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.