community. At the same time, however, the emphasis on "the Word" must be
tempered with two additional considerations.
First, the proclamation and hearing of the word, while focusing on logical
discourse, need not be restricted to it. Within preaching and teaching there is
also a place for using sound to create sensation and imagery or to spark the
imagination. This could include simply the use of narratives about life in order
to assist the hearer in comprehending spiritual truth or to elicit an emotive
response, just as Jesus used parables in his teaching to this end. Hearing can
also move beyond the spoken word, however. Music is one powerful means of
evoking sensation or creating desired mood To cite one example, for many
Christians the hymn, "How Great Thou Art," carries great emotive and mood-
producing power.
The second consideration takes us beyond the confines of the sense of
hearing. Hearing is not the only human sense that can be harnessed in the
service of the worship life of the church. The other senses are also worthy of
being utilized. The sense of sight can be employed through the use of banners,
pictures, and art. Modern psychology has confirmed the importance of the
sense of touch to human well-being. The propriety of touch in Christian
worship is indicated by the widely-used hand clasp as a symbol of Christian
unity. Our sense of smell allows various fragrances to become symbols of as-

(255-257)
they are. At the same time, the mandate of the church includes that of
being the reconciling community, proclaiming the good news of the grace and
power of God that is available to sinful and fallen creatures, among whom all
believers are to be numbered (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Only in this way can the
community of Christ become what it is intended to bethe foretaste of the
eschatological community of male and female that God wills as our human
destiny.
 Notes

Notes
Introduction
1. The use of sex in advertising and in the media was documented in the 1960s by Vance
Packard, The Sexual Wilderness (New York: David McKay Co., 1968), 54-63. For the situation in
the 1980s, see Randy C. Alcorn, Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution (Portland, Ore.:
Multnomah, 1985), 81-102.
2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day" (Vatican City,
Feb. 22, 1987).
3. Summaries of the history of Christian altitudes toward sexuality abound. See, for example,
Geoffrey Parrinder, Sex in the World's Religions (New York: Oxford. 1980), chapter 10. The
recent literature concerning the history of general outlooks toward sexuality forms the basis for
a summary by historian Lawrence Stone, "Sex in the West," The New Republic (July 8. 1985):
25-37.
4. Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata, or Miscellanies in Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Fathers Down to
A.D. 325. (Grand Rapids: Herdmans, 1962), 2:377-78.
5. Although Hawed at points, a helpful recounting of the rise of sexual renunciation in the
church is offered in Peter Drown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation
in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press. 1988). See also the review of this
book by Raymond J. Lawrence in St. Luke's Journal of Theology 32/4 (1989): 283-87.
6. Donald Goergen, the Sexual Celibate (New York: Seabury, 1974), 7.
7. For a recent discussion of Augustine's understanding of marriage written from a Roman
Catholic perspective, see Theodore Mackin, the Marital Sacrament (New York: Paulist, 1989),
197-227.
8. For a sampling of medieval sexual repression, see Dwight Hervey Small, Christian:
Celebrate Your Sexuality (Old Tappan. N.J.: Revell, 1974), 79.
9. For a helpful discussion of Reformation sexual ethics, see Eric Fuchs, Sexual Desire and
Love (New York: Seabury, 1983), 135-48.
10. See, for example, Luther's comments on marriage, Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. Luther's Works,
Vol. 2, Lectures on Genesis Chaps. 6-14 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. I960), 356-57.
 282 Notes

11. The Puritan sexual ethic has been reevaluated recently by Leland Ryken, "Were the
Puritans Right about Sex?" Christianity Today (April 7, 1978): 13-18. Ryken finds several Puritan
themes concerning sex in the literature of the period: "the biblical basis ... for affirming sex, the
differentiation between animal lust and human love, the domestic context into which sexual
fulfillment is put, and the privacy of the sexual relationship between two persons."
12. Milton Diamond and Arno Karlen, Sexual Decisions (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1980),
262. See also Small, 90. 93.
13. An interesting narrative of the story of the move from sin to innocence in the view of sex
which is characteristic of the last three centuries is given in Peter Gardella, innocent Ecstasy
(New York: Oxford, 1985).
14. John Leo, "The Revolution Is Over," Time 123/15 (April 9, 1984): 74-83.
15. For a description and critique of the contemporary emphasis on intimacy, see Tim
Stafford, "Intimacy: Our Latest Sexual Fantasy," Christianity Today (Jan. 16, 1987): 21-27. An
attempt to mine the term for a Christian ethic is found in Robert M. Cooper. "Intimacy," St.
Luke's Journal of Theology 30/2 (1987) 115-24.

Chapter 1: The Nature of Human Sexuality

1. Resides the primary sexual differences, biologists point to certain secondary differences
between the physiology of males and females. For a discussion of these, see J. Richard Udry,
The Social Context of Marriage (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1966), 62-64.
2. George H. Tavard, "Theology and Sexuality," in Women in the World's Religions, Past and
Present, ed., Ursula King, (New York: Paragon, 1987), 74.
3. Milton Diamond, "Biological Foundations for Social Development," in ed., Frank A. Beach,
Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives (BaItimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), 25-27.
4. For a discussion of these differences, see Jerome Kagan, "Psychology of Sex Differences,"
in Beach, ed., Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives, 103-10.
5. A helpful study of this topic is found in Robert L. Solnlck. ed., Sexuality and Aging. rev. ed.
(Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1987).
6. Milton Diamond and Arno Karlen, Sexual Decisions (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1980),
91.
7. For a discussion of this distinction in Freud and the neo-Freudians, see Donald Goergen,
The Sexual Celibate (New York: Seabury, 1974), 51-57.
8. Martha Smith Good. "Singleness and Sexuality: A Gift from God," in ed., Bruce Yoder and
Imo Jeanne Yoder, Single Voices (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1982), 66-67.
9. Goergan, 53.
10. The etymological relationship between the two terms is in doubt. The root of the feminine
term, ' ishshah, is presumed to be ' nsh, from which is derived the general masculine term
'enosh. The more individual masculine term ' isb is derived either from 'ysb ('ush) or possibly
from the same root as 'ishshah. Despite these uncertainties in rootage, N. P. Bratsiotis, writing
in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, maintains that the connection between '
isbshah and 'ish made in Genesis 2:23 "is probably to be interpreted as a popular etymology"
(" 'ish' TDOT, revised edition, 1:222). This indicates that
23. For an example of the application of the Jungian perspective to human sexuality within a
Catholic theological context, see John A. Sanford, The Invisible Partners (New York: Paulist,
1980).
24. Tavard, "Theology and Sexuality," 78-79. He develops this thesis more fully in Woman in
Christian Tradition (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973).
25. For a synopsis of Money's findings and their implications for current debates, see John
Money, "Human Hermaphroditism," in ed., Frank A. Beach, Human Sexuality in Four
Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1976). His
findings are likewise summarized in Peter DeJong and Donald R. Wilson, Husband and (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 38-44.
26. For a description of psychosexual development in humans, see Herant A. Katchadourian
and Donald T. Lunde, Fundamentals of Human Sexuality, 2d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1975), 213-58.
27. Karl Barth's exegesis of Genesis 2 stands as a classic theological assertion of the
essential nature of human sexuality. Concerning the primal pair, he wrote: "Humanity was not
for them an ideal beyond masculinity and femininity. But masculinity and femininity
themselves, in their differentiation and unity, constituted humanity." Church Dogmatics III/I,
trans, by J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 309.
 283 Notes

28. In the Old Testament, "soul" (Heb. nephesh) emphasizes the living nature of a being, not
its rational nature. Thus, even certain animals are characterized by the term (e.g., Gen. 1:20,
21, 24, 30: 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15-16).
29. The understanding of the resurrection state that views it as nonsexual is widely held
among evangelicals. This is indicated by the matter-of-fact way in which Gene A. Getz builds
from the thesis in the popularly written book 'the Measure of a Family (Glendale, Calif.: Gospel
Light/Regal Books, 1976), -17. Getz's conclusion is valid (i.e., the spiritual equality of the
sexes), even though his premise may be faulty.
30. Vance Packard, The Sexual Wilderness (New York: David McKay, 1968), 434.

Chapter 2: Male and Female: Humankind as a Sexual Creation

1. The broader Interpretation of helper is offered by many exegetes of Genesis 2:20. See for
example, Samuel L. Terrien, Till the Heart Sings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 10-11.
2. The ancient Hebrews were not unique in this respect. According to sociologist Talcott
Parsons, "the family is the 'primordial' solidarity unit of all human societies." From "The Normal
American Family," reprinted in Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family, ed., Marvin B. Sussman,
3d ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968), 40.
3. A corresponding relationship between loneliness and community is presented by Dwight
Hervey Small, Design for Christian Marriage, (Westwood, N.J.: Revel I, 1959), 30.
4. Augustine's famous statement is found on the opening page of his Confessions.
19. Lisa Sowle Cahill, Between the Sexes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 91.
20. Behavioral scientists have been keenly interested in the relationship between heredity
and environment in shaping individual human life. For a good summary of the implications of
such research for gender roles, see Micks, 19.
21. A call to move in this direction was issued already in 1968. See Vance Packard, The
Sexual Wilderness, 360-79, 392.
22. Milton Diamond, "Human Sexual Development: Biological Foundations for Social
Development," in ed., Beach, Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives, 58. His understanding is
developed further in Diamond and Karlen, Sexual Decisions, 441-61.
23. Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1947), 376.
24. Advertisement in Christianity Today, 33/1 (Jan. 13, 1989). See also Gene A. Getz, 77; e
Measure of a Family, (Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light/Regal, 1976), 4143. Getz attempts to
chart a middle position by concluding, "woman's submissive role to man, then, antedates the
Fall, but was complicated by the Fall" (43).
25. Many conservative authors interact with the biblical materials dealing with gender roles.
For a helpful presentation from an egalitarian perspective, see DeJong and Wilson, 121-76.
26. This point is argued successfully in the classic evangelical work by Paul K. Jewett, Man as
Male and Female, 120-28.
27. See for example Rosemary Nixon, '"The Priority of Perfection," the Modern Churchman,
27/1 (1984): 36. Even Barth hints in this direction in his discussion of this text in Church
Dogmatics III/l, trans, by J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1958),"294. For a discussion and critique of Barth's position, see Jewett, 33-40. 82-86.
28. For an interesting example of an egalitarian exegesis of Genesis 2, see Samuel Terricn, Till
the Heart Sings, 7-17.
29. Peggy Reeves Sanday, Female PotveraruiMale Dominance (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1981), 172. Sanday's study is noted by Lisa Cowlc Cahill, Betueen the Sexes,
95.
30. Cahill, 55.
31. The significance of the Hebrew assertion of the celibacy of God in contrast to the outlook
of the surrounding religions is put forth by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sexuality and the Christian
Tradition (Dayton, Ohio: Pflaum Press, 1969), 24-27. See also Tikva Frynier-Kensky, "Law and
Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible," Serneia 45 (1989): 90-91. Nevertheless, the situation
may not have been so simple, as is argued by Mark S. Smith, "God Male and Female in the Old
Testament: Yahweh and His Asherah,'" theological Studies 48 (1987): 33.3-40.
32. For a helpful discussion of the significance of t he dominance of paternal rather than
maternal metaphors to speak of the nature of God, see Terricn. 59-70.
33. The basically masculine orientation of the trinitarian actions is noted by Urban T. Holmes,
"The Sexuality of God," in ed., Ruth Tiffany Bamhouse and Urban T. Holmes ltl, Male and
Female: Christian Approaches to Sexuality (Hew York: Seabury, 1976), 264-65.
34. Terricn, 57.
35. Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Sexual Relation in Christian Thought (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1959), 267.
 284 Notes

36. This is an apparent weakness of Dwight Hervey Small's otherwise helpful treatment of
this theme in Christian. Celebrate Your Sexuality, (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1974). 130-10.
37. Paul T. Jersild and Dale A. Johnson, eds. Moral Issues ancl Christian Response, 4th ed.,
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1988), SO.

Chapter 3: Marriage in a Christian Perspective

1. Frank A. Beach, ed., Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977), 116.
2. For a discussion of the development of the Roman Catholic view of marriage, see
Theodore Mackin, What is Marriage?(New York: Paulist, 1982).
3- For a statement of this view, see Charles F.rdman, Vie First Eptstleol Paul to the Corinthians
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1928), 65-70.
4. The relation of marriage to the order of creation and salvation is outlined by Kari Jenson,
"On Marrying." reprinted in ed., Paul T. Jersild and Dale A.Johnson, Moral Issues and Christian
Response, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1988), 79.
5. Vance Packard, the Sexual Wilderness (New York: David McKay Co., 1968), 230-31.
6. This phrase is developed in Lester A. Kirkcndall, "Understanding the Male Sex Drive," in
Isadorc Rubin and Lester A. Kirkcndall. eds., Sex in the Adolescent Years (New York: Association
Press, 1968), 52.
7. The universality of some form of marriage is widely documented. Nena and George O'Neill
go even further, claiming universality for monogamy. Ojien Marriage: A Setv life Style for
Couples (New York: Avon, 1972), 21.
8. Perhaps Small overstates his point in saying, "marriage needs sex to give it an exclusive
and proloundly intimate bond." Dwight Hervey Small, Christian: Celebrate Your Sexuality iOld
Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1974), 176.
9. See Theodore Mackin, What is Marriage? (New York: Paulist, 1982), 26.
10. Congregation for the Doctrine of t he Faith, "Instruction on Respect for Human life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day" (Vatican City,
Feb. 22, 1987).
11. For a summary and discussion of these changes, see Mackin, What Is Marriage?^!.
12. The importance of the presence of both male and female role models for child
development has beeen confirmed by many studies. For an example, see John Money, "Human
Hennaphroditism," in Beach, ed., Human Sexuality in Four Perspectives, 78-79. The importance
of the father is described in Vance Packard. 17ye Sexual Wilderness, 390-91.
13. Dwight Hervey Small argues that marriage has been affected by industrialization.
urbanization, and mobility, with the result that marriage and family are viewed as a haven of
intimacy in a world of anonymity. Design for Christian Marriage. (Old Tappan. N.J.: Revell,
1959), 10-44.
14. Diana S. Richmond Garland and David E. Garland, Beyond Companionship (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1986), 97. For a quite different critique of the traditional companionship model,
see Nena and George O'Neill, Open Marriage.
15. Garland and Garland, 97.
16. Lewis B. Smedes, Caring ami Commitment (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 80.
17. For summaries of Hebrew marriage customs, see Erhard Gerstenberger, Woman and Man,
Biblical Encounters Series (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 40-18; Tom Horner, Sex in the Bible
(Rutland. Vt.: Charles E. Tuttle, 1974), 18-23.
18. 'this has become an important issue even in the Roman Catholic Church as is evidenced in
the three-volume work by Theodore Mack in, Marriage in the Catholic Church (Hew York:
Paulist, 1982, 1984, 1989).
19. For an interesting critique of the contemporary emphasis on romantic love, see William J.
Lederer and Don D.Jackson, "False Assumption 3: That Love Is Necessary for a Satisfactory
Marriage," reprinted in. ed., Eleanor S. Morrison and Vera Borosage, Unman Sexuality:
Contemporary Perspectives (Palo Alto: May field Publishing Company, 1977), 438-45.
20. A helpful discussion of agajteas central to marriage and of its relationship to eros is found
in Lewis B. Smedes, Sex for Christians (Grand Rapids: F.erdmans, 1976), 96-99.
21. Kari Jenson, ' On Marrying," reprinted in Jersild and Johnson, eds., 76.
22. A summary of the recent European discussion of the civil and ecclesiastical dimensions of
the wedding is given in Urs Baumann, Die KbeKin Sakrameni? (Zurich: Bcn/inger, 1988).

Chapter 4. The Sex Act within the Context of Marriage

 285 Notes

1. Raymond J. Lawrence, "Bench Marks for a New Sexual Ethics," reprinted in, ed. Paul T.
Jersild and Dale A. Johnson, Moral issues and Christian Resbemse, 4th ed. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1988), 60.
2. For examples of this argument found in contemporary culture, see Richard Hettlinger, Sex
isn 't that Simple (New York: Seabury, 1974), 74-75.
3- The traditional exegesis understood this statement as Paul's own assertion. However, many
contemporary scholars now conclude that this actually formed a slogan of the ascetics in the
church, whose teaching Paul combats in the chapter. For a presentation of this view, see O.
Larry Yarbrough, i\ot like the Gentiles, SBL Dissertation Series 80 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1985), 93-96. This view is likewise put forth in Gordon Fee, 'the First lip istle to the Corinthians,
(Grand Rapids: Ferdmans), 198.
4. Hettlinger, Six Isn 't That Simple, 80.
5. Abraham Maslow, "Self-Esteem (Dominance-Feeling) and Sexuality in Women," in, ed., M. F.
DeMartino, Sexual Behavior and Personality Characteristics (Hew York: Grove, 1966), 103.
6. Christian writers have offered many suggestions as to how the meanings of the sex act can
be.* summarized. Dwight Hervey Small, for example, argues that marital sex is creative,
recreative, and procreative. Christian: Celebrate Your Sexuality (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1974),
186-87.
7. The application of the term "sacrament" to the sex act was made as early as 1959 in
Dwight tlervcy Small, Design for Christian Marriage COId Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1959), 0-89.
8. j. Richard lldry. The Social Context of Marriage (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1966), 439-40.
9. An intriguing, allieit overdrawn, development of a sacramental understanding of marriage
by means of a comparison of marital sexuality with baptism and the Lord's Supper is given in
William E. Phipps, Recotvrittg liihlical Sensu- ottsness (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978). 86-97.
10. For a recent description of the development of the sacramental state of marriage and its
implications for unlay, see Urs Baumann, Die thetin Sakra- ment?T\\e historical development
of the Roman Catholic view is described in Thetxlore Mackin, The Marital Sacrament (New York:
Paulist, 1989).
11. The nonreligious understanding of sexuality in the Old Testament is the topic of Tikva
Frymer-Kcnsky, "Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible," Semeia 45 (1989): 89-102.
While Frymer-Kensky's discussion is helpful, his case appears to be overstated.
12. This point is made even by secular psychology. See, for example. Udry, -440.
13. For a succinct discussion of the pleasure dimension of the sex act, see Diana and David
Garland, Iteyond Companionship (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1986) ,139-40.
14. Letha Dawson Sea nzoni, Sexttafily (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 35. She develops
this point as well in Sex Is a Parent Affair (Glendale, Calif: Regal, 1973), 23-24.
15. For a recent discussion of the celehrative understanding of the Song of Songs, see Richard
M. Davidson, "Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs," An- drptcs Ihtitvrsity Seminary
Studies 27/1 (Spring, 1989): 1 -19.
16. The link belween eros and agape is elcx(uently developed by Helmut Thielicke, theological
Jit hies, trans. John W. Doberstein (Grand Rapids: Kerd- mans, 1979), 3:17-98.
17. In this sense, the sex act opens especially to the husband a means of overcoming the
male tendency toward aggressiveness. Through sexual intercourse the man can offer himself
to his wife, rather than demand from her, allowing her then to respond to his ottering. See
Dwight Hervey Small, Christian. Celebrate Your Sexuality. 202.
18. For a thought-provoking statement concerning the integral relationship between marriage
and procreation, see Kllen Wilson Fielding, "Love and Marriage." Human life Review 14/4 (Fall.
1988): 70-76, Fielding overstates the matter, however, in claiming, "marriage holds its special
position only IXfcause of children" (7S).
19. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day," (Vatican City,
Feb. 22. 1987). For a discussion by this author, see Stanley J. Grenz, "What Is Sex For?"
Christianity Today (|une 12,
1987) : 22-23.
20. For a discussi< >n of the problems in this text. see Gordon D. Fee, The First iifris- tle to
the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). 270-84.
21. See Eric PfeilFer, "Sexuality in the Aging Individual" in, ed., Robert L. Solnick, Sexuality
and Aging, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1987). 28.
22. For a discussion of sexual expression in older adults, see Margaret Nciswen- der Reedy,
"What Happens to Love? Love, Sexuality and Aging" in Solnick, ed., 184-95. '
 286 Notes

23. Rolx'it N. Butler and Myrna I. Lewis, "lite Second Language of Sex," in Solnick, ed., 176-
78.
24. Raymond J. Ltwrcnce, "Bench Marks for a New Sexual Ethics," reprinted in Mora J Issues
and Christian Response, 62.
25. Frank A. Beach, ed. Htmtan Sexuality in four Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977), 116.
26. Emit Bmnner, The Divine Imperative, 382-83.

Chapter 5: The Marital Bond: Fidelity versus Adultery

1. The exact meaning of 1 Thess. 4:3-6 is in doubt. That Paul js referring to marriage in the
text is strongly argued by O. Larry Yarforough, Not Like the Gentiles; SBL Dissertation Series 80.
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 65-87.
2. For a summary of the place of women in Hebrew society as being out of line with Hebrew
and Greek creation stories, see Helmut Thielicke, Theological lithics translated by John W.
Doberstein (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 3:104-106.
3. See Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, !975), 86-94.
4. Margaret Mead. Male and Female (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1967), 195.
5. Vance Packard, The Sexual Wilderness (New York: David McKay Go., 1968), 282.
6. Eric Fuchs, Sexual Desire and Love (New York: Seabury, 1983), 182.
7. Sidney Callahan, "Human Sexuality in a Time of Change." reprinted in, ed., Paul T. Jersild
and Dale A. Johnson. Moral Issues and Christian Response, 3d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1983), 72.
8. Emil Bninner, The Divine Imperative (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1947), 347.
9. For a positive treatment of the advantages of fidelity, see Donald M. Joy, Re- bonding:
Preventing and Restoring Damaged Relationships (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986).
10. Raymond J. Lawrence, "Bench Marks for a New Sexual Ethics," reprinted in, ed. Paul T.
Jersild and Dale A. Johnson. Moral Issues and Christian Resbetttse, 4th ed. (New York: Holt.
Rinehavt and Winston, 1988), 63.
11. Raymond J. Lawrence, "Toward a More Flexible Monogamy." reprinted in Jersild and
Johnson, eds. Atonal issues and Christian Response, 3d ed., 107. See also Nena and George
O'Neill, Often Marriage (New York: Avon, 1972), 236-56.
12. The concern for monogamy is evidenced by the definition of "open marriage"
19. Plato, Republic 5:457D-60D, translated by Paul Shorey, in The Collected Dialogues of Ft a
to, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Caims, eds. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961),
696-99.
20. A. H. Sturtevant, A History of Genetics (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 131.
21. H.J. Muller, "Means and Aims in Human Genetic Betterment," in Ih e Control of Human
Heredity and Evolution, T. M. Sonncborn, ed. (New York: Macmil- Ian, 1965), 100.

Chapter 8: Technology and Prcgnancy Enhancement

1. John and Sylvia Van Regenmorter and Joe S. Nlcllhaney, Jr., M.D. Dear God, Why Can't We
Have a Baby? (G rand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 9. See also Claudia Wallis, -The New
Origins of Life," Time 124:11 (Sept. 10, 1984): 46-50.
2. Claudia Wallis, "The Saddest Epidemic," Time 124, no. il (Sept. 10, 1984): 50.
3. Ibid.
4. Robet R. Bell, Marriage and Family interaction, revised ed., (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey,
1967), 387.
5. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instniction on Respect for Human Life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the I>ay" (Vatican City,
Feb. 22. 1987), Part II, B4a.
6. The term "childfree" is offered as preferable to "childless" by Diane Payette- Bucd,
"Voluntary Childlessness," 39.
7. Van Regenmorter and Mcllhaney, Jr.. Why Can 7 We Have a Baby?, 141.
8. For a helpful, succinct discussion of the joys and difficulties surrounding adoption, see
ibid., 13948. The difficulties involved in the adoption process are the subject of a recent Time
cover story. Nancy Gibbs, 'The Baby Chase," Time (Oct. 9. 1989): 86-89.
9. The situation of "special-needs" children is descril^ed in Richard Lacayo, "Nobody's
Children," 7?me134, no. 15 (Oct. 9, 1989): 91-95.
10. Cases of adopted children and genetic parents finding each other are widely publicized.
For a recent report, sec Elizabeth Taylor, "Are You My Mother?" Timet Oct. 9, 1989): 90.
11. For a fuller development of the motivations for childlessness, see Diane Payette-Bucci.
"Voluntary Childlessness."
 287 Notes

12. For a discussion of methods of technological assistance in procreation see William

Walters and Peter Singer, eds. Test Tnlre Babies: A Guide to Moral Questions. Present
Techniques and Future Possibilities (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982), and Mary
Warnack, ed. A Question of life: The War- track Ribetrt on Human Fertilization and Embryology
(New York: Basil Black- well Ltd., 1984).
13. Acceptance of AIH is not universal, however. Another argument voiced against AIH is the
cleavage it produces between sexual love and procreation. See Leon Kass. "New Beginnings in
Life," in The New Genetics and the Future of Man ed., M. Hamilton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1972). 53-54.
14. Sec Lori B. Andrews, "Yours, Mine and Theirs," Psychology Today 18/12 (December. 1984):
24.
15. Some donors have sought court action in order to gain the right to visit children produced
by their sperm. Lori B. Andrews, "Yours, Mine and Theirs," 29.
16. For a discussion of a variety of purported ethical Issues surrounding IVP, see- William B.
and Priscilla W. Neaves, "Moral Dimensions in In Vitro Fertilization," Perkins Journal 39/1 (1986):
10-23.
17. Neaves and Neaves, 20. A recent report suggests that the success rates of infertility
clinics may not be as high as they would have their patients believe. See "What Do Infertility
Clinics Really IX-liver?" U.S. News and World Rejjori (April 3. 1989): 74-75.
18. Otto Friedrich "A Legal. Moral Social Nightmare," Time 124/11 (Sept. 10, 1984). 54-56.
19. David T. Ozar argues that regardless of the answers to these questions, frozen embryos
ought to be kept in their frozen state until implanted in a womb or are no longer capable of
surviving implantation. "The Case Against Thawing Unused Frozen Embryos," Hastings Center
Report 15/4 (1985): 7-12.
20. Neaves and Neaves, 22.
21. The guidelines for freezing embryos offered by Grobstein, Flower, and Mentlelolf serve as
an example: "The clinical community involved with in vitro fertilization should voluntarily limit
use of embryo freezing to the initial purposei.e., to circumvent infertility in patients. Freezing
should be carried out only with surplus embryos obtained from a clinically justifiable
laparoscopy, and on thawing, embryos should be returned to the uterus of the donor, usually
after an unsuccessful first attempt to transfer unfrozen embryos. Thawed embryos should be
transferred to a nondonor only with the consent of the donor and an institutional review board
or hospital ethics committee. Frozen embryos should be kept in storage for not more than five
years or until the establishment of relevant public policy. Under such a voluntary arrangement,
experience could be gained with freezing through clinical trials as an adjunct to in vitro
fertilization but without public anxiety that other purposes might be served that had not been
carefully considered. The pur|x>se of the arrangement would be to avoid precipitate limitation
of freezing for purposes that appear to be publicly acceptable, out of suspicion and fear of
unsanctioned purposes, such as uncontrolled experimentation." Clifford Grobstein. et al.,
"Special Report: Freezing Embryos: Policy Issues," the Mew England Journal of Medicine 312/24
(1985): 1588.
22. Florence Isaacs, "High-Tech Pregnancies," Good Housekei'jnng 202 (February, 1986): 82.
23. Lori B. Andrews, "Yours, Mine and Their," 22.
24. For a discussion of the question of fetal tissue transplants from a philosophical point of
view, see Barbara Miller, "Baby Harvest: Year Two-thousand Twenty," Contem/joraty
Philosophy \2fl (January, 1989): 29-30.
25. For a discussion of this possibility, see Neaves and Neaves, 17-19.
26. William I). Hamilton. "Sex and Disease." in. ed.. George Stevens and Rolx'rt Ik'llig. 7be
Enolttlton of Sex (Sim Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 90.
27. Janet Dickey McDowell, "Ethical Implications of In Vitn> Fertilization," Christian Century
(Oct. 19. 1983): 938.
2. Joseph Fletcher, "Ethics and Unmarried Sex," in, ed., Paul T. Jersild and Dale A. Johnson,
Moral Issues and Christian Response, 3d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wiaston. 1982). 82.
3. The influence of cinema and television was decried already in the 1960s. See, for example.
Vance Packard, The Sexual Wilderness (New York : David McKay, 1968), 55-58. The sexual
confusion that results from media portrayals is outlined in Robert R. Bell, Marriage and Family
Interaction, revised ed., (Home- wood, III.: Dorsey, 1967), 179. The influence of media has not
abated since the 1960s.
4. The modern phenomenon of dating is described in J. Richard Udry, 7he Social Context of
Marriage (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1966), 108-24.
5. Udry, HI-
 288 Notes

6. The youth sulKulture has been a significant dimension of Western society throughout the
second half of the twentieth century. For a description of this phenomenon and its impact on
young people, see Bell, 438-42.
7. John De La mater and Patricia MacCorquodale, Premarital Sexuality: Attitudes,
Relationships, Behavior (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979), 230.
8. DeLamater and MacCorquodale, 222.
9. The decline of parental guidance over the "awakening process" is noted by Packard, who
sees the media as "encouraging the generational gulf." The Sexual Wilderness, 35-36.
10. Cited by James F. Moore, Sexuality and Marriage (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), 30.
11. Janet Lively, "An 'F in Family Planning," Sioux Falls (S.Dak.) Argus Leader, Jan. 22, 1989,
sec. A, p. 1.
12. Jill Lawrence, "Poll: Students Discount Religion in Sex Life," Sioux Falls (S. Dak.) Argus
Leader, Jan. 22, L989, sec. A, p. 5. A recent poll among youth within the theologically
conservative Baptist General Conference confirmed these results: "the sexual attitudes and
behavior of BGC teens closely match those of adolescents from ten other evangelical
denominations and are, unfortunately, not significantly different from those of unchurched
teens." Sharon Shcppard, "Sexual Attitudes and Practices of BGC Teens," The Standard 79:10.
(November 1989), 38.
13. Larry Richards, How Far Can I Go? (Chicago: Moody, 1969). 92-93.
14. For a discussion of gender-based psychological differences in motivation in premarital sex.
sec Richard Hettlinger, Sex Isn't That Simple (New York: Seabury, 1974), 165-67.
15. Mary Calderone, "How Young Men Influence the Girls Who Love Them," Red- hookijn ly,
1965), quoted in Richard Hettlinger, Living with Sex I New York: Seabuiy, 1966), 119. See also
Packard, 398.
16. Milton Diamond and Arno Karlen, SexualIXxisions(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1980).
119. For the basis in adolescence of these differing outlooks between young men and young
women, see Ruth Tiffany Bamhouse, Homo- sexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York:
Seabury. 1977), 71-72.
17. Studies have indicated that premarital relations with spouse and others lower the
probability of general marital success. See Lester Allen Kirkcndall, Premarital Intercourse and
Interpersonal Relations (New York: Julian Press.
196L), 20-4. Such findings do not suggest that virginity per sc offers a better start for marriage,
for when intercourse is limited to one's future spouse marital success may not suffer. Yet, the
lack of permanent commitment of all premarital relations means that such relationships offer
little guarantee that intercourse will indeed he limited to one's future spouse. Should the
couple break up and both marry others, the chance of their enjoying successful marriages is
reduced. From this perspective the introduction of intercourse into their relationship did indeed
increase the risk to the future marriages of each.
18. Richard Hettlinger, Crowing Ip with Sex (New York: Seabury, 1970, 80.
19. Tim Stafford, The Sexual Christian (Wheaton, III.: Victor, 1988), 119.
20. Audrey Beslow, Sex and the Single Christian (Nashville: Abingdon, 1987), 74.
21. Packard. 398.
22. See Hettlinger. Grouirtg Up with Sex, 82. Bernard L. Ramm is more specific. He claims that
premarital promiscuity can be a cause of frigidity in marriage. 7he Right, the Good and the
Happy {Waco, Tex.: Word, 1971), 119.
23. Packard, 429-30.
24. Hettlinger. Living with Sex, 133. See also Packard, 432. The Kinsey data with respect to
females is presented in IJdry, 432.
25. Packard, 431.
26. It may be argued that the availability of contraceptives greatly reduces the chances of
premarital sex leading to an unwanted child. Research reveals, however, a lack of widespread
use of such measures. Respondents to a survey conducted in Canada, for example, indicated
an aversion to condoms for reasons such as embarrassment in purchasing them or the belief
that their use diminishes sexual pleasure. Sec Jack Hanna, "Sexual Abandon," Maclean's 102/39
(Sept. 25, 1989): 48. Couples may avoid using contraceptives, because their use indicates that
engaging in sex is premeditated; many seek to maintain the appearance that their involvement
in premarital sex is unplanned and spontaneous.
27. Udry, 157.
28. Proponents of the traditional Christian ethic with its emphasis on abstinence prior to
marriage may find heartening reports that a small but growing num- ber of states now
mandate sex education programs in the public schools that promote premarital abstinence.
 289 Notes

See Ken Sidey, "Kids Get the Message: It's Okay to Say No." Christianity Today 33/14 (Oct. 6,
1989): 40.
29. Packard, 434.
30. A strong stance against petting is offered, however, in Dwight Hervey Small, Design/or
Christian Marriage. (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1959) 153-75.
31. Several Christian ethicists have noted that persons who maintain "technical virginity"
while being involved in a variety of sexual activities are not necessarily following an ethic of
abstinence. See, for example, Donald Goergen, TJ)e Sexual Celibate. (New York: Seabury,
1974), 132-35.
32. The purposes of engagement in the modern setting are outlined in Small, 198-221.
33. A shocking recent discovery is that couples who live together before marriage are
surprisingly violent. Sec Andrea Sachs, "Swinging-and-Ducking-Singles," Time 132/10 {Sept. 5,
1988): 51.
Lester A. Kirkendall, Premarital intercourse and Interpersonal Relationships, cited in Hettlinger,
Growing Up with Sex. 80, Living with Sex,xx
34. Masturbation as defined by John C. Dwyer, Human Sexuality: A Christian View (Kansas
City, Mo.: Sheed and Ward, 1987), 56.
35. Hettlinger, Living with Sex, 92.
36. Ibid.
37. For a summary of the various positions on masturbation, see Michael S. Pat- ton,
Twentieth-Century Attitudes toward Masturbation," Journal of Religion ami Health 25/4 (1986):
291-302. Sec also Hettlinger, Living with Sex, 82-83.
38. See, for example, the discussion in Goergen, 196-201.
39. Dwyer, 57.
40. Smedes, Sex for Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 162.
41. Lewis Smedes, for example, argues that compulsive masturbation is a form of self-
punishment that arises from a heavy load of unattached guilt. Ibid., 163.
42. Hettlinger, Living with Sex, 78.
43. See the helpful discussion of masturbation in Letha Scanzoni, Sex Is a Parent
A{fair(GIendale, Calif.: Regal, 1973), 188-93-
44. Smedes, 128, 130.
45. This point is aptly made by James P. Hanigan, Homosexuality: The Test Case for Christian
Sexual Ethics (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1988), 72.
46. Smedes, 112.
47. Hettlinger cites the Italian psychotherapist Roberto Assagioli and Havelock Ellis, Living
with Sex. 77. For a recent statement concerning proper sexual expression within the single life,
sec Julia Duin, Purity Makes the Heart Grow Stronger (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Vine Books, 1988).
48. Karen Lelracqz, "Appropriate Vulnerability: A Sexual Ethic for Singles," Christian Century
104/15 (1987): 437.
49. For a firsthand discussion of the difficulties of following the rule of abstinence as a
divorced single, see Keith Miller and Andrea Wells Miller, 7he Single experience(Waco, Tex.:
Word, 1981), 216-43-

Chapter IT: Homosexuality: Sin or Alternative Lifestyle?

1. Peter Coleman, Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality (London: SPCK, 1980). 2,
4.
2. One of the first voices calling for a reappraisal of the biblical documents was a British
Anglican, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London:
Longman, Green and Co., Ltd., 1955). The major outlooks were classified into four categories in
James B. Nelson, limbodi- ment (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), 180-210. A call for openness to
homosexuality was issued by the Roman Catholic, John J. McNeill, the Church and the
Homosexual (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed, Andrews, and McMecl, 1976). A similar pexsition has
been articulated by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mol- lenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978).
3. john C. Dwyer, Human Sexuality: A Christian View (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed
17. For a summary of Bieber's findings and their significance, see Jones and Workman, 219.
See also Vance Packard, The Sexual Wilderness (New York: David McKay Co., 1968), 129-30.
18. Jerome Kagan, "Psychology of Sex Differences," in Beach, 103.
19. Hettlinger, Living with Sex, 111. In Human Sexuality: A Christian View, Roman Catholic
ethicist John Dwyer echoes this conclusion. He declares that homosexuality is "the result of an
early fixation on one parent" (68). And again, "male homosexuality seems to he the result of a
definite pattern of child-rearing and acculturation .. ."(69).
 290 Notes

20. Lawrence J. Hatlcrer, "What Makes a Homosexual?" condensed from McCall's (July, 1971)
in The Reader's Digest (September, 1971): 60-63.
21. Diamond and Karlen, 227.
22. See William H. Davenport, "Sex in Cross-Cultural Perspective," in Beach, 156. See also
Diamond and Karfen, 228.
23. Diamond and Karlen, 228.
24. Michael Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2: V)e Use of Pleasure (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1985), 245.
25. For a response to the sympathetic retelling of the historical development of
homosexuality, see Barnhouse, 24-31. See also Diamond and Karlen, 228. This point has
recently been questioned by Greenberg, 142.
26. See, for example, Spong, 139-40.
27. A succinct summary of the newer exegesis of the New Testament texts and the relevant
literature is provided in Joseph J. Kotva, Jr., "Scripture, Ethics, and the Local Church:
Homosexuality as a Case Study," Conrad GrehelReview7/1 (Winter, 1989): 56-57.
28. If. Darrell Lance, "The Bible and Homosexuality," American Baptist Quarterly 8/2 (1989):
143.
29. That male cult prostitutes were found in the fertility rites of surrounding religions and
therefore fomied the context for the prohibitions of the Holiness Gode is argued by Scanzoni
and Mollenkott, 59-60. However, this theory is rejected even by Bailey, 30. See also Joseph
Jenson, "Human Sexuality in the Scriptures," in Human Sexuality andPersonhood (Chicago:
Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), 23.
30. Lance, 145.
31. A helpful development of this argument is offered by P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality
and the Old Testament," Bihtiotbeca Sacra 140/559 (1983): 264-65.
32. John Bosweli, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980), 353.
33. E.g., Kotva, 57.
34. David F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes?" Vigiliae Christianae 38/2 (1984): 146.
35. Sec Richard Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's
Exegesis of Romans 1," Journal of Religious Ethics (Spring, 1986), 200.
36. Lance, 148.
37. For a discussion of Paul's use of the term "natural" see James B. DeYoung,
59. Charles Socarides, quoted by Michael McManus, "Homosexuals Anonymous Gives Gay
Christians a Way Out," Sioux Falls (So. Dak.) Argus leader March 7. 1987, sec. A, p. 9.
60. For example, see Holfman, 182-85.
61. Ibid. 182.
62. Bell and Weinberg, 346. For an analysis of Bell and Weinberg's research, see Jones and
Workman, 216.
63. Hettlinger, Living with Sex, 105.
64. Ham house, 172.
65. Hanigan, 99.
66. This position, articulated in John J. McNeill's important work, The Church and the
Homosexual (Kansas City, Mo.: Sliced, Andrews and McMcel, 1976), was presented in the
recent article, "Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow." Christian Century 104/8
(March 11, 1987): 243.
67. Jones and Workman, 224.
68. A similar understanding of chastity is developed in Donald Goergen, 7be Sex- ual Celibate
(New York: Seabury. 1974), 101-103.
69. Many excellent treatments of the subject of AIDS have appeared in recent years. See also
Wendell W. Holfman and Stanley J. Grenz, AIDS: Ministry* in the Midst of an Epidemic (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1990).
70. Bailey, 168.