I agree with most of what you’re saying, but here is my hesitation. The Bible does state a man and woman should not have sex before marriage and just because we’re gay doesn’t give us the right to re-interpret Scripture. I think it is a sin to have sex before marriage and I am gay. I do not know where this leaves me. I can either remain celibate, or sin. It is not an easy choice obviously, but it is one I have to make. I do not see another way out unless same sex marriage becomes legal. What do you say to the passages that clearly speak against sex before marriage regardless of if you’re gay or straight?

I appreciate what Sam is saying and asking here and believe it’s an important conversation that I want to open up for others to enter in to. Let me begin by offering a couple thoughts, random though they might be of my own and then the floor will be open and operators will be standing by to take your calls and post your comments.

I think I’ve already stated for the record more than a time or two that I’m not a proponent of casual sex for a number of reasons that go far beyond what the Scriptures may or may not say, and while my faith and the Scriptures are central to the formation of my values and personal morality, were I to engage in an argument on the topic (who me? argue?) I suspect the word “fornication” or the phrase, “Biblical teaching prohibits pre-marital sex” wouldn’t be among my opening or closing arguments. Considering the emotional, physical, and spiritual wreckage potentially resulting from casual non-committal sex quoting Scriptures doesn’t seem a necessary road to travel.

So that Sam and anyone else interested understands, my personal belief concerning sex is that it’s to be held within an established commitment between two people that involves responsibility, faithfulness, and trust and is centered and motivated in love. Whether you call that shared commitment marriage, a holy union, domestic partnership or a covenental relationship makes no difference to me.

All above is just to establish that all I say below isn’t to be confused as a defense on behalf of pre-marital sex. I’m not arguing that pre-marital sex is just fine so go for it. Keep your pants or skirt on. I’m so not on that page.

The Bible does state a man and woman should not have sex before marriage and just because we’re gay doesn’t give us the right to re-interpret Scripture. . .What do you say to the passages that clearly speak against sex before marriage regardless of if you’re gay or straight?

Sam, I just don’t see where the Bible states that. Conservative Christianity does. The Trinity Broadcasting Network, The 700 Club, a hundred thousand preachers and my Aunt Bessie do (I don’t actually have an Aunt Bessie) but despite the traditional position that the Bible forbids pre-marital sex, the case is weak, something I’ve previously addressed in Gay? Okay. Sex? No way.  In that post I contended that in the Old Testament the concerns regarding pre-martial sex had nothing to do with sexual morality but with the establishment and honoring of property rights, namely those of the father. Every woman was owned by a father and any man who had sex with her outside of marriage was required to make financial compensation to the father. (Exodus 22:16-17). A blood sacrifice for atonement wasn’t demanded of the man, neither did he incur divine punishment. Sin simply wasn’t part of the equation even, sadly enough, when the sex was an act of rape rather than consensual sex (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).  I also presented the Song of Solomon which tells of the passionate courtship between two lovers who take unashamed delight in one anothers’ bodies without any hint of condemnation found anywhere in the narrative.  In looking at the New Testament I pointed out that the Greek word porneia has been wrongly re-interpreted and narrowly-defined as fornication (sex between two unmarried people) in a number of versions of the Bible. Porneia, or sexual immorality, covers a number of sexual sins involving extra-marital sex  that includes adultery, temple prostitution, pederasty, and a man having sex with his menstruating wife.

From my viewpoint Sam, I don’t see this has a case of re-interpreting the Scriptures but of honoring the integrity of the Scriptures; something religion and the church has often failed to do historically, and always to the detriment of human life and spirit. Ask people of color whose ancestors were enslaved. Ask women who lived as second class citizens.  Ask children who were beaten by the rod. Ask yourself as gay or lesbian who would be barred from partaking of Christ’s table in far too many churches. Every time anyone comes along with an interpretation of the Scriptures that brings into question a traditional position, that person is viewed by some as re-interpreting the Scriptures when what might well be true is that they are “rightly dividing the Word of God.” Maybe it’s time we look at those long-held traditional views that have harmed, wounded, excluded, and condemned with as much pause and reflection as we do any seemingly conflicting view.

I think it is a sin to have sex before marriage and I am gay. I do not know where this leaves me. I can either remain celibate, or sin. It is not an easy choice obviously, but it is one I have to make. I do not see another way out unless same sex marriage becomes legal.

The part I could use help understanding is where you say “I see no way out (of remaining celibate) unless same sex marriage becomes legal.” I wonder what it means to you that there are countries in the world where same-sex marriage is legal. This raises so many questions for me Sam. Must same-sex marriage be legal in the United States at the federal level for you to feel more freedom to consider getting married should a wonderful someone come along? Must it be legal in every country in the world? Would a gay couple in a life-long committed relationship living in a state that prohibits same-sex marriage be committing sexual sin but if they moved to the Netherlands and obtained a marriage license where same-sex marriage is legal, be free of the judgment of sin in the eyes of God?

I cringe at the idea that location, the vote of the people, or the rule of government can determine what is or is not sin. Again, the question comes back to the only one that matters to me, and that’s what makes a marriage a marriage to God? and the only way I know to answer that question is to repeat what I wrote in Gay? Okay. Sex? No Way :

What makes a marriage a marriage to God? I’m not all that certain God’s concerned with marriage as a definition for a particular type of relationship. Marriage. Holy Union. Covenant Relationship. Kinship. Friendship. Parent and Child. Siblings. Pastor and congregants. God would seem to me to be less concerned with the category of a relationship than with the quality of the relationship but if defining relationship matters to God then I believe a marriage is a marriage in the eyes of God when two people enter into a covenantal relationship, exchanging the commitment of their heart to one another before the presence of God. I believe the intention of their hearts and the action of their lives is what God recognizes and that establishes the relationship as authentic, meaningful, and holy. I believe pure love (1 Corinthians 13) matters and is the single highest consideration to God in what gains God’s approval or disapproval. No offense to the church or to the majority of conservative Christians intended but I’d be hard-pressed to think God’s hanging on their thumbs up or thumbs down to reach a decision on the matter. God doesn’t seem to be the kind of God influenced by majority rule, status quo or accepted norms, at least if Jesus’ life and teaching was any indication, and therefore marriage in the eyes of God doesn’t hinge on how this society or any defines it.

Sam, I have nothing but respect and compassion for your commitment. I really do understand how sincerely motivated you are and how hungry you are to do what you believe is right and that God is calling you to do. Your words were my own a dozen years ago and my resolve just as strongly held. There came a time when my position changed along with a new understanding. Maybe one day your position will change. Maybe it won’t. I have no intention to convince you otherwise and would gain nothing in doing so.  I’ve only responded as honestly as I know how to your questioning and would simply hope that in asking it meant you were open to reflecting on another perspective. If at the end of the day your commitments as they are remain steadfast then I would do nothing but honor the place where you are because the best thing any of us can do is live true to our convictions and to the life we believe God is calling us to live.

I hope to hear more from you Sam and from any others who have something to add to this conversation, and you know you have something to say.

One of the many ways that we are attracted to each other is sexually. We want to touch and be touched. We want to give and receive pleasure with our bodies. We want too know each other in our full nakedness, which is to say in our full humanness, and in the moment of passion to become one with each other. Whether it is our own gender or the other that we are chiefly attracted to seems a secondary matter….

To say that morally, spiritually, humanly, homosexuality is always bad seems as absurd as to say that in the same terms heterosexuality is always good, or the other way round. It is not the object of our sexuality that determines its value but the inner nature of our sexuality.  If (a) it is as raw as the coupling of animals, at its worst it demeans us and at its best still leaves our deepest hunger for each other unsatisfied. If (b) it involves some measure of kindness, understanding, affection as well as desire, it can become an expression of human love in its fullness and can thus help to complete us as humans. Whatever our sexual preference happens to be, both of these possibilities are always there. It’s not whom you go to bed with or what you do when you get there that matters so much. It’s what besides sex you are asking to receive, and what besides sex you are offering to give.

I’m not going to comment further on what Buechner has articulated so eloquently because nothing I could write in response would ever add a drop of greater truth to it.

If you aren’t familiar with Frederick Buechner then learn about him and once you’ve learned a little about him, read some of his marvelously crafted and prolific writing that will reveal even more about the man, the preacher, and the writer. My favored recommendations include: Listening to Your Life, Longing for Home: Reflections at Mid-Life, Secrets in the Dark: A Life Lived in Sermons, Beyond Words: Daily Readings in the ABC’s of Faith (a collection of three of Buchner’s best known including: Wishful Thinking, Peculiar Treasures, and Whistling in the Dark)  and The Faces of Jesus: A Life Story.

Share your thoughts and reflections on the excerpt above, on anything else you’ve read by Frederick Buechner, or for that matter on anything that in recent days has graced your life and deepened your walk with God. The lines are open. Operators are standing by.

In Matthew 22 Jesus entered Jerusalem for the final time and even in this, the week leading to his crucifixion, the Pharisees were determined to trip Jesus up on questions centered in the law in a three-round theological smack-down.

Round One: The Pharisees tested Jesus’ loyalties to God or man by asking whether it’s was right to pay taxes to Caesar and Jesus came back by flashing a coin bearing the image of Caesar. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Jesus 1. Pharisees O.

Round Two: Next they quiz Jesus on the Levirate law that requires a man to marry his deceased brother’s wife if his brother died without a son. “If a man dies without a son and his brother marries his widow but he too dies before a son and each of the remaining five brothers in turn marry her but die before a child is born, in heaven to whom of the seven brothers will she belong?” Jesus answering by telling them their question reveals they don’t even understand the Scriptures or the power of God. “At the resurrection people won’t be married or given into marriage but will be like the angels. God is God of the living and not the dead.” Jesus 2. Pharisees 0.

Round Three: With the first two rounds going unanimously to Jesus, one of the heavy-hitters among the Pharisees decides to go after Jesus by asking him which is the most important of all the commandments in the law, or which of those 613 laws is greater than the others. While we know the motive of the questioning was to trap Jesus, the intention of the question is less certain but a possibility is the Pharisees were thinking if they could get Jesus to name one of the laws or a set of laws (ceremonial, purity, property, moral) as greater than the others, he could be seen as disparaging the rest of the Law. Not a good thing to do.

The other answer Jesus could have given would have been to give the right answer, that being that all the Law came from God and therefore every commandment of the Law was great. That would have been the traditional orthodox answer. The problem was had Jesus given the right answer, the Pharisees would have then volleyed back at him by asking him to then explain how it was, with all the Law being great and from God, that he and his disciples had on occasion broken some of the Law. What the Pharisees seems to lose sight of was that Jesus never violated the Law of God.  What he was breaking in allowing his disciples to gather grain on the sabbath, or to eat without ceremonial washing of their hands or not chiding an unclean woman for touching him (Matthew 15:1-6, Luke 6:1-4, John 5:8-18,Luke 11:37-41) was the code of interpretation that had been added in layers to the law by the rabbis. Jesus violated the tradition of the elders (Pharasaic law and oral interpretation) but not the divine law of God. How often do we as Christians accuse other believers of being disobedient to the Word of God when in reality, all that’s been violated is a particular human interpretation of Scripture?

Okay. Back to how Jesus ended up answering the final question.

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

That’s right. Jesus 3. Pharisees O.

The answer Jesus gave was two-fold. First, he quoted a portion of the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5.  “Love the Lord your heart with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind,”  The Shema is central to Judaism. It’s the prayer spoken every morning and evening, the first prayer children learn, and the prayer encapsulated in mezzuzot and affixed to the door frame of every Jewish home. Jesus could have chosen no more meaningful or familiar words to speak into the moment.

Before anything else, Jesus said that we must first love God with all that we are; in our full human and spiritual totality. It’s a love so deeply grounded within our spirits that we can’t separate any part of ourselves from our love for God. Love for God is embodied in emotions (heart), deeply rooted within the core of our being (soul) and woven into our intellectual thought life (mind). This all consuming devotion and love for God is the first and greatest commandment.

And then, as with the Gospels elsewhere, Jesus linked love for God with love for neighbor; neighbor being all people, ally or enemy. Jesus was asked to give one great commandment but instead he gives two that are equal and inseparable; love God and love others. The one isn’t secondary to the other but both are essential to the other because to love God is to love others, and to love others is to love God. Again, the love Jesus referred to doesn’t consist of mushy sentimentality but is a commitment to covenantal love; steadfast, committed, accountable and active. This is the quality of love we’re to hold for ourselves and extend to others, friend or foe. This is the ethic of love demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus earthly ministry; an ethic of love grounded in and flowing from God.

By citing love for God and love for others as the greatest commandment Jesus wasn’t suggesting that the law of love replaced or abolished the need for all the other commandments. What Jesus was proposing was that all the law was to be interpreted and applied in consideration of this ethic of love, and not only the law of God but also all the words of the Prophets. Every written word of God’s law and every spoken word of the Prophets hinged on how it held up to the Law of Love. Love is the first consideration and the final reflection. I know claiming Jesus was a radical is a worn cliché but in this case, I’m going to succumb. This is Jesus’ teaching in its most radical and pure form. This is what it was all about. His life. His purpose. His message. Love. God’s love. Love for God. Love of self and love for neighbor.

I’m not an ethicist. I’m just a person like you who wants to live ethically and morally in this world. I’m a Christian who desires that the choices I make for my life embody my faith and reflect some glimmer of the love and grace of God. Socrates said that “The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good and therefore be happy.” There’s incredible spiritual truth in that; that when you know what’s right (what God desires) and you do it, it will lead you to happiness. Even if it comes at a price there’s contentment and inner peace in knowing you’ve done the thing that seems most right in your understanding before God. But how is it that we become, in Socrates’ words, truly wise? I think I’m becoming convinced more and more that true wisdom is ultimately found by those who hang everything on Jesus’ law of love. This love is more than able to determine everything. This love is more than enough to guide every ethical decision before us.

I’m not done on this topic. I want to spend more time talking about how Jesus’ law of love can lead and shape us, and how it can be helpful in the ethical decisions we make from who we sleep with to how we spend our money to whether we live green to how as queer believers we’re to respond to injustice everywhere.

I want to talk more about all this but for now I just want to be with it.

Inhale. Happy thought. Exhale. Okay then. So if you missed any of the posts or need a refresher on the material we’ve covered so far since it’s taken me forever to get back on topic, here are the posts as they appeared in chronological order.

• Lesbian Sex, Free Downloads, and Naked Photos
• Full Disclosure
• The Bible View(s) of Marriage and Sex
• Setting the Groundwork
• Gay? Okay. Sex? No Way!
• Change or Be Celibate!
• Postscript to Change or Be Celibate!
• Backing Up My Assertions

To this point I’ve focused much of the discussion on breaking down traditional teachings of biblical sexual ethics that are often presented as absolutes within the conservative church such as marriage is between one man and one woman, sex outside of marriage is prohibited, and celibacy is required of gays and lesbians; This trifecta of morality has for the most part comprised the cornerstone of the churches’ teaching on human sexuality and what I proposed is that the biblical teaching on marriage and sex lacks such certitude and instead contains ambiguous and conflicting messages within the biblical account when viewed as a singular unified witness.

Beginning with the following posts I want to change things up by proposing that while the Bible doesn’t provide us with a standardized one-size-fits-all code of sexual ethics, what it does do is provide us with one overarching ethical standard that’s more than enough to guide and equip us in all areas of ethical living. Some people fear that without absolute answers we’ll be left floating in a sea of ambiguity where relevant morality reigns and anything goes. Nothing could be further from the truth because the ethical standard we have to guide us requires far more of us than simple obedience to a codified law but it calls us to something higher and greater than doing the right thing, but to doing the right thing rightly motivated.

But more on that to follow in the next post.

Were the prohibition against premarital sex a decree of God’s the inclusion of the Song of Songs in the Old Testament becomes a problem. While it’s often been interpreted as an allegorical depiction of the relationship between God and Israel (as husband and wife) it’s a story in poetic form that unfolds between two unmarried lovers. In graphic imagery it describes their courtship, their sensual appreciation of each others’ bodies and of their passionate consummation. Though brief passages from the Song of Songs are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies, interestingly enough there’s no mention of marriage or an intention for a future marriage within the book, and yet the human body and the physical expression of sexuality between the two lovers is celebrated free of judgment. The mutual love, affection, and yearnings between the young lovers, if originally intended as an allegory at all, was considered more than appropriate enough to represent the relationship between God and God’s people. How could this be the case if premarital sex was considered immoral behavior by God?

By this I’m not suggesting that premarital sex is just fine because of the inclusion of unmarried lovers within the biblical text; only that their presence creates a tension with an absolute divine prohibition against premarital sex. The presence of unmarried lovers in the Song of Songs offers, at the very least, room for Christians to engage in a meaningful and open conversation on the question of premarital sex that adds a new dimension beyond the tradition response. With that said, I made an oversight in my original post when I failed to offer any evidence to support my foundational claim that the couple in the Song of Songs are unmarried lovers rather than husband and wife. I was made aware of this in a comment recently offered by Peg that read in part,

I was just curious why you think the man and woman in the Song of Solomon are unmarried throughout the book. I ask as a lesbian (with a partner) who also has an advanced biblical degree (and not a fundamentalist one LOL). I just don’t see the evidence there that sex outside of marriage was taking place here or anywhere else in the Bible.

I really think I look at the Bible with an objective eye. I’ve had lots of revelations about scripture since studying it for so many years, and they’ve sometimes been surprising and hard-to-accept ones. I say this to say that I don’t think I’m closing a blind eye to Song of Songs. If I am, may my mind be opened! But for now, I think my scholarship has to conclude that there is no sex outside marriage in that book. When he calls her his bride, I think there’s every reason to believe it literally.

I appreciate Peg raising the question, a question I would imagine might well have crossed the minds of a few others and I consider such questions important as they allow both you and I to engage with each other and in the Word together. For that reason I’ve chosen to respond to Peg’s comments within a blog post rather than tucking it away somewhere in the bottom of a comment section where it might be missed in the shuffle.

So to Peg and anyone else who hasn’t abandoned their blog trolling for their summer time Slip-N-Slide, here’s some of the evidence I find compelling within the Song of Songs that leads me to conclude that the man and young woman are unmarried lovers.

First, there’s the absence of marriage language in the entire book. The words husband, wife, marriage, wedded, or betrothal never appear in the text, with the exception at the end of chapter 3 when the woman refers specifically to the wedding of King Solomon. Neither is so much as a passing word given to their future life together; of establishing a family and having children, or referring to any matters of day to day life. There’s no concern or motive expressed for their relationship outside of love for love’s sake alone.

As Peg accurately mentions, in chapter 4 the man addresses the woman repeatedly as “my sister, my bride” but unlike Peg I don’t take his use of bride any more literally than I take his use of sister. Lovers in ancient love songs (many examples still exist from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Assyria) often addressed each other as sister and brother as an expression of their deep bond to the other, not as a literal description of a familial relationship. Likewise, in chapter 4, the male lover is speaking to the one he loves, describing her body in sensual detail and as his impassioned words build toward the intimately erotic he calls her “my sister, my bride” (literally, sisterbride) as a term of loving endearment rather than actual identity. It’s also significant to me that the young woman never refers to her male lover as “my brother” or “my bridegroom.”

Additionally, in the closing chapter, Song of Songs 8, the young woman speaks for her brothers saying,

We have a little sister and she has no breasts.
What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?

If she is a wall, we will build on her a battlement of silver,
but if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.

She then goes on to say

I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers;
then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

In her own words her brothers intention is to keep their little sister chaste until she’s spoken for in marriage. If she is a wall they will build a fortification of silver around her. If she is a door, they will seal the door with cedar bonds. But in her own words it’s too late for that because she was a wall but her lover has found his way in. There would be no sense if these two were married that her brothers would speak of a future date when she would be spoken for. There would be no concern with keeping her chaste if her virginity had already been given away to a bridegroom. The two lovers are unmarried and while the watchmen and maidens are privily to their words and displays of love, her big brothers seem clueless to their sister’s love life.

And finally, then there are words exchanged between the lovers throughout the song that simply make more sense to me held within the framework of unmarried lovers than as words between a husband and wife. Here are a few examples.

Oh that you were like a brother to me who nursed at my mother’s breasts! If I found you outside, I would kiss you, and none would despise me. – chapter 8

From what we know of the ancient world and their social norms it seems more reasonable to argue that she was despised for kissing her lover than for a bride to be kissing her bridegroom.

Like a lily among the thorns is my darling among the maidens. Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest is my lover among the young men. – chapter 2

The woman compares the man among other unmarried men and the man compares the woman among other unmarried women.

I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had turned away and was gone. My heart leaped up when he spoke. I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer. The watchmen who went about the city found me. They struck me, they wounded me; The keepers of the walls took my veil away from me. – chapter 5

The lovers have a sexual encounter (door locks and myrrh are more than just door locks and myrrh…trust me on this) and then immediately after, he leaves. When she goes to look for him she’s beaten by the watchmen and disgraced by being unveiled. Why would a husband leave their marriage bed in the night? Why would a wife be beaten and dishonored for searching for her husband?

By night on my bed I sought the one I love; I sought him, but I did not find him. “I will rise now,” I said, “And go about the city; In the streets and in the squares I will seek the one I love.” I sought him, but I did not find him. The watchmen who go about the city found me; I said, “ Have you seen the one I love?”  Scarcely had I passed by them, when I found the one I love. I held him and would not let him go, until I had brought him to the house of my mother, and into the chamber of her who conceived me. – chapter 3

She is in her bed and once again in the night he’s not there and so once again she goes out to find him and when she does she takes him to the house of her mother. Were they husband and wife it would seem they would either return to their home or to the home of his family as the wife customary left her family to belong to the husband’s family.

This is some of what leads me to the conclusion that the young woman and her beloved were unwed lovers. Within the framework of the narrative, unwed lovers seems far more consistent with the storyline and by the same token, there are places where as a bride and bridegroom, the passages would make little sense to me.

That’s the long answer to your question Peg, offered not to sway, woo, or cajole you to hold the same view but simply to explain what’s led me to mine. I invite you and others to offer more of your own thoughts.

And by the way, did you know that the Song of Songs was sung in taverns in first-century Palestine? It was misused used was so frequently as a drinking song (you can only sing “99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” so often) that Rabbi Akiba (50-135 C.E.) gave the following warning: “Whoever trills his voice singing the Song of Songs in a banquet hall, regarding it as a common song, has no part in the world to come.” I threw that fact in free of charge. No shipping. No handling. No trilling.

I’m not celibate. I know. There’s a shocking non-revelation considering this and this and this and this. I’ve showed my hand and I think it’s important to acknowledge that when weighing anything I have to offer on the issue of chosen celibacy because the celibate life is an abstraction for me. Though I considered it in the initial first days of coming to terms with my sexuality in light of my Christian faith, it was never something I embraced as a calling for my life nor did I ever understand it as something God wanted of me. That’s not to say I haven’t gone through seasons of sexual abstinence. I was a 38 year old virgin and after a few years and two girlfriends later, I intentionally made the choice to be sexually abstinent and so for the next four years I was a single, non-dating and very happy lesbian until the one who quickens my heart and makes my toes go numb came into my life. But there’s a difference between being celibate and choosing a life of celibacy. From exterior life experience they might well look the same but internally there’s a disparate mindset and intention, and though I spent many years living a life of celibacy, I never thought of it as my path and I sure never embraced it as a calling for me. For this reason, my viewpoint on the topic of celibacy is from a place outside of the issue and so I want to include another gay voice that speaks with the experience of someone who has embraced a life of celibacy. It’s important for all of us to hear such stories and know why they’ve chosen this path and how the journey is for them.

To this end I want to encourage you to check out Jay’s blog at Adventures of a Christian Collegian, where Jay has written a series of posts on his Thoughts on Celibacy, In another section of his blog he explains his reason for choosing a life of celibacy:

The reason I have chosen to abstain from homosexual relationships is not because I think it is healthier, or because I think I’ll be happier. It is for one, simple, yet all-encompassing reason. I want to follow my God wherever I feel He is leading me, and I want to glorify Him in all I do. Perhaps there are some gay men and women out there whose goal is heterosexuality, and they use religion as a means to an end. Heterosexuality is not my end, though. If it is in God’s will for my life, then it will be so. If not, though, I know where He wants me. Yes, I doubt. Yes, I question. Yes, it’s hard as all get out sometimes and I don’t know if I can go on. But through all things He is with me, and there is this pull that I can’t shake and a voice I can’t shut out telling me that this is where I belong. Granted, I’m no expert, but I don’t see how anyone can leave the gay lifestyle if they don’t have that in them yet. Because, to me, there is not any other reason to do this.

Jay and I are in different places in some of our conclusions and the choices we’re making with our lives but both of us are living faithfully in the most real way we each know to do and through it all seeking to know, love, and grow into the grace of God more and more each day. Just like you. I really want to encourage you to take some time to look over his blog because I’ve found the contemplative insights of his spiritual journey enriching and challenging to my own. Give the young man a read.

So I’m not celibate but maybe you are. Sexual abstinence could be something you envision for yourself for the foreseeable future or as a permanent state. Maybe you’ve chosen a life of celibacy because it’s your calling and sexual abstinence is a sacrificial gift you genuinely desire to give to God. Maybe you’re still grappling with doubts and uncertainty in reconciling your faith and sexuality and so you’ve chosen to abstain from sexual intimacy until you come to some resolution, one way or another. You might have even arrived at that decision hand in hand with a partner and have agreed to share in this commitment together. Maybe for deeply personal reasons being sexually active brings up feelings of guilt, unease, fear, or sadness. Maybe you just don’t want to be kadoodling right now, or maybe you share the same understandings and commitments as Jay. As long as you’re at peace in the choices you’re making, as long as your path is an honest reflection of who you are in wholeness and what you believe God is calling you to in this present moment, then it’s all good.

No.

Should I say more? Okay. I will. Much more.

You hear it all the time, from self-named ex-gay ministries, from conservative Christian circles, from family and friends;  gays and lesbians committed to the Christian life are to refrain from all sexual activity. Be gay but just don’t behave gay. Life-long celibacy is presented to us as a required sacrifice; we’re to give up the present reality or future possibility of a sexually intimate relationship with another human being in order to pursue a righteous and holy love with God. Apparently, this is another unique difference between being straight and being queer; straight Christians can manage to have both while we need to choose between one or the other.

But where does this idea that God demands life-long celibacy of gays and lesbians comes from? Not the Bible that’s for sure. There’s not a single line of the Mosaic law that requires celibacy of a particular category of people. Jesus never insisted that anyone be celibate. Though Paul was single and thought it would be best if everyone was like him, even he never presented celibacy as an ultimatum to salvation or righteousness. So how have certain Christians come up the life-long celibacy clause for queer Christians anyway? It seems there are a few contributing factors.

• They believe homosexuality is sin.
• They believe premarital sex is sin.
• They recognize that same-sex attractions continue to exist even for those gays and lesbians who are committed to leaving the gay lifestyle. Their words, not mine.

When considering all these, many Christians arrive at lifelong celibacy as the only option that will allow for gays and lesbians to even have a chance at attaining and then maintaining moral Christian lives. But let’s just be clear, the Bible has nothing to do with presenting celibacy as the cure or condition all for queers.  Here’s what the Bible does say about celibacy.

Matthew 19:1-12

Despite how opponents to same-sex marriage have misused this passage in their “marriage is one man and one woman” arsenal, this encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees centers on the law around divorce. The Pharisees ask Jesus if it’s ever lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus answers no and goes on to explain that when they married they became one and therefore it wasn’t the place of man to separate what God had joined. Here’s one of my infamous a-sides that I include just because I find such details fascinating. A man and woman became one specifically in the act of sexual intercourse, and so it was understood that a man would become one with any and all woman he had sex with, not only his wife. With this in mind 1 Corinthians 6:16 states that a man who has had sex with a prostitute makes her one with him. While this has nothing to do with the topic of celibacy I think it gives a valuable insight into the over-emphasis that’s being loaded onto “and the two shall become one” as the exclusive potential of a husband and wife. We now return to our regularly scheduled blog post.

The Pharisees went on to counter Jesus’ response by reminding him that Moses allowed for a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away, to which Jesus explained that Moses allowed divorce because people had drifted from God’s original intention. While recognizing the reality that marriages would fail, Jesus attempts to firm up the boundaries by instructing them that only infidelity on the part of the wife was reason for divorce and if a man divorced for any other reason and married another woman, he was committing (practicing) adultery.

The disciples overheard the conversation and said, “Man, those conditions are harsh! If that’s the deal with marriage then it sounds better not to get married at all.” Jesus acknowledges that what they said was true but goes on to stipulate that only those not given to marrying can receive such a thing and then he refers specifically to eunuchs as an example.

“For there are those eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” Matthew 19:12

Okay, this is another a-side but it seems important enough to give a mention. The dictionary definition of a eunuch is a man who has had his testicles removed; a castrated male. Do a search of “eunuch, homosexual” and you’ll discover there’s a wide range of views as to whether homosexual males would have fallen under the category of eunuch in first-century Palestine due to the absence of sexual desire for women in either case. If comparisons are to be made I’d propose a more viable argument could be made for the term eunuch expanding to include M2F transfolk than to gay males since castration would certainly fall under the category of genital modification. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of eunuchs, jump over to Acts 8:26-40 for the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch’s conversion. I really like the story but again, that’s another a-side which I’ll try to refrain from doing so liberally in the future.

All I want to point out here is that both marriage and celibacy (being a eunuch equated with sexual abstinence) are shown in Matthew 19 as options for humanity. In the passage Jesus seems to be emphasizing singleness as a special vocation and notes examples of those who are able to accept the single life. What Jesus does not do is insist that anyone choose celibacy if it hasn’t been given to them to live, or indulge me in paraphrasing, “if you can receive this teaching then receive it and be single. If you can’t receive it then go ahead and marry.”

I Corinthians 7:1-9

If Paul had his way everyone would be single. He recommends the single life to everyone; to men, to women, to the widow, but he commands it of no one. In verse 7, Paul says that celibacy is a gift that’s not given to all people, and then he goes on to say that if the temptation for sex is too great for someone then that’s a reasonably clear indication they don’t have the gift of celibacy and that person should marry.

Paul’s teaching goes directly against that of those who currently require celibacy of gays and lesbians. Many gay and lesbian Christians, believing it the right thing to do, have attempted to adopt a commitment to living a celibate life but all the while they ache for an intimate relationship with another human being of the same gender. They want to express their sexuality and their love in physical ways. They long to kiss, to hold, to kadoodle. When they share this tension between their commitment to celibacy and their desire for intimacy and are honest about the pain and discontentment of living their lives in this way, they’re reminded that following Christ isn’t always easy, that sacrifice is devotion and suffering is holy. They are admonished to sacrifice physical intimacy with another person for spiritual union with God. Celibacy is your cross my dear sexually-confused friend. Pick it up and follow Christ.

And yet, in Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 he emphasizes that celibacy is a unique calling, and as with all callings, it comes as a gift from God, rather than a requirement of any man. Paul also goes on to say that if you find yourself desiring physical intimacy with another human being, if you long for physical expression of your sexuality, then it’s all to apparent you aren’t gifted with or called to the celibate life.

And here’s another thing, she said with arms akimbo, it really chips my paint when there’s an implied message that being sexually active or partnered as a gay or lesbian person is taking the easy way. I’ll tell you what the easy way would be for most queer Christians. The easy way would be nodding our heads and acquiescing to the imposed celibacy mandate from segments of Christianity because I dare say it’s far easier to live without sex than to live with the continual disapproval, scorn, and ridicule of religious institutions and the ever-present suffocatingly repressive inequality in society. It takes tremendous faith and trust in God to live as queer believers when the fullest expression of our lives is rejected by certain ones among God’s people. As is always the case, following Christ’s call comes at a price, but the price is always outweighed by the rewards doled out by God’s generous hands.

God calls some queer and some straight folks to lives of life-long celibacy, and those who God calls will find their greatest fulfillment and satisfaction in that life. They’ll be happy and at peace in that state. They won’t be constantly warring within themselves against sexual desires and desperate longings for intimacy. Celibacy is a gift of God and a gift is a good thing; it’s never intended to be a burden around someone’s neck or a means to control someone’s genuine desires. If you’re queer and you desire a sexually intimate relationship then according to brother Paul, the calling of celibacy hasn’t been given to you. Sorry. It might be your temporary condition; it might even be your situation indefinitely but if you continue to want for something else, to be with someone else, don’t assume you’ve been called to life-long celibacy by default. Chances are the state of being single for you is more a matter of finding the right person at the right time than a divine appointment.

Did you ever hear someone say inside the walls of the church, “Don’t tell God you don’t want to go to India to serve Him that will guarantee it will be just the place God will send you.” For some of us, we actually believed that’s how God did things. God would make you do the very thing you didn’t want to do just to see if you really loved him. God told Abraham to sacrifice the son he loved and now God’s telling people to go where they don’t want to go and do what they don’t want to do just to see if they’ll obey. Oh sure, we turn it into a joke by turning our eyes upward, clasping our hands together in prayer and pleading “Please God, of any place in the world, please oh please don’t send me to the coast of France. I will follow you anywhere but there” but deep inside some of us, there’s still the fear that this is how God is. The last thing some of us want is to be called to celibacy and because it’s the last thing we want we fear it might be what God will require of us. If that’s even a fuzzy thought in the back of your head, would you let it go? Please. Give God more credit than that.

If you don’t desire to live into the calling of celibacy then your calling isn’t to life-long celibacy. But for now, in this state of singleness choose to be content where you find yourself. This is where I insert Philippians 4:11-13 and encourage you to apply it in this context. I also want to encourage you to use this time as a party of one to savor not only the rich extravagance of solitude but to take advantage of the opportunity to direct your energy toward forming other significant relationships where you can express love and affection through acts of service; make connections with an elderly couple in your neighborhood, a family in your congregation, a young person at the local GLBTQ community center. I love being married but when I was single, I loved that too.  Just take today for what it is and what it holds.

I Timothy 4:1

And just when you thought it couldn’t get more interesting, we come to this passage where those who demanded that other people not marry were to be regarded as quote – hypocritical liars – unquote, and their teaching on compulsory celibacy was deemed heresy.

Hmm. . .that’s all I’m saying about that because if I say much more I might need to repent for words better left unsaid.

In conclusion of this long and garbled post let me just sum up what I’ve said, what I think I said, or what I intended but didn’t get around to saying.

1. There’s no Scriptural basis for requiring that gays and lesbians devote themselves to celibacy.
2. Jesus said that the state of singleness was given to some and not to others, and that if it was given them they would be able to receive it.
3. Paul spoke of celibacy as a unique calling but only for those who were content in that state.
4. Scripture suggests that imposing a requirement of celibacy on any one is contrary to God’s will.
5. Choosing to be sexually abstinent whether for a season or indefinitely isn’t the same thing as choosing a life of voluntary celibacy.
6. The state of singleness and the state of marriage are of equal value and worth in the human experience and before God.
7. Live with integrity, allowing your understanding of God and your relationship with the Holy to guide you in determining the course of your life in all things.

Standard Celibacy for Queers Argument:

.
a) Premarital sex is not permissible for Christians. (Proposition 1)

b) Gays and lesbians can’t marry. (Proposition 2)

c) Therefore, gay and lesbian Christians can’t have sex. (Conclusion)

When I looked at the two propositions from a conservative Christian understanding, sexual abstinence (celibacy) seemed the option for me and over the years I’ve come to realize I wasn’t the only who arrived at the same conclusion. I’ve received thousands of emails over the last dozen years from GLBTQ Christians. While the leading questions center on reconciling sexual orientation with Christian faith, right on the heels of those questions is one that asks “As a lesbian how can I ever be in a relationship with another woman if the Bible prohibits premarital sex and marriage isn’t an option for me?”

As with any questions people ask, I don’t have a one-size-fits-all answer.  In personal matters, I defer to Paul’s example; that when I speak of such matters I’m not presuming to speak for the Lord. I’m speaking for me, and trusting that what is of the Spirit will stick in your hearts and all else will fall away.

a) Premarital sex is not permissible for Christians.

In the Old Testament law a woman was to be a virgin prior to her marriage but this requirement wasn’t concerned with issues of moral purity but with property laws. A woman was the property of her father until the time of her marriage when she became the property of her husband. She went from belonging to one man to another man and for any other man to have premarital sex with her would have been an act of disrespect to the father (the present owner) and would have made her into “used goods” for her future husband (the future owner). That the issue was one of property and not purity is highlighted by the reality that virginity wasn’t required of men prior to their marriage and so the prohibition against premarital sex (for the woman only) was a custom of that particular culture rather than a mandate by God.

Were the prohibition against premarital sex a decree of God’s the inclusion of the Song of Songs in the Old Testament becomes a problem. While it’s often been interpreted as an allegorical depiction of the relationship between God and Israel (as husband and wife) it’s a story in poetic form that unfolds between two unmarried lovers. In graphic imagery it describes their courtship, their sensual appreciation of each others’ bodies and of their passionate consummation. Though brief passages from the Song of Songs are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies, interestingly enough there’s no mention of marriage or an intention for a future marriage within the book, and yet the human body and the physical expression of sexuality between the two lovers is celebrated free of judgment. The mutual love, affection, and yearnings between the young lovers, if originally intended as an allegory at all, was considered more than appropriate enough to represent the relationship between God and God’s people. How could this be the case if premarital sex was considered immoral behavior by God?

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, sexual immorality is listed as something to be avoided and those who engage in it will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Over time the use of this term in the Bible has become a blanket for any type of sexual activity outside of marriage. As it happens, the Greek term “porneia” (also translated as fornication) that’s been translated as sexual immorality refers to particular activities of extra-marital sex, such as adultery and prostitution rather than any and all sexual activities that take place outside of marriage.

There’s certainly much more that could be addressed on premarital sex in consideration of other passages and ancient viewpoints related to the meaning and implications of sexual activity. It’s also important to look at how one determines what’s permissible for queer Christians if premarital sex is allowed and how do we then individually determine our sexual boundaries and create guidelines that will guide us as spiritual and sexual beings. More on that in follow up posts. My only intention at this point to raise a question around the truthfulness of proposition 1.

b) Gays and lesbians can’t marry.

This is simply no longer true. Legal marriage is available for queer folks in the Netherlands, Britain, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Massachusetts, and California while in numerous other countries throughout the world legally recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships exist as options for recognizing same-gender relationships. There was a time when there wasn’t a corner of the globe where GLBTQ people could marry and one day there won’t be a corner of this dusty planet where GLBTQ people will be refused the right to marry. This fact alone contradicts the accuracy of proposition 2, but as queer Christians our greatest concern isn’t the legal status of marriage but marriage as sacrament. The bigger question is “What makes a marriage, a marriage in the eyes of God?

Just to beat the worn drum of recent posts again, I don’t believe God has only ordained (affirmed, blessed) marriage between one man and one woman since the biblical witness doesn’t bear that exclusionary model out with it’s mix of marital configurations. Neither do I believe a piece of paper stamped and sealed by the government is required by God since the earliest marriages had none. In Genesis 29 and 30 Jacob exchanged 14 years of labor for his wives (Leah and Rachel). All he had was a verbal agreement with Laban. No paperwork in triplicate. After seven years of labor he had sex one night with Leah and they were married. Seven years later and another night of sex with Rachel and they were married, and through it all the Biblical narrative assumes that God recognized them as husband and wife…and wife. I’d also argue that God doesn’t care a gnat’s wing about a wedding ceremony in a church or on the steps of city hall or a ring or a cake.

What makes a marriage a marriage to God? Well, I’m not all that certain God’s concerned with marriage as a definition for a particular type of relationship. Marriage. Holy Union. Covenant Relationship. Kinship. Friendship. Parent and Child. Siblings. Pastor and congregants. God would seem to me to be less concerned with the category of a relationship than with the quality of the relationship but if defining relationship matters to God then I believe a marriage is a marriage in the eyes of God when two people enter into a covenantal relationship, exchanging the commitment of their heart to one another before the presence of God. I believe the intention of their hearts and the action of their lives is what God recognizes and that establishes the relationship as authentic, meaningful, and holy. I believe pure love (1 Corinthians 13) matters and is the single highest consideration to God in what gains God’s approval or disapproval. No offense to the church or to the majority of conservative Christians intended but I’d be hard-pressed to think God’s hanging on their thumbs up or thumbs down to reach a decision on the matter. God doesn’t seem to be the kind of God influenced by majority rule, status quo or accepted norms, at least if Jesus’ life and teaching was any indication, and therefore marriage in the eyes of God doesn’t hinge on how this society or any defines it.

So, if premarital sex is permissible and if gays and lesbians can be married (and married in the eyes of God) what does this mean for us in terms of considering the options for our future relationships and in expressing ourselves fully as both sexual and spiritual beings? Am I suggesting that all sexual behavior is permissible? Hardly. I believe (queer) Christian sexual ethics are to be governed by the love ethic of Jesus which comes with tremendous responsibility and accountability and this entire conversation is leading us toward this very thing; to consider God-centered love as the guiding force and the deciding factor in every action and word of our lives. Before moving into that conversation though I’d like to finish up this piece in my next post by addressing c), the conclusion that celibacy is the only moral option for gay and lesbian Christians.

• Biblical neutrality on issues that most of us would find reprehensible and a violation of our own most basic personal values and mores. Women forced to marry their rapists, the purchasing of wives, the view of wives and children as property, and the forced sexual (mis) use of slaves.
• While there are certain sexual matters equally rejected in both ancient Israel and contemporary society, the underlying values behind the prohibitions are far from being shared. Today an incestuous relationship between a son and mother would for most people elicit what could best be described as the yuck factor or gag response because such a relationship breaches our social sexual taboos. Our rejection is compounded when the son is a minor, at which point it becomes an issue of child abuse with several legal ramifications. Ancient Israel equally condemned incest between a son and mother but the main concern had little to do with social taboos and nothing to do with potential child abuse. In having sexual relations with his mother a son was dishonoring his father by violating his father’s property (Leviticus 18:7-8). That’s clearly not a value we would consider appropriate for our day.
• Biblical neutrality on human relationships that extends from polygamy and the keeping of mistresses (concubines) on one end to castration for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19:12) and celibacy on the other (1 Corinthians 7:7-9).
• New Testament teaching to flee fornication while premarital sex is elevated between two lovers in the Song of Songs.

The point of all of this is just this; contrary to what some people might espouse, everything you ever wanted to know about sex (human sexuality, sexual ethics, intimacy)  isn’t set forth in the Scriptures in bullet points. Would we really expect it to be that way? After all, Jesus only had a few years on earth and yet he chose to use a chunk of his time teaching the disciples in parables. Why? Why did he wrap up his teachings in story when he could have just said what he meant, revealing the exact meaning of his teaching in direct language? Here’s a crazy idea. Maybe rather than spelling everything out for them he wanted to encourage them to personally engage and explore and struggle with the parables to uncover their meaning for themselves. Maybe he wanted them to participate in their own faith by working it out in their own hearts and minds. What a radical idea; to construct a life of faith (religion) on faith (trust). The parables required something of those who heard them as do the Scriptures. Rather than being a book of specific answers on any topic including human sexuality, the Bible calls us, challenges us, to bring the best of our hearts and minds into uncovering its teaching, fueled by faith in the Spirit of God to lead and to guide us into all understanding.

So, here’s the rub. If the Bible fails to provide us with a set of guidelines to help us live as sexually responsible Christians, and human beings for that matter, we’re left with the taunting question, “So what’s a girl to do?” Well, the long-standing answer the church has given is “Don’t have sex until you’re married, and then once you get married, have sex.” That’s an answer that obviously doesn’t work for queer Christians when premarital sex has been declared anathema while at the same time disallowing us the right to marry, leaving us no church-sanctioned option but to remain celibate which, last I read in the Scriptures was for  a gift of divine calling rather than a condition for divine acceptance. I’d suggest as impractical and unreasonable as that answer is for us, it hasn’t worked out so well as an answer for straight people in the church either. Straight single, dating, or partnered folks are dealing with the very same questions and quandary that we queer puppies are because such a glib and formulaic answer, in which the church has historically excelled at providing, seems to ignore that people are sexual beings from the get-go and it’s only natural and right and good that sexual beings seek sexual expression.

Like most people we want to be sexually responsible adults and as Christians we add another dimension of concern; that we want our private lives to be as reflective of our faith and spirituality as is our public lives. We desire to live honorably and authentically as those trying to walk the walk of Christ whether we’re on the streets or between the sheets. With that commitment before us the question isn’t simply “What can I get away with do?” but is transformed into deeper considerations of “How can my sexuality and sexual behavior be lived out within the framework of my faith and love for God?  Can I be sexual in a way that’s both sexually satisfying and spiritually life-giving?  Can I stand before God unashamed in my wholeness as a spiritual, sexual being?”

Am I over-spiritualizing sex by posing these questions? I don’t think so, not if our faith is everything to us and we believe that every aspect of our lives have been created by God and can in turn be lived out for God’s glory. Oh, and it can also be incredibly enjoyable at the same time.

I’m going to stop for now to allow time for you to add your thoughts or to pose the questions you’ve found yourself reflecting on in your own life around sexual ethics. I’d also encourage you to take some time to read what I’ve found to be a thought-provoking resource developed by DignityUSA’s Task Force on Sexual Ethics. You can read it at their website or download it here in PDF format. Below is a brief excerpt that provides some key words in any conversation on sexuality and spirituality.

SEXUALITY is the human ability to be attracted to one another and to enter into relationships by which we receive and give life.

GENITALITY is that aspect of human sexuality by which we, as bodily beings, use our sexual organs to give and receive pleasure as part of the expression and creation of union and intimacy. Genitality is not simply a biological function but is a component of human intimacy.

INTIMACY is that experience of comfortable closeness in which individuals lower their barriers and enter into each others’ lives through acts of trust, respect, affection, and love.

SPIRITUALITY is the way we experience and respond to God’s call to grow personally in relationship with God and others. Spiritual growth itself involves integration, a process of achieving wholeness. For Christians the source, model, and context for this growth is Jesus Christ.

ETHICS is the analysis of decisions as to their rightness or wrongness; it is also the assessment of the values upon which those decisions are based.

SEXUAL ETHICS deals with decisions and values in the area of sexuality and genitality. Since ethics serves spiritual growth, an authentic sexual ethic requires as its foundation an integration of spirituality and sexuality, an element that has been missing from the Catholic Christian experience.

PERSONAL INTEGRATION is the process of becoming aware of the various components of one’s life, examining them in the light of available knowledge and experience, and accepting them as one’s own. All this, for Christians, is to allow the Spirit to fill our lives ever more fully so that Christ may be revealed in us and we in Christ.

I’ve chosen to begin a conversation on (queer) Christian sexual ethics by responding to several foundational statements that continue to serve as the foundation for all the church teaches on human sexuality and relationships. This might seem an indirect way of entering into the conversation but if you stick with me to the end you might agree how central this all is to the topic at hand.

The Biblical View of Marriage: Marriage is between one man and one woman and is the only form of marriage ordained by God. Marriage between one man and one woman constitutes the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage.

In the Genesis account, God made the first woman for the first man so that the man wouldn’t be alone. The woman was to be his help meet, the original Hebrew word suggesting that both the man and woman were to share equal status as co-partners, and that together in union they became one flesh. This is a great foundational story intended to explain how humankind came into being and how they continued to propagate the earth. It is the creation story of the world and not a blueprint outlining an exclusive model for marriage and human relationship.

To hold up marriage that consists of one man and one woman as the only acceptable form of marriage in the eyes of God is to do so at the exclusion of the rest of the Biblical witness. The Biblical account is filled with various types of marriages that are mentioned free of any judgment or condemnation. Some of these marriage types include:

• Arranged Marriage – Marriages arranged by family to serve as a means of exchanging and securing property between families and to strengthen alliances or reconcile peace between tribal family units.
• Levirate Marriage – A man was obligated to marry his deceased brother’s widow if she hadn’t given birth to a son with her deceased husband, and at the birth of the first male child, he was to be considered the son of the deceased husband. This type of marriage was never condemned in Scripture but the exact opposite is recorded in Genesis 38. When Onan was required to marry Tamar, his deceased brother’s wife, he decided to expell his semen rather than impregnate her and God killed him for his action…or inaction as the case may be.
• Polygynous Marriage – The Old Testament lists numerous accounts of men who had multiple wives including Esau, Jacob, Solomon, Gideon and David. Polygamy was never condemned by the biblical witness.
• Open Marriage - It was fully acceptable for a man to have one or more wives and some concubines on the side. Concubines were woman who held a lower status than that of a wife and were often female slaves who could be dismissed from the role of a concubine at the will of the man for any reason. Abraham, Gideo, David, and Solomon were among those with one or more concubines.
• Marriage by Rape – Deuteronomy 22 explains that a female virgin who wasn’t engaged to be married was required to marry her male rapist. This law created a situation where a man could simply rape any woman he wanted to marry and then pay her father 50 pieces of silver to seal the deal. Interestingly enough, only in this type of marriage is a man prohibited from ever divorcing his wife.
• Slavery-Soldier Marriage – When the ancient Israelites destroyed the Midianites, they killed every man, woman and child with the exception of the female virgins. These women, after an allowed time of mourning were required to submit to one of their Israelite captors as a wife.

Every one of the above forms of marriages appear in the Scriptures and only in the case of Solomon is God attributed with being displeased, but not because of the number of wives and concubines but rather because many of the women were foreigners who worshiped other gods. One could even argue that God approved of multiple marriages because it was through Jacob’s twelve sons, born of two wives and two female slaves, that the twelve tribes of Israel was established.

That Jesus only approved of marriage between one man and one woman can’t be substantiated in the Gospel accounts. While Jesus affirmed marriage between a man and a woman by performing his first miracle at the wedding in Cana, that’s not an indication that he affirmed it at the exclusion of all other types of marriage. Neither does Jesus direct answer to the specific question of a man divorcing his wife suggest that Jesus was condemning all other types of marriage, including polygamy which was still present in 1st century Palestine.

The Biblical View of Sex: Sexual intimacy is to be held exclusively within the confines of heterosexual marriage.

Romans 1:29-31, I Corinthians 7:2, Galatians 5:19-20, and Jude 1:7 are a few of the Scriptural passages that condemn fornication (sexual intercourse between two partners who are not married to one another) as sin and as something to be avoided, however the witness of these selected passages are not the only word on sex outside of marriage found in the Bible. Returning to all the types of marriage relationships outlined above, it’s logical to assume sexual intercourse was involved in all of them and yet in none of these instances is a condemnation of sexual intimacy mentioned, even in those marriage relationships we no longer deem as moral.

And then there’s the Song of Songs. Whether you choose to interpret the story as nothing more than spiritual allegory, the frank sexual content of the story, free of any and all condemnation can’t be denied. Song of Songs is a love poem filled with the yearnings and desires of two unmarried lovers;  two people falling in love, describing in intimate details the beauty of each other’s bodies, and the joy of sexual arousal and making love.

Whether looking at the variety of relationships that are viewed as acceptable in the Scriptures, or the conflict that exists between passages that condemn fornication and passages that recognize sexual intimacy outside of the boundaries of marriage between one man and one woman, the message seems clear. The Bible doesn’t give us any easy answers when it comes to determining how we will live out our lives as sexual beings in relationship to one another. Those individuals who claim otherwise and season their views on Christianity and human sexuality with black and white catch phrases are doing so at the exclusion of large portions of the biblical witness. I’m not suggesting the Bible offers us nothing to guide us in living sexually moral lives that honor God, only that what it provides requires more from us that simply following a presumed code of Biblical sexual ethics to be applied universally to everyone. If that were the case then as we’ve seen we’d be required to accept a long list of Biblical sexual practices we find reprehensible in our contemporary culture including forcing a woman to marry her rapist or stoning to death a couple caught in adultery.

So if the Bible doesn’t provide us with a clear sexual ethic where do we go from here? How do we know how to live out our lives sexually with integrity and in a way that’s both fulfilling and honorable to God? How do we know where the lines are around sex and relationships? These questions will be examined in an upcoming post but for the time being, I’d encourage you to look over an excellent article by Walter Wink in the SisterFriends archive entitled Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality that addresses the issue of Biblical sexual mores in greater depth.

Now, let’s hear from you!