"It May Be Lawful, But Not Beneficial" Sexual Ethics in the 21st Century

1 Corinthians 6:12-20          Rev. Todd B. Freeman

Bethany Presbyterian Church, Dallas           January 15, 2006

Do you remember having “The Talk”? You know the one, about you-know-what. Do I dare mention it by name? Maybe if I just whisper it – sex. There, I said it.

Growing up in the Midwest in a fairly conservative household during the mid-1960’s, my parents never sat me down for “The Talk.” What I learned about “it” came from a brief sex-education lecture and movie at my junior high school, from 9th grade biology class, and of course, from talking with the real experts, my friends. Being just too uncomfortable to talk about sexuality, I never heard much of anything about it from my parents nor from my church. In retrospect, that’s too bad.

Not having children of my own, I’ve never had the opportunity to have “The Talk” with any of my own kids. So I’m not really sure if it’s any easier in the 21st century for parents to talk about sex with their kids or not. However, in our current Age of Information, it does seem that most adolescents are finding out about it all at an earlier age.

The Presbyterian Church has also seemed to loosen up a bit when it comes to making sure it adds its voice to the mix – rightfully choosing to err on the side of too much information instead of none at all. For that I am thankful. So in my many previous years of youth ministry, I have had the opportunity to talk about “it” with other people’s kids.

When I served as the Associate Pastor to Youth and their Families at First Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth during the mid 1990’s, I was responsible for making sure that both our middle schoolers and high schoolers separately went through the Presbyterian curriculum on sex education. Knowing how uncomfortable young people are talking about such things in the presence of adults, and adults with young people, the curriculum begins by breaking the ice in a rather radical way.

All the boys went to one side of the room and all the girls to the other. The boys made a list of all the slang words they’ve ever heard to name the “private” body parts of females. The girls did the same thing by making a list of all the slang terms they’ve ever heard in naming the “private” body parts of males. Within seconds there was raucous laughter (perhaps out of sheer embarrassment) coming from both sides of the room. Then the two groups came together and shared their lists – aloud. At this point it became very educational for us adults in the room as well.

As controversial at it seemed to some parents, it turned out to be a very effective way to begin a discussion about sex. Mainly because it surprised the dickens out of the young people that they were saying those words at church. The genius behind it, however, is that once spoken aloud, nothing else was really that uncomfortable to talk about.

Over the past decade it seems that the Presbyterian Church now can’t stop talking about sex. The primary impetus for such discussions has most often come in the polarized debate about whether or not to ordain sexually active gay men and lesbian women.

By a slim majority, the sexual ethic voted into our Presbyterian Book of Order concerning the ordination of pastors, elders, and deacons is referred to as the “fidelity and chastity” law. As in: “fidelity between a man and a women within the covenant of marriage, or chastity in singleness.” This rule of law, however, has really only served to lead to a greater “don’t ask-don’t tell” stance within our denomination.

Several years ago there was an attempt to change the church law to “fidelity and integrity,” replacing “chastity in singleness,” with “integrity within all relationships in life.” It was defeated.

The debate about ordination standards will not go away, however, and I for one have mixed feelings about it. Not that I don’t think our ordination standards should be changed, but because I’m tired of the deeply polarizing and divisive effect it continues to have within our denomination. Perhaps the church has become just a reflection of the polarizing of society in-general that has occurred in such divisive ways over the last decade. But overall, I’m glad that the church is having this debate, because the church should be involved with the discussion of sexual ethics.

Among the greatest points of contention, however, is trying to discern how the sexual ethics of 2000 years ago in the Near Middle East and Mesopotamia applies to us today. For you see, the Bible does not present one clear sexual ethic throughout all its pages. So perhaps the culture of a particular time and place does indeed play a role.

When it comes to sexual ethics, no one has more to say about it than the Apostle Paul. Narrowly interpreted, it seems that Paul takes on a “just say no” attitude when it comes to sex. But that would be a misinterpretation. In this decidedly complex issue, we only have time this morning to look at one of the many things Paul has to say about this issue. We must begin by remembering that Paul’s words come in the form of a letter responding to particular questions and circumstances that arose in the congregations he founded. We are hearing, then, just one side of the conversation that was taking place. But we can infer that there were some in that church in Corinth (located in modern-day southern Greece) who were pushing Paul’s gospel theme of “freedom in Christ” beyond its limits. In other words, some believed that freedom from the Jewish laws of the Torah (especially in Leviticus) meant freedom to do anything they pleased.

Paul walks a fine line here. While he seems to affirm “all things are lawful or permissible” (a saying ascribed to the Christians in Corinth and something Paul most likely would have taught), he adds that not all things are necessarily beneficial or helpful. In other words, freedom in Christ isn’t the same thing as free license to do as one pleases.

Paul goes on to apply this philosophy to sexual ethics. I want to briefly pause, however, to emphasize the importance of this teaching and expand it a bit. Just because something isn’t against the law doesn’t mean that it’s a healthy or beneficial behavior.

Presbyterians, in particular, are known for the guiding principle: “all things in moderation.” We don’t preach, for instance, that drinking alcohol is sinful in and off itself. When drinking reaches the point of excess, however, it clearly becomes unbeneficial – not only to the individual, but also for the community, as when it leads to spouting off words that we later regret saying, or getting into fights, or trying to work with a hangover, or worse, driving after drinking.

This guideline of “all things in moderation” applies to other behaviors as well, such as eating, gambling, watching TV, spending time on the computer instead of with a loved one, even over-working.

Finding a proper balance seems to be the best guide to living a healthy and beneficial life – for you, for your loved ones, and for the community.

But enough about that, let’s get back to sex. Because when it comes to certain sexual activities, the Apostle Paul is not advocating “all things in moderation.” To help me explain this I want to turn to some wise words spoken at the 2004 Covenant Network of Presbyterians Conference. In a sermon preached by the former Moderator of the 2003 General Assembly and pastor at Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Maryland, the Rev. Susan Andrews reveals Paul’s theological position on the matter of sexual ethics with these words:

Paul proclaims that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit - that sexuality is a sacred gift to be used to glorify and enjoy God. And, Paul makes clear that erotic love becomes destructive if it is not shaped by moral and spiritual love. The apostle is directly confronting the dualism of his day - the thinking that the body and the soul are somehow separate and that therefore, what one does with one’s body simply doesn’t matter when it comes to the sanctity of the soul.

Paul is writing to the church at Corinth to answer their specific questions and to comment on their specific behavior, including sexual behavior. In the surrounding Greek culture where promiscuity and temple prostitutes and even pedophilia was socially acceptable, how is a Christian to understand the holy demands of sexual behavior? Again, underlying this controversy is the question about freedom. If a Christian has been set free by the saving and forgiving power of Christ, does that mean that the Christian is free to engage in any kind of behavior? Susan Andrews adds:

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury in England, has written what one commentator has called, “the best ten pages written about sexuality in the twentieth century.” Entitled “The Body’s Grace,” Williams affirms the sacred space of erotic love. But he also underscores an ethical imperative. And he does this by grounding his ideas in covenant theology. Because we are created in the image of God, Williams suggests we are called to embody the creative ethic of God. Or to use Williams own words, “to desire my joy is to desire the joy of the one I desire...it is to ask the moral question: ‘How much do we want our sexual activity to heal and enlarge the life of others?’” (Eugene Rogers, editor, Theology and Sexuality, Blackwell Publishers, p. 313). What a wonderful statement - a sexual ethic that “heals and enlarges the life of the other [person].”

What such a reciprocal and mutual covenant ethic suggests is that asymmetrical - unbalanced - sexual relationships are simply not part of God’s vision. Sexual behavior that exhibits power over the other [person], sexual behavior that focuses just selfishly on me instead of thee, sexual behavior that hides in the shadows of shame - such behavior does not “heal and enlarge the life of the other [person]”. Using Williams’ critique of asymmetrical relationships, I believe we 21st century Christians must proclaim unequivocally that prostitution, promiscuity, adultery, pedophilia, clergy sexual misconduct, patriarchal heterosexual marriage, “hooking up” just for casual sex - all of this is wrong - not because it breaks some antiquated rule, but because it does not heal and enlarge the life of the other person - because it does not honor the faithfulness and fidelity of covenant - because it does not glorify God in the temple of sacred sexuality.

So, I hope we can affirm that sexuality grounded in the grace and truth of Jesus Christ does not invite open license… The context of real people’s real sexual lives has led me to a place where I am not always sure about what God forbids. But I know in my body and in my soul what God celebrates. Sacred sexuality is about glorifying and enjoying God with the full worship of our bodies. Sacred sexuality is about reflecting the image of God in us by desiring the joy of the one we desire. Sacred sexuality is about shaping erotic love with agape love - healing and enlarging the life of the other person - even at the cost of sacrificing our own needs. Sacred sexuality is about sharing our bodies in the context of covenant - a faithful and monogamous and enduring relationship that reflects the dependable fidelity of our utterly faithful God. And sacred sexuality becomes - in the wide grace of God’s redemptive plan - a way to be beneficial - a way to edify and build up the larger community of God’s people.

There is no dualism in Paul’s theology. There is no separation of mind from body, or soul from sensation. As spiritual people, as sexual people, as ethical people, as beloved people - let us come to a deeper understanding that even though Christ has set us free, not all things are beneficial for us; not all things enrich the lives of others.

So as the scriptures ask of you and me, “glorify God in your body,” which serves as a “temple of the Holy Spirit within you.”

Amen.

Susan Andrews was Moderator of the 215th General Assembly, the first woman in parish ministry elected to the post. She is pastor of Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Maryland. In her 30 years of ministry, she has also served churches in East Hanover, New Jersey, and Allentown, Pennsylvania. She is a graduate of Wellesley College and Harvard Divinity School; she received her D.Min. from McCormick. She was named Preacher of the Year in 2000 by Lectionary Homiletics. Susan was a member of the Covenant Network Board from its founding in 1997 until her election as Moderator.