“Regardless of your sexual state, you are a human being, you are
a created person of God, and you are whole.” - Dianna E. Anderson, Damaged
Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity
DISCLAIMER: This is not about why you should or
should not wait for marriage, but rather an examination of each choice. With that being said, I want to begin with why I
found it so important to write about this subject. If you’ve read my blog “What My MomTaught Me About Sex,”
then you’ll know that when I was a preteen, my mom instilled in me the value of
sex. She explained it to me in a way that made it
seem sacred. When she
was young, her mother had told her that sex is disgusting and if she ever does it she will be dirty. So, my mom made sure to let me know that it was beautiful and not bad at all. She never put the context of
marriage on it, only love and respect. But she’s also made sure to let me know
through the years that even if I’m not in love, sex is not bad, and I am not dirty or any less
of a person for engaging in it. I’m so thankful for her healthy view on it.
It wasn’t until an experience I had with a boy about a year ago (when I was 21)
that I started to develop an insecurity about waiting, because a guy I really
liked told me he would be sexually frustrated if we never had sex. He wasn’t
the only guy who said this to me. Since then, I felt that someone else could give a guy something that I
couldn’t.
I used to believe, like many Christians, that
my purity was based on my sexuality and physical activities. Religious or not, our culture and society
values “virginal’ women, but who are also “sexy.” I’ve been told that men will only marry someone pure, wholesome,
and who respects herself. Language
taught me that girls who have sex (whether it’s one partner or multiple) are
sluts and whores, which
means they are shameful and dirty. Men who sleep around are players and pimps, which is a point of pride. For a girl, to be pure was a good and
respectful thing no matter who you asked. And being pure meant not doing anything sexual.
After my first boyfriend, I felt like I had lost my purity. I was guilt-ridden and ashamed of myself (it’s
important to note that as a Christian, he was experiencing the same shame as
me), even though we never had sex. Then I discovered that purity is not about our sexual actions, it’s about our hearts. We both loved each other very much, so I stopped
feeling ashamed, and I knew that I was pure because my heart was good and
loving.
When I came across Dianna E. Anderson’s book, Damaged Goods: New Perspectives on Christian
Purity, I was thrilled, because
she talks against the shame of the purity culture, and advocates sexual ethics
inside and outside of marriage. She has a whole chapter titled “Let’s Get
Biblical: Sex in Scripture,” in which she debunks five myths about waiting for
marriage. I’m kind of iffy about her interpretations, but I appreciate that she
put the Scripture in context and also discusses the ambiguity of many of them.
(In this condensed version, I’ll present a few).
“Myth 1:
Sex Makes People One Flesh”
What
Anderson says:
She says that we are told, “Having sex with someone creates a lifelong
marriage-like bond, which is why premarital sex is such a huge problem.” She
says that Christians reference Deut. 22:13-30 to illustrate the unity of sex,
which give rules about sexual relations. These verses focus on a woman’s virginity, divorce, adultery,
and the consequences of rape. A woman was a man’s property, and her job was
to “produce heirs to continue the family business and keep the genetic line
going,” thus
proof of her virginity was important so that the man knew that all of her
children were his.
Advocates of purity also point to Matthew 19, where Jesus is asked about
divorce, in which he replies, “So they
are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let
no one separate.” When
asked why Moses allowed divorce, Jesus said, “… Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts
were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
Anderson’s response to the common interpretation of this passage is that, “Marriage creates one flesh, rather than one
flesh creating marriage.” So, it’s
not sex that makes two people married, it’s the commitment of their marriage
that unifies them.
What
people say:
When asking my Christian, Catholic, and multi-faith uncles, all of them say the
same thing – that the Bible is clear about the unity of sex. Two of them said
that God sees you as married to whoever you’ve had
sex with. The other
one said that you are only supposed to have one sexual partner for your entire
life, and if you’ve slept with more than one person, then you are a slut.
A young atheist guy told me that sex is just sex. It’s neutral – neither bad or good. There is definitely a bond formed, but it’s not
bad to sleep with more than one person.
What
context says:
The Oxford Companion To The Bible edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan works like an
encyclopedia for all things Biblical. A goal of marriage was to keep children
and property within the family. It was
vital that a woman be a virgin by her wedding night, because “families usually traced their
genealogies through the male line, with sons inheriting the bulk of the
father’s property" (Oxford 496). This is also why adultery was such a big
deal, because it threatened the husband’s honor and lineage.
Concerning divorce, before
Jesus’ teachings, divorce was legitimate, but looked down upon, and the “the
formula used at weddings [was] “I am [your] husband… forever”” (Oxford 690). By the first century c.e., during
Jesus’ time, there was a debate about the reasons a man could divorce his wife.
Some argued that it could be for any small thing, such as bad cooking, while
others said only adultery was a good enough reason. When the Pharisees asked
Jesus about this debate, his answer was revolutionary when he said, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her” (Mark 10:11), which put wives “on an equal basis
within the marriage.”
Throughout my readings, I couldn’t find very much about the unity of sex,
except for 1 Corinthians 6:16, “Do you
not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?
For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”” It’s hard to get around this idea of sex being
unifying after reading that verse, but it’s also important to note that Paul is
discussing sexual immorality here.
What I did find was a lot about the
sacredness and unity of marriage. Marriage is compared to the covenant between God and Israel. The
relationship was monogamous, because “Israel had only one God, and God had chosen Israel over all
other peoples,” and “mutual fidelity was expected” (pg. 496). Marriage is supposed to reflect the
very sacred, personal, intimate, and committed relationship we have with God.
Sexual fidelity is a way to express this, but it’s not the core and reason for
the unity of two people. Ancient Israel interpreted “one flesh” to mean “as
closely related as brother and sister,” which makes sense for the way we view marriage today. Two people
become family.
Myth 2:
“One Man, One Woman”
What
Anderson says:
Purity advocates say, “The assumption is clear: marriage is one man and one woman,
forever.” Except
that the Old Testament has various accounts of polygamy. Jacob married two
sisters, Solomon had many wives and concubines, and Abraham impregnated a woman
who was not his wife, yet none of these acts were condemned by God.
What people say:
Obviously, polygamy isn’t an accepted part of our culture today, but multiple
sexual partners throughout our lives is. A married woman told me that her and husband wished they had
been each other’s only sexual partners. She and her husband are not religious, but both have Catholic
backgrounds.
I asked the young atheist guy how he feels when he learns about a girl’s
previous sexual history. Though he didn’t think sex was unifying, he did say he
was bothered when a girl told him. It wasn’t as though he wanted to be her
first and only, but
there still seemed to be this problem with her having been with other guys
before him.
I asked a young religious girl, who had only been with her husband, how she
felt about knowing that he had many sexual partners before her. She said that
at the beginning of their relationship, she was very bothered by it. But
eventually, she got over it because she knew her husband only wanted her and she trusted him.
What
context says:
In the culture of the Old Testament, their views on sexual behavior are guided
by the words in Genesis, “be fruitful and multiply.” God promised his people
land, heirs, and many descendants, so having “children [was] the supreme example
of divine favor… and childlessness was understood to be a curse” (Oxford 690).
Thus polygamy was accepted so that a man could have many children. Only the
wealthy could afford to engage in this, but Deuteronomic theologians wanted “even royalty to refrain from the practice
because of its religiously adulterating possibilities” (Oxford 691).
*(See
extended version for Myth 3)
*(See
extended version for Myth 4)
Myth 5:
“The Bible Clearly Says Premarital Sex is Sinful”
What
Anderson says:
Purity advocates say the Bible is fundamentally clear about premarital sex
being a sin. Anderson looks to “Song of Songs” (Song of Solomon) to find
contextual clues that tell us it is
about premarital sex. In this
book, a groom and his bride are praising each other’s bodies and get explicit
about their sexual encounters. Many scholars believe they are probably not
married yet, and instead the song is taking place prior to the wedding
ceremony. A commonly quoted verse is, “Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires,” which is repeated throughout the song. Anderson
believes it is talking about maturity.
Another popularly quoted verse is 1 Corinthians 7:9, “But if they cannot control themselves, they
should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Purity advocates say that Paul is telling us to
not fornicate or have sexual immorality. Anderson’s interpretation is that Paul
is urging us to not
make sex an idol, meaning don’t make it the most important thing in your life. She says that the definition of fornication as “sex as idolatry” makes more sense than “sex outside of marital relationship.”
What
people say:
Recently, I began to pose a question to many people. I asked, “If two people love each other, is it wrong
for them to have sex whether or not they’re considering marriage or not?” Religious people had the hardest time answering
this question. They kept going on and on about STD’s, having no morals because
you’re sleeping with so many people, getting pregnant and having broken
families. But they were avoiding what I had asked. Some did say that premarital
sex is always wrong.
Yes, I think it’s wrong to have a lot of sexual
partners because you are hurting yourself and others. But what if you’ve only had a few, or
just one other partner? What if you are in a committed and loving relationship,
and are being very safe? What if the woman doesn’t get pregnant? Then is it
wrong for them to have sex outside of marriage? My mother told me that it
wasn’t. My dad said something similar, but added a side note, which I’ll
mention later.
While me and the atheist guy were talking, he said that there is bad sex and good sex. There is an unhealthy way and a healthy way. It’s our perception on lust and desire that is
important. Sexual desires are natural and are not bad, but when they become the
only thing you care about, then it’s bad. When you stop considering how your
thoughts and actions will affect the other person, then it’s bad. But if there is mutual consent, respect,
desire, comfort, and safety, then how can it be bad?
What
context says:
The commentary that the Life
Application Study Bible provides
for 1 Corinthians 7:9, explains that during this time, new Christians thought that all sex was bad. So, engaged couples were deciding to not get
married, thus “Paul
was telling couples who wanted to marry that they should not frustrate their
normal sexual drives by avoiding marriage.” He wasn’t saying marry the first person you lust after, because
it is better to deal with desire than an unhappy marriage.
Now let’s talk double standards. In ancient Israel, “All sexual behavior that did not produce
legitimate Israelite offspring to the holy commonwealth was, in varying
degrees, censured or controlled… Premarital virginity, for example, was
incumbent only upon females; there is no indication that males were expected to
be virgins at marriage, and there is no provision in the Hebrew Bible (Old
Testament) for lifelong virginity” (Oxford 690). If premarital sex was so bad, then why was it only
important for women to be virgins?
Paul advocates celibacy and singleness,
because he believed that married life took our attention away from God. If we have no physical distractions, then we
could focus all of our attention on God.
Concluding
Thoughts:
Anderson and I share the same reason for exploring this topic – we are against
the shame that the purity cultural puts on people, especially women. Also, we care more about the love for one
another than condemning someone solely to their sexual status. I believe in a hierarchy of sins, because there
are definitely some that are more damaging than others. Even if premarital sex
is wrong, or having multiple partners is wrong, it is more wrong to shame them
for it, because that is damaging and pushes those people further away from God,
or from being in a safe and comfortable place among friends.
That’s why John 8:1-11 is beautiful. When an adulteress was caught in the act,
she was brought to Jesus to see what he would have done to her. In verse 7, he
says, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the
first to throw a stone at her.” Then
everyone left. When he asked her if anyone condemned her, she said no. So in
verse 11, he says, “Then
neither do I condemn you… Go now and leave your life of sin.”
I disagree with the idea that to be a credible Christian, you have to be a
virgin, or you can’t be promiscuous. Jesus never talks about sex! Want to know why? Because it is not even close to the most
important part of being a Christian. Sexuality should never be a defining trait
for who we are, because there are so many more important qualities. If I could
change language, I would say, “That
person has virginity,” rather than it being who they are. And “They have a lot of sex,” rather than they are sluts. Sexuality is a part of our whole being, yes
important, but it should not be the defining quality. Anderson agrees when she
says, “The
only thing that a sexually active person is? Is a person. Full stop.”
Anderson advocates that everyone form their own sexual ethics, and that it is
not enough just to say, “No sex before marriage!” We need to talk about sexuality “with an ethic
of knowing oneself and making good choices.” If we are only ever taught how to say no, then how can we learn to
say a healthy yes? She says, “Instead
of categorizing all premarital sexual activity as bad, we need to have
conversations about consent, and pleasure, and peer pressure.” All sex before marriage is not bad, and all sex
after marriage is not good. When talking to a friend about this, she said that
her now divorced mother thought sex was bad outside of marriage. And even when
she was married, she never enjoyed sex because her husband only cared about his
needs. This is not a healthy way of engaging in sex.
Anderson believes that a personal sexual ethic allows people to live out their
own sexuality, as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. In fact, a sexual ethic should start “in seeking the
good in others.” We need
to approach sex by first recognizing the other people as people, instead of
just for the pleasure they can provide.
When reading and researching different verses about sexual immorality, there seemed to be no definitive answer on
what that phrase meant. So, time to get only slightly philosophical. Morality
consists of principles that govern between right and wrong, bad and good. But
the problem is that everyone has a different moral compass. What is wrong for
one person is not wrong for another. Thus, sexual immorality is different from person to person and
between different people groups and cultures.
I think what is most important is to be
honest with yourself. How do
your actions make you feel now, and in the long run? What are your boundaries?
Why are they there? Your choices should be for the right reasons, and should
only come from you – not fear or pressure.
Waiting until you’re ready is incredibly important, and that doesn’t necessarily
mean until marriage for some, but for others it most definitely does. Anderson
says, readiness “means being comfortable enough with
yourself and your partner to enthusiastically consent.” That could mean the wedding night, or it could
not. Regardless, we need to respect other people’s choices. It is okay to be a
virgin and it is okay not to be. It’s okay to be any way you want sexually as long as it’s
consensual, mutual, and doesn’t involve hurting anyone.
What I have found most interesting is that even though I could use the cultural
context of the Bible to prove that it is not clear about waiting until
marriage, it’s the responses I’ve had from people, religious or not, that
coincide with what I believe. I
believe that God’s original intention was for one man to be with one woman
forever, and that this union is symbolic of our union with God. But, because we live in a fallen world, we have
been given rules and regulations to help us not be controlled by sin. Such as how Moses allowed divorce in the Old
Testament, though Jesus says that was not God’s original intention.
When I asked the young atheist guy about sex, he said that in our cultural now, it is
impractical to wait and that no one does. But then as we talked further, and we got into the discussion of
how he felt about knowing about a girlfriend’s sexual history, he admitted that
for him, sex is
very bonding, but again he said that this isn’t an ideal world. So when I asked about the ideal world, I
proposed this scenario: if he
had the opportunity to only love and be with one girl for his whole life, who had
only loved and been with him, would he prefer that? He said yes, but our world is not like that.
He’s right, our world is not like that, but it does in all practicality make the most sense to be
monogamous for life. I
learned that lesson, not because of sex, but because of love. After the pain of
my first break, I concluded that God never intended for us to love more than one person or have
multiple partners. It gets too painful
and too complicated.
I’m very thankful to be able to have open discussions with my parents about
these kinds of subjects, because the most important lessons I learn are from
them. My mom was the first one who shaped my thoughts and views of sex, but my
dad recently solidified them for me. When I asked him about his thoughts on
waiting, he
didn’t condemn anyone who didn’t wait. He didn’t provide any kind of judgment,
or say what we should or shouldn’t do. But he did tell me this: that’s it’s beautiful to know after twenty years of marriage, if
you’re still happy and in love, that you’ve only given yourself to one person. And I completely agree.
p.s. I
still strongly believe that waiting or not waiting doesn't make anyone more or
less pure. It's your heart that counts.
For the complete and extended version of this post, click on this link The Extended Version
Sources:
The
Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford
University Press: 1993
New
International Version: Life Application Study Bible
Damaged
Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity by Dianna E. Anderson (Jericho Books: 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment