Sex is Good

Update 6-9-06:  I don't like to toot my own horn but I just couldn't pass this up.  This post has been awarded the coveted Golden Aardvark from Aardvark Alley, a leading Lutheran blog (well, I don't know if it really is a "leading" Lutheran blog, but if someone is going to give me a golden aardvark I'm going to say all the nice things I can about them).  Waddda ya know, Lutheran must like sex after all, who would have thought.  You learn something new every day.  So, thanks to my new friends at Aardvark Alley.

I'm currently preaching a series of sermons on issues raised by the Da Vinci Code book and movie.  This week I am going to deal with the common belief that Christianity is anti-sex.  This issue is certainly raised by the Da Vinci Code, but this is just the latest incarnation of an ages long belief that Christianity is oppressive and regressive in it's morality.

I contend that, on the contrary, Christianity is pro-sex.  Of course I am not the only one who is saying this, but I want to share some of my own thoughts on how it is that Christianity can be considered pro-sex.

In preparation for this I read an article called Sex, Sin and Salvation: What Augustine Really Said, by Dr. David G. Hunter.  Augustine is considered by many to be, if not the originator, the most articulate spokesman for Christianity's alleged repressive ideas about sex.  Dr. Hunter seeks to rehabilitate Augustine in this regard and, given Augustine's historical context, Dr. Hunter does make it appear that Augustine was far more positive toward sex than his contemporaries.

My unscholarly summary of what I read in Hunter's article is that it appears that many of Augustine's contemporaries treated sex as an evil, per se.  Augustine, on the other hand, said that sex could be redeemed in marriage and through procreation.  There are some fine details that I'll leave it to you to read about in Hunter's paper, but it seems that Augustine was generally had a positive view of sex in comparison to others. 

However, it seems to me that Augustine and his contemporaries began with the assumption that sexual desire begins as an evil.  For Augustine, it could later be turned into some kind of a good.

I have two comments on this.  The first is that these early church fathers were dead wrong, biblically.  The second is that, unfortunately, many Christians throughout the ages have accepted this view (maybe even unconsciously) and thus have failed to treat sex as the positive and good thing it is.  Thus, we have been unable to launch an effective apologetic against the world's charges that we are anti-sex.  When it comes to discussions about sex, we know how to say "no," but we don't know how to say "yes" to sex in a robust and joyful way.

As I said, I think the early church fathers were wrong in treating sex as if it begins as an evil that can be redeemed.  Sex, like all things God made, begins as a good, which can be corrupted.  But it is it's goodness which is at the heart of sex, not it's corruption.

My own personal opinion, which may not be yours and which may be wrong, is that when most evangelicals and/or conservatives talk about sex it is usually in the context of warnings against illicit sex, and I believe this is because we default to thinking of sex in its state of corruption before we can think about it in it's state of goodness.

I saw this in a funny way this past Sunday.  Last week I announced that this week I would be talking about how the Bible is very pro-sex.  I forgot to mention ". . . in marriage."  A couple of people have already pointed that out to me. And of course they are right and I am going to make a big deal of that this coming Sunday.  But I do detect a hint of nervousness as if we can never say that sex is good without putting the proper qualifiers on it.

And I don't completely disagree with this mindset - sex has been so corrupted in our society that warnings and qualifiers are certainly in order.  But it seems to me that, for the most part we either don't talk about sex or we bring it up to warn people about it.  I don't know if we evangelicals know how to fully embrace the goodness of sex, even in marriage.

Anthony Bradley has some interesting things to say about this - he thinks this may be a cultural issue:

I grew up in a black church and in the black church no subject in all of creation is off limits to speak about from the pulpit, including sexuality in marriage. I've recently heard a black pastor teach about the benefits of men pursuing their wives with love, passion, and service and the good, natural consequence of him loving her well: really good sex.

I have a friend who used to pastor an all black church and now pastors a church of mostly conservative white evangelicals. We recently discussed pastoral challenges and differences between the cultures and he admitted that most of the couples in his church now don't have sex much at all. And I said that was also true for many of my white friends as well (esp. if they married girls that grew up in conservative homes). We were both like, "huh, what's up with that?"

We sat in shock talking about the things we hear from our white brothers like "yeah we only have sex a few times a month (two or three tops)." Or we both heard this one from different men "yeah, we haven't had sex in six months." The number of married guys I know confused and frustrated about the fact that their wives just don't seem to be interested in sex much has blew us both away.

Growing up in the black church, having worked in black churches, having listened to many conversations about marital sensuality with lots of Christian black couples my friend and I just sat in shock last week confused about this aspect of our friend's conservative evangelical world.

Anthony goes on to ask:

Why do we raise kids to believe that sexuality, sexual desire, sexual feelings are bad? If kids are taught their whole lives that sexuality and sexual desire is bad then no wonder (1) boys aren't taught how to romance their wives (2) women aren't interested. Initiate a life of Godly, biblical, sensual marital romance (in some church communities). Why aren't men taught about what is needed to increase marital sensuality? Is it because boys never see it modeled in their homes and their fathers never talk about it?

Anthony has correctly described the situation in saying that Christians rarely if ever teach their sons how to increase marital sensuality.  The reason is that we are afraid the boys will start wanting to practice that before they are married.  So, you may disagree with Anthony on this - maybe we shouldn't talk about these things because to talk about them will incite desires we want to keep buried.

But I think he's on to something.  The "no"messages and warning messages don't seem to be working on singles or married folks.  Just as we warn kids about premarital sex we warn adults about extramarital sex, but lots of people are still having both kinds of sex, having been warned repeatedly and profusely.

Somehow, those of us who want to preserve sex for marriage need to come up with a more compelling picture of marital sex than we are doing.

We've got to come up with a compelling "yes" when talking about sex which can paint marital sex as such a good thing it is worth waiting and preparing for.  We've also got to teach married Christians how to practice sex in such a way that their married sex is more enjoyable and fulfilling than porn and/or affairs. 

In short, married Christians need to see their sexual relationship as somethingthat is intrinsically good and God-honoring.  They also need to see that it is their duty to enjoy sex to the fullest.

Yes, those out there in the world are doing sex all wrong - engaging in all kinds of immoral relationships.  But at least they can smile when they say the word "sex."

Christians ought to be the ones with the biggest smiles when it comes to sex.

Comments

[pgepps]

This guy who hopes to be married someday sure likes your attitude. :-)

I still think y'all are trying too hard to justify Augustine, though. He doesn't really even say that the "evil" of sexual desire or intercourse (even where procreative) is ever *made* good; it is *licensed*, that is, it remains intrinsically an evil but gets a "pass" from God if it's in marriage.

His attitude is especially pronounced when he affirms that the *basis* for the sinlessness of Christ is that He was conceived by a virgin, "without desire."

Codswallop is among the nicer words I can muster. That Jerome was worse hardly makes me feel better.

Cheers,
PGE

[Joel Haas]

HEAR HEAR!

[Mark Olson]

On the early christian writers who wrote pretty consistently against sex as "good", I think early Chrstianity was reacting to a pagan culture which was (possibly) even more sexualized than our own. Their reaction was to encourage aesceticism and a rejection of self-centered pleasure seeking toward a god-centered focus. I sometimes wonder when a similar reaction will occur in contemporary Christian culture (meaning the appeal of the ascetic life) if it can even manage to do so swimming upstream against the current of popular culture.

I want to make it clear that I don't disagree with your post however, sex is good. Gluttony regarding sex (or anything else), that is becoming obsessed with it is not. And our culture is it seems just a bit gluttinous in this regard.

[Jeremy Pierce]

PGE: Augustine never says intercourse itself is bad. He doesn't even say that the pleasure of sex is bad. What he thinks is an unfortunate result of the fall is that we can't rationally control when we will get aroused. He thinks that in an ideal state we could control our sexual organs the same way we can control our limbs or tongues. He has no problem with pleasure coming from our tongues tasting good food or our limbs experiencing comfort from sitting in a comfortable position.

Since he considers sexual organs analogous in the ideal state that Adam and Eve would have had, he then would say that the pleasure itself from sex would have been good for them even though it was submitted to reason. It's not the pleasure that's bad. It's the fact that reason gets subordinated to it and we're not in control of our desire on a rational level.

I don't agree with him on this fully, but I don't think it's accurate to say that he thinks sexual pleasure is less than good and merely a licensed evil. The evil is the lack of subordination to reason. The pleasure itself is good, because every positive thing is good. That's part of the Platonist heritage that he accepts. What's not good is when things are disordered, and the disorder of reason not being in command is what's evil.

[pgepps]

OK, Jeremy, but in one place he says,

---
None who are born of the woman, that trusted the serpent and so was corrupted through desire, are delivered from the body of this death, except by the Son of the virgin who believed the angel and so conceived without desire (37).
---

Now, in the same place, his general development does follow along lines similar to those you've suggested (albeit I think he seeks, and you allow him, to rationalize a stronger attitude using a weaker argument); however, he seems clearly to think that the good of marriage lies in its *restraining* of sexual desire *strictly*. I think you'll look long and hard to find Augustine saying anything like the good of marriage lies in its *expression* or *fulfilling* of sexual desire.

While there can be porneia even among married couples, and while it does seem to me to be bad thing, admixture in no way negates the good--Augustine's Platonic streak is 100x too strong to allow him to admit of a *good* thing *in which bad is mixed*; he must call the mixed *evil*, then license it in service of a good, and call the good and the license good, but the desire, evil.

Note that I said "desire" and not "pleasure." It would be Tertullian, I think, who sees evil wherever there is the potential or reality of sexual pleasure. Buncha screwed-up old guys, these. You are probably right that intercourse *without* desire would not be evil on Augustine's terms, but I'm not sure that on his terms or mine we'd think it *possible*, either.

Neither you nor I agree with him, I think. I can see his point through your grid, but I can't see his expression or his prescriptions restraining themselves to what you think--and the canons of Carthage under his leadership reflect that. His horror of sexuality, understandable given his own libertine past and his dwarfed and misshapen metaphysics, has no place in Christianity, and should be purged.

Cheers,
PGE

[Mike]

The following comment is rated [R] for "Robust."

While I agree with Jeremy on this, I will take exception to one thing he wrote (although he may have been stating Augustine's position, not his own), i.e., "the disorder of reason not being in command is what's evil."

Personally, I don't want to have "reasonable" sex. I don't want "rational" sex. I want (and have) sex that is so intimate and exhilarating that it transcends reason and catapults me (not literally, at least most of the time) into another state of mind altogether, a timeless, conscienceless, right-brained, hypnotic place that only my wife and I inhabit during those hours.

Being married and loving one another, we don't need to be reasonable or rational: we leave such cognitive qualities on the floor with our clothes - unless, of course, we're on the floor, in which case our clothes are who-knows-where.

It's not only difficult but undesirable to be reasonable or rational when the endorphins are flowing. Sex in marriage should be euphoric, ineffable, and wonderfully indulgent of our spouse's deepest desires and joys. In a word, wild - as in "untamed" or "undomesticated." Primal. Sensual. Sensuous. Unbridled, uninhibited, off-the-leash Passion.

Un, excuse me, but I think I'll go home early today!

[Former Corn Chuckin' Champ]

Let me be the first to suggest that the full ramification and efficacy of your sermon won't be realized for another 9 months! BTW, The thermostat is set to 71 deg. Let me know if you want it lower. ;)

[pgepps]

Mike, I understand Jeremy to have very definitely been restating and clarifying Augustine's position at that point. I'm pretty sure the line you quote is more-or-less exactly what he disagrees with.

That being said, I do think even married couples have to have some reasonableness about sexuality. You cover it by speaking of married sexuality as "indulgent of [one's] spouse" and not self-indulgent. Not that one should seek to limit one's own enjoyment, but that even in this one who loves will seek the good (and pleasure) of the beloved, first.

And my mention of porneia (I hope I've grabbed the right Greek, here--I believe I'm on-target) in marriage wasn't accidental or any mere concession. Eros, which tends to be disruptive and need curtailing in any other context, is free to roam in marriage, but porneia--the construction of another as an idol to be consumed for solitary enjoyment, rather than a person to be communed with for mutual fulfillment--is destructive of healthy sexuality, and of right relationship, and of Christian spiritual development. It is, after all, idolatry (and a bunch of other things).

So there is a legitimate "marriage doesn't mean a sexual free-for-all" aspect, here. And Jeremy and David were correctly trying to prevent baby/bathwater problems. However, I think Augustine's attitude and metaphysics are so far off-target that he can be of no real help to us on these points; we have to first recover from his disease, then we have to develop healthy views, contrary to those of our world, but conformed to the world we're in through Christ.

Sigh. Single. It is not good for man to be alone.

Cheers,
PGE

[Philippa]

I don't know if we evangelicals know how to fully embrace the goodness of sex, even in marriage.

I would say not. For all sorts of reasons. The most obvious being the ever more extreme sexualisation of our culture.

But at least Christian couples get good counsel on their sexuality these days. :) Mike's comment made me smile.

Christian singles - of whom I am one - get mostly a deafening silence on the subject of celibate sexuality. Fortunately I have read some very good books on the subject recently ...

Great post. :) I'm awfully glad the Song of Songs is in the Bible, aren't you? Only in Scripture could you find such a pure, delicate yet utterly rapturous celebration of sexuality, sex as God intended ... and an earthly foretaste of the heavenly pleasures to come.

[Mwalimu Daudi]

An interesting post. I think perhaps Anthony Bradley has taken hold of the wrong end of the argument. Culture may indeed be to blame for Christians' view of sex, but I think popular culture may shape Christians' views more that Augustine ever did. Popular culture seems to preach (unless I have read it incorrectly) that Christian are anti-sex impotent prudes who want to invade other people's bedrooms, and I wonder if Christians have not picked up on this (perhaps unconsciously) and shun sex as being part of "the other (dark) side".

That reaction might be understandable if we look at sex is being portrayed. Sex in popular culture is getting more - how shall I say this - trendy and mechanical, and less romantic and sexy. Was there not a girls' rock group whose sole claim to fame was that it's members engaged in lesbian kissing on stage? There also seems to be efforts to encourage young people to "explore their homosexuality" (there have been some dreary reality shows on MTV involving this). Several months ago, there was a porn actress being interviewed on a certain talk show (I have mercifully forgotten both the name of the actress and the show). Honestly, this woman looked like a female version of "Data" from Star Trek: TNG, complete with a plastic-like sheen to her (slightly green) skin. She looked more like an android than a woman. The whole thing had a really creepy feeling and it did not help that actress talked a lot about being suspended from the ceiling by pins inserted into her skin while, ah, "performing" in one of the movies. This is sexy?

It looks to me like the sex industry has left the leering eroticism it was infamous for and is now heading towards becoming a pure freak show devoid of sexual desire. I imagine the Devil is having a good laugh over having de-sexed the "sexual revolution". And where the sex industry leads, Hollywood (and the rest of popular culture) usually follows. Today's "mainstream" movies would have been considered pornographic fifty years ago. And fifty years from now?

I am glad that you are tackling this issue head-on. If Christians by default get their ideas of sexuality from popular culture, it is a wonder that anyone has sex!

[cavman]

A few years ago I mentioned in a sermon that Jews believed sex was a great way to celebrate the Sabbath ( I can't remember my source tonight). But some now sing the 'virtues' of Sabbath Sex.
The sermon I preached on 1 Cor. 7 on our obligation to satisfy our spouse was a bit unexpected.... The Bible is SO pro-sex, between spouses.

[jene']

It's all in how you use it.

Fire is good when it cooks your food, purifies your water, and keeps your loved ones warm. It's not so good when it burns down your house.

Sex is great when it's an expression of undying love, comforts your lover, and the health benefits alone are phenonmenal. It's not great when it breeds mistrust or insecurity, harms another, or causes disease.

Just a thought.

[anon]

I, myself, am a 33 year old male, a "technical" virgin. One of the things I always get from my nonChristian friends is "I could never live as a celibate before marriage... I mean, how do you know if you're sexually compatible with whoever you want to marry?"

It's a fact that pre-marriage celibates don't get to "figure out" sexual compatibility before marriage... and I try to explain why I think that's a normative part of sexuality. That is, I tell them I think our sexuality was designed to work best according to certain rules. It may seem strange but "test-driving" it in terms of "intercourse" (etc) outside of the bond of marriage goes against the real grain of sexuality as it was made to work best.

It's a hard sell.

Anyway, it's not as though my nonChristian friends find it hard to imagine that I have a genuine interest in sex. They just have a hard time reconciling my professed interest in sex with my professed chastity. Celibates With Sex-Drives? They can't imagine. Explaining that I'm (anti-porn) pro-masturbation helps somewhat... but they still can't wrap their minds around it all.

Let me recommend to everyone looking for a pro-sex Christianity: Intended For Pleasure by Ed & Gaye Wheat.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800717368
When I attended a small Christian liberal arts college back in the mid-90s, this book got a LOT of press.

[Philippa]

Responding to the anon comment: yes, brother, it is a hard sell. No kidding.

Anyway, it's not as though my nonChristian friends find it hard to imagine that I have a genuine interest in sex. They just have a hard time reconciling my professed interest in sex with my professed chastity. Celibates With Sex-Drives? They can't imagine.

No, they can't, can they? Spiritual veil and all that. But lately I have been seriously wondering if some Christians even get it. The only way the church seems to cope with us celibates is to imagine that we're all blissfully asexual. That would be nice and neat, wouldn’t it? I've recently come across a couple of patronising articles about how it's God's will and ordinance that every Christian should seek to get married and that extended singleness is actually unbiblical. Such a view frankly makes a mockery of my own walk with the Lord all these years. Talk about Smug Marrieds, to coin Bridget Jones’s priceless phrase! I do wonder about the theology of these people: how on earth do they cope with the singleness of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself? What better validation for the single state than Him?

I wouldn't want to give the impression I am down on marriage, by the way! - I still pray and hope to be married. But I am frustrated by evangelicalism’s hesitancy to treat a theology of celibate sexuality with any kind of seriousness. I also have a book recommendation: Loves Me, Loves Me Not: The Ethics of Unrequited Love by Laura A. Smit, published by Baker Academic Press. A theologically rich and profound treatment of single, celibate Christians and their sexuality. Dr. Smit affirms chastity and singleness as positive and energising virtues. Some might question her stance that we are all called to singleness unless God calls us to marriage: I'm not sure that He does. But I certainly prefer her robust compassion and realism to the view that we singles are second-class citizens in the kingdom. And she does have a very positive and life-affirming attitude to Christian marriage.

[Alex Chediak]

Phillipa,

Do you think the following is sufficiently nuanced:

1. Singles are not second-class Christians.
2. Singles can live fulfilled, Christian lives.
3. Some singles are not married because of immature decisions they have made or are making. For them, singleness often becomes an occasion to sin. Marriage ought to be considered per I Cor 7 and Jesus' implication that not all could accept lifelong chastity.
4. Some singles are single because of societal sins.....passivity in men is paramount in our day and is robbing many women of husbands.

Challies just reviewed my book on this topic, which I hope is sufficiently nuanced. I recognize the issue is tricky. See, also, Challies' review of Debbie Maken's book.

Alex Chediak

[Philippa]

Alex,

Thanks for the heads-up on your book! I just popped over to Tim Challies' site and checked out his review.

Re: your four nuances, a hearty amen to the first two! Regarding 3), I agree that there are immature singles (just as there are immature marrieds). For them, singleness often becomes an occasion to sin. I'm sure you unpack this in your book. I know both single and married people who have fallen tragically into sexual sin: but what are the sins which are peculiar to singleness which a married person would not be tempted by, I wonder? If some singles can be guilty of a self-centred lifestyle and not enough commitment ... aren't there some husbands and wives who fall into the same trap? Associating singleness with sin does make me deeply uneasy. However, that could simply be a knee-jerk reaction on my part, in which case I cheerfully repent of it!

4. Some singles are single because of societal sins.....passivity in men is paramount in our day and is robbing many women of husbands. The vast majority of Christian singles I know are committed believers faithfully serving their churches. They may well be single because of societal sins: all of us feel the effects of this fallen world. Some are men who know the pain of repeated rejection by the women they pursue. Some are women who have never known the joy of being pursued by a good man, although they deeply long for that. Since I'm not a man, I don't know how I would react to the charge of passivity. I'm not disputing that masculinity is in crisis, but it does seem to me that Christian men are being given a hard time in some circles, and I don't think that's quite fair. Just an observation. Of course all of us need challenging to put God first: how we live faithfully as singles, how we conduct ourselves in our marriages.

I must admit that everything I heard about Debbie Maken's book put my teeth on edge, but fairness demands that I actually read it before passing verdict!!!

I would not dispute that marriage is the norm! The generation of women I belong to found out the hard way that we could not put our infertile years on hold indefinitely. That was not a conscious decision on my part: a number of factors came into play. Not least that, to put it bluntly, there are simply more Christian women than men.

I once commented to a divorced friend that I thought I had been too immature to marry when I was in my early 20s. Her reply was: "Which of us is ever mature enough to be married?"

Anyway, thank you for your response, and I will see if your book is available through Amazon UK. :)

[Philippa]

The generation of women I belong to found out the hard way that we could not put our infertile years on hold indefinitely.

Oops, silly typo. I mean fertile years, of course!! :)

[pgepps]

Yeah, I have to admit, the "everyone's called to singleness" thing bugs me. It would be so easy to nuance that correctly, in two truths, that would preserve the affirmation of the joy and utility of single service without causing inner conflicts and hesitations over subjective "calls" God didn't promise to clarify:

1) every believer is called to serve the Lord in whatever condition he's in; the condition is never the primary concern; every believer is called to defer to the needs and concerns of others in the body; so we could clearly say the single person is "called to serve in singleness" while they're single; and

2) many (most) believers will arrive at a point where continued service requires their wedding and rearing a family; this is because of issues of service (for example, I'm a single guy who teaches almost entirely female students in Japan--what do I do when I have opportunities to share the Gospel? Any idea what kind of intimacy that can generate? How about the students who get involved in the thriving sex industry?) as well as issues of biology/desire/intention (I have never in my life imagined I would not get married, and cannot wish for it, though I'm content to serve as best I can as long as I can, regardless). Or, simply put, on the way to duty, you may well find happiness. And more (joyful, blessed, consecrated) duty, and more happiness.

Such, anyway, is my hope. But I do confess to heaving a huge experiential sigh which feeds into, once again, a (highly subjective and personalized) remembrance of the Lord's phrase: It is not good for man to be alone. :-)

It is, of course, also *perfectly acceptable* for a man not to touch a woman.

Cheers,
PGE

[Brendt]

David, great post! I wanted to comment on one phrase, though:

sex has been so corrupted in our society that warnings and qualifiers are certainly in order

I realize that in your next sentence, you note contrast to this statement. However, I would claim an even more drastic stand against qualifiers.

As you correctly stated, God created sex, and therefore it is good. To hang too tightly to the qualifiers is to give Satan more credit for messing it up than to God for creating it in the first place. I think such a view is more dangerous than (perhaps) you state.

[Bonnie]

Somehow, those of us who want to preserve sex for marriage need to come up with a more compelling picture of marital sex than we are doing.

I wholeheartedly concur. I’m glad that there are some good books out there that deal with Christian sexuality such as Lauren Winner’s Real Sex and John Piper’s Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, and hope to have opportunity to read them. Hannah Nedrow has written some interesting comments on Piper’s book. Also, Every Man’s Battle and Every Woman’s Battle tackle the inner aspects of Christian sexuality.

I wouldn't say, though, that Every Woman’s Battle and the Wheats’ book as well as Eros Defiled by John White and a few others I have read treat the subject adequately. I wish someone would write a book from the “bottom up,” i.e., start with Scriptural support of marital sex and develop that into a holistic picture, rather than merely react against the faulty views and practices of any particular culture or generation or write a "how-to" manual with "Christian" wrapping.

There are significant generational differences that factor into views about sex. Those who are 40-ish came of age in the “hush hush” generation – sex wasn’t talked about except to tell people what they couldn’t do. Those of the generation before that (or earlier) were probably the “dutiful” generation – a spouse had a duty to, um, “honor” the other and give him/her children (except of course for the flower children and their “free love”). The younger generation of today are those who have had sexual images “in their faces” from an early age and been flooded with the idea that sex is great, sex is good, let us have it as we wish amen. But they also probably have a healthier acceptance of sexuality in and of itself. A combination of the good from all of these views would probably come close to a healthy overall perspective on sex.

PGE -- just had to say that your comments are most eloquent and they reminded me of my own time of single adulthood. I've said a prayer for you :-)

[pgepps]

Thanks, Bonnie, I'll take it! And toss in another for my students, too!

Cheers,
PGE

[John]

Magnificent post, David. I'll link to it later today.

Of course, some Christian teens do have healthy sexual aspirations.

[Philippa]

Bonnie,

I was impressed by Lauren Winner's Real Sex. It's robust and forthright - and also extremely orthodox. She doesn't tackle homosexuality though: perhaps she felt it was too big for the scope of her book. Homosexuality is not my problem, but since I know quite a few folk for whom it is, hopefully somebody will write some good resources for them. There are some around, certainly, from the Living Waters/Leanne Payne stable.

I would also highly recommend Paula Rinehart's Sex and the Soul of a Woman (Zondervan) - it's beautifully written and profound. Connally Gilliam also writes extremely well about celibate sexuality in her Revelations of a Single Woman.

I also enjoyed Every Woman's Battle. The author does tend to assume though that every single woman is simply a bride in waiting, which I must say I find annoying. Yes, we'd like to be married ... but there's more to singlehood than just waiting around for it.

I remember being blown away by John White's Eros Defiled when I was a mere slip of a lass at the age of 18. I still think it's a classic work.

Those who are 40-ish came of age in the “hush hush” generation – sex wasn’t talked about except to tell people what they couldn’t do.

Well, that would be my experience. :) My loving parents didn't tell me anything about sex. Finally I got all my information together through sex education at school. As for my church talking about sex ... no way. It certainly wasn't dealt with in the holistic way you advocate.

PGE, I also appreciated your post. :)

You might all spare a prayer for me too ... :)

[jpe]

I've recently come across a couple of patronising articles about how it's God's will and ordinance that every Christian should seek to get married and that extended singleness is actually unbiblical.

That's utterly bizarre. Paul was pretty clear: marriage is a last resort, not the first.

[Onaola]

Hi, I don't know how i even stumbled on this page, but I'm so sure it was God. I am a young woman who has always wanted to stay pure sexually till i finally enjoy sexual pleasure when I get married. However, I started realising that I kind of dreaded sex and imagined that sex in itself was totally sinful. Well, this article as not only been profound but it has also made me realise that God made sex before man fell, before there was sin, so there is actually good in it. I think it's because the devil has perverted the whole concept of sex that we christians can not even see through the eyes of GOD the power and blessings of sex. I totally agree that we christians should have a resounding yes when it comes to discussing the beauty of sex as we hope to enjoy it in our marriages (Thats where God designed it to be anyway).

Just wanted to say thank you and thank you for the article