Sex and the Path of Holiness

'Verdant Path' photo (c) 2008, John Morgan - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Because we’ve spent a good deal of time here discussing the harmful effects of a shame-based purity culture that treats people who have had sex before marriage as “damaged goods” by comparing them to polluted water or chewed-up gum (see “Do Christians Idolize Virginity?” and “Elizabeth Smart, Human Trafficking, and Purity Culture”), some have wrongly concluded that I don’t value saving sex for marriage. 

This is ironic, given the fact that I waited until I was married to have sex and have been known to shout at the TV when my favorite dramas take it for granted that characters attracted to one another with sleep together after the first date. 

Just the other day, a reader left a comment that began, “I know you’re against sexual purity and all…” which I confess kinda made me want to bang my head against the dining room table. (Fortunately, there was a bowl of Honey Nut Spins in the way and I didn’t want to ruin my delicious off-brand breakfast.)

Perhaps the reader got this idea from a Gospel Coalition post that claimed those of us who reject the “damaged goods” approach advocate “commitment free sex” as the alternative— a ridiculous conclusion that grossly misrepresents my position. (See Abigail Rine’s piece at The Atlantic for a much more balanced and truthful overview of the purity culture conversation within evangelicalism.) Or perhaps this is just the result of all the either/or perspectives that plague our discussions on sexuality. 

What is it about sex that sends us religious folks scurrying to these extremes anyway? 

Girls are either virgins or whores. We must advocate either shame or promiscuity. A person is either pure or polluted. We can either withhold information about contraceptives or throw a condom parade. 

Goodness. With something as complex, layered, and beautiful as sexuality, might there be a little space for nuance? Might there be some shades of gray? (…Well that expression is forever ruined in this context, but you know what I mean.) 

Out of all this insanity comes the very wise perspective of a woman who identifies herself as “the very worst missionary,” but who is pretty much “the very best blogger” when it comes to speaking frankly about faith in real life. 

If you haven’t seen it already, check out Jamie Wright’s two-part series on sex. 

From Part 1: 

“It took me a lot of years and a lot of conversations with God (and with people who know more about God than me) to understand that everything I believed about my own sexuality was built on two huge lies.
The first comes from our culture, and it tells us that sex outside of marriage isn't a big deal.
The second is from the Church, and it tells us that sex outside of marriage is the biggest deal of all the deals ever.
One allowed me to give it away freely, convinced I would carry no burden. The other forced me to carry a spirit-crushing load.
Both are complete crap. [Read the entire post]

From Part 2:  

“…We’ve done a really bad job of teaching about sex in the Church. Our approach has been to shame girls for having it, and shame boys for wanting it. And when the smart kids ask, ‘Why wait?’, we shrug our shoulders and say, ‘Because the Bible says.’ Then we give the girls a purity ring and we give the boys nothing and we cross our fingers and hope they'll cross their legs. So dumb.
We've made virginity the goal, when it is purity that we should be aiming for; They're not the same thing. Sexual purity is a lifelong spiritual practice that doesn't begin or end with a single sex act, just as it doesn't begin or end on a wedding night. So when we are asked, "Why wait?", we should have an answer that empowers and prepares people to choose wisely for a lifetime. We should be teaching people something they can carry with them beyond their first roll in the hay. 
Why wait? Um. Because you need to learn some freaking self-control. That's why.
No kidding, the person who is a slave to their sexual desires will have a difficult row to hoe…But the man or woman who has a sense of mastery over their own sexual appetite will be far less likely to fall into the easy traps of addiction and infidelity that plague marriages today. I don't mean to imply that postponing sex guarantees fidelity – it certainly doesn't. And I don't think this is a fail safe for a long and happy marriage, but I think delaying sex is a pretty solid beginning. [Read the post]

I love how Jamie speaks of a holistic sexual ethic that can’t be reduced to a single sex act. The problem with the evangelical purity culture, as I see it, isn’t that it teaches saving sex for marriage, but that it equates virginity with sexual wholeness and therefore as something that can be lost or given or taken away in a single moment. 

Perhaps instead of virginity…or even purity (which carries something of an either/or connotation, I think)…we ought to talk about the path of holiness.  Holiness, to me, means committing every area of my life— from sex, to food, to time, to work—to the lordship of Jesus. It means asking how I might love God and love my neighbors in those areas so that the Spirit can grow love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in the sacred soil of everyday life.

Holiness isn’t about sticking to a list of rules. It isn’t something you either have or don’t have, keep or lose. It’s a way of life, filled with twists and turns, mistakes and growth, uncertainty and reward. And, (to make matters even worse for the fundamentalists), a holy lifestyle often looks different from person to person, though the fruit of the Spirit is the same. 

One of my favorite college professors, Dr. Jim Coffield, began each of his classes with a brief discussion on the book of Proverbs. I’ll never forget how he challenged us to circle the words “path” or “way,” every time they appeared in our reading.  The perpetual AWANA star, I didn’t think it was possible to add more highlights to my heavy Ryrie Study Bible, but by the end of the semester, there were hundreds of new circles in my book of Proverbs. 

In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.
I have directed you in the way of wisdom; I have led you in upright paths.
He is on the path of life who heeds instruction, But he who ignores reproof goes astray.

Dr. Coffield’s point was that wisdom isn’t a single decision; it’s a path, a road, a way. 

Holiness, too, isn’t a single decision, moment, position or thought; it’s a way of life. 

As my friend Zack Hunt put it: “Our identity as the holy people of God is not defined by a list of things we don’t do, but the ways in which we actively and sometimes scandalously incarnate the love, grace, hope, and healing of God to a lost and dying world.”  

I’ve been reading the monastics recently, and it strikes me that while much of modern evangelicalism echoes their teachings on self-control and self-denial when it comes to sexuality, we tend to gloss over a lot what this great cloud of monastic witnesses has to say about self-control and self-denial in other areas of life—like materialism, food, relationships, and hospitality. Ours is indeed a consumeristic culture, the kind that too often turns people into commodities, and I believe Christians can speak into that culture in a unique, life-giving way—not only as it concerns sex-on-demand, but also as it concerns food-on-demand, celebrity-on-demand, stuff-on-demand, cheap-goods-on-demand, pornography-on-demand, entertainment-on-demand, comfort-on-demand, distraction-on-demand, information-on-demand, power-on-demand, energy-on-demand, and all those habits that tend to thrive at the expense of the dignity and value of our fellow human beings or our planet.  Far too often, Christians talk about self-control as it relates to sex, but remain silent when it comes to self-control as it relates to justice.  Perhaps if we approach purity more holistically, if we talk about the importance of restraint and self-control in other areas of life, our feet will become more accustomed to the paths of wisdom, and sexual holiness will just be another part of a lifelong journey. 

Of course all of this sounds pretty vague and theoretical at this point, which is why I hope to continue exploring it at the practical level with our Sexuality & The Church series. Just as pursuing justice can’t be rendered down to a list of rules, so pursuing sexual holiness can’t be reduced to a “have-you-ever?”-type checklist. But I want folks to know that abandoning the painful and destructive narrative that a single sexual encounter can “ruin” a person or make her unworthy of love doesn’t mean swinging to the opposite extreme to endorse an anything-goes sexual ethic. 

I’m still working through this, just like a lot of you. There are questions to which I don’t have answers and sometimes I feel a little out of my depth with this whole series. (You will notice I've been sharing a lot of guest posts, interviews and roundtable discussions...because I'm scared.) 

But it’s nice to know I’ve got friends and mentors with which to travel the path. May the grace of Jesus guide us. 

 

### 

So what are your thoughts on all of this? How do we encourage self-control without resorting to shaming tactics? What does sexual holiness look like long term? 

 

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/sex-and-the-path-of-holiness

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

A Woman’s Voice

It’s tough representing your entire gender.

I feel the pressure every time I climb those super-intimidating stairs to stand behind one of those super-intimidating old-school pulpits to give a sermon I spent extra hours preparing because a small part of me still believes I’m unworthy to give it. I feel it every time I post a blog or write an article or publish a book, every time I give an interview or am asked to speak.

“We wanted to feature a woman’s voice,” a well-meaning conference planner will inform me with excitement, as if mine is sufficient to capture the experiences of 3.5 billion human beings.

I’ll desperately scan the program for another woman’s face, trying to shove the old adage from Clare Boothe Luce from my mind: “Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail no one will say, ‘She doesn’t have what it takes.’ They will say, ‘Women don’t have what it takes.”

…Read the rest over at Tony Jones’  blog, where I’m guest posting as part of his Christian Feminism Week.


 

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/womans-voice

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.

Love Opens the Door: A Plea to American Churches Regarding Gay Scouts

'Door knobs, pillars and receding views' photo (c) 2009, Nagesh Jayaraman - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

First, let me commend the Southern Baptist Convention for passing resolutions this week to raise awareness regarding the complexities of mental illness and to call on pastors and church leaders to enact better policies related to child abuse. There is still much to be done on both of these fronts, particularly in regard to the troubling support of Sovereign Grace Ministries by some SBC leaders in spite of the organization’s apparent systemic sex abuse cover-up. But these seem to be good steps made in good faith which I trust will be followed by concrete actions within individual church communities.  I’m sure it can be frustrating for folks who spend days at such conventions working and praying through these resolutions to face criticism afterward, so I want to say at the outset that I trust these decisions are made with the best of intentions. 

That said, I think members of the SBC made a serious error in judgment this week by passing a resolution to officially condemn the leadership of Boy Scouts of America for their recent decision to accept openly gay boys into membership.  While stopping short of recommending that Southern Baptists drop ties with the Scouts, the SBC encouraged churches that choose to sever the relationship to expand their Royal Ambassador ministry, a Southern Baptist version of the Boy Scouts that would presumably ban gay participants. 

[You can read the full resolution here.] 

I’m thankful that the SBC recognized the autonomy of its individual churches in making decisions on this matter. (This is what makes them Baptist, and it’s a good thing!) My comments should therefore be read as something of a plea to the members of churches from a variety of denominations who will, in the months to come, make decisions about whether to stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops as a result of the organization’s policies. I speak not as a Southern Baptist or a “gay activist,” but as a fellow Christian concerned about our witness to the world and our care for the most marginalized among us. 

While the resolution expresses “love in Christ for all young people regardless of their perceived sexual orientation,” its condemnation of the Scouts only serves to further alienate those outside the Church from the gospel and to perpetuate the already dysfunctional and unhealthy culture of secrecy, fear, and shame within the conservative evangelical church as it relates to homosexuality. 

The fact is, boy scouts are already forbidden from engaging in sexual activity—heterosexual or homosexual—and so the change in policy simply addresses sexual orientation. In other words, being attracted to the same sex does not automatically disqualify a boy from becoming a scout. 

Is this really a move to condemn? Would a Southern Baptist Church forbid a child from attending Sunday School based solely on his or her sexual orientation? Even among those who count homosexual behavior as a sin, there is usually at least some room in the fellowship for people attracted to the same sex. So why hold the Boy Scouts to more legalistic standards than many SBC churches? This resolution goes beyond the typical condemnation by the SBC of homosexual behavior to condemn homosexual orientation.

It also raises some important questions: Does the SBC plan to disassociate from any group that might have gay members? Will Alcoholics Anonymous be banned from meeting in the church basement because some of its members might be gay? Will children be asked about their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents before being enrolled in Vacation Bible School? Will churches drop all partnerships with community nonprofits that don't discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? 

What disassociation from the Scouts would communicate to a community, (perhaps inadvertently), is that people with same-sex attraction are under no circumstances welcome in a Southern Baptist church, even if it’s through a separate community organization like the Boy Scouts. Churches that choose to break from the Scouts simply because there may be gay boys among them will send a clear message to their respective communities that LGBT folks—even teenagers— are not welcome anywhere near their churches; the doors are officially closed to them. 

If that’s the message you want your church to send, then send it. But if it’s not, please reconsider embracing this resolution or disassociating from the Scouts. 

Furthermore, what all of this communicates to kids already in the church is that if they find themselves attracted to the same sex, (or in falling in any way outside sexual “norms”), they better keep their attractions, thoughts, and feelings a secret or else they will be ostracized, maybe even kicked out. 

In response to the Scouts’ decision, the SBC has been promoting its Royal Ambassadors program, a sort of Christianized version of the Boy Scouts that provides the classic “retreat” option for those interested in “protecting” their families from the outside world.  But what happens to the kid in Royal Ambassadors who is gay? What happens to the boy who finally musters the courage to tell his parents or a trusted church leader he is attracted to other guys? Will he be kicked out of Royal Ambassadors? Will he be kicked out of the church? 

I once met a young man at a Christian college who told me that to be gay in a Southern Baptist Church is like living every day in hell. He told me he woke up every morning and went to bed every night with a heavy, palpable fear in his chest. He was burdened by the shame of carrying around a secret he knew he could never tell anyone. As a kid, he was teased by the other boys, and little was done to stop it. The church, he said, was the worst place in the world to be gay, the last place he would ever choose to come out. As soon as he got the chance, he ran as far away from that unreachable white steeple as his legs would carry him. The fact that he remains a committed follower of Jesus, despite the hateful response he has received from many Christians because of his sexuality, astounds and challenges me. 

His is not an unusual story. 

It’s the story of thousands of young people who are both Christian and gay. They are told they have to choose between the two, and when they can’t, they often leave the church or, tragically, choose to leave this earth for good. We cannot continue down this path. It has created too many atheists, too many grave markers, too many grieving families, too many broken hearts.

Our churches should be the safest places in which to come out, not the most dangerous. 

My guess is that most Southern Baptists would agree with me. My guess is that most just haven’t thought through the implications of this resolution, the implications of potentially disassociating from the Boy Scout troops in their community, or the implications of consistently fighting this culture war against homosexuality. 

So if your church is in the process of making such a decision, I encourage you think about it, pray about it, talk with your fellow church members about it, and talk with your gay friends, neighbors, and relatives about it. I also recommend checking out the book Torn by Justin Lee, a young man who was raised in a Southern Baptist church and who is gay. 

Regardless of where one stands on the politics of gay marriage, or even the morality of same sex relationships, the message that a person has to become straight before becoming a part of the Kingdom is dangerous, untrue, and contrary to the Gospel. 

When God wrapped himself in flesh, strapped on sandals, and set up his tabernacle among us, he made a beeline for the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the despised, the sinners, the misfits, and the minorities. He ate with them and drank with them, and despite warnings from the religious leaders, he made them his disciples and friends.  

(And before someone jumps in with a friendly reminder that Jesus told those he healed to “go and sin no more,” let’s remember that no one actually went and sinned no more—not the first disciples, not us, not anybody. We aren't welcomed into the Kingdom on account of our worthiness, but on account of Christ’s worthiness.)

When we demand that people conform to a list of requirements before welcoming them into our churches we effectively “shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces,” just as Jesus warned against. 

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if what makes the Gospel offensive is not who it keeps out, but who it lets in.   Samaritans. Gentiles. Women. Tax collectors. Prostitutes. The poor. The merciful. Peacemakers. Drunks. Addicts. The sick. The uneducated. The persecuted. Slaves. Prisoners. The naked. The hungry. The marginalized. The troublemakers. The oppressed. The misfits. The powerless. Children. A self-important, undisciplined cynic like me.  An ethnic and sexual minority who, though the BIble forbade him from even entering a temple on account of his sexuality, turned to Philip and said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”  

Though Philip's mind may have raced - "you're a Gentile! you're a eunuch! you know very little about Jesus! - he responded only by following the Ethiopian eunuch to the water and baptizing him in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Look, here is water: The Church is water. The whole world is water. 

What will we let stand in the way? 

Love need not agree or understand or have it all figured out. 

But love always opens the door. 

I pray my brothers and sisters in the Southern Baptist Church will not shut it in any more faces. 

###

Be sure to check out Torn: Rescuing Christians From the Gays vs. Christians Debate by Justin Lee. You can also check out his Web site here. 

If you are a Christian and gay, check out the Gay Christian Network.  

And for scout troops looking for a new home, The United Methodist Church has opened its doors to those dropped by SBC churches. 

See also:  

How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation

"All right then, I'll go to hell" 

Is abolition biblical? 

 

comments

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/southern-baptist-boy-scouts-love-opens-door

Comment Policy: Please stay positive with your comments. If your comment is rude, it gets deleted. If it is critical, please make it constructive. If you are constantly negative or a general ass, troll, or hater, you will get banned. The definition of terms is left solely up to us.