Sex and The "Biblical" View

Read this book

by Ben Howard


On Tuesday I started reading Rachel Held Evans' new book A Year of Biblical Womanhood. The book is an A.J. Jacobs-like take on the idea of biblical womanhood. For a year, Rachel tries to abide by all of the scriptures relating to women and along the way hilarity and insight ensue.

I'm only three chapters in so far, so this isn't a review, but the book has already sparked a few interesting ideas. In between chapters, Rachel does a profile of a woman from the Bible. The profile between the second and third chapters is Tamar.

If you don't know the story of Tamar, she is the daughter-in-law of Judah. She marries his oldest son, who dies. Then, according to custom, she marries his next oldest son. He also dies. At this point, Judah should marry her to his youngest son, but he refuses. A childless unmarried widower would have been in serious trouble in this society so this refusal is not only a violation of the law, it is also deeply unjust.

Like any proper biblical character, Tamar solves this problem by pretending to be a prostitute and sleeping with Judah, her father-in-law. When the family becomes outraged at Tamar's pregnancy, she reveals to Judah that he is the father and he realizes that he has sinned by not giving her his youngest son.

Yeah, that's a bizarre story. I know. However, note that nowhere is Tamar repudiated for her actions. In fact, she is listed in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew. In fact, the other three women listed (Bathsheba, Ruth, and Rahab), are also involved in relationships that our society would deem illicit. Bathsheba sleeps with David who then kills her husband, Ruth seduces Boaz (check out your Hebrew idioms), and Rahab is a prostitute.

This collection of characters and stories makes me ask a question. Where exactly did we get this puritanical notion of biblical sexual morality? Even the Bathsheba story doesn't condemn sex, it condemns adultery and murder.

Queen Victoria

Now, some will point out that Paul talks an awful lot about sexual immorality and that's certainly true, but is that a response to sex or a response to an overly indulgent culture that expressed sexuality in dehumanizing ways?

I don't want to argue that our present-day cultures overwhelming view of sexuality is correct and that the church should embrace it. In fact, I don't want to endorse anything about our current sexual culture. It's selfish, indulgent, and dehumanizing. People are used for the satisfaction of others. People are consumed.

But at the same time the notion of a biblical view of sexuality seems to have far more in common with Victorian social mores than with anything resembling a truthful and honest reading of the Bible. The Bible talks about sex, but it isn't obsessed with it. It's a biological function and a part of life. You can interpret some books like the Song of Solomon to openly celebrate it.

I think we need to start talking about sex in our culture without acting like its the most titillating topic of conversation. It's part of life, let's treat it that way. Churches need to openly talk about this topic. Families need to openly talk about this topic. Friends need to openly talk about this topic.

Also, we need to crack down on people referencing the "biblical view" of whatever. Bringing the word "biblical" into a conversation about morality or social issues is the equivalent of referencing Hitler or communism in a conversation about politics. It's a bomb intended to disrupt and stop conversation. It's a trump card. Even worse, the person using it is usually wrong. The use of the term biblical ends up denigrating and besmirching the very book that someone is trying to hold so dear.

Biblical family?

Rachel Held Evans conclusion in the book, according to reviews, is that no such thing as biblical womanhood exists. In the gay marriage debate, there are constant references to the biblical or traditional view of marriage. In response, Fred Clark at the blog Slacktivist has started posting his Chick-Fil-A Biblical Family of the Day every Friday to show the diversity and bizarreness of the "biblical" view of marriage and family.


The Bible is a book that tells us about God and how God relates to us and who God is. It is not necessarily a book that tells us about morality. That morality is dictated by our relationship to God and God's character. It is dictated by who God has created us to be and how we are to express that in our context.

We have to interpret things in our world and that's okay. Everything has to be interpreted. The best way to do that is discuss it intentionally in community. It is best to have people tell us why they agree and disagree with what we do and how we can and should improve. It is best to be open to change and growth. 

So let's talk about sex and see where we end up.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.

We Are So Sure

by Amanda Taylor

I think someone just decided not to be with me because I am a Christian.

I feel certain it wasn’t my WWJD bracelet. It wasn’t my weatherworn journal/bible combo that I take to (insert hip local coffee shop), my cross necklace, fish bumper sticker, Chick-fil-A sandwich, or compulsion to remind folks Jesus is my homeboy on my super hip loose-fit v-neck tee.

It wasn’t any of those things because those are the things in life that make me want to punch a baby. I can’t wear my faith proudly around like a shiny banner of joy and peace, because I’m too busy silently brooding about how nonsensical Christianity is today.

And brood I do. I analyze. I watch. I listen. I contemplate. I assess. I obsess. I’m so engulfed in this cycle of frustration and fatigue that whoever responds to this fresh break-up of mine with an “everything happens for a reason” is not safe from a sincere and biting face-punch.

Not babies though, thank goodness. They can’t talk yet.

As I sit here, I can’t tell what hurts more: the fact that this beautiful, wonderful person is walking away, or that my own brothers and sisters in Christ have caused it. I have caused it. For all my cynicism, he knows how important faith is to me. He’s seen through the cold exterior of skepticism to a meek and seeking heart, one that needs Jesus. And it terrifies him.

Why?

It’s probably not an encouraging sign that he kept calling it “the religion thing”. “Back to the religion thing.” Yes, yes, let’s discuss that dumb thing called religion that has ostracized you, dumbfounded you, belittled you, told you that you weren’t good enough for someone. That religion thing. Yes, that’s my thing. Let’s talk about it.

I am no longer sure how many of us think eating a chicken sandwich is a meaningful way to follow Christ. It depends on which day you ask me. I’m inclined to believe most Christians don’t think tokens or phrases or buildings are the way to heaven, but I do worry that too many of us think we know the way with far too much certainty.

We know what Jesus thinks, we know what God wants, we know what it means for society and the way we must govern ourselves throughout the world. We are so sure.

Christians have had to continue to draw new lines in order to make sense out of the great mysteries of our Lord and Creator. The Great I Am. As we simplify the complexities of the good book into chewable bites, we find ourselves comfortably arranging our faith around these tokens and routines and phrases that provide us comfort and sensibility as they help us identify. Good. Bad. Me. You. Me. Other. In. Out.

This story that Christians are telling resonates far and deep into society, but we’re shielding ourselves from the repercussions of the tale. Life is HARD. It is hard. But God is supposed to make sense of it, to explain it, and to make it better. The harsh and acerbic reality of our lives is boxed up and wrapped in pretty fish-decorated, God-approved paper and passed around the world giving the “gift of Christ” to those in need. But what do they find when they open it? 

What is so frustrating is that this guy, my dear friend, doesn’t hate me, or Christians, or faith. He’s just not sure about it all because the story he’s hearing is one full of mistrust, and rules, and hierarchy. He’s an outsider. He’s afraid he’ll be a disappointment to me for not being sure enough.  

We are so sure. 

(Christianity) is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up.  It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.  So let us leave behind all these boys’ philosophies – these over-simple answers.  The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either.  – C.S. Lewis

 

You can follow Amanda on Twitter @tayloram03.

Marriage and Chick-Fil-A

by Ben Howard

The following thoughts are still in progress.

Last week in an interview with Baptist Press Chick-Fil-A COO Dan Cathy confirmed that the company, based in the Southern Baptist roots of S. Truett Cathy, is “supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.” This set off a firestorm of reports from major media outlets construing the statement as an attack on gay marriage.

Chick-Fil-A tried to respond by saying they have no policy regarding gay marriage and that "going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," and that its tradition is, "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Here's the rub. Neither side is spinning the truth. Dan Cathy was not making a statement opposing gay marriage, but also, he was. The problem, the real problem at the root of the gay marriage debate, the one that makes people on both sides feel slighted, abused, and insulted, has to do with the great unasked and unanswered question of the debate. What is marriage?

Is it a symbol? A sacrament? A contract? A societal construct? Does it mean anything at all?

I think at its core, at its richest, its all of these things. It's a creation of society to help us get along. It's a contract that means one stands beside the other through anything. It's a sacrament that helps us share, just a little bit, in the divine community of God's self. And it's a symbol, a symbol of love and devotion, and a symbol that creation is good, and that world should go on being good.

This is bigger than a rights issue. Marriage at its fullest is a grace and it's not something we can demand, its simply a gift we are given. It isn't something government's can hand down or make laws about or rule on or permit or prevent people from doing. Laws are flawed and staid and cannot encapsulate what “marriage” is even if they use the word.

On the other hand, while I feel marriage is a religious issue, I also believe the conservative understanding of marriage is weak. In a social and religious context where it has become increasingly difficult to explain the importance of symbols and ritual, the refuge of choice has been the literalization and legalization of the Bible. As a result, a once rich full view of marriage has been reduced to a cultural expectation and a legalization of sex.

The more I consider the issue, the more I belief that the conservative response to gay marriage is one of fear more than one of hate. With such a thin view of marriage it becomes increasingly difficult to articulate the value of such a commitment and in lieu of deconstructing this view in order to build a healthier richer understanding, the response has been to go on the defensive and to define marriage as its borders.

Eventually, this conversation will end with the government allowing same-sex marriage. It's a matter of time. This is the way history works. I hope that both sides can learn to talk to each other and understand each other, and hopefully this conversation will not be for nothing. I hope that out of this conversation we get a more vibrant, deeper view of marriage and the commitment it entails. Then again, that is not how history works.

Peace,

Ben

You can follow me on Twitter @BenHoward87 or leave a comment if you would like to contact me.