 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Sex. What's it good for? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/29/2002 1:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | Between work on midnights, juggling kids, and church, I should have a new post up tmw. Thanks for your patience. 
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/30/2002 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | K' guys and gals...here it is...the next major posting. What cha think?
Sexuality as the order of life
Procreation through sex act links humankind to animal world. Therefore, sexuality mediates human participation in the created reality not limited to humankind. Part of the divine plan for survival is to propagate, shared by many species, with sex acts, being one specific expression of the survival instinct that pervades all life forms. But this divine plan is also a point of departure from that of the animal world. God calls us to participate in the divine work in salvation history. That is, the procreative function became the vehicle that linked the first human pair to the Messiah. It continues to the end of the age, is a mandate of the church, but it does not play a role in eschatological kingdom. Even in the eschatological age we will remain sexual creatures but we will give our sexuality various expressions other than marriage and procreation. Sexuality is more than procreation and the drive to perpetuate our species. It forms the dynamic which unites males and females together to form a unity of persons. Sexually derived bonding is evident in higher species, but where it separates from humans and where human sexually goes beyond that of lower species is less oriented toward procreation and rearing offspring. It forms a personal unity. That is, “bonding” occurs on a deeper level, not through children, as noted above, (rearing offspring) but a “unity” of persons occurs spoken of as love.
The Nature of Human Sexuality
Sexuality refers to our fundamental existence as male or female. Our sexuality means we are “incomplete” which is symbolized by “biological sex.” Sexuality moves us toward completeness. It moves male and female to come together to form a unity of persons. It is the basis for distinction between “sexual desire” and “desire for sex.” “Sexual desire” refers to the need we all share to experience wholeness and intimacy through relationships with others. It relates to the dimension called “eros.” That is, to possess and be possessed by the object of one’s desire. Eros is not simply limited to genital sexual acts and the human realm but desires to know and be known even by God. Sexual maturity means separating these two both psychologically and in action.
Expression of Sexuality
Sexuality affects every area of our life from sexual attraction to the sexual act to the mundane such as hair, dress, etc. We constantly relate as “male and female.” This is also the basis for roles and behaviour.
Sexuality and Essential Being/Basis for affirming Sexuality
Is sexuality essential to our being? That is, is it all pervasive, i.e. how we think view the world, others view us, etc? We can only be human as male and female. It is hard to account for the extent of the differences when one rejects essential nature. Human sciences back up differences. Biological sex is already determined at THE crucial step of conception. A person's genetically based forms the foundation out of which normal psychological sexual identity emerges. Theologically speaking, that sexuality belongs to human identity comes from two Christian doctrines, creation and resurrection.
Creation-God creates embodied beings.
Resurrection-recreates in like fashion.
Creation
The Old Testament is foundational for understanding human origins and is re-affirmed in the New Testament. In contrast to the biblical record, the Greek philosophical tradition is dualistic. Biblical anthropology is a holistic unitary anthropology. There are creation accounts scattered throughout the Bible, but the Genesis account is the most succinct and this may be one reason why some theologians take the Genesis accounts more seriously than the others when Electra asks on the Adam and Eve thread: quote:
“…those who defend the historicity of the Genesis 1-3 creation stories seriously neglect other creation stories in other parts of the Bible. Are they all historical accounts? If not, what criteria are used to determine which accounts are historical and which are not?
It also may have to do with the seriousness that Jesus gave such accounts. But this is getting off of track.
Two accounts/Chapters 1&2
There is no dualism of a higher being or spiritual/soul where the material is not important. Where the soul is “real” person. The only dualism is male/female. In the second account, the creation of man appears in two steps, dust (that is the material) and where God breathes life into him. This should not be meant as an ontological dualism. Rather he is an animated being. A material being animated by life principle from God. We also see in these accounts that the animals are spoken of as the same. “Nephesh” emphasizes life NOT “rational soul.” The important distinction that arises from creation is the dual aspect of the human pair as male and female. Humans are a creation of God in their entire being. That is, animate material creatures each comprises unity of being. The human person is a whole person. The real human person is not localized in spiritual principle standing within human being.
Resurrection
The holistic or unitary anthropology of the Old Testament is reaffirmed in the resurrection and it offers a critique of all dualistic anthropologies. It says body is essential for personhood. The body is not shed to enter eternity. The entire being is transformed in resurrection. The creation of material being is not a temporary act. Creation from material of earth and animating principle belongs to human destiny as God’s creation. That is, God intends humans persons to exist as embodied persons.
Divine intent that our sexuality participate in the eschatological transformation is evidenced in the resurrection confirmed by Jesus. The main purpose for the post-resurrection stories of the Gospels as well as the Pauline appearance is to indicate that Christ was the Risen Lord who was recognized as none other than Jesus of Nazareth the one who had been crucified. Christ passes through transformation yet he remained an embodied reality. This, of course, can be seen when the disciples touch, eat, and conversed with him.
If in the external maleness of Christ is preserved so that he remains physically recognizable, then how much more are the deeper characteristics of male/femaleness preserved in the glorified state entered through the general resurrection at the consummation of history. The nonsexual nature of the resurrection is argued by appealing to Matt 22:30. However, Jesus does not deny the presence of sexuality in the eschatological community by:
1. Jesus does not explicitly declare that sexuality will be absent, only that marriage will no longer be practiced. Human sexuality will no longer be expressed in genital sexual acts and the sexually based drive toward bonding will no longer be expressed through male and female coupling. This also does not mean that the deeper dimensions of sexuality will be eradicated.
2. This argument goes beyond which is to assert only the non-marital nature of the kingdom society. Even though they may not marry angels may in fact be sexual beings. This has a long exegetical tradition of certain biblical texts (Gen 6:4; 1 Cor11:10; Jude6)
Implications for Human Sexuality
This entails that sexuality is a constitutive part of the human reality as an embodied existence. Our male/femaleness belongs to our embodied status.
There is no other way to be created a human, to exist as a human being, except as an embodied person. Embodiment means existence as a sexual being, as male or female. This is backed up by modern psychology which say that identity formation is closely connected with our sexuality. Our sexuality as male/female is the fundamental, primary and deepest aspects of our existence in the quest to determine who we are. The resurrection says that sexuality in determining identity is not destroyed in eternity.
It says that our sexuality must participate in the event of resurrection as well for it is apart of the total person.
Objections to the Essential Nature of Sexuality
We are complete persons apart from our maleness or femaleness. The basis for this is found in the image of God. We all participate as humans in the image of God. Texts that support this are Gen 9:6 and James 3:9.
Gen 9:6
The commandment to not murder is placed within the covenant that God made with Noah again the basis of which lay in the creation of humans in the divine image of God.
James 9:6
This text supports the universality of the image of God in humanity by way of a warning concerning the tongue.
While it is true that we are all made in the image of God it should not be surmised from this conclusion nor from the text above that we are complete beings as individual selves. This runs counter to the whole tenor of the Bible. On the contrary we are made and destined for community, ultimately the eschatological community characterized by fellowship among the human family, harmony with creation and fellowship with God. In response to the two texts mentioned above:
1. Neither one asserts individuals possess the image of God.
2. Both use corporate or generic language.
3. Both carry moral injunctions which is the intent of the passage.
4. Both appeal to the widely held premise of the universal participation of humanity in the divine intent for creation. No indication is given as to how this is actually accomplished.
A second argument is that all persons share in humanness. This is both a theologically and biologically reality.
In response it should be noted that human essence, because it transcends our sexual distinctions makes them non-essential to our existence and identity as human beings. On the contrary we are only human as male and female. There is no other way for us to exist except as embodied and therefore as a sexual human being.
A third argument is one that admits that our sexuality, our existence as male/female is central in determining who we are. But it denies that sexuality is uniquely determinative of personal identity. Other factors play as important of a role in identity formation such as race.
In response, though these are important, they do not loom as foundational in personal and social identity as do those that arise out of the fact that we are sexual beings. The first aspect noticed at birth is sex, not race. And we carry with us throughout our lives this tendency to see our maleness/femaleness as the fundamental demarcation among ourselves. This is noted in the Genesis record. Race distinction is not presented in Genesis as arising from creation itself, as is the case with sex distinctions. Rather, the races first emerge after the Flood.
Embodiment in Christian Theology and Secularism
The human person is embodied and therefore sexual being is more pronounced in Christian understanding than in the secular anthropology. Creation and resurrection motifs imply that sexuality is basic to our sense of self and foundational to our understanding of who we are as God’s creatures.
We are to be stewards of all we are because we are a product of God’s creative intention. This responsibility extends to our sexuality as well. 1 Cor 6:19-20.
Digression: Important note: Do not dismiss this so easily.
Secular anthropology tends to view sexuality largely as activity, not as a constitutive aspect of our being. Sexual expression is something that the “self” engages in. When viewed from this aspect, sexuality is more readily separated from the self. This is similar to the Gnostics of the New Testament era, where the secularist differentiates between “who I am” and “what I do,” seeing “what I do” as external to “who I am,” that is, to my personhood. This is the point that I was making with Empiress when I said that she was moving between “being” and “doing.” I find it ironic that while she finds a
quote:
blatant Gnostic tendency in the Church that has lead people to see physical expressions of intimacy and sex as "sinful" or somehow a "necessary evil."
And she is:
quote:
suspicious of a lot of the anti-physical/sexual sentiments in the Church as being Gnostic in origin.
She tends toward a Gnostic notion to support her view of “being” and “doing.” I find this to be very individualistic view of human nature where the human person is an independent self whose essence is to make choices in freedom. The self is a fundamentally free decision maker, and this fundamental nature of the self characterizes all persons regardless of whatever distinctions (such as sex) differentiate one human self from another. In choosing the self, this view claims to find the transcendent human essence lying beyond all observable differences. Sex is one vehicle for the expression of the freely choosing self, where the self actualizes personal freedom.
The Christian viewpoint differs radically from this. Because we view the body as a unified being, we simply cannot assert that the body can be indulged without affecting the essential person. We cannot relegate the sexual dimension of our existence to the realm of the nonsignificant. Our personhood is tied together with the fact that we are “flesh and blood.” But to be “flesh and blood,” entails being male/female. There is simply no way to exist except as this particular female or this particular male.
Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful
Edited by - BBBCanada on 10/30/2002 5:06:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 11/2/2002 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon said:
quote:
Empiress, I really like the distinction you are making. What I am hearing is that while there is an "ideal" that none of us measure up to more importantly there is a "direction." The overall goal is to learn to deeply love one another. Sexual relations with another are meant to lead us further in the direction of that goal. To the extent that we engage in sexual relations that do NOT further that goal is the extent to which we are defiling this gift.
Icon, I wanted to say thank you for such a helpful summary! You stated my own concepts in such a clarifying way that they make better sense to me too!
Brandon, sorry I haven't kept up with the thread, but I need to reply to your previous writings before I can move on to your more recent post.
Brandon said:
quote:
But it seems to me that the jump goes from pragmatism (if it works) to, “It must be right.” Or if it does not match the ideal but still produces good results then the ideal should be modified.
You misunderstood me here. I am not saying that might makes right. Moreover, I am proposing that the ideal standard can NEVER be modified. All we can hope for is that God will redeem many of our non-ideal ways of living and behaving. All things will fall somewhere in relation to or short of the ideal, but the ideal remains nonetheless. I am not saying that pre-marital sex between people who love one another has become the ideal or right; I'm saying that it falls short of the ideal, but no more short than manipulative or emotionally empty sex between a married couple. The ideal never changes, but different behaviors fall in different places along the spectrum of ideal versus non-ideal.
Brandon said:
quote:
We are talking about created beings who are both male and female through and through and if we don't pit the best against the worst (which seems illogical to me, it's not a good way to argue), then the preferrable is to have that which does not reflect sameness.
Again, I think you misunderstood me. I am not making a logical jump in comparing a best case to worst case scenario to one another as though they were equal scenarios. My point in comparing a less ideal to a lesser ideal was to show that we cannot make black and white rulings about sexual behavior. The ideal will ALWAYS remain: "loving sex between a man and woman in the covenant of marriage." However, just because homosexual or premarital sex falls short of the ideal does not mean that unloving sex within marriage is any closer to that ideal. Do you see the point I am making? I am levelling all non-ideals together as falling short of the ideal, not claiming one above the other in a black and white way.
For a person who is incapable, for any reason, of experiencing sex according to the ideal, I believe God can still redeem their sexual experiences. Those less than ideal experiences may be the "best" that person can experience in this lifetime too.
quote:
I am wanting to explore the first part a little more. It seems to me that to be human is to be male or female.
Okay, here's the crux of my problem with your argument. The problem I have is that as soon as we begin to use any biological/genetic categories, be they race, sex, health, age, etc., to define what is "human;" we are in seriously hot water. I believe the Christian perspective on what it means to be humans is simply to be "created in the image of God." The reason this must be the criteria for being human is extremely important because, like I said previously, we live in a broken and fallen world....
God has, for some reason, allowed me to know about some of the very deep pain that unusual or "different" or "unordinary" people suffer in this world. One of those groups that I have been blessed to learn more intimately about is those who suffer from hermaphroditism. This is actually more common than many people realize, particularly in its milder forms. The problem here is that these individuals have complete gender confusion both emotionally/mentally and physically. In all reality, they are biologically neither purely male nor purely female; they have the hormones and sexual organs of both. Many do not feel mentally as either male or female and then many, who were surgically altered to be either "male" or "female," feel as though they should have been the opposite. Related to this is transexualism, when people who are born with one set of genital organs act and feel as though they are the opposite due to hormonal and other factors. I also know there are people who are totally missing sexual organs of any kind! To say that part of what makes one a human is to be either male or female is actually to place such individuals outside of that definition. Not only is it theologically incorrect, it is one of the most devastating and least pastoral ways I can think of to describe what it means to be human for such individuals.
I also think such definitions leads to a slippery slope in our thinking. Historically women, blacks, and people with mental disabilities, all genetic characteristics, have all been placed outside the category of "human." To say now that male and female is an essential part of being human is, in my mind, not much different given our knowledge and reality about the complexity of humanity and biology.
(I think now it may be more clear why I was so resistant to saying that sex is primarily about being male/female.)
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|