Purity Or Prurience: Examining Christian Views of Sex

I recently aired a seven-part series on sex and Christian marriage. If you haven’t heard that series, and would like to, it is available at my counseling website, February-March 2019.

In that series I was responding to what seems to me to be a growing movement in some quarters of Christian teaching and lifestyle, to unearth biblical texts that support - yeah “teach”- that God intends married couples to explore sexual erotica. For this, according to Juli Slattery* is where husband and wife will “learn the mysteries of God.”

Slattery hangs her opinion on Ephesians chapter five, where Paul refers to a “great mystery". In these words, familiar to all Christians, Paul expresses an inability to fully comprehend the union of Christ and the church. Unfortunately, a good many Christians have taken Paul's reference to mystery as referencing the relationship of the man and woman. Thus we have the simple elocution, “marriage is a picture of Christ and the church.” This is supposed to explain the mystery.

In fact, the great mystery Paul speaks of is that we altogether are the body, flesh and bones of Christ. You may recall from reading Ephesians five, that Paul is adjuring husband and wife to love (that is, to agape) one another as Christ loves (agape) the church. For not only are believers the literal body of Christ, but in a similar transcendent sense the husband and wife are to be as one flesh, as evidenced in that Eve was made of Adam’s bone. In this we observe that all God’s ways are reflective of His nature. It should not surprise us that divine themes are repeated again and again, fractal-like. Thus we read the two are to be “one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Paul sees the repeating theme both in the transcendent union of husband and wife, and of Savior and church. But he goes no further than to refer to the unfathomable relationship of Christ and the church as a great mystery. For so it is and so it will remain until the end of time.

The theme of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians regards how the body of Christ works: one Spirit in many members. Accordingly, Paul talks about how we are to work together, as members of the one body, not grieving the Spirit. This will facilitate our efficiency in Christ’s further work on earth. The message seems crystal clear. Yet, through some seemingly alchemical logic, a growing number of Christian authors and teachers are interpreting this exhortation as a mandate for sexual freedom.

Juli Slattery is by no means alone in her interpretation of this and one or two other similar texts. Not all are as bold in citing specific biblical texts as Slattery. Some loosely refer to “scripture” or “the Bible” in general: "scripture teaches." It has become increasingly popular to refer to the Song of Solomon as grounds for the idea that God loves erotica; or at least that the height and breadth of God’s love includes erotica. This overlapping ideology requires a very broad and loose definition of eros - a “living" definition to use a popular, current ideology; a definition that can be modified to fit an agenda.

Eros vs Agape?

People of course may not all take the word erotica to mean the same thing. Some might think erotica refers to natural fondness, adoration or natural sexual attraction. Others might think of erotica specifically as the exploration of sexual fantasy. The basics of sexual intercourse are of course the same mechanically, regardless of what is in the mind and heart. That may lead some to conclude any moral issue is of little consequence; if two things look the same can they be so different? Well, yes they can. When it comes to the morality of sex, the issue begins with the unseen - the contents of the mind and heart. Even the Greeks, those who identified erotica, separated it from the pure affections of the other loves - agape, philio and storge.(Demosthenes**)

So, let me be clear as to how I’m using the word. Erotica is the nature of the Greek god, Eros; the god of lustful passion and sexual gratification. We indeed do find this sort of sexual lust showing up in scripture. We find it in the lust David had for Bathsheba, and in the lust Amnon had for his niece Tamar, the lust of Potiphar’s wife for Joseph. In these accounts erotic attraction led to wrong doing, adultery, murder and rape. Scripture warns repeatedly to avoid, even flee this kind of lust. In contrast, scripture accounts for the love of Isaac for Rachael, and of Jacob for Rebecca. However, nothing is said of an erotic attraction. More is said of the affection of David and Jonathan. Was that erotic? No indeed; affection, but not erotica. How important is the delineation between eros and other loves? Perhaps extremely important. It could be the difference between the self-centered, twisted affections of fallen man, and the vast, pure affection of God. So again, let us be clear that when we talk of erotic, we are referring to the nature of the Greek god Eros. Not the god of charity, devotion, admiration, mutual appreciation and such, but rather the god of selfish, sexual lust. If we think of erotica in any other way, we are guilty of conflating the term beyond its true meaning.

It is possible, and it is my belief, that the idea of numerous types of virtuous love is merely a human attempt to describe our experience of the vast love of God. In some sense God might seem to embody many discrete things. We have many names to describe God; for example, Yirah, Rapha, Shalom, and such. However, at the same time God is simply one infinite Being. When John writes that “God is love” he uses the word Greek word agape. That is the love that is identified with God throughout the New Testament. Agape encompasses a selfless, other-centered affection: charity, compassion, kindness, sacrifice and many other words that describe the love of God. Agape is perhaps the closest single Greek word we have to reference the uniquely sacrificial love of God. But the measure of God's infinite love would likely encompass every affection that is not evil. For example our appreciation of beauty, of simplicity, innocence, love for pets, love of good food, for hard work, genius and so on. And it must encompass the pure affections between husband and wife - insofar as those expressed affections reflect God's own nature.

As the afore mentioned Hebrew names of God describe aspects of His singular relational nature, so too the Hebrew language has a number words to describe God’s love, all related to the Hebrew, ahab. The full expression of Gods ahab must certainly anticipate and encompass the Creator’s intention for the human expression of affection present in sexual intimacy. However, it does not include lust. And that is where we have a problem. Because erotica cannot be separated from lust. And so, apparently, any sexual expression of God’s ahab, cannot be erotic.

Many Christians believe the closest thing the Bible has to instruction on proper sexual behavior, is found in the Song of Songs - the “Song of Solomon”. This book is often thought to provide a biblical bridge between sexual pleasure and a clear conscience. Since relatively few who have read the Song of Solomon are likely to have studied it's history, a brief overview is helpful. According to sources I have read, Solomon intended his Song of Songs as a love song, or perhaps a play - one of over one thousand he had written. And, he may have intended it as the allegory it came to be; that point is nowhere clear. It is note worthy that only this one play was canonized into the Old Testament. Why? When Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity, circa 458 BC, the Song of Songs was effectively canonized by Ezra - who did indeed take it to have a deeper, alegorical meaning. It was thereafter recited by the women in the newly restored temple, and taught as an allegory of God’s pursuit of Israel - which began with the Exodus from Egypt circa 1446 BC - and of the coming of Messiah. Since the time of Ezra, the Song of Solomon has, in the Hebrew tradition, been read at the Feast of Passover in celebration of the beginning of that courtship. Nevertheless, some want to see permission in this allegory to “cast off all (sexual) restraint,” and permission to compromise or “slip,” as Slattery says. They want permission to blur the line between agape and eros.

This is very dangerous ground for number of reasons. Here are a few. It must be admitted that in our fallen condition we can only trust our carnal inclinations to lead not closer to, but further from God. If nothing in life is disappointing, we’re certainly going about it wrong; the reason we "glory in tribulation" (Romans 5), is that in it we are being made perfect. In addition, people who look through scripture selectively to justify something they are already doing and intend to continue doing, are twisting words of God. Altering the word of God carries a harsh penalty because, not only does one assume the place of God, one also brings confusion to the minds of those who initially rely on teachers to understand and explain the word of God. Lastly, God’s word necessarily reflects His nature. So, to misrepresent God’s word is to misrepresent God Himself. In this case, to say that God looks with favor on exotic sexual exploration and that His "scripture teaches” it, is to make certain declarations about the very nature of God. Specifically that God is erotic and lustful in His nature - like the Greek god Eros.

The Bible cites many characteristics of God’s love, for example 1 Corinthians 13, the “Love Chapter.” Even this is possibly a thumbnail sketch of God’s love. However, as husband and wife attempt to live out the guidelines of that biblical text, do they necessarily and naturally feel more erotic, more lustful toward one another? In other words, do they find the hidden treasures of God’s word an aphrodisiac? Not at all. The fact of the matter is that the secular world itself, by many written accounts, does not believe eros and the love of 1Corinthians 13 are even compatible. (Art Of Courtly Love Andreas Capellanus ^† Lucretius***, Demosthene**).

Surely the instrument of procreation is God’s plan. And the fact that the act is not unpleasant no doubt reflects indirectly that God's nature is the quintessence of care in all things; the beauty of nature and the pleasantness of good food reflects the same. As the careful nature of God is the source of nature’s unfolding, it is elementary that intelligent life, including lower animals, should be suited to and enjoy every demonstration of the Creator’s nature that permeates the process. But where will we draw the line between God’s nature and man’s fallen nature? What do we enjoy because of God and what do we enjoy in spite of God? Surely each new generation will attempt to redraw the line by the same subjective measure.

Lastly, if God were like Eros in nature, then Christ’s love for the church and our love for Christ would need to reflect that. Now, I have no doubt that is the thinking of some who are deceived. However, they have, as I said earlier, conflated the good and the bad, and some have done so knowingly I believe. God’s love is not erotic, it is not lustful. Neither is the love of Christ for the church.

I imagine the above questions and considerations might be something like those Paul was responding to in 1Corinthians chapter seven, where he begins by saying, “Concerning the things you wrote to me about: It is not good for a man to touch a woman.” Corinth was a city whose chief deity was Aphrodites, the goddess of erotica. Her priestesses were prostitutes. Acts of sexual erotica were considered virtuous, worshipful, divine. Compare this heathen ideology with current popular teachings that we are to explore the mysteries of God though sexual erotica. Are these two not essentially the same teaching?

I am afraid there are but two paths from which to choose. One, a humble exploration toward a pure sexual expression that really does unfold from God’s nature. The other path, this dangerous, convoluted mixture, which a lot of popular teaching is heading down. Most of the church will probably not follow this path all the way to destruction. But what has been the cost, and what will be the cost of having followed this road at all? As a marriage counselor, I can tell you the cost has already been high.

Not too long ago I unfortunately had reason to visit a blog belonging to Lori Alexander, author of The Transformed Wife. Her book may have helped some women over the course of its publication. However, the few I’ve met who read it found little of substantive benefit. The case that presented me with cause to visit the blog was particularly pertinent to this article. A man had written a scathing letter to Ms. Alexander, reprimanding her and women in general, for the miserably way Christian wives are treating husbands by “withholding sex” from them. The letter was a poorly-written emotional tirade, full of gross generalizations, groundless accusations, self-justifications, limp excuses, and manipulation of scripture. On it went for pages about the heartless injustice Christian wives were visiting upon victimized, God-fearing men, by not giving them the amount of sex they were helplessly created for.

As is typical, the writer pulled from its biblical context a small fragment popular with those of his opinion - 1Corinthians 7:5. There Paul cautions husband and wife against depriving one another of sexual activity. The man's letter on the whole demonstrated a woeful lack of biblical knowledge. In particular I found his use of 1Cor 7:5 highly ironic. The clear implication of this passage is that regular fasting and prayer were the order of the day, and that certainly during times of fasting and prayer sexual intimacy would be abstained from. Why? Because the two are clearly not compatible; the one having to do with temporal pleasure and the other spiritual work. I wonder, does a Christian man who complains about a lack of sexual gratification regularly spend time together with his wife in prayer and fasting? It is doubtful. If prayer and fasting were the priority, the lack of sexual activity would happily be seen as more time for it. The real deficit is not one of sex, but of fasting and prayer. It shows lack of mature understanding concerning the things of the spirit

Instead of ignoring the letter, as she should have, Ms. Alexander posted it on her blog, along with some kind of general apology to men for this kind of treatment. This started a small avalanche of similar letters to the author. A few of which were once again unwisely posted. Sadly, comments with opposing, sensible views seem to have been screened out. But this is where we are at. Like so many quick fixes of these times, it’s more simple to treat the symptom than to deal with the underlying cause.

Eros, Anger and Addiction

It has been said that people are least loving when making love. It is true, generally speaking. The term “erotic love” could be a perfect oxymoron. For in a sense the two words are completely contradictory. If there is truth in the saying that people are least loving when making love, it is because most people associate the word love with giving and the term “making love” (erotica) with taking. Those who insist that there is virtue in what the secular world commonly means by “making love” are borrowing virtue from elsewhere to cover frank selfishness of eros. Moreover, most people do not understand the close relationship between erotica, anger and addiction; both with regard to neurochemistry in the brain and to narrative in the mind.

What is anger? I have studied and weekly taught regarding anger for a couple of decades or more. I consider myself expert on the topic. Anger is linked to our self preservation. For humans that has to do with our comprehension of mortality - not only physical death, but more so the loss or endangerment of the self. Anger is understood as the first line response to threat. We can sense a threat to our physical being, or to our self image. In either case, the brain and mind coordinate to respond protectively - fight or flight. The narrative associated with being threatened is that, as such, we have no value, we have no control and we have no power or resource. And so to alleviate the sense of being threatened, we need to acquire a sense of value, control and resource. If we have these we can overcome any sense of threat. So, anger is best defined as a fear and shame-based defense mechanism associated with the gain or loss of value, control and power - or resources. Or, in other words, anything done in the pursuit of value, control and power, is potentially done out of anger. As such, anger has many faces. It can appear as humor, spending habits, personality quirks, choices of friends and so on.

I agree that is a broad definition of anger. And for many behaviors the indirectly connection with the pursuit of value, control and power may not be clear. But the direct association between erotic sex and value, control and power is undeniable. I suggest that, by this definition, erotica is as much an anger behavior as any addiction. Ergo, “people are least loving when making love.” The best, though not infallible, litmus test for whether a thing potentially done out of anger is in fact done out of anger, is to observe the reaction to having the thing denied. And this is where erotic sex shows its hand, because it is a thing that is, after a point, invariably insisted upon. If the husband doesn’t get sex when he wants it, then he gets moody, argumentative, abusive, demeaning. In many cases he may use what he views as inadequate sex as an excuse for turning to pornography or infidelity.

What of the connection between anger and addiction; since sex can be highly addictive? All anger does not necessarily signal addiction directly. However every addiction is an anger behavior. One hallmark of anger is that it is entirely selfish. And, every addiction is also entirely selfish. Addictions are ways of dealing with what is perceived by the addict as a chronic and hopeless lack of value, control and power. The addictive substance or behavior dumbs down the senses so that the pain of this lack is tolerable. That is why sex addiction is so powerful. It kills two birds with one stone. It gratifies the brain and body, while at the same time exercising power and control over some other person - virtually, or in actuality.

If the agape love of God is not our standard, then the selfish pursuit of value, control and power most often involves the devaluing of others in some way. Erotica has the effect of devaluing. In fact, erotica flourishes when one or both partners are being devalued - sadomasochism in a nutshell. The devaluing of another is the standard shortcut to elevating one’s self. Of course, the participants don’t always consciously think of erotica as taking. Each instead concentrates on what he or she is receiving, not what is being taken from the other. It is also generally thought that in cases of mutual consent, there is no harm in any case. This is not true. And ultimately, not arrested, this slippery slope of sexual satisfaction leads to sadomasochism, which is wholly fear and shame-based, and thus wholly an anger behavior.

Therefore erotica is highly addictive, and not because of what one selflessly gives to another, but rather because of what one selfishly takes from the other. Why else would Lucretius claim that “love gets in the way of eros”? Why else would Demosthenes say that prostitutes are for pleasure and wives are to manage the house?

Pure Love

In contrast, agape (or the Hebrew ahab) is the opposite of anger. Again, anger is self interested, fear and shame-based. Perfect love casts out fear. (1John 4:18) Perfect love is ahab, agape love. It is always other-centered. It is the same love John uses in his statement that “God is love.” And so agape drives out fear, and shame. Firstly because it is the nature of God. And secondly, it is therefore not self-centered but other-centered. “For God so loved the world that He gave…” (John 3: 16)

“Isn’t sex a good thing, and didn’t God intend husband and wife to enjoy sexual intimacy?” Everything that God created is good. The problem is, that we cannot see creation in its purity. Sin has tarnished the lens through which we view these things. As to the question of whether or not God intended husband and wife to enjoy sexual intimacy, He clearly did not intend it to be a drudgery. Surely if sex were not enjoyable in some way there would be no higher forms of life on earth. But there again, our idea of enjoyment cannot be trusted entirely to be what God intended.

Again, from our fallen vantage point we might be inclined to wonder why God would design sex as He did, and then expect us to control our urges. The answer to that must lie in our inability to comprehend the fulness of the ahab that is of God. It is very possible, even likely, in my opinion, that the ahab that is God far surpasses anything mankind could ever experience in his fallen state. The best we can do is pursue that love, even at the cost of desired pleasure.

I am persuaded, and have said many times, that the only hope a couple has of ensuring God’s absolute best out of marriage, is to invest in the love of 1 Corinthians 13 and let sexual pleasure, rooted in that love alone, be what it will. This may on its face seem idealistic and destined for boredom. However, we have to consider the grave cost of doing otherwise. Men and women who indulge in highly intense sexual pursuits are pushing the brain to extremes that were not intended and cannot be sustained. It is the physiological equivalent of drug overdose. Or, by the same principle, if you eat too much sugar, the tongue is gradually deprived of its sensitivity to sweetness, and you’ll have to keep adding more sugar to get the same effect, until you reach a point of toxicity a healthy body cannot tolerate.

I counseled a man who had developed a psychological and physiological association between the use of methamphetamines and erotic sex. According to his testimony, he was involved in orgies literally 36 hours straight, weekly for years; which required him to use meth to keep up the pace and maintain his interest. He knew the drugs were burning out his brain. However, without the drugs sex had become unfulfilling, he had had so much of it. What he had done was to elevate sex to a point beyond the ability of the brain and mind to enjoy it. Now, needing to stop using the drugs, he asked if he would ever again enjoy sex. I told him he would probably not, unless he could someday completely redefine satisfaction.

Many couples play the same dangerous game using various means to highten erotica; pornography for example. Research has proven (as though proof were needed) that the extended use of pornography over time causes erectile dysfunction in men. What is happening is that pornography raises the bar of sexual expectation to a level the brain and mind cannot sustain, were not intended to sustain.

But over and above the toll taken on the brain, what of the lost spiritual potential? What of time wasted, the life wasted, pursuing that which cannot fulfill. What of the marriage that was intended to bring two people closer to God and to function as a blessing to the Body of Christ, but was instead spent seeking self-gratification?

Let's not forget why we have the gift of life in the first place. Let’s not be distracted from our calling, and follow the world in the meaningless pursuit of pleasure. “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever,” reads the Westminster Catechism. Preoccupation with sexual satisfaction shows one thing clearly: we have not comprehended the parable of treasure in the field, or the pearl of great price. We have not yet seen the Kingdom of God.

Afterword:

Hebrew has a wholistic view of God’s affection and Godly affection that includes every good and perfect affection. It necessarily excludes lust. The English word “love” seems to apply to any affection. Love for coffee, love for country, love for family, love for lover. In some way, this may be closer to the Hebrew ahab. However, “love” is also generally used when referring to lust. The Greeks named four loves. That doesn’t mean there are in fact four loves. But one of the loves the Greeks named is clearly one of lust. That is eros. C.S. Lewis (The Four Loves) treats eros too much like a misunderstood virtue to my way of thinking, unless I have misunderstood him. The Greeks and Romans seemed clear on the fact that Eros and Cupid were self-serving and lustful, and incompatible with agape.

* 25 Questions You Were Afraid To Ask About Sex, Julianne Slattery

** Demosthenes "We have hetaerae (prostitutes) for pleasure, pallakae (concubines) to care for our daily body’s needs and gynaekes (wives) to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households”

*** Roman poet, Lucretius is said to have stated that love and eros are incompatible. See The Four Loves, C.S.Lewis.

† Art Of Courtly Love was written circa 1100 AD, outlining the then acceptable rules of romantic love. Accordingly, one could not have romance in marriage. It had to be found outside of marriage; since romance was defined as "the pursuit of what you cannot attain."