Of all the challenges that we face as the Church
in today's society, sexuality is undoubtedly one of the greatest. Yet, the
church has not always been quick to accept — or even recognize —
the challenge. Indeed, at various times the Church has denied, ignored and,
perhaps rightfully, feared it. But if we value our call to be the salt and
light of society, then we must come to terms with the rapidly changing sexual
scene around us. This scene, to be sure, is an alarming one. The percentage
of those engaged in extra-marital sex continues to rise. This is especially
the case among our youth. It is estimated that 50% of our teenagers are
sexually active today. One result of this activity is that the teenage
pregnancy rate has tripled over the last thirty-five years so that one out of
three children in today’s society is illegitimate. [1] Adult extramarital sex scarcely gets a second look by society
today. It is the rare television show that does not have one of its
characters involved in an extramarital sexual relationship. In previous
years, this was by-and-large limited to afternoon programming. Now it is a
matter of regular viewing during the prime-time hours. A new development is
the presence of a sitcom on television with a lead character who is overtly
gay (Ellen).
Failed marriages have also become a fact of life. In 1940 there were 264,000
divorces. By 1970 the number had tripled to 708,000 and by 1996 it had
quadrupled to 1,169,000 (44.4% of the population; the all-time high being
1,215,000 in 1992). In addition, the trend in our society is not merely to
terminate a marriage but to divorce and remarry one, two and even three or
more times. In 1995 less than 50% of the 2,336,000 marriages that took place
were first marriages.[2]
The family is being redefined today in ways that challenge the way the church
ministers to those inside and outside its ranks. Of the nation’s 69 million
family households, less than half have children present in the home. Of
these families, only 37% are families with two parents (compare 50%
two-parent families in 1970), while single-parented households account for
27% of family groups with children. This means that about one of every four
families today is maintained by a single parent. Even more striking is the
fact that 38% of these single-parents are divorced and 35% are in the
category of the “never-married.” [3] A new twist
in recent years is the rising number of two-parent families in which the
parents are of the same sex and the children, adopted or the product of
impregnation by a third party (artificially or otherwise). The ever-popular
sitcom Murphy Brown highlights the swiftly changing panorama of American
family life. Two of its lead characters are divorced, one has produced a
biological offspring outside the trappings of marriage and another has
divorced and remarried.
What accounts for the sexual shifts in our society? One important factor is
the impact of moral relativism in recent decades. Today, anyything goes.
There is no right or wrong. Not only this, but personal mores are equated
with legal rights. In the 1960’s “sex makes free” was a familiarly found
graffiti. Sex was viewed as a universal panacea for loneliness and human
emptiness. Now sex is looked on more and more as a constitutionally
guaranteed right- a right to fulfill one’s biological drives however one sees
fit, a right to discard a spouse for greener sexual pastures, and a right to
pursue any sexual orientation one desires. It is all tied up with our
inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Sex is
also increasingly viewed as something that is morally neutral. Fulfillment of
sexual needs is put on a par with fulfillment of other bodily needs- like
eating and sleeping. It is merely part-and-parcel of good nurturing of the
body.
The church is in a unique position vis-a-vis Western society in that its
guiding force is not the shifting sands of societal opinion and human
inclination but the enduring truth’s of God’s rrevelation. Central to the
Christian faith is the revelation of God as the “Maker of heaven and earth”
(The Apostles Creed). The climax of God’s activity as “maker” is the creation
of humankind as male and female (Gen. 1:27). Sexuality, therefore, is
intrinsic to the make up of the human species. This means that a proper
understanding of human sexuality is tied to a proper understanding of God’s
creative act and the divine intent in and through this act. What does it mean
that we are created “male and female”? And what is the divinely intended
context for expressing our sexuality.
The Creation Accounts and Sexuality
The creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2 are the starting point for
answering these questions:
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them. (NIV Gen. 126-27)
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called ‘woman’ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a
man will leave his father annd mother and be united to his wife, and they
will become one flesh. (NIV Gen. 2:23-24)
Four basic truths about human
sexuality can be gleaned from these accounts. First, sexuality is divinely
ordained. The creation of male and female was a calculated act on God’s
part: “Let us make...” (1:26). This calculated act had as its goal the
creation of two sexually distinct human beings, not one bisexual one: “God
created man in his own image... male and female he created them.”
Adam (NIV “man”) is not the proper name of an individual but is a
generic term for the human race (NRSV “humankind”). The particular noun
(literally: “God created the man...” v. 27) and the plural pronoun
(“he created them, v. 27) make this plain.
The deliberative “let
us,” whatever else it means, distinguishes the creation of humankind from
all that precedes in the creation process. The grandeur of this final stage
in the process is underlined by the three parallel clauses, which climax in
the declaration: “male and female he created them” (v.27c). This is
terribly important to see. The creation of humanity as male and female is
not an incidental fact or an afterthought but the very apex of God’s
creative activity. To deny our sexuality is therefore to suppress our
humanness. Even more, it is the sexual pairing of male and female that is
the pinnacle of the creation process (Let us make humankind in our
image...male and female he created them; NRSV vv. 26-27). So to deny the
distinction of the two sexes is to deny what is integral to God’s final
creative act. Jesus affirms this fundamental perspective on human
sexuality, when he states: “From the beginning of creation ‘God made them
male and female’” (NRSV Mark 10:6).
Second, sexual intimacy is intrinsic to
the male plus female relatiionship. The divine intent is that a “man will
be united to his wife and they will become one flesh” (Gen.2:24). Both
Jesus and Paul affirm this. Jesus states that the union of a man and a
woman means that “there are no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:7-8).
Paul goes even further. The “two [male plus female] become one flesh” is a
type of no less than the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:32).
But
what does a “one flesh” union entail? Sexual intimacy is undoubtedly a
primary element. Paul makes this clear when he speaks of sexual
intercourse with a prostitute in terms of “the two” becoming “one flesh” (1
Cor. 6:16). Yet, in Hebrew thought the term “flesh” (basar) means more than
this. The Hebrew mindset viewed the whole person from different points of
view. It did not split the human being up into compartments like “body,”
“mind,” and “soul.” [4] So, to speak of someone as “flesh” is another way of
saying “mortal” or “human.” A union of “flesh” would then be a merging of
one human being with another so that, in effect, where there were
previously two, now there is only one.[5]
Third, the intended context for
sexual intimacy is a committed male plus female relationship. A “man” is to
“forsake” his parents and to “cleave” to his wife (Gen. 2:24). He is to do
this because the woman is “bone of” his “bones” and “flesh of” his “flesh”
(v. 23). The language is covenantal throughout. In a Near Eastern setting
“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” expresses not merely kinship but
is an oath of loyalty—much like our marital vow “in sickness and in
health...’til death us do part” (Book of Common Prayer; compare Judg. 9:2;
2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13-14). [6] Marriage is thus pictured as requiring the
strongest of commitments and as demanding and absolute and exclusive
loyalty.
It is “for this reason” that “a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife...” (NIV). The NIV’s “leave” and “unite”
are rather weak. “Forsake” and “cleave” is more the sense (compare azab in
Josh.22:3, 1 Sam. 30:13; and dabaq in Deut. 10:20; 11:22). The language is
covenantal language for the severing of one loyalty and commencing of
another.[7] The exclusive loyalty that a son
showed toward his parents is now transferred to his wife. In a society
where honoring parents was the highest human obligation, this is quite an
outstanding statement, indeed.
Fourth, sexuality is something that is inherently good. Genesis 1:31 says
that “God saw all that he made” and that it was “very good.” To be male is
good. To be female is good. Sexual distinction is not an accident of
nature or a biological happenstance. Nowhere in Scripture are we encouraged
to downplay sexual differences and move in a unisex direction—as much of
our sports ware and other dress apparel does today. Also, the sexuality
that is deemed “very good” is male plus female. This , at least, is the
divine intent—although human intent can make it into something quite
different. Once we leave the Genesis narratives, there are only a few
places in the Old Testament that expound onn the human sexuality of “male
and female.”[8] Proverbs affirms the perpetual delight that a husband should
find in the wife of his youth. She is “a loving doe” and “a graceful deer.”
Far from seeking greener pastures, the husband should “ever be captivated
by her love” (Prov. 5:15-19). The Song of Solomon especially comes to mind
as one biblical book where sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is
presented as something to celebrate: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is
mine” (6:3); “I belong to my beloved and his desire is for me” (7:10). It
is a sexual intimacy, however, set within the broader context of marital
fidelity, exclusivity and a lifelong commitment. The bride-to-be is a
“locked up garden” and a “sealed fountain” (4:12). The wedding ceremony
commences (4:1-15), the union is sealed (4:16-5:1), and the guests are
invited to celebrate (“Eat...drink,” 5:1). The challenge to the groom is to
“place” his bride “like a seal over” his “arm; for love is as strong as
death...Many waters cannot quench it; rivers cannot wash it away." (8:6-7). [9]
Dr. Belleville is the associate professor of New Testament at Chicago's
North Park Theological Seminary and an ordained minsiter of the Evangelical
Covenant Church. This article, originally published in the Covenant
Quarterly, is used by permission of the Evangelical Covenant Church.
End Notes:
1. ”Baby Boomers Dreams Get Skunked,” The Chicago Tribune November 28, 1995, section one p. 19. [return]
2. ”Vital Statistics,” 1997 World Almanac p. 957; USA Census Bureau, 1995.[return]
3. ibid.[return]
4. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, translermann, Genesis 1-11, transl[return]
5. See, for example John Oswalt, “Basar,” Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, edited by R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, B.K. Waltke, 2 vols
(Chicago:Moody Press, 1980) 1:136. In some places in the Old Testament the
term “flesh” means “clan” or “kindred” (e.g., Lev. 18:6;25:49). See A.F.L.
Beeston, “One Flesh,” Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986) 117 and John Skinner, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1910) 70. Becoming “one flesh” would then mean becoming the equivalent
of a blood-relative—although this seems less likely in the context. [return]
6. See
Walter Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (GN 2,23a),” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970) 532-42; Marsha M. Willfong, “Genesis 2.18-24,”
Interpretation 42 (1988) 58-63. The idea of a covenantal commitment is
especially clear in Judges 9:2, where Abimelech seeks an alliance with the
Shechemites, a people with whom he has no kinship or bond. [return]
7. See Victor
Hamilton, Thee Book of Genesis. Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans,
1990) 181 and Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1; Waco,
TX: Word Books, 1987) 71. [return]
8. While there are only a few Old Testament texts
that expound on human sexuality, there are a number of texts that define the
boundaries of sexual expression. These will be touched on below. [return]
9. The Song of
Solomon can be plausibly understood as a commentary on Genesis 2:20. [return]
