The Sexless Church
by Jenniffer Ogden
Please welcome Jenniffer Ogden as a new columnist for Adventist Today. Jenn is the Children & Family Pastor at the Walla Walla University Church. A recent transplant to the Walla Walla Valley, Jenn loves the wonders of academia, locally grown produce and PNW beards. Having recently finished visiting all 50 states, she is now anticipating topping 50 states with 50 nations.
Let’s talk about sex. Birds and bees. Song of Solomon level passion. Intercourse. Where babies come from. Neural pathways that solidify connection with each sexual encounter. Let’s discuss intimacy and vulnerability. Let’s talk about sex.
Uncomfortable yet? Yeah, me too.
Sexuality may, in fact, lead the list of awkward topics in Adventist communities, closely followed by haystack explanations and bragging rights to Kellogg history. Because we embrace a Victorian view of appropriate conversations and actions—bordering on puritanical—conversations are a minefield for awkwardness.
This awkwardness leads us to decidedly sexless conversations. Our Sabbath School classes hover past sex-laden stories, sermons slide around passages that are deemed inappropriate and racy, and our parochial system limits classes to biological function, with a serious nod to abstinence, as sex education. Sex and healthy sexual relationships are left, like orphans on a doorstep, for individuals to muddle through.
And our unwillingness to talk honestly about sex may be leading to disaster.
With great awkwardness can come great shame. Driven out of a safe place to learn about biblically-principled sexuality, many have turned to alternate avenues for exploring it. The rise of pornography in Christianity paces the culture. While pornography is primarily used as a means of arousal, it is now commonly accepted as a combatant of boredom, a means of satisfying curiosity, and a source of fun.(1)
In 2014, the Barna Group conducted research of Christian men, with 77% of men(2) aged 18-30 acknowledging viewing pornography at least once a month. Three out of four men in faith communities are looking at pornography. Of men aged 18-30, 44% admit to pornography being an addiction. The statistics of a 2015 study by Josh McDowell Ministries indicate that Christian women are dealing with such addictions as well.(3)
Pornography proliferates. In a digitally savvy world, with ready access to videos and images, every person has access to pornographic material. Between 1998 and 2007, pornographic websites multiplied by 1800%.(4) And pornography has poured out of the internet and off the printed page into mainstream areas: video games, sports equipment decorated with provocative images, even children’s toys have become more sexualized. The E.L. James series Fifty Shades, an erotic trilogy published June 2011, sold over 125 million copies and remained at the top of the New York Times bestsellers list for over 100 weeks.(5)
With this expansion of readily accessible material, our relationships, families, and communities are seeing dismaying effects. Globally, human trafficking has risen sharply in recent years. The majority of trafficking victims are women and girls, some who are sold repeatedly. Of the 1,654 calls to The National Human Trafficking Resource Center this year alone, 1,220 have been about sexual trafficking victims.(6) With pornography use, violence against partners escalates, especially toward females.(7) In 2002, 62% of divorce lawyers said that pornography addiction played a large role in the divorce cases handled that year.
So what are we to do as a group of Christ followers, who want to dwell in this world and not get caught in the caustic swirl? How do we develop deeply satisfying relationships and establish healthy sexual relationships? How do we as a community reclaim the gift of sex?
We can reclaim sex by learning Godly principles for sexuality, teaching these principles in clear ways, and living these principles in our own lives. In order for us to pursue healthy sex, we must learn what scripture says about it. While the Bible is filled with stories of sexual encounters, not all of them are healthy. Not all of the relationships highlighted in scripture are meant to be examples for us to follow, but rather to serve as warnings or cautionary tales about what can happen when godly ideals are ignored or violated. In his book Flame of Yahweh,(8) Richard Davidson builds a theological understanding of sex and sexuality based on the Old Testament texts and culture. This book is one of the first of its kind that digs into the text to help us learn why these stories and relationships are significant. To be able wisely to advise and guide our own lives in the realm of sex, we must have a theology of sexuality.
As a church we have not begun to examine sex in a healthy way. While our Fundamental Beliefs cover marriage and family, specifically in belief 23, there is no discussion of healthy sex. Divorce and remarriage are covered, as are adultery and fornication, but no indication of what healthy sex and sexuality could be. Maybe it will take a formal committee, or maybe we will step into this conversation together and begin to build a deeper understanding of sex. But we must begin to build a theology of sex and it’s healthy use and exploration.
So we must talk about sex. Perhaps it will begin in awkward conversations, or in stumbling presentations in classrooms, or even poetic sermon series, but we must begin to talk about sex. We can expand Adventist education, both in schools and in our Sabbath school curriculum, to include more than biology and a list of do not’s. Speaking of wise choices: teaching life-long benefits, safe practices, and outcomes of flourishing sex life will go a long way toward heading off curiosity that leads to a harmful trap.
Finally, after learning a healthy sexual theology, and speaking of it with clarity and conviction, we must live it. Fidelity and intimacy celebrated. Bonded spouses growing in delighting in each other. Parents reflecting selfless joy to children. New relationships rooted in wise choices. Yes, it sounds idealized, but a world where divine ideals are chosen and followed will be just that—ideal.
So church, let’s chat. Let’s talk about sex.
(1) https://www.barna.org/blog/culture-media/david-kinnaman/the-porn-phenomenon#.V0VCaGMcPFJ
(2) 2014 ProvenMen.org Christian Porn Survey (conducted by Barna Group)
(3) McDowell, Josh. The Porn Phenomenon study.
(4) “Websense Research Shows Online Pornography Sites Continue Strong Growth.” (2004). PRNewswire.com, April 4
(5) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/business/media/for-fifty-shades-of-grey-more-than-100-million-sold.html
(6) https://traffickingresourcecenter.org/states
(7) Boeringer, S. B. (1994). “Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Associations of Violent and Nonviolent Depictions with Rape and Rape Proclivity.” Deviant Behavior 15, 3: 289–304; Check, J. and Guloien, T. (1989). “The Effects of Repeated Exposure to Sexually Violent Pornography, Nonviolent Dehumanizing Pornography, and Erotica.”
(8) Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, Richard Davidson – Hendrickson Publishers – 2007
Excellent. We should start here: Here is America, where these 19th century notions started (for the denomination, at any rate); ask most Europeans, and you will find that they consider Americans adolescent in our approach to sex and sexuality. For starters, let’s consider the ways in which our notions of sex and our inability to express them underly our politics, both in and outside of the church. Part of what sent accused witches to the gallows in the late 17th century was the assumption of women’s sexual voraciousness; now we supposed to be protected. First, maybe, we should invite Mr. Dobson over for tea . . . .
Thank you for this.
The witch craze was essentially over by the late 17th century. Mental illness was not treated. It didn’t exist because it had not been imagined. You have to try and understand the mindset of Europeans in the 15th, 16th, and 17th century. That is what history does. The witch craze was not so much about female sexuality as it was about God and demons and family relationships and greed and fear and envy, and most of all what we these days call mental illness.
Many of the woman accused were accused of being succubi—middle-aged women were often considered to be sexually voracious. At the other end of the political pole, many young women who worked as maids in households were raped, and yes, mental instability followed that. Of course, any rupture in society has several causes—a “perfect storm,” of conditions, including a rapidly growing society whose structure was becoming unstable. Of *course* there were religion-based accusations—New England was a theocracy then, so that’s where they had to go for arguments; also, though, was the molding rye grain during some of the years of those outbreaks that caused headaches and hallucinations; then, too, was the presence of Caribbean slaves, here and there, whose practices were naturally suspect in Puritan New England. The politics behind the trials are interesting, as well: a disproportionate number of post-menopausal women without male heirs were accused—not only were women in their forties believed to be sexually demanding, their holdings were also legally taken by the state. Gradually, after all this, the Bible was heuristically re-interpreted, and Eve was no longer self-serving and wily in “Bible stories,” but easily duped and dependent on the clear, moral thinking of Adam. We have to remember, too, that, even though several (very few) men were hanged (or pressed), a witch hunt is about women. “It’s complicated.”
Winona,
The witch craze spanned the sixteenth and seventeenth century. It was a European phenomenon. The Salem witch trials loom large in American History, but only as a curiosity. The Salem Witch Trials are an afterword to a story. Calling Colonial New England a theocracy shows an ignorance of both theocracy and the puritans.
Johannes Keplar’s mother, Katharina Nicolson was tried as a witch. Typically her case was rooted in a dispute with neighbors. Keplar knew his mother was trading in charms and potions, in a word, witchcraft. It was a way of harnessing spiritual power to the service and needs of the possessors of dark and secret knowledge. It goes on all the time in Africa today. You might think its quaint folk medicine, but that is not how it was seen by the people of that time. It isn’t how most Africans see it today. In short, most witch trials were about witchcraft, with lots of baggage. They weren’t about sex. The complicated part is trying to understand the mindset and thinking of sixteenth century Europe. An unpublished fictional work of Keplar’s about traveling to the moon might have also triggered suspicions about Katharina Nicolson. Science fiction was a dark art.
Historians with a feminist inclination want to tell the ‘witch craze’ tale a certain way. They are harnessing history to an agenda. Its bad politics and it is certainly bad history.
The original article, here, is about American, especially American Adventists’ notions of what sex is or should be, and a disinclination to talk about it, which is the immediate problem. No one would question the practice of with-hunting in Europe (Luther, himself, didn’t decry it); but the point about how it was different in New England in the 1640s and 90s is a good one—our culture was different, our social goals and ambitions were different from those in Europe. And by most standards, we had a theocratic political system during those times. Feminist take on this, or not, Cliometrics do point out many female-centric issues in all of with-hunting. Was the craze entirely misogynist? No. Racist? No. Different here from in Europe? Yes. Influenced by those behaviors? Of course. Events like this are complex and are neither entirely unique nor entirely derivative: They serve a purpose in the social, economic,l and political climates in which they occur. Were felines able to read, write, and tell history better, we might also get an interesting interpretation of the great cat massacres in France and Belgium, too.
I am sick of my addiction to social media. Therefore, I am going on a “social media fast” for 40 days and 40 nights. During that period of fasting from all social media, I will be live-tweeting my observations and keeping my Facebook friends constantly updated on my experience.
Let’s talk about sex? Why not, everybody else is. How about starting off discussing the intrinsic inequality rooted in the differences between the male and the female. Then lets talk about how disordered relations between the sexes have become because of this delusion the male and female are equal. Marriage works a whole lot better if it is ordered in accordance with nature. By nature men and women are not equal.
By all means, lets be frank and talk about sex being between to unequal participants. Sex is about penetration. You have a penetrator and you have the penetrated. It can contain mutuality, but sexual equality is a fiction. Sexual equality exists only in the human imagination.
This will be fun.
“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power”
Setting sex aside to a normally functioning believer is like taking God out of church of believers.
Of course, sexual acts are not about equality or freedom. If they were we wouldn’t need old time religion to fill our everyday gaps of unhappiness. Men will “penetrate” till orgasm or whenever orgasms stop them.
Women may not orgasm at all during sex or reach multiple orgasms at once and ready for more in spite of that.
Sex is not equality but it is essential. While the act of sex and orgasms and gratification center around exploitation like an opportunistic predator.
Truly satisfying and well developed sexual needs are entered into by equal partners, otherwise the effects are disastrous.
The problem is not God’s imaginary edict against sex but our reactions to sex. The aforementioned statistics are silly like divorce and violence, because sexual corruption doesn’t mean sex corrupt us. But we corrupt sex with our violent and hateful attitudes. If we are not mature and thoughtful adults, sex confidently feeds our impulsive behaviors.
If enter into sex with inferiority complexes, insecurities, and for the sake of conventions (whether it’s marriage or peer-pressure) then unhealthy self-images will be reinforced and exacerbated.
Sex itself is beautiful. It is because things get messy after sex, why positive behaviors have to be established beforehand.
Sex has never been the problem. Our reactions to sex is the problem and mimic many problems that are seemingly everywhere and resentfully started with a curios bite of an apple. Our innate sexual desires exacerbate the epidemic of problematic neuroses. Sex has been historically used to traumatically subjugate partners, from children to prizes of battle.
William, inequality is the point of rape- not just violence or desirability but, a never-ending show of “I’m better than you.” There can be no rape without a the idea of inequality in non-consent.
Like the Bible, sex is regularly used as a weapon to shame people, entice weaker subjects of various addictions, and vilify the shameless unless they are ubermensch or Trump.
Paul would rather us avoid sex all together b/c unless we totally prepared to handle issues as a result- sex will not solve our problems. But nevertheless, if we need that fix- marriage and some more disciplines can use our sexual desire in a positive and satisfying way.
Now, William- look up Ammon, for consequences in taking advantage of a girl, an entire family destroyed. But imagine if the sons of David weren’t rich and famous and only sinners.
Entire wars are devoted themselves to correcting wrongs concerning sex, which only makes things worse. Of course, Absalom could have let it go or Agammenon could have reasoned there were plenty other fish in the Greek seas. They didn’t, they were raised not to let it go, and as men they were expected to…
kill and rape the enemy. Their endless sexual desires and endless concubines was unhealthily linked to their abilities to kill and instill fear.
So when Ammon rapes a girl that is unequal to him in status and lust. A woman that unequal apart from her brother, Absalom. And the better man in the story in Absalom, is clearly better at killing and raping in his own right. Ammon violently dies early and Absalom later. Things get messy and messier after sex.
But sex is powerful and if things are not worked out beforehand as Ammon learned, sex will be one of the last decisions- you, me or any sinner makes.
Equal respect is an important foundation for healthy behaviors before things spin out of hand.
The most violent reactionaries to sex are based in conservative factions or fundamentalist circles from Islam to Judaism that exploit helpless victims and reward deviants.
Our challenge, is that positive reinforcement of vulnerability rather than simple penetration can alleviate the cultural glorification of deviants w/ conquests of modern day concubines and the value of Bathsheba like sex appeal. That a man can love and be vulnerable with a woman before having sex with her. And that men and women find vulnerability and positive attitudes to be desirable for the sake for relationship not animalistic exploitation.
Lynn,
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said except, “the most violent reactionaries to sex are the conservative, reactionary, fundamentalists in Islam and Judaism.” something close to that. Apart from not even knowing what that means I would posit it is only the Law of Moses, Judaism’s Law, that got it right about sex. It is this law that Jesus taught us.
“Equal respect is an important foundation for healthy behaviors before things spin out of hand.” I would have said mutual respect, but no quibbling, I agree with what you wrote. But I want to expand.
You use Absolam/Tamar/Amnon’s story to illustrate it. Let’s include David/Uriah/Bathsheba and ask ourselves a simple question. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. What if David had of followed God’s Law? Would he have done the things he did? What if Amnon had kept the Law of the Jews? Even Tamar and Bathsheba, if they had cried out, in accordance with the law, things might have ended differently. The only honorable, law-abiding, character here was Uriah – and he was not a Jew.
Respecting God’s law is the only sure foundation for mutually respecting one another. The modern world thinks every one is equal. What nonsense. Sex teaches us that everyone is not equal. Lets respect the differences. Let us respect God’s Law.
William, do you seriously suggest that the Decalogue is the best statement of how males/females should relate? ‘Thou shalt not adulterate another man’s property,’ ‘Thou shalt not covet another man’s wife, nor his other goods and chattels.’ Women as property. Is that the very best you can offer?
Is not ‘all are one in Christ Jesus’ a huge advance in enlightened thinking on this subject?
Serge,
Without qualification: Yes. The ten commandments are the best we can do. Wives are not chattel property in the Law. They have rights, chattel does not. We can nip it in the bud not coveting women who belong to others. Do not commit adultery is a hedge about us. We are talking about sex, right? Don’t do it except with your wife. That is the best we can do.
Jesus said: “They shall become one flesh” that has to do with sex and children.
All one in Christ doesn’t have anything to do with sex, I hope. You leave my wife alone Serge. She belongs to me. I’m a jealous man.
Sex has never been the problem. Our reactions to sex are problems and these problematic reactions have effects everywhere. They started with regrettable and curious bite of an apple. And Adam has been paying ever since he choose woman over God and eternal life. Our innate sexual desires exacerbate the epidemic of problematic neuroses. Sex has been historically used to traumatically subjugate partnership, from children to prizes of battle.
William, inequality is the point of rape- not just violence or desirability but, a relentless show of “I’m better than you.” There can be no rape without an idea of inequality in non-consent.
Like the Bible, sex is regularly used as a weapon to shame people, entice weaker subjects of various addictions, and vilify the shameless unless they are ubermensch or Trump.
Paul would rather us avoid sex all together b/c unless we totally prepared to handle issues as a result- sex will not solve our problems. But nevertheless, if we need that fix- marriage and some more disciplines can use our sexual desire in a positive and satisfying way.
Now, William- look up Ammon, for consequences in taking advantage of a girl, an entire family destroyed. But imagine if the sons of David weren’t rich and famous and only sinners.
Entire wars are devoted themselves to correcting wrongs concerning sex, which only makes things worse. Of course, Absalom could have let it go or Agammenon could have reasoned there were plenty other fish in the Greek seas…
Sexual freedom acknowledges sexual needs are not grounds for exploitation or vilification. That equally based w/ mutual understanding relationships can accentuated by sex. Whereby there is an expectation of mutual enjoyment in copulation and such liberated thinking comes from humility not patriarchal dogma or decaying mores. Dogma’s phallic penetrators and passive aggression of penetrated are useless stereotypes.
We are equal under the law. And THE LAW is by Kings like David, brothers like Ammon, sons like Absalom and men within the church not to follow but disguise their sins with male privilege.
These unrepentant men destroy God’s church because they exploit the little ones disguise with an authoritative mantle from God.
It’s sinfully naive or a devil’s advocate to imagine if everyone obeyed the law. Ideally before Eve and as Paul says- men and women shouldn’t be having sex in or out marriage or in any way. From the Garden of Eden, men gave up eternal life with
God for a mortal and sinful life with the woman God created for us.
Sexual liberation positively brings attention to vulnerability and opposes exploitation especially under guise of “family values” dogma. Sex is not there to cure people into happy- but it is reserved for unhappy people that cannot resist, so they can share amongst each other. Just maybe they’ll appreciate whatever bits of happiness has been there all along and maybe their needy vulnerability is why love and forgiveness…
God has given us sex and intimacy as a gift. If our mission is to represent the truth about God we should be foremost in talking about sex and intimacy.
MY note of caution on this subject is that if we do talk about sex, stones are going to be thrown, unfortunately some of the ones throwing stones will be Adventist Christians. But that’s ok, we are all imperfect. My encouragement to you is to dodge as many of those stones as you can, but if they hit you, extend the same grace that Jesus did to His persecutors. We all need grace. The important thing to remember is that God’s will is to seek and save the lost, who are present in conversations about sex and intimacy. We need to be there…just like Jesus sat with the disciples and disreputables, His presence, His peace, His wisdom, His healing needs to be there…His Holy Spirit, through us, needs to be there.
Just because we join the conversation about sex and intimacy, does not mean we abandon our righteousness or compromise our Christian values, quite the contrary. The goal is to be a light, God’s light, navigating the discussion of sex through God’s Holy Word and illuminating the world with His truth.
Jennifer,
Welcome! If your first topic is any indication, I am definitely looking forward to reading your future postings because I think you’re going to be challenging us in practical ways.
Sex provides a couple with the intimacy that allows them to see themselves apart from the rest of the world. This is the “one flesh” spoken about in Genesis 2:24. In Genesis 4:25 we read that “…Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son…” That was intimacy with the natural result of producing children.
Many people today claim they “know” God when they know facts about him but don’t have an intimate relationship with Him. Since the natural product of an intimate relationship with God is producing spiritual offspring, new believers in God, what are we to conclude about those who claim to “know” him? The only logical conclusion is that their knowledge is merely factual instead of the intimate relationship God wants us to have with Him where the natural result will be creating new believers.
Let’s also remember that sexual communication and emotional intimacy are two different experiences; ideally, they occur in one relationship, but they don’t always. Not being able to navigate those differences or figure out how to make them work together makes for a lot of trouble, at home and in the community. Without resolving the intimacy situation (no matter how one identifies that) will make for bad politics in the practice or experience of sexual communication; believing that people are inherently unequal lays the foundation for those bad politics, from the dinner table (more likely, the kitchen), to the bedroom, to the boardroom, to national policies.
One observes people are inherently unequal. One can only believe in equality – one can’t see it. Equality is first a legal contrivance and secondarily an imaginary construct.
And that men and women find vulnerability and positive attitudes to be desirable for the sake for relationship not animalistic exploitation. W/o that then is sexual exploitation, neurotic behaviors, and violent deeds are the reactionary results to negative sexual attitudes. Rather than keep sex out of classroom, the cry should be to keep VIOLENCE OUT OF SEX! Or at least turn down its exploitative volume via sex. Ammon, Absalom, and Delilah even Agammenon can all testify that- we will lead assuredly happier lives as a result of this welcoming revelation.
Sexual freedom acknowledges sexual needs are not grounds for exploitation or vilification. That equally based w/ mutual understanding relationships can accentuated by sex. Whereby there is an expectation of mutual enjoyment in copulation and this liberated thinking comes from humility not patriarchal dogma. Dogma depicts phallic penetrators and the passive aggression of penetrated in useless stereotypes.
Equality for our own sake to stop creating a ravenous Absalom for believing simple murder and rape is a more important ambition than discipline and understanding.
Animals are unequal but people are enriched by equal respect for law and each other, no matter how animalistic lusts are.
. . . . or, more likely, a prejudicial one. Most of us develop our notions of God from how our parents relate/d to us and to each other. Over authoritizing (“it’s a word, now . . . . “) or over-sentimentalizing God is a sign of prejudice and lack of intimacy. This thread promises to be a lively one.
Winona, that may be true about notions. But this thread is about sex and the sexes. Men and women aren’t equal. That is observably obvious. We imagine otherwise.
Relations between the sexes have
never been better? Marital bliss is at
record highs? Disordered sexuality is no longer a problem? Our new fangled ideas about equality have ameliorated these problems so efficiently we looking backwards for mistakes in our thinking is unthinkable. Right?
We are talking in the dark here. Before any kind of useful discussion can come out of this, we need to agree on what “sex” is, how we define it or identify it, where it’s located, how we measure it, and what its relationship to “gender” is. Today, we see that the “sex” of human beings (and most mammals) is on a continuum. Too many babies are born as neither male nor female, too many males are born with a double (complete) X chromosome and females without one (an incomplete second X, or Y), and too many cultures have made accommodations for that for us to believe “sex” is an external truth. Yes, more boys have learning disabilities than girls, more girls are linguistically able than boys, and high testosterone levels often interfere with nurturing. But these are only statistics and predictive; they are not formative. Statistically, men have more muscle mass than women, but that does not mean that any given man will necessarily have more than any given woman; not every woman has better verbal skills than any man; both men and women must contend with learning disabilities. A biologist or neonatal endocrinologist or an anthropologist should weigh in, here, or everyone will talk past each other.
Winona,
We don’t need an expert to tell us what sex is. Let’s leaved confused sex to the hermaphrodite. All the myriad sexual misbehavior we can call sin (or an abomination). Gender we will leave to the nouns. And let’s agree sex is, as you call it, an external truth. You look and you should be able to tell.
And I’d recommend a trip to the barnyard. The animals all know what sex is, they don’t need an expert to explain. They know what to do.
This is the biblical view of sex.
Bro. Abbott,
I do not think of men and women as unequals, but as different and complimentary halves of a whole, the “one flesh” that God planned for us to enjoy as complimentary teammates in life for the purposes of mutual support, procreation and representing the character of God to a new generation. I think our challenge today is that society has reduced sexuality to things like physical expression and the seeking of pleasure where adding the spiritual dimension gives us the challenge of lifetime partnership in a relationship that God designed would teach us many things about our relationship with Him. Are we equal with God? No way! But in our partnership with Him, we become greater than we are by ourselves. So I think teaching about sexuality and sexual relationships must include our relationship with God.
Yeah, my sex education consisted of my mom handing me a book, “On Becoming a Man” by Harold Shryock (still available on Amazon, by the way!) and saying “You need to read this.”
Being an avid reader, I did. Yoiks.
Turns out my wife was gifted with the “companion” book for girls by her mom.
That was it! 🙂
So, Jennifer, carrying on! The sturm and drang in Comments section will no doubt illustrate the total lack of useful info the church continues to provide to anyone, let alone kids.
(Heating up the popcorn popper! This is going to fun to watch! LOL)
Everyone should read the Love Book in the Bible: Song of Solomon, where physical love is described in detail, shamelessly. There is also no evidence that the couple enjoying physical intimacies are married! While many explain that this is all allegory, the Jews never called it allegorical, and pleasure and enjoyment is happily expressed by the woman; something extremely rarely, if ever mentioned in the Biblical stories of sex. In most world cultures female participation and pleasure was considered irrelevant, even vulgar.
Today, young people are faced with conditions never before expected of them. Since history has been recorded, women were considered marriageable after puberty as their major occupation was giving birth to “replenish and multiply”, and caring for the young. No one can deny that the great changes have affected women much more than men. Birth control has effectively eliminated early and many pregnancies and given women the opportunity to pursue more education and preparation for life. With more years spent in education for both sexes, marriage has been delayed to an average age of 29 for men and 27 for women. The delay in experiencing sex for 10 or more years following puberty and the strongest surge of hormones is both unrealistic and discouraging for those who defer sex until marriage. How many male virgins would there be at 29? How many females at 27?
Elaine,
You write: “How many male virgins would there be at 29? “ I can think of at least one example; Jesus Christ. But I do agree: this idea no respectable person ought to get married until they are in their late 20s is insane.
The book by Harold Shryock MD, On Becoming a Man (1951) was mentioned. For many years, the late Dr. Shryock lived around the corner from me in Loma Linda and I had the privilege of having several fascinating conversations with this distinguished gentleman about this book and why and how it was written. While he was well along in years at the time, his intellect and memory were first rate, absolutely unaffected by his age. He was not hesitant to indicate that at the beginning, he had difficulty in getting the church publishing authorities to admit there was a need for such a book. But my most memorable conversation was when he related his experience in starting to write an updated version of this book. He completed a draft of part of what would have been a 2nd edition of On Becoming a Man and thought it would be a good idea to show his draft to his teenage grandsons. Apparently they were on very good terms with their grandfather and were able to communicate their concerns about the original book as well as his attempt to write an updated version. According to him, they gently told him don’t do a 2nd edition. Things had changed too much in the culture even of Adventism. His approach would have not been received well by its intended audience because it would be viewed as totally out-of-touch with the current situation. He was highly amused by the reaction of his grandchildren and the book was never completed.
An interesting fact: at least one version of On Becoming a Woman recommended that if a woman feels too libidinous, she can ask her doctor to perform a clitoridectomy on her. (He calls it circumcision.) Just a simple operation, no complications. http://www.cirp.org/library/anthropology/bell1/, search page for Shryock.
By the way, an indication of how far certain Adventist church entities are totally out-of-touch with reality on this topic is indicated by the fact that Pacific Press has republished On Becoming a Man with a 2013 copyright—not mentioning that the book was written in 1951.
I would agree that this conversation about sex is valuable, but I sure hope it doesn’t get to committee level. We already have a rabid bunch of thought police trying to decide who’s in and who’s out. Don’t think I could stand yet another level of institutional parenting with sexuality as the object.
Okay Jenniffer – you say, “Let’s talk about sex.” But what should the Church be saying. Without a clear understanding of God’s word – past and present – what do we have to say?
I don’t think the problem is lack of talk. As in so many areas where the church should be confronting culture, we have simply lost our voice. The suggestion that we need to talk about “sex” underscores the problem. It implies the legitimacy of separating coitus from intimate, mature, covenant male-female relationships which are committed to being true to the nature designed by God.
Our problems are not caused by pornography. Pornorgraphy is the metastatic result of the sexual revolution presided over by the same progressives who now purport to offer band-aid cures for the genie they let out of the bottle.
Mind you, I acknowledge the problem. And I think the church should have something to say about it. But it doesn’t – at least not right now. Because too many leaders in SDA churches and schools would rather be politically correct than speak the truth about human nature and purpose from a Biblical perspective. Being nice trumps speaking the truth.
I don’t remember many talks about sex from anyone when I grew up. Oh my mom explained anatomy to me when I was about 12. But I had no idea what she was saying. What I did know was that sexual relationships were exclusive to a marriage between a man and a woman. The fact that we have not lived up to that standard is no reason to…
…is no reason to abandon it. We are fooling ourselves if we judge our maturity by our ability to overcome conversational taboos and – figuratively – verbally take off our clothes in front of each other to prove that we are really starting to confront the sexual psychopathologies that culture embraces.
Really, Nathan, you missed the whole second half of this essay, where Jenniffer calls for a theology of sex, and not only understanding it Biblically, but living it in your life, setting an example of mature Christian sexuality in committed relationships? All you read was the first line, and assumed she was calling for some kind of undisciplined blabbing on and on about sex?
I thought Nathan was very accurate and articulate. The article denotes many issues and sins, then calls for a theology on and of actions. We have theology’s on these things already.
sin is sin, no matter what you blame it on or call it. Failure is failure, no matter how you twist it. Is it not time to take responsibility and accountability?
Anything can be used for good or evil; even HIS greatest blessings, which HE owns. Do we teach that? Do we teach the young men that they will have the responsibilities to Love as CHRIST? Of course not. Do we teach the young women to love their husbands and children, to be discrete, chaste, keepers of the home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of GOD be not blasphemed? Of course not. Do we live such example? Of course not.
Then we plead problems that are the resultants of failures to heed HIS simple commands, complain and attempt to offer alternate solutions or pass the blame?
We can look around and see the absolute failures of the family, society and civilization. Maybe we should look to ourselves as the problem, within current theology; before creating new. How can we ever be the example to our children or others in such a state?
There is no solution posed here, only continuance of the same failures.
No Loren, I didn’t miss the second half of Jenniffer’s essay. I just found it lacking in substance. The Church has very little authority among the North American SDAs who need a voice of authority. I can’t imagine that a theology of sex is really lacking. My suspicion, though she didn’t say so, is that Jenniffer thinks our position on sex is outdated and fails to account for the realities of modern culture and science.
I recently saw a statement floating around out together by a GC study group that offered guidelines to churches and church institutions on dealing with sexual minorities. I don’t know whether or at what level that was adopted. I even offered some indirect input, some of which was favorably received.
If Jenniffer is talking about the plague of pornography, I don’t think many would argue that we need a think tank to tell us it’s evil. What, if anything, the church can do about this symptom is something I don’t have an answer to.
When men in black robes began telling us half a century ago that freedom of speech compels the state to permit pornography, but the anti- establishment clause forbids prayer in public schools, we should have known that we were entering an Alice in Wonderland moral world. Instead, the Church embraced the ban on prayer, and kept its mouth shut about pornography.
The progressive men in black discovered a few years later that the government must stay out of the bedroom. And now they tell us the government belongs…
in our bathrooms. Of course, once you go down the intellectual rabbit hole it all appears quite reasonable and coherent. I’m not sure the Church wants to out Humpty together again or that it is willing to admit it’s failures to speak out when basic societal morals were being assaulted in the name of the First Amendment. After all, if we can keep the Wall of Separation between church and state high, who cares about what faux, excremental freedoms are thereby advanced!
“My suspicion, though she didn’t say so, is that Jenniffer thinks our position on sex is outdated and fails to account for the realities of modern culture and science.”
Exactly, Nathan. You not only suspect (which would have prompted a question of Jenniffer, not a rebuttal), but you’re assuming that Jenniffer has taken a permissive attitude toward sexuality (“though she didn’t say so”) that you disapprove of. I wonder if you’d get away with that in court, without your opponent objecting?
You may find her prescription weak, but that’s not the same as saying it isn’t there, and that you know better than she does what she’s thinking about.
She’s pretty clearly saying that a prudish silence about sex is only letting the other voices speak to our young people, and call them into unChristian understandings of sex.
Loren, her tone doesn’t sound at all like she is permissive. She just seems to be looking for a top down approach. why do we need a more developed theology of sex to unequivocally condemn the evils she identifies?
In court, my objection to what she says would be that it is vague and lacking in specificity. It’s like telling the church that it needs to develop a theology for pool safety when everyone knows pretty well how dangerous pools can be for small children, and what should be done to keep children safe around pools.
As far as I’m aware, there is no Biblical teaching on pool safety nor, for that matter, any controversy about it. Yet wherever there is a pool, we continue to mention it, put up signs about it, and try to improve it. Of sexuality, there are competing moral viewpoints. Jenniffer says, let’s talk about it so our young people don’t default to the opposition, which is speaking loudly and strongly against what the Bible says.
Vague it may have been, though that’s not what you originally objected to. You seemed to be saying that there’s no reason to talk about things that we already know the answers to. I’m not quite sure what she could have said that would have made it a full and complete theology for you: she did say that we have to use the Bible as our casebook. Did she have to take on bathroom law? Political correctness, which has become a shibboleth for blurting out anything one wants to say without criticism? (I’m not sure how political correctness applies here at all: it seems more politically incorrect to talk about such things in the church, which Jenniffer wants to do, though you don’t seem to like that, either.)
Not surprising this is a hot topic. Glad to hear your voices on here!
In all corners, frank conversation needs to be had so that the sinking into the seamy side of culture can be avoided. While in some points a top down approach would be great (permission to speak clearly sir?) and stir conversation, this dialogue must be pervasive.
And it cannot wait. I work with children. And they are talking – often inaccurately – and need help navigating.
It appears my previous comment, reflecting real life experiences of many people in Asian countries, has been deleted. That’s fine with me. It does however, prove that this corner of the SDA church is unwilling or unable to deal with realistic sexuality in the daily life of people all over the world.
To become relevant, that’s what the church needs to deal with. The ICOC understood that, which is why their church movement attracted thousands of young people in the backyard of Adventism, while its own youth were walking away from the SDA church.
I think the main reason why we avoid the topic is that we don’t all agree, as a community, as to how to talk about it. We would rather just ignore it than continue the discussion where disagreements are perpetual.
Maybe you could start by addressing what marriage is. At how many wedding ceremonies have you heard a clergyman intone the following? “By the power vested in me by the state of _____, I now pronounce you husband and wife. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
So which is it? Is the couple joined by God or by the power of the state? Or neither?
Or maybe you could discuss how the words we use affect how we think and what we do. Sex is the difference between male and female. Almost all babies “have sex” when they are born. I know! I know! “Having sex” is intended as an euphemism for coitus. There was a time when the word, “intercourse” was employed with reference to other kinds of intercourse than sexual. Now, one dare not use the word that way for fear of being misunderstood.
How many people think the purpose of “the church” is to tell people what to do and not do?
When we moved into the house where we now reside, our landlord told us that one of our neighbors is drunk most of the time. My response was, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
There is nothing wrong with calling sin by its right name but how should we (professed Christians) treat “sinners”? Should we try to get them to act like Christians so they can become part of the family of God? Or should we encourage them to trust the Lord to such an extent that, by beholding him, they become changed?
There I go again, telling you what to do and not do!
Assume Jennifer’s preamble entrance to the subject matter, vague as some have commented, was purposely quoted, so as to invite participation, rather than state a expert’s opinion. Having a lifetime of observation and participation in sharing intimacy of marriage, with one spouse, i believe Fidelity is
basic, no. 1, on the list of understanding. Nothing will destroy a marriage quicker than the act of infidelity, on the part of either of the lovers. The privacy of their bonding is to themselves only, not to be shared, and not to be a tool to cause jealousy in their lover. The biblical sexual expressions in the Song of Solomon, indicate that the Joy of Sex between lovers is to be all they wish it to be. Different strokes for differen folks, as indicated. Reminds me of an old funny ” No sex please, we are British”. More later.
An interesting opening essay. Written in a fresh and convincing manner. May I add that the SDA church has talked much about sex – surprisingly much! Starting with EGW and Kellogg, who wrote extensively about the topic, Shryock, Whittschiebe, Kubo, Mazat, van Pelt, Davidson – to name the more prominent writers. How much each of these writers were more influenced by their time than we might feel appropriate from today’s perspective, will be a matter of debate. And yet I whole heartedly agree with the writer that we need to talk about sex, as it is one of the troubling topics – even in the most “liberated” or “liberal” worlds (within Adventism, think La Sierra). And – we need both: a theological framework and the practical 21st century application of such a framework.
Andreas,
Not only have we Adventists talked much about sex, we have said some pretty weird stuff too. I read Ron Number’s Prophetess of Health several years ago. And read some things about Kellogg. Biblical ideas about sex are enduring and eternal and true. We need a guide for study; I suggest the scripture.
If this site is supposed to be for thinking Adventists, it’s a big fail. “Thinking Adventist” is an oxymoron.
If this site is supposed to be for thinking Adventists, it’s a big fail. “Thinking Adventist” is an oxymoron.
Vilma, I agree. In effect, the directive from the G.C. is: “You scholars are free to use your mind, do research, and investigate anything and come to any conclusion that the evidence leads to, as long as it agrees with what was written in the little red books.” It reminds me of early car buyers’ freedom to choose various colors of paint. Henry Ford said: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.”
Vilma-
I don’t how long your comment will survive but your observation is right on target.
Vilma,
While I have tasted oranges that lacked sweetness, or were downright sour, ‘sweet oranges’ is not an oxymoron. Labeling and sarcasm are not conducive to honest debate. We can certainly make our contributions without denouncing a whole group of people (Thinking Adventist).
With the invitation to talk about sex, I hope we will get some serious discussion on the subject. Maybe we may address things such as the corelattion between infidelity and ED. Maybe, we may examine the research on role of sexual fantasy during sexual intercourse. Just maybe, we may be bold enough to address why men and women cheat. Maybe we can discuss the role of sex toys in enhancing the sexual experience.
Vilma,
I guess that depends on your definition of “Adventist”.
If you think “Adventists” means someone who is merely a follower of other men’s thoughts, then I can see how you would reach your conclusion.
On the other hand, if by “adventists” you mean those who, regardless of our denominational affiliation, believe the millennial kingdom will be an heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one (I prefer to use the lowercase “a” in describing people whose identity as adventists transcends denominational affiliation), then it is interesting to note that, even if you don’t entirely agree with what they “thought”, the advent movement was begun by people who, laying aside traditions and the decisions of church councils, studied their Bible for themselves and realized that there were other ways of understanding sacred writ beside what was being popularly taught at that time. My their tribe increase.
Roger, those unnamed “people who, laying aside traditions and the decisions of church councils, studied their Bible for themselves” presumably included Ellen White. But soon, they stopped relying on reason and began to rely on her pronouncements and alleged visions. The was no longer room for true research, evaluation, and critical thinking. They lapsed into a robotic “thus saith Ellen” mindset. Even to this day, academic freedom among Adventist theologians is severely circumscribed by the strict and unbending parameters set in stone by the “thus saith Ellen” mentality inscribed into Fundamental Belief # 18. Despite various instances where Ellen’s pronouncements contradict Scripture, Adventist theologians’ ability to “think” is limited to debating whether Ellen meant “X” or whether she meant “Y.” They cannot explore that the Bible actually means if such exploration might discredit Ellen’s edicts. Thinking stopped where EGW began. If Vilma is referring to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, she is correct: “Thinking Adventist” is an oxymoron.
Ernie,
Not around here. You can think anything you want and still be an Adventist. Trust me.
Ernie, you hit the nail on the head. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination has taken an (unwritten) stance that Biblical scholarship ended in 1915. Truth was set in concrete on the day that E.G. White died. This is ironic, because she herself wrote the opposite:
• “We should have a spirit of progress. We must guard continually against being fixed in our views….” (Testimonies 3, p. 540)
• “We must not think, ‘Well, we have all the truth.’… The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light.” (Evangelism, p. 296)
• “A spirit of Pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days.… They have said, ‘We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God.’ But we are not safe when we take the position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God’s word for truth.… Increasing light is to shine upon us.…” (Review and Herald, June 18, 1888).
Too bad the denomination ignores those directions from her pen, while treating everything else in her books as “gospel.” . . . . No wonder some have likened the G.C. to the Vatican.
Whats your take on the Ordination Study Committee?
William, I think the TOSC was a meaningless exercise because the GC President knew what outcome he wanted (and had a plan on how to achieve it) regardless of what TOSC concluded. Wilson’s autocratic approach contradicted the very words of the “prophetess” that he so adores. She clearly called for open-mindedness and advancement of truth. Just take a look at this collection of what she said on that subject. It sounds pretty “progressive” to me: http://EqualOrdination.com/egw-how-to-share-truth/
Did you think the member of the TOSC committee were ‘Thinking Adventists’ ?
William, I read all three of the TOSC position papers and the transcripts of the oral presentations based on those papers, and No, the TOSC members were not really “thinking Adventists.” They were confined by strict parameters of the Spirit of Prophecy. No matter what their research might find in the Bible, they were constrained to justify them by showing that the findings also fit within EGW’s paradigm. It boiled down to a bunch of “scholars” debating about “what did Ellen White mean” by her statements? That is not academic freedom. That is not thinking. That is slavish cult-like adherence to a limited pre-defined set of officially-sanctioned dogma — anything outside of which would be labeled “heresy.”
In fact, EGW specifically commanded the church to ““Study the Scriptures for further light on this point [women in ministry]. Women were among Christ’s devoted followers in the days of His ministry, and Paul makes mention of certain women who were helpers together with him in the gospel (see Phil. 4:2-3).” (Letter 142, 1909; Manuscript Releases, Vol. 12, pp. 166-167).
Time and again, EGW supported women in ministry, but Wilson found ways to downplay her repeated statements. Take a look at them: http://EqualOrdination.com/egw-on-women-ministers/ . They are powerful and very “progressive” – and contrary to the General Conference Pope’s views.
I think there are thousands (and there may well be tens of thousands) of adventists in the United States whose religion is biblical Christianity, not Whiteism. Adventist thinkers rejected creedalism from the very beginning. They were afraid organization would lead to creedalism and that is one of the main reasons they were opposed to organization.
It may very will be true that the majority of the members of our denomination today (I think almost all of those in countries that were never predominately protestant) are mere followers, not thinkers. The good news is that the preamble of the “official” list of “Fundamental Beliefs” still says it is not a creed. The only way an adventist can follow any man’s (or woman’s) thoughts is to be unaware of or reject the origins of the advent movement.
The “unnamed” thinkers include William Miller, baptist; Joshua V. Himes and Joseph Bates, christian connnexion; Josiah Litch, methodist, Charles Fitch, congregationalist; Samuel Snow; Hiram Edson; O.R.L. Crosier; Dr. F. B. Hahn.
The key to the movement continuing to be a movement is to search our Bibles for hidden treasure rather than arguing about whether the pioneers of the movement were right about this or wrong about that.
Speaking of oxymorons: I was active in adventist congregations for several decades before I ever heard or read the phrase, “Adventist traditions”.
Roger, see my comment to Ernie, above. Nancy van Gogh also made a cogent point further above: “It reminds me of early car buyers’ freedom to choose various colors of paint. Henry Ford said: ‘Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.’”
Loren suggests that we need to talk about sex so that our young people don’t fall prey to the “opposition.” What opposition? Aren’t there multiple opposing perspectives, at least within NAD circles? And don’t they all offer theological and Biblical rationales?
As I have thought about this – and Jenniffer, you have provoked thought, it seems to me that the trouble lies in our failure to have strong Binlically based convictions about issues that determine sexual attitudes and behaviors. If we don’t get those issues straight, we will not find light or clarity talking about sex.
IMHO, we need to go back to the fundamentals of human nature – what does it mean to be fallen creatures, created in the image of God? First of all, it means that we are sinful. Our hearts are desperately wicked – deceitful above all things. No I know that grates on the contemporary self-esteem crowd that worships the holy trinity of needs wants and feelings. I’m not okay – and neither are you!
The second fundamental we need to embrace – without losing sight of our sinful condition – is that God loves us with an everlasting love. And because of that love, we are of infinite value.
The third thing we need to get straight is that we are not our own – we were bought for a price. We live to glorify God. That is our nature and destiny. When we submit to our created nature, as revealed in scripture, a lot of other things will fall into place. Cont.
But that’s no fun Nate, you say. Those are just cliched oversimplifications of complex issues. I know.
Evolutionary biologists have been talking for over a hundred years about the origin of life without having a fundamental notion of the nature of life. As long as they view life materialistically, they will never know how to explore its origins. Christians know that human life is not simply physical. The Creator spoke life into existence and breathed into man the breath of life.
Let’s develop – or perhaps simply remember – who we are as humans created in God’s image, and maybe there will be a lot less confusion about details like sex.
Bonded Husbands and Wives, in this day and age we have to be clear of what the bible teaches about marriage.
I am not sure what is the point of the article?
I am assuming that the author wants to explore the beauty of sex between husbands and wives, and that sex is a blessing to be celebrated by married men and women.
Or she talking about sex outside of marriage between man and woman.
I think the family life department of the church do a decent job at various couples retreats to talk about sex, infact I am recently married and I was shocked at how open pastors were at the reach in describe sex and intimacy and the retreat was a blessing.
We should always emphasize that sex is a beautiful blessing for a married man and woman in every single discussion on sex.
Perhaps we have discovered a topic that will attract the most diverse set of opinions–left, right, reasonable, specious, out-of-touch, just strange, irrelevant. Marketing experts have consistently argued that sex sells. A corollary to this observation is that everyone thinks of him/herself as an expert on the topic and then we have certain individuals who wish to be an expert for everyone–else in the name of God, of course .
If anyone is so naive that he believes that young people, for whom such a study would largely be addressed, you are mistaken. Nor does the Bible offer any guidance; unless someone would suggest that the very common practice of polygamy and concubinage was also practiced for most of the time covered by the Bible. And God never spoke against polygamy nor concubinage. Does that infer that He has not given standards on sex?
Even the adulterous woman was trapped by her culture: without a husband or father she had absolutely no means of support, as has been the position of women since the world began. But where, oh where, in all the Bible was condemnation of men seeking prostitutes–it is not called the “oldest profession without reason. It has always been a man’s world until a very few short years ago, but still not entirely. Men have made and lived by rules they set for themselves and everyone else; they kept women in their place to ensure parentage.
Making the most intimate advice for humans is far too close to “playing God for others” and fools rush in where angels fear to tread. No one is qualified to advise another on sexuality by his standards except a qualified counselor–and they never TELL others what to do.
No, very little advice in scripture—only contextual concepts. If we look for concrete examples, there are few outside of the Hebrew scripture, where we do have that pesky concubine problem; we also have that vague David and Jonathan situation, the complicated Lot and his daughters problem. Esther was rewarded for her politicizing her sexual relationship with Ahasuerus, whose other wife got away with disobedience first. Women were put out of the community cyclically, Abraham’s relationship with Hagar, itself, wasn’t condemned, only that he did not trust God and took his future into his own hands. Lot was acclimated to the practice of sharing his daughters, even though it never came to that. Nothing in the Songs of Solomon stipulates that those terrific erotic sections are limited to marriage as we understand it today. Jesus tells the sex worker at the well to change her behavior but counsels those around him to give her a break—her sin may have been that she had been servicing (or in an affectionate relationship with) a *married* man, but we don’t know. Where did the third and fourth generations after Adam and Eve come from? Language hints but doesn’t specify, so we fill in details that support our own needs and assumptions. the Bible gives us very basic, far-reaching concepts, but little advice and few examples we can use; reaching back into the 19th century doesn’t help, although, ironically, middle-class woman were somewhat more in control of their bodies…
The comments here reflect clearly not only the parallel universe but the hypocrisy of Adventism. Sex is about marital intimacy, adultery, fornication, homosexual sodomy, masturbation, and pedophilia. That’s what chatting about sex nowadays concerns. Were not in the Victorian era anymore.
Some would like to believe that Adventist sexuality is all sanctified, indulged at the unction of the Holy Spirit rather than the unction of animal passion. I can’t even imagine the filth that is indulged behind the closed doors of Loma Linda. Rape, child molesting, adultery, fornication and homosexuality were not unusual in other Adventist ghettos I passed through.
>than 100 years ago, EGW shielded an Adventist leader in a adulterous relationship from the wrath of his colleagues because she feared his public exposure and ostracism would be too damaging to the image of both the church and ministry.
Healthcare workers are taught to frame questions in a presumptive manner to get the most truthful answers i.e., asking casually “How many men have you slept with?” rather than holding one’s nose and asking in a condescending tone “Have you EVER had sex with another man?”
Adventism is still holding its nose.
Hansen,
Repeat after me, “sex is beautiful”. And stop holding your nose. I can’t be sure of what you are saying when you are holding your ???? nose.
It was a cheap shot on my part, William, the holding its nose remark. The church isn’t perfect but relentless criticism doesn’t help.
What would you like to discuss? The role of women in society? The role of women in the Christian church? The role of women in the SdA organization? How women would like to be treated in the bedroom?
Maybe some people would like to comment on one or more of the following:
I read somewhere that, during the Victorian era (1837-1876), the advice young women in England were given by their mothers about sexual activity was, “Lie back and think of England”.
Maybe whoever invented the game of chess understood the “similarities” and “differences” between men and women. Or maybe it was his idea of the ideal? The king and queen occupy the same amount of space on the chessboard–one square. The king and queen each make one move per turn. The queen has vastly more power (the most recent figures I have seen indicated that women decide how to spend 80% of the wealth in the U.S.) but the game is decided on the basis of when the king is no longer free to move.
In the late 60s or sometime during the 70s one woman who was asked what she thought of the women’s lib movement replied, “Why would a woman want to come down off her pedestal and be treated like a man?”
(continued)
Some snappy responses, here: First, It was Queen Victoria who told her daughter to “Close your eyes and think of England.” There was more at stake for a princess to conceive than most of us; Second, please do not hold a door open for me because I’m a woman (“lady”)—hold a door open for me because that’s a nice thing to do for a fellow human being; third, please try to avoid the term “lady,” because in most cases, it holds an element of fragility, disempowerment, and need (you probably wouldn’t call a woman marine “lady,” so pause for a moment and consider what’s going through your head when you use that term, and pause for a moment and consider what some women mean when they prefer to be taken care of and whether or not you would want your daughter to think that way; fifth, the “Women’s Liberation Movement” is multi-faceted and roots down into the regaining the Federal vote we lost in 1803, the Seneca Convention in 1848, and the suffragist movements since then. The social revolutions of the late 1960s forced some repositioning because of media coverage and, yes, the inherent mandate that our political, sexual, financial requests (needs) be recognized and met was “out there,” and difficult to avoid confronting. In many ways, the 1950s were some of the worst years for women in America’s social history, so going back to that place, which, implicitly is what many conservative people yearn for, is damaging—if to a little more than half of us, then to all of…
Appreciate your “snappy” responses, Winona. I’m sure you don’t think you speak for all, or even most, women. Most women I know, including my wife, who has graduate degrees and has been an administrator, love being treated, feeling and looking like feminine women. They love to have men open doors for them, and husbands who care for them and treat them with chivalry because they are beautiful, sexy, complex (yes, and more fragile in some ways than men – stronger in others) and wonderful women. They like being nest builders and nurturers.
I don’t say this to denigrate your feelings or experience, Winona. I am simply resisting the notion that it is normative or representative of most females. Perhaps that is because most women haven’t experienced the gender enlightenment that is the gift of higher education.
I do think it is possible to have gender identity deconstructed and reconstructed through higher education. My daughter went through such a process (quite radically) when she was a student at La Sierra University back in the late ’90’s. She wasn’t permanently transformed by it though. She fell in love with a wonderful man, and loved discovering with him and through him her inner lady and inner woman. She went to a top law school, practiced law until they had children, but now loves being a full time mother, wife and homemaker. Most women do not have the luxury of such choices and must work to make ends meet. But let’s not make these choices a moral issue.
Winona,
1803? You got to educate me. What federal vote?
As for going back to 1950, we need to look much farther back than that to restore some sort of legal sanity to the naturally unequal status of the sexes. Liberalized divorce law is bad. But the end of coverture is what really trashed the legal institution of marriage. Jesus Christ made it perfectly clear, God intends the marriage between a man and a women to be ” until it pleases God to separate them by death.” Our law ought to reflect His will. A modern marriage is worthless. Why do you think so many young people avoid it? A marriage between equals is utopian, its a fantasy. Men and women are obviously not equal. Male and female are very, very different from one another.
(continued)
Before the women’s lib movement, I held doors open for that 95% of women I thought even might be ladies. I was never convinced that the majority of women wanted to be “treated like a man” but it seemed to me that no more than 1% of women objected to the women’s lib movement so, after the 1970s, I started holding doors open for only that 10% or so of women who it seemed obvious to me were ladies.
My parents gave me the book, On Becoming a Man, but neither the book nor my parents ever taught me anything about giving a woman pleasure in the bedroom. My parents are deceased so I can’t ask them now but could it be that they (and whoever published that book) were of the opinion that sexual activity should be only for the purpose of procreation?
(continued)
(continued)
I read everything I could find about the work of the “Ordination Study Committee”. I found statements about the (perceived?) differences between men and women but never one word about what ordination is and what it isn’t. I submit that there may be some sense in which ordination, as practiced in our denomination, conveys some kind of ADMINISTRATIVE authority but that every believer has the same kind and same amount of SPIRITUAL authority. When that doctrine becomes working policy in our (NAD) division of the General Conference, it will deal with the tendencies to hierarchy, creedalism and dogmatism. I don’t think that will happen in my lifetime in those divisions where protestants have been in the minority for several decades or maybe always.
Why is there no male equivalent word for “mistress” or “virgin”? When daughters were bargaining property for prospective husbands, their virginity was the one and only requirement; no similar demands were ever asked of a man. Even today, “mistress” and “virgin” are still commonly used for women; the opposites are too many and debasing to name. As it always takes to engage in sex, or “Two to Tango” why, now, is there still such a double standard, even within the church??
As written above, women ever expected to enjoy sex, but endure it, and above all, use birth control (ancient remedies were rarely successful but available). Prior to modern contraception, the fear of unwanted pregnancies, whether in or out of marriage shrouded all sex, making female pleasure quite rare. But now that medical science has so advanced, the church is still living by EGW’s advice to the married woman: “Avoid arousing the animal passions of your husband.” Men should have been incensed that they were mere animals, even in marriage!
Elaine,
The English language uses all sorts of wonderful words to describe female livestock precisely. Filly and mare, heifer and cow, guilt and sow, ewe-lamb and ewe, doeling and nanny – nothing like that for males. Just terms for ‘wether’ or not the male is intact. Your question is interesting and the answer must be because the exact sexual status of the female is quite important. Concubine and wife are important distinctions, as is your ‘shack’ or your courtesan.
But I think you already know the answer to your question. Women are quite different than men. They are anything but equal. Why would you expect to equality of language describing them?
Men are not mere animals, but we are animals. We have to deal with it, and so do you my fair ladies.
Thing is, Elaine, just as we reach an age where women are ‘allowed’ to enjoy their own ‘animal passions,’ men are finding it increasingly difficult to be interested. They (and the women) are over-exposed to all things sexual by the time college is done, and after a few years of marriage, whether children intervene or not……… pfft……. the mystery is gone. Top that off with the ‘oestrogenisation’ of modern living, due to the huge load of xenoestrogens in plastics and chemicals of all sorts, plus the huge tide of oestrogen from the contraceptive pill which floods the water cycle…… men just find it hard to be men anymore. There are few tasks where men have to exert much muscular effort, which in turn used to feedback through their hormonal loops……. modern diets don’t help either. All in all, men are, on average, less interested, and in many cases, simply unable, to be aroused. Animal passions have become warm and cuddly…. feminised, shall we say. Now isn’t that nice?
*Everyone* in the post-industrialized world has lost some libido: Stress, environmental pollutants, foods, depression, obesity—lots of influences on both men and women who need testosterone for their own libidos to function well, too. When you say “men just find it hard to be men, anymore” I will translate to mean “we just find it hard to follow traditional role, anymore, personally or physically.” The contemporary adult must learn to be open, frank, and immediate in her or his physical relationships. Social games and adolescent rituals are a lot of fun, but I don’t believe they form the core of mature, honest relationships.
Basically agree, Winona. And the translation is on the money also. I think the key word you state is ‘contemporary.’ The modern/post-modern situation we find today has virtually no historical precedent to advise us. Do we really want women to become the chattels they were in the OT again? Neanderthals might say yes. And from the NT, those who read Paul’s statement, ‘there is neither male nor female…. all are one… in Christ,’ will find need of a whole new enlightenment.
And yet, women’s lib and the ’empowerment’ of women does not always appear to have been to their benefit, in personal terms. Few men seem capable of ‘matching it’ with a warrior princess.
Little wonder that the church simply cannot keep up with the tectonic shifts in such basic social constructs as male-female arrangements. It seems by sheer luck that a couple find each other perfectly suited. It was ever thus.
It would be interesting to read the results of a poll asking people how they understand and how they use the terms, “contraception”, and “birth control”. How many people think of them as synonymous?
Judging by what I’ve heard on the radio and read in magazines, most of the “religious” people who represent themselves a experts on related subjects are either very ignorant of history or they are trying to rewrite it to suit their own agendas.
Some people sure have a lot to say about the subject of sex.
The church has always had its standards which were regularly disregarded. During much of the Middle Ages, marriage among the peasants was simple: the boy impregnated the girl and when conception was apparent, the couple began living together. The assurance of fertility was most important then.
Also, for those many peasants living as serfs under a ruler who owned them and their work, he had the first night with any future bride prior to the marriage!
Then there were the Bible customs: Isaac took Rebekah into his tent–marriage accomplished. Most men simply “took wives” and sometime with force. Paternity was of utmost importance (notice the confusing genealogies in the Gospels). If the first couple were representative of marriage, it was centuries, even millennia before it became the rule and most of the patriarchs recorded in the Bible were polygamous. If the Bible is our example to follow we would all be guilty under today’s laws.
No Elaine,
Even with peasants, the man’s particular fertility was most important. You wanted to be sure it was your child you were raising. Men are like that, very possessive, even if they are polygamists. Like the animals, stallions, bulls, stags, etc. I assure you, the girl was not free before marriage. She was controlled. It was important to her family, her menfolk, and to her that she didn’t mysteriously end up pregnant. It devalued the goods.
The ruler would have been very busy and unnecessarily aggravating his servants if he ritually deflowered all the girls on their wedding night, which you say wasn’t a wedding night. So lets assume this practice was infrequent, if not rare. It wouldn’t be ‘Christian’ would it?
Is the unbridled sexual freedom of this modern age moral evolution? Are we finally getting it right at last?
*Everyone* is greedy and possessive a good share of the time, not just men; please don’t pin that on only one gender. Yes, in cultures where material goods and rank are passed through men, that possession was important—the import and, sometime, power, authority, or livelihood was at stake; but in matriarchal cultures, not so much (look at some of the Northwest First Nations, where knowing who a father was was not important, at all—a woman chose a sexual partner for one thing (strong offspring) then, a family partner for another (family building and nurturing). So that’s a cultural issue. Virginity has been foremost a political insurance against claims and secondarily simply mean-spirited notions of owning somebody and the rapacious nature of the narcissistically powerful. Ahausuerus, for example, seemed to be not concerned about Esther’s virginity than he was that she was not pregnant when he took her for a wife (hence the myrrh lavages she took for several weeks, if not months, while she was in the hareem). The way men and women relate to each other and value each other is a cultural variable, and one usually doesn’t have to dig deep to find the root of material or political gain in whatever that tradition or habit might be.
Why do you write “men,” and then “girls,” rather than “women”? Or “boys,” rather than “men”?
I don’t think we have “unbridled sexual freedom,” mostly unbridled and naked discussions of sex, especially what it is for both…
Winona,
Higgumus hoggimus women are monogamous. Hoggimus higgimis men are polygamists. There are exceptions that prove the rule perhaps. But its the men that keep harems not the women. I’m repeating myself, but sex itself is evidence that men and women are not equal. They relate to sex completely differently. Man’s imagination frees him from the animal restraints of instinct. He can imagine penetrating anything. He doesn’t need a woman, thank you. Ask any Canaanite.
It is the Law of Moses that uniquely bridles the imagination and says; “ONLY between a man and his wife” – anything else is an abomination. Here you have the foundation of family happiness. Mutual respect of office and status – not equality. The man must respect his wife and her rights according to the law. A man must respect his neighbor and thereby his neighbors wife. He must not covet her, she does not belong to him. Jesus Christ establishes the law, explaining that divorce was given “for the hardness of your hearts”. Read the texts you will see Jesus Christ does not use the language of equality. Marriage is unto death. God has joined them together. Not as equals, as man and wife.
Biblical headship isn’t all about sex, but it is inseparable from it. You write: “The way men and women relate to each other and value each other is a cultural variable..” Of course. Lets use the bible as our cultural authority. “Girl’ is the antecedent in Elaine’s reference.
Well William, it certainly is the age of unbridled moral hubris. The notion that we are evolving morally is absurd as the notion that we on the more liberal wing of Adventism are maturing the church.
Transgenerational morality is at best a zero sum game. We lose as much or more moral substance as we gain. It is often difficult to do very much about it. We are after all creatures of our time, and we can’t turn the clock back. But at least we should humbly acknowledge that our parents and grandparents were not our moral, intellectual or spiritual inferiors by any means.
The sexual freedom of the current age has come at a terrible price. The coarsening of culture has created a shameless vulgarity that should leave us shaking our heads. But as I said earlier, it is but the byproduct of forgetting who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going.
Nathan,
Hubris is exactly right. Its also a total misapprehension of for history. Winona thinks the witch trials at Salem were about the the oppression of women by sexually repressed Puritan Theocrats. Hansen wants us read the EGW and JH Kellog’s opinions and ideas about sex, so we can feel totally weird, like we are dressed in Hasidic fashion, I guess. I’m not sure.
I do know Augustine, Kellogg and Mrs. White were grappling with man’s sexual appetite. Respectfully, I’d like to understand what they were thinking and why. I think Hansen is using historical fact to make history a comedy.
We have a lot to deal with in our day when it comes to unbridled sexual appetites. Maybe history could help guide us. I know this: Jesus Christ was a man of bridled sexual appetite. He never let the ‘animal passions’ get the better of Him.
Here’s what I think: People like Augustine and Ellen White were looking at there own life experiences and comparing them to the history of Jesus and Israel and they were trying to figure out what they should do in light of that history. Augustine rejected the licentiousness of Roman culture because it was obviously not the will of God. The God who has revealed Himself in History. The One God who has given us His law. It’s that Law that tells us man’s sexual appetite must be bridled and how man must bridle it. We can’t turn the clock back. But we can try to understand the past.
Could it be that the history of Augustine and others are their reasons for suddenly become celibate? Augustine had a very licentious life before his conversion; fathering a child which he abandoned.
As for EGW, if her writings are any indication, she was a true product of the Victorian age when sex was described as “animal passions” in men and women were to be asexual, consenting to sex only for procreation purposes. As another comment on another site referred it to “recreational sex” inferring that to enjoy it is not limiting it to procreation only. God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” would surely have been a chore if only for multiplying more humans. He also gave women the pleasure of sex, something absolutely unnecessary for conception. Did He make a mistake, Ellen?
When we read EGW we quite often forget the times and customs in which she wrote and also that
everything she wrote was not inspired!
After all, we can’t find anywhere where it is said she ate beans or peas every day so let us be careful when we quote her. And she never claimed to be a prophet. There is a lot of information in her writings that is very helpful to us today and more and more of what she said is being proved by professionals!
Trump Selects G.C. Leader Ted Wilson as V.P. Running Mate
Trump Tower, N.Y.– Today Donald Trump, presumptive Republican nominee, announced his selection of a Vice President running mate. Adventists everywhere are celebrating because Trump’s VP pick is none other than their leader, Ted N.C. Wilson, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
“We have a lot in common,” said Trump. “Ted has zero political experience, just like me. Ted denigrates women’s ordination, and I denigrate women in general. Ted has an autocratic style of leadership, and I have a super-autocratic style. Ted, who grew up in Egypt with missionary parents, speaks Egyptian which sounds like gibberish; and I just speak plain nonsense.”
Then Trump added, “Ted used to live in New York City and got his Ph.D. from New York University. So we share ‘New York Values.’ And we are both devout Christians. We both love to read Two Corinthians.” Analysts have suggested that Trump is trying to woo the evangelical vote or to make atonement for skewering another Adventist, Dr. Ben Carson.
In a separate statement, Wilson announced that he will tutor Trump on how to sound like a church-goer so he can boost his “Christian” credentials. The first lesson will be “How to Pronounce ‘II Corinthians.’”
The General Conference executive committee announced that it will invite scorned Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff to assume the role of Interim G.C. President.
Which came first – the chicken or the egg?
All SDA should read “Kellogg’s Plain Facts for Young and Old” to get an idea of the cultural milieu which defined SDA sexual mores. EGW defined any sexual act initiated by animal passion as “excessive.” Number of times wasn’t an issue. She was all about animal passion free intimacy. Kellogg condemned any sexual act involving birth control or entered upon for other than procreative purposes. Both EGW and Kellogg held much in common with Augustine i.e., sex for reasons other than procreative was/ is sinful.
Adventists are hasidic in some respects, like those quaint fellows in their fur hats, knickers, interestingly cut topcoats and other fashions of 18th century Ukraine. Not only the teachings but the fashions/customs of the period in which they were given are “holy.”
Perhaps better to say “nearly” sinful. Read the material, then decide.
Upon this day we reverence those who allow us to be here. We reverence our almighty FATHER and the sacrifice of HIS SON. We honor those who have sacrificed in the greatest of Love, up to and including laying down their lives for us just to be here. We should never forget to honor as such; nor waste the opportunity they have provided us.
Such Love provided to us; for sure. Many are commanded into accountability and responsibilities by HIM; which soon becomes sacrifice and service within Love. Does HE not write HIS law in our inward parts and hearts; if we belong to HIM? Is this also not the beauty and sanctity of oneness in the body? Is this not true Love? Can we demand anything more? Should we teach and live by anything less? Do we build up or tear down focusing on any other pursuits?
“When the wife yields her body and mind to the control of her husband, being passive to his will in all things, sacrificing her conscience, her dignity, and even her identity, she loses the opportunity of exerting that mighty influence for good which she should possess, to elevate her husband. She could soften his stern nature, and her sanctifying influence could be exerted in a manner to refine and purify, leading him to strive earnestly to govern his passions, and be more spiritually minded, that they might be partakers together of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. The power of influence can be great to lead the mind to high and noble themes, above the low, sensual indulgences for which the heart unrenewed by grace naturally seeks. If the wife feels that in order to please her husband she must come down to his standard, when animal passion is the principal basis of his love, and controls his actions, she displeases God; for she fails to exert a sanctifying influence upon her husband. If she feels that she must submit to his animal passions without a word of remonstrance, she does not understand her duty to him nor to her God. Sexual excess will effectually destroy a love for devotional exercises, will take from the brain the substance needed to nourish the system, and will most effectually exhaust the vitality. No woman should aid her husband in this work of self-destruction. “EGW R+H 09 26 1899
Hmm. I imagine being married to a prophetess has its disadvantages.
Lewis Walton used to say (tongue in cheek) that EGW bore several children but she was impregnated “by osmosis.” It’s difficult to think of her, a prophetess, being involved in something so mundane or “worldly” as intercourse.
A Compromise.—There will be many, the vast majority, perhaps, who will not bring their minds to accept the truth which nature seems to teach, which would confine sexual acts to reproduction wholly. Others, acknowledging the truth, declare “the spirit willing” though “the flesh is weak.” Such will inquire, “Is there not some compromise by means of which we may escape the greater evils of our present mode of life?” Such may find in the following facts suggestions for a “better way,” if not the best way, though it cannot be recommended as wholly free from dangers, and though it cannot be said of it that it is not an unnatural way:—
“Menstruation in woman indicates an aptitude for impregnation, and this condition remains for a period of six or eight days after the entire completion of the flow. During this time only can most women conceive. Allow twelve days for the onset of the menses to pass by, and the probabilities of impregnation are very slight. This act of continence is healthful, moral, and irreproachable.”
Many writers make another suggestion which would certainly be beneficial to individual health; viz., that the husband and wife should habitually occupy separate beds. Such a practice would undoubtedly serve to keep the sexual instincts in abeyance. Separate apartments, or at least the separation of the beds by a curtain, are recommended by some estimable physicians,… Kellogg “Plain Facts,” 1881
The “NO” vote against women’s ordination would have been more appropriate had we been Jehovah’s Witnesses! Old time SDA’s and JW’s have a common link: an abhorrence and mistrust of secular, “worldly” godless, universities.
So Jehovah’s Witness families prohibit their children from attending university.
This results in a church that is “blue collar”, with ALL women members being housewives, hairdressers, supermarket cashiers etc. Such women would have been less impacted and demeaned by a vote dictated by the “headship”theology.
Adventists with the same disdain for secular universities, have created our own schools of higher education. As a result, our women members are accountants, anesthesiologists, attorneys, architects etc
What a slap in the face this is for our professional educated ladies!
While some might “grin and bear it” or “put on a brave face”,this is surely a demeaning, discouraging event for the bulk of our members (women make up the majority of our adherants).
My recommendation to these high earners, is to allocate their funds donated to the church so that NO funds are designated to help the GC or divisions/union conferences that do not give women equal rights.
If all our educated professional and working women were to do this, it would send a message LOUD and CLEAR, to those espousing “headship” a doctrine not original to our church, but “imported” from Calvinist roots in the 1980’s.
I am sick of this weird new layout on AToday.org. It is impossible to see who is responding to whom, because the comments are not indented or nested. Whoever transferred the data to this new WordPress theme forgot to check the box on the setup screen to “indent responses to comments.” It is very easy to do: just click on the checkbox. I loved the old AToday layout where it was clear who was reply to whom in the comment section. Please correct this problem. Thank you.
AT,
John Lorenzo has a point. The comment section format was better before. You should implement John’s simple suggestion.
“This disease of concupiscence is what the apostle refers to, when, speaking to married believers, he says: “This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the disease of desire, even as the Gentiles which know not God.”2084 The married believer, therefore, must not only not use another man’s vessel, which is what they do who lust after others’ wives; but he must know that even his own vessel is not to be possessed in the disease of carnal concupiscence….
A man turns to use the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage, as it works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generation of children to be spiritually regenerated, not to the subjection of the spirit to the flesh in a sordid servitude. That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that “they pleased Him,” thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.
Augustine, Anti Pelagian Writings ch 9
Okay Hansen,
This is pretty interesting stuff you are posting. I take back the crack about making history a comedy. You are making it a Film Noir.
It is my habit to take the opinions of the past seriously, even if my modern frame of reference makes that difficult. What does come to mind is the enforced sexual abstinence of the law. The ritual uncleanness caused by the menses and the time of purification go right along with Kellogg’s prescription and if I recall he is correct about timing ovulation. Which means the Law is also correctly calculating ovulation and the resumption of marital relations.
It is a biblical idea that there is sexual restraint in the marriage bed. I can’t imagine the conversations Mrs. White had with Mr. White: best not even to try.
Wasn’t it Augustine that used to beat himself up for praying? “Lord make me chaste; but not just yet” I’m sure he wrote that after he was older.
William. Film Noir. Brilliant!
What is less brilliant is your approval of Kellogg’s 180 degree error in understanding the menstrual cycle of 28 days (menses = moon. Once upon a time, all the women of the village menstruated in sync with the phases of the moon and each other). If Day 1 is onset of bleeding, approx. Day 14 is day of ovulation. One cannot conceive prior to ovulation, or at a time when the endometrium is bleeding away. The ovum is viable for fertilisation 1-2 days max. Second half of cycle builds up the endometrium in preparation for implantation, in the absence of which, cycle repeats.
Your ‘law’ would therefore have required restraint from him until a time when she is in prime fertilisable condition. Be fruitful and multiply was the purpose of that law. No wonder Kellogg had to adopt. His timing was way out.
Serge,
“The time of separation begins at the first sign of blood and ends in the evening of the woman’s seventh “clean day.” This separation lasts a minimum of 12 days. The Torah prohibits only sexual intercourse, but the rabbis broadened this prohibition, maintaining that a man may not even touch his wife or sleep in the same bed as her during this time.” copied for Judaism 101: Kosher Sex.
This is following the Law of Moses, and it does work out about the same if you follow Kellogg’s suggestion.
Hansen, what a poor, benighted view you present of human sexuality in these quotes from Ellen, Kellogg and Augustine. They each in turn view ‘the animal passions’ as evil and anti-spiritual. May I suggest you read what Paul has to say but is so often overlooked, in 1 Cor 7. (And not forgetting the passages where for Paul, husband+wife union is an archetype of the union between Christ and the believer).
v.3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband….
v. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again,….
These texts should be all that the church needs to quote to members as a ‘theology of sex’ for our time. Here Paul recognises so many aspects of the best of human nature, when expressed through a healthy, positive sexuality.
‘Render benevolence’ to each other. The word is eunoia. Good mind, good thinking. Benevolence is a beautiful word for it. Humans are the only ‘animals’ who ‘make love’ rather than ‘have sex.’ Their sexual apparatus, for want of better nouns, seems designed to encourage them to relate directly with each other during their intercourse (a word for social activity). Such prolonged gazing into the eyes of your beloved at such intimate times seems designed by God to enhance, to increase, the sum total of ‘love’ between them. Cont
Cont….
Moreover, the release of certain hormones during these times of heightened pleasure powerfully enhances the bonds of love between the couple. If one approaches sexual intimacy with this positive frame of mind, rather than the furtive, guilty, gotta-get-me-rocks-off animal passion attitude, the results are powerful.
Paul continues with this positive attitude towards sex in v 5. ‘Defraud not.’ Deprive not, one another, of the beauty, the wonder, the ecstasy of sexual union. Yes, take time out, control your selves, remember your spiritual needs, but do not deprive one another of the spiritual-enhancing effects of true love-making. Men, it is more blessed to give (pleasure) than to receive. If men take time to concentrate on giving sexual pleasure to his beloved, and not to defraud her of the bond-enhancing pleasures of sexual love, then will their relationship bloom in every other area of life also. The erogenous apparatus of female sexual anatomy (including the genital/hormonal/neuronal elements) serves no procreative purpose other than sexual pleasure, and with that, the strengthening of the bonds of love between the lovers.
Defraud not one another of such life-affirming attitudes and actions. The Bible says so.
Serge, I didn’t know people “gazed into one another’s eyes during the procreative act. I thought most people closed their eyes. Whatever the habits of others, EGW also made reference to 1 Corinthians 7 when discussing the marital act: “If she will elevate her affections, and in sanctification and honor preserve her refined, womanly dignity, woman can do much by her judicious influence to sanctify her husband, and thus fulfil her high mission. In so doing, she can save both her husband and herself, thus performing a double work. In this matter, so delicate and so difficult to manage, much wisdom and patience are necessary, as well as moral courage and fortitude. Strength and grace can be found in prayer. Sincere love is to be the ruling principle of the heart. Love to God and love to the husband can alone be the right ground of action.” RH 09 261899
Note her take on sanctification leading to salvation. This is a reference to verses 14-16 in 1 Corinthians 7 emphasizing the potential sanctifying, redemptive nature of the marital union. EGW also refers to men who use the marriage relation as an opportunity to carnally indulge; she says their “polluted carcases who shall never pass the portals of the heavenly city.” ibid.
Hansen, I’m not the least surprised that Ellen has entirely missed the point of 1Cor 7: 3 & 5. It does not suit her prejudice that sexual love can have any positive aspect at all. Ellen is a very unsatisfying commentator of so much scripture that is truly deep and meaningful.
I am surprised however, to hear that you never look into her eyes while trying to express your love for her. Yes, most men probably do bury their eyes-closed faces in the pillow for a few fleeting moments of thrusting and grunting and then roll over and go to sleep. But that doesn’t begin to fulfil Paul’s ideal of benevolence/goodwill. It is the epitome of depriving her of that which is her due, and your honour to provide. This kind of love-making is far more ‘sanctifying’ than the deprivation and abstinence that you and Ellen idealise. Just once, turn the light on, look into her eyes, tell her what she means to you while you take time to ensure that she receives all that God designed her to receive at this time, not of procreation, but of adoration. I dare you.
Funny guy, Serge. I’m not sure why you think my remarks are autobiographical or that I’m trying to promote EGW’s views. I’m simply documenting them for all to see. I had said that White, Kellogg, and Augustine, apparently, are more or less of the same mind.
I’m not sure what Sr.White said about the eyes being opened or closed. Conservative SDA are probably thinking about the IJ [or should be] during the marital act. It would be easier for them to picture Jesus entering the MHP in 1844 with their eyes closed.
My Libido has been cut down by Diabaetes related sexual dysfunction. But as a single guy I still look at porn to see my level of sexual disfunction. Isnt porn a more healthy outlet then promiscuis sex?
It’s always wrong because you are coveting when you look at it. The human heart always wants to justify itself. That is why you are asking if its less bad. (You euphemize: ‘more healthy outlet’) Everybody doesn’t look at porn, but everybody tries to justify their sin. When you are looking at porn, its a great time for a WWJD moment. The guilt and shame you feel is entirely appropriate – thinking about Jesus when you are watching it will only increase it.
The two activities are mutually exclusive. Meditating on the life of Christ and ogling stranger’s genitalia are not compatible mental exercises.
I currently have a PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision, I own a counseling practice, and I specialize in sexual issues and out of control sexual behaviors, and I agree with every word of this article!
Congratulations, Brad! Not sure how your credentials privilege your opinions. But welcome to the conversation! I’m sure there are many similarly trained professionals who would strongly disagree that church members need to get over their prudishness and sense of propriety in order to have frank sex talks – whatever that means.
I have a J.D. Degree from a prestigious law school. I also teach university courses in medicine and the law and bioethics and the law. But those ualifications don’t really entitle my opinions about legal policies, the Constitution, or ethics to any particular weight. It is the relative convincing force of my arguments that count. Oh sure, I may have specialized knowledge and resources that I can bring to bear on an issue. But in the end, my moral opinions are just that – my opinions.
So let’s not be so arrogant as to think that education makes our opinions worth more. Remember, much of the blame for the moral cesspool society is presently in when it comes to sexual mores can be laid at the feet of behavioral “scientists,” educators, and lawyers, who laid the groundwork for the sexual revolution. I, for one, believe that to the extent the church has resisted the siren call to release its inner sexual demons, it is healthier because of it.
I think that’s a bit rich, Nathan. To me, Brad was merely cutting a long story short by way of introducing himself to us. He is obviously qualified to offer an opinion of the article, and he did. Nothing arrogant about that at all. And no special pleading that I can see.
OTOH, you admit that you have limited qualification in this area, and that we all must therefore ‘make out an argument’ to support our opinions. You then offered an opinion, but where is the supporting argument and evidence? You suggest that status quo in the church’s approach in the area of human sexuality is a good thing. Do you, eg, agree with the quotes from EGW and Kellogg which Hansen has offered? These quotes basically say that Christians should engage in sexual activity only on very rare occasions, and then for the purpose of procreation, by and large. Both Ellen and Kellogg wish to limit this form of expression of ‘the animal instincts.’ They see it as antithetical to good religion. At least they tried to make a case.
If that is what you mean by your opinion, it would be good if you could state it as clearly as Brad stated his. But also, you should provide an argument in support of it. As things stand, it seems that your opinion on the subject is firmly stuck in nineteenth century New England ideas. Feel free to correct me if I’ve misread you.
It was certainly not my intent, Serge, to denigrate anyone’s training or education, except insofar as it might be intended to privilege an opinion. Jenniffer seems to attribute sexual depravity and perversion to sexual repression. Yet she offers no evidence that there is a correlation, much less causation, between traditional Adventist values – which don’t necessarily parallel what EGW said – and alarming levels of abuse and unhealthy intimate relationships.
She defines the problem, but does not make a case for the proposition that overcoming inhibitions so we can freely talk about about sex is going to ameliorate the problem.
Decades ago, Marriage Encounter was all the rage. I actually thought that was quite good. I see seminars advertised regularly in Adventist churches about building happy marriages, which include sexuality. What is it that Jenniffer thinks is missing – more condoms and sex ed in academies and colleges? It is my impression that there has been a pretty direct correlation in the general culture between openness toward sexual rhetoric and the breakdown of sexual mores.
Maybe the problem has deeper roots than we have imagined. Perhaps when God encountered Adam and Eve covered in fig leaves after The Fall, He should have overcome the awkwardness and shame by brightly saying, “Folks, we need to talk about sex.” Instead, He simply reinforced the problem worse by making them clothes.
Good points, well made, Nathan. yes, it appears sex has been a problem from Day 2. And if God did talk to Adam aobut it, Moses doesn’t say. He just covered the problem over. And the result? Even the sons of God began to lust after the daughters of men……. seems it was ever thus.
But is the modern moral ‘decline’ worse than previous generations, or is it simply more overt? Like you, I find it distasteful. Is sex-talk the cause of the decline, or the result, or part and parcel?
Even in the midst of it all, there are reactions. The Virginity movement in the US mainly, is a curious response. One wonders how many hymens have been saved for the benefit of the newlyweds? Each generation sees a problem and manages it their way. No wonder parents have always wanted ways to help their children into mature adulthood via some form of control. Chastity belts may yet make a comeback.
One thing Jenniffer calls for is a ‘theology of sex’ from the church. Was the Marriage Encoutner program a past attempt at this? I don’t know. I do think there is enough reference to the question in both OT and NT to be able to formulate a basic theology, which is far superior to the ‘just don’t do it’ approach of EGW and Kellogg. 1Cor 7.3,5 are about as enlightened an approach to modern relationships as one could find.
Repression does NOT lead to depravity?
It is awfully presumptuous to imagine how God should have reacted to the first sin. But it’s the internet so I’ll play along. Sin was not avoidable but inevitable and rather than expect Adam not to sin, God was merciful enough to want Adam to live.
Although, Adam’s life is mortal and finite, he would live a torturous and depraved existence if he remained in Eden. Sin cannot exist before God, but sons and daughters of Adam continue to live with their lives of sin nonetheless because of God’s grace and mercy.
The whole blog is to confront the sin problem that mindless rituals cannot abate. By talking about sin and its cousin, sex, not only are avoidable issues addressed but, unavoidable and healthy urges do not spiral into neurotic or destructive problems.
“Religion and sex” are relevant to each other and “religion and violence”. The worst mass in our violent history had all these elements to fuel an unforgivingly repressed anger. Repression is so vile not only because of the anxious disorders it causes but it inhibits the greatest Christian power of forgiving grace by talking about sin.
Yet, many Christians revel in sin more than even shameless hedonists because they empower sin through systemic repression. If you’re sick, Nathan, talk about it. Nevertheless respect people brave enough to openly address their problems and have given forgiveness a chance for spiritual victory over unavoidable sin.
Someone wrote: “she was controlled.”
Bingo! That is still the “headship principle” the church controls. The church CONTROLS who should be ordained, not the Holy Spirit, which the church has usurped by their persistent refusal to allow the Holy Spirit to “call” a female for full pastorship.
Many have written that the role of women is specified in the Bible as mother, homemaker, and bearer of children. That is essentially a biological determination just as a man “plants his seed”. But man has never been simply limited to being a father. All couples are active parents for a short time in the life expectancy today and it does not make sense to claim motherhood is a sole occupation of women for their lifetime when theirs is longer than men and there will be more than half their lifetime as non-parents full time. Women and men define their own roles; no one should presume to choose for them.
There is a companion question on sex. (cont’d)
Today with many widowed and divorced, with finances determined by tax codes and Social Security, older couples desire close companionship but for the religious, marriage bring complications. His and her children from previous marriage; inheritance; loss of pension or SS on remarriage. Children may feel they may lose inheritance on death of a parent while a new spouse receives it. This is why many sincere Christian older couples are choosing to live together sans a ceremony. Are they sinning by nor marrying?