Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/23/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6)

(This topic was inspired by the "Questions" thread that deals with homosexuality.)

My question: Is there one unified and consistent "Biblical Sexual Ethic"?

I believe the answer is no... not if we take into account the entire Bible with it's many references to sex and marriage. This would include verses that speak against rape and verses that permit rape (particularly in war), verses that support monogamy and verses that support polygamy, verses that speak of wives as sexual property in marriage and verses that speak of wives as the Church, verses that permit prostitution, verses that permit sex among children (the marriage of young girls ages 11+), and of course issues like celibacy, masturbation, concubines, sex with slaves, sex and menstruation, and birth control.

I realized a few years ago that I found it impossible to use the Bible to justify any one particular sexual ethic including (to my dismay!!) monogamy. People like to use specific verses of the Bible -against- homosexuality but they cannot use the Bible effectively -against- Christian polygamy and a whole host of other sexual taboos the Bible permits in the same manner. Christian polygamists seem to have a -corner- on Biblical justifications for their lifestyles; it is ridiculous what happens when we proof text the Bible to justify our particular sexual ethic/bias. This is one of the reasons I am angered when people proof text the Bible to condemn ALL forms of homosexuality....it is very similar to the error of proof texting the Bible to justify polygmay in America today: both go against wider Biblical themes in favor of isolated verses that have been lifted out of their cultural context. Ironically, this was one of the reasons I moved from the Sola Scriptura Protestant mode of belief to one that recognizes the authority of church Tradition.

I do not believe we can use the Bible to formulate a consistent Biblical sexual ethic because most sexual ethics are highly cultural and these cultural attitudes are reflected in the Bible. (Notice I did NOT say that ALL ethics are inconsistent or cultural.) We cannot with consistency pick and choose which specific Bible verses we want to apply (like those against homosexuality) and disregard those we disagree with (like those that justify polygamy/polygyny or sex with slaves) to formulate a unified Biblical sexual ethic that supports our bias. Once we aknowledge that most sexual ethics are primarily cultural and this is reflected in the Bible, we can begin to use reason, tradition, wider Biblical THEMES, and science to help us formulate a consistent sexual ethic and we can stop proof texting the Bible to justify our particular sexual ethic.

I would be curious if others agree or disagree and how they work out their own sexual ethic. What would you say to the Christian polygamist?

http://www.polygamy.net/ is the homepage for the ever growing population of Christian Polygamists and explains in detail the Biblical justification for polygamy.

Another excellent read on the subject of Biblical sexual ethics is "Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today" by L. William Countryman.

See Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800624769/002-0107980-5503272?vi=glance

Thanks,
~E

Edited by - Empiress on 02/24/2003 12:10:02 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 2/24/2003 12:29 AM (GMT -6)

I have seen several similar queries along the same lines, and the conclusions always seem to converge on the same point: that the Bible cannot be used as a comprehensive rule book in these matters.

On a wider perspective, the same conclusion is often reached if we try to analyse how we should baptise, marry, bury, observe the Sabbath, divorce, and many other topics. I feel the point is that Christianity is not about following rules but about following love, compassion for others, and justice.

Just as in our own legal system, where we use case law to interpret legislation to specific circumstances, so we cannot use the Bible as Statute without applying love and God's mercy in each individual situation.

For example, the NT does not specifically, categorically, forbid polygamy (although I personally believe it is clearly inferred). But I would like to know how any man can continue to love totally and completely one woman and still marry another? Similarly, how could a married man marry another woman without first falling in love with her in spite of already being in love with his existing wife? And if he does marry a second wife through an arrangement, etc, how can he justify depriving that woman of a true love of her own?

Another example would be a woman with children who leaves her violent husband because of a real threat to their lives. Is she wrong to seek divorce? Is she wrong to later build a new marriage and family environment for her children whilst her former husband is still alive? I don't know, but I am sure God provides an answer to anyone who asks - and if He chooses to go against His own general rules, who are we to question that?

I feel the Bible does give us a good general framework but the question is whether or not, under the new covenant with God, is the law the final word? Is there not an abitrator, or final appeal, in Christ Himself? If someone feels that God in His grace and mercy has seen fit to agree to a custom answer to a custom situation then I would feel that is the business of that person alone, and no others should or could stand as judges over that. Of course, many may use that as an excuse to relieve their own guilt, but in those situations, who are they really fooling? the public or themselves? Again it is an issue between that person and God.

Just a few personal thoughts - in no way intended as "Truth"!

Markus

Edited by - markus on 02/24/2003 05:35:29 AM

Edited by - markus on 02/24/2003 05:36:20 AM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/24/2003 3:56 AM (GMT -6)

Markus said:

quote:

I have seen several similar queries along the same lines, and the conclusions always seem to converge on the same point: that the Bible cannot be used as a comprehensive rule book in these matters.

On a wider perspective, the same conclusion is often reached if we try to analyse how we should baptise, marry, bury, observe the Sabbath, divorce, and many other topics. I feel the point is that Christianity is not about following rules but about following love, compassion for others, and justice.

*nods head vigorously in agreement*

Thank you for your reflection, it is important to point out the problems in using the Bible to come up with definitive answers to many, many specific questions, not just consistent sexual ethics. And I agree wholeheartedly that the point is that Christianity is not about rules but love, compassion, and justice.

quote:
Just as in our own legal system, where we use case law to interpret legislation to specific circumstances, so we cannot use the Bible as Statute without applying love and God's mercy in each individual situation.

Yes, indeed, I believe God deals with all of us as individuals and we must do the same with one another.

quote:
For example, the NT does not specifically, categorically, forbid polygamy (although I personally believe it is clearly inferred). But I would like to know how any man can continue to love totally and completely one woman and still marry another? Similarly, how could a married man marry another woman without first falling in love with her in spite of already being in love with his existing wife? And if he does marry a second wife through an arrangement, etc, how can he justify depriving that woman of a true love of her own?

Yes, that's the point I'm getting at in seeking to applying larger Biblical themes rather than isolated verses lifted out of context. These are all very good "wider Biblical themes" you list!

quote:
I feel the Bible does give us a good general framework but the question is whether or not, under the new covenant with God, is the law the final word? Is there not an abitrator, or final appeal, in Christ Himself? If someone feels that God in His grace and mercy has seen fit to agree to a custom answer to a custom situation then I would feel that is the business of that person alone, and no others should or could stand as judges over that. Of course, many may use that as an excuse to relieve their own guilt, but in those situations, who are they really fooling? the public or themselves? Again it is an issue between that person and God.

Again, I agree. But how far do you think we can take the concept that a person's actions cannot be judged because we don't know how/why/what God is doing in their particular situation? I can see it applying to so many things including divorce, theft, lying, etc., but is there a limit? Are certain actions "too far" and need to be condemned or a person confronted with their "sin"?

Thanks,
~E

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/24/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6)

OK...WHO HERE BELIEVES IN POLYGAMY!? I mean, hey, it's possible by what Miss. E is contending...that there is no unified sexual ethic! Heck...why not concubines too? Why not sex with slaves! Whoa wait, we don't have slaves today. But other countries do. Sooo...that's possible too.

Opps! Missing assumption time! The ethic that is elevated in the Bible is that of a man and woman who are joined together in a permanent monogamous relationship. Yes. Regardless of all the other issues that would be included in the “sexual domain area” this is the standard (and intent) that has it’s start in the Creation stories, is reaffirmed by Christ, continued to be practiced in the Christian community and is a model for the divine-human fellowship in the eschatological renewal (Rev 21:2, 9-10).

Though this is the “ideal,” which everyone here affirms, two concessions (yes Greg, I agree they are concessions) are reflected in the scriptures when that particular ancient society did not live up to it. One is polygamy and prostitution. The other is divorce. The presence of both of these was due to certain cultural factors in ancient society. Both of which are not repeatable today and both of which were related to the relative positions of male and female in community life. They were attempts to respond to the generally lower status of women in the economic and social order and the woman’s more fragile situation. Much of this was of practical usefulness. Polygamy provided for marriage opportunities or marital households for the women of the community. Prostitution formed a type of economic safety net.

Divorce was codified and institutionalized in the regulations found in the Mosaic law. The spiel that Jesus had with the scribes and Pharisees reveals that divorce came about as a concession to the sinful reality of human life not as an expression of divine intent. Rather than giving sanction to, the Mosaic concession ought to be seen as an attempt to regulate that which was already present in Hebrew society. It’s purpose was not to make divorce easy or elevate it to a accepted practice but to make it more humane for divorced women by demanding that her status be clearly spelled out by the man who was putting her out.

Despite the acceptance of these concessions, neither ought to be viewed as a positive development when seen through the lens of the New Testament. Both ought to be judged as a blight on the commitment of the ancient Hebrews to the ideal of monogamy. Put another way, the development of these exceptions do not serve to deny that a marriage ethic provide the basis for life in the Old and New Testament communities. But rather, these violations of the norm and concessions to human sin actually highlight the commitment of the biblical documents, as a whole to the ideal of a permanent, monogamous relationship between male and female as the foundational expression of human sexuality.

Also, It would seem to me that for such a personal and important issue such as sexuality that we can get something of the mind of God on it with some amount of certainty. We do for divorce, adultery, fornication, bestiality, pedophilia and some others. I’m sure you yourself, Miss. E, would say as much when you speak of a “love ethic” and when you ground your ethics of sexuality in said aforementioned ethic.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/24/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Empiress, Welcome Back!

This is a great topic. I immediately think of Modes' list of sexual dispensations... funny yet revealing. The book you recommend looks really interesting from the Amazon excerpts.

I'm not going to have much time this week to join this conversation, but I'll just say that I agree with your thesis that the Bible does not have a consistent sexual ethic, whereas in my opinion it does have a consistent ethic related to faithfulness in all relationships. In an ancient culture in which an abandoned woman was likely to starve to death or prostitute herself or be stoned to death, polygamy was a reasonable alternative. And in a modern culture in which sexual orientation is just beginning to be understood as something that is determined at a very early age, and not chosen, monogamous gay marriage is a reasonable alternative.

One reason for a lack of Biblical sexual ethic is because present scientific understanding MUST change an ethic that was based on the best knowledge of that time. If transmission of disease is not well understood, then it makes sense to have strict purity laws that reduce contact with body fluids and thereby save lives. But once one knows simple hygiene and issues of bacteria spread, for example, there is no reason to quarantine a woman for two weeks after childbirth, or for a day after sex, for "uncleanness". Now we would just take a shower! (And of course the purity laws pertaining to sex certainly make sense if polygamy is being practiced, because polygamy involves regular sex with multiple partners. Just as some of the purity laws involving the handling of certain foods make sense in a pre-scientific age.)

In biblical times there was no concept of sexual orientation. Anything that the bible has to say about homosexuality (which is very little) was based on a very primitive understanding of human sexuality. To take it at face value is to deny the last century of scientific research.

Much of what the bible says about women is based on a very primitive understanding of gender. And clearly the tradition of taking brides in childhood goes against much of what we know about human development, to the point that today it is considered a crime to marry an eleven or twelve year old child.

Few would suggest we revert to the biblical ethic in most of the areas you mention. Only homosexuality gets singled out as a universal prohibition, other than those things that destroy people, such as murder and rape and incest. And those who know monogamous gay couples know without any doubt that homosexuality in no way destroys them.

But for me the primary sexual ethic in the Bible that crosses the cultural shifts both literally and metaphorically is that of faithfulness. And the current Christian insistence on disavowing gay marriage violates this higher level calling based on a primitive understanding of human sexuality. We make it much harder for a gay person to remain faithful to a single partner, even though God showed again and again that he wanted faithfulness even in less than ideal situations. He rewarded Job with many wives, for being faithful. So many people point to Genesis as an argument against homosexuality - because it is a man and a woman, and scriptures that say two become one flesh, etc. But it doesn't say fifty and one become one flesh, or fourteen and one become one flesh, and yet there are instances of God rewarding the faithful with many wives. It would seem that God’s criteria isn’t as rigid as that of your average Christian, and involves an ethic that is not strictly about sex at all.

I don’t really have time to hone an argument about this at the moment, but I thought I would just throw it in the mix.

Thanks,
Semeia

P.S., Empiress, could you email me with your current email? I looked for it the other day and I’m pretty sure I don’t have it. Glad to see you back!

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 2/24/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Empiress, It is nice to speak with you again after a long break

Your last paragraph really hits at the core of this sensitive issue:

quote:

But how far do you think we can take the concept that a person's actions cannot be judged because we don't know how/why/what God is doing in their particular situation? I can see it applying to so many things including divorce, theft, lying, etc., but is there a limit? Are certain actions "too far" and need to be condemned or a person confronted with their "sin"?

Whilst I hope to avoid offending or upsetting anyone, I will try to give at least my own perspective on this – and I emphasise it is only my own view.

I think there are clear statements in the Bible that provide at least guidelines and examples, if not actual rulings, about what is intended as Christian living. For example, Paul describes the qualities of a church elder in quite strong detail, including for example being: “the husband of but one wife”. I think it would be fair to assume that a church elder is expected to set a good example to the congregation and therefore the same qualities would apply to everyone else. However, this by itself clearly does not impede contradictory understandings of Scripture from arising.

Ultimately, of course, our secular legal structure applies some constraint on behaviour, but even before we reach that level there is the question of love for one another. Surely, the first and primary characteristic of Christian love is not to hurt anyone, or place one’s own interests before another’s, or cause another to breach Christ’s commandments, etc. And if our conscience is trully guided by the Spirit then that could not happen.

This may work whilst we are only talking within a personal sphere of implication, but it can be a very different matter if someone were to then preach their own personalised view as general law rather than a personal matter with God. I think this is one example of why live congregation is so important. At least in that environment there is the right to question such declarations and to check on the church’s own view. Whilst this does not guarantee any form of “absolute truth” it does restrict the risk of damaging extremism and encourages seeking answers through prayer.

I feel that if a church congregation is working well, then people should feel comfortable and uninhibited about raising difficult questions with a view to hearing opinion and advice but without feeling that a contradictory response will also be accompanied by judgment. In a working environment a review or inspection process is designed to gain as much input to a product as possible in order to ensure the best possible product output, it would be very positive if we could have the same approach to sharing our difficult faith questions.

But, ultimately, I guess it all comes down to what is going on inside us. If that is not authentic and sincere then no type or amount of external ointment is going to make it right. I just think it is better to face God and ask, rather than try to weave and entwine a suite of scattered verses into a deformed basket in which we can hide our sin and our conscience – and with it our closeness to God.

Thanks for raising such a thorny issue!

Markus

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/24/2003 2:13 PM (GMT -6)

BBC Canada:

Nice post! Have you ever argued with a Christian polygamist before? They are indeed around, although likely no one from this board. *looks around*

Curious: You speak of "concessions" that God has allowed in certain cultures such as polygamy. Do you think that homosexual life-long unions are "concessions" for those who cannot change their sexual orientation?

------------------------------------

Semeia said:

quote:
in my opinion it does have a consistent ethic related to faithfulness in all relationships

Aha! That's great! I think that is definitely a consistent ethic we can draw from the Scriptures.

Semeia said:

quote:

One reason for a lack of Biblical sexual ethic is because present scientific understanding MUST change an ethic that was based on the best knowledge of that time. If transmission of disease is not well understood, then it makes sense to have strict purity laws that reduce contact with body fluids and thereby save lives. But once one knows simple hygiene and issues of bacteria spread, for example, there is no reason to quarantine a woman for two weeks after childbirth, or for a day after sex, for "uncleanness". Now we would just take a shower! (And of course the purity laws pertaining to sex certainly make sense if polygamy is being practiced, because polygamy involves regular sex with multiple partners. Just as some of the purity laws involving the handling of certain foods make sense in a pre-scientific age.)

Okay, I totally agree with this concept. Could you briefly tell me how you respond to people who would argue that because the Bible is "God's Word" and the purity laws were from laws from God, they couldn't be tied to the scientific understanding of the time, eg that they must have some spiritual or eternal purpose?

Semeia said:

quote:
In biblical times there was no concept of sexual orientation. Anything that the bible has to say about homosexuality (which is very little) was based on a very primitive understanding of human sexuality. To take it at face value is to deny the last century of scientific research.

Yes, that's exactly the root of the issue. Thank you.

------------

markus said:

quote:
I feel that if a church congregation is working well, then people should feel comfortable and uninhibited about raising difficult questions with a view to hearing opinion and advice but without feeling that a contradictory response will also be accompanied by judgment.

Yes, yes, yes....this is essential to a healthy community, if only more churches promoted this!!

markus wrote:

quote:

But, ultimately, I guess it all comes down to what is going on inside us. If that is not authentic and sincere then no type or amount of external ointment is going to make it right. I just think it is better to face God and ask, rather than try to weave and entwine a suite of scattered verses into a deformed basket in which we can hide our sin and our conscience – and with it our closeness to God.

I really do agree with you. Would you say then, that only we can know when we are in sin and that it is much more difficult (if not impossible) to know whether someone else is in sin?

Thanks,
~E

Edited by - Empiress on 02/24/2003 7:14:00 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/25/2003 4:17 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the kudos...I think...

Two things.

1. A. You know as well as I do that those who argue for polygamy are fringe. It doesn't matter how much they argue their case, you would believe they are off their rocker. They have a fundamentalist mind-set. And you know that if anything, that that sexual ethic doesn't gel, not for you, not for those women, not for today. You know that even with your "love ethic," that you can't embrace polygamy just as you can't other forms of sexual behavior. It doesn't matter to me at all that they can argue their way through a box of "Horny Toads" cereal. I won't repeat my above post.

B. This is the thing Miss. E. You believe that there is no unified biblical sexual ethic. Of course, as you know, I am in complete disagreement with you. Well, actually, let me put it this way. I think in both debates (this and the homosexuality threads) we need to be careful of the language we use. I would agree with you that the Bible doesn’t have a unified sexual ethic, in that, what we are given is the “raw material” of the text (though it is not all that ambiguous) and we need to come up with or make sense of where the Bible stands on such an issue. And it is this second half, that I believe that we can do. That is, we can come up with sexual ethic that starts with the Genesis story and goes through to the consummation of the ages which eventually overshadows those creation stories. Citing the wide array of sexual mores found in the Bible does not entail that there is no such thing as "Christian sexual Ethic." You know very well, as a part of our interpretive task, we must distinguish between that which is Kingdom values and that which is cultural values in the biblical text. This is by no means easy to do. But this should not stop us from attempting it. We do it with so many other areas, I don't think I have to rattle them off for you.

2. Do I think homosexual life-long unions are "concessions" for those who cannot change their sexual orientation? Answer?

A. Nice to see that you say that there is a norm to concede from.
B. No I do not. The Bible indicates concessions for those I mentioned above. That is quite clear to all of us, as yourself, Greg and Semeia have said. But the Bible does not indicate that homosexuality is a concession whatsoever. A sense of this can be seen by listening to how texts compare to the broader cultural milieu and how they sound within the development of the canon itself.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 2/25/2003 7:04 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress, you ask:

quote:

Would you say then, that only we can know when we are in sin and that it is much more difficult (if not impossible) to know whether someone else is in sin?

Certainly we know ourselves when we are in sin, but with regard to others I think it is rather more important first to ask ourselves why do we actually want to know if someone else is sinning before we try to work out if they are actually sinning. Are we tending towards a judgmental situation? or are we being asked for advice? or are we trying to warn someone who appears ignorant of their sin? or are we just trying to clarify the rules in general?

I think each of these situations demands its own approach - and great care. But in individual situations, is it not better to encourage that person to find out for themselves through prayer rather than for us to try to persuade them they are sinning in our opinion?

I mean, there are clearly the obvious cases (I guess!) but there can arise so many difficult situations, too, that are not so clear, and where one could cause great distress by whichever line one takes. For example, a homosexual couple who have shared their lives together for many years without God, when suddenly one of them comes to faith? What should they do? Separate? What if they are legally married - are they married before God? If the church does not recognise their marriage before God because of homosexuality, but they are legally married, what if they later part and one of them wants to then marry someone of the opposite sex? can they marry before God whilst still legally married to their previous same-sex partner before having come to faith?

Life as a hermit must be so much easier

Markus

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/27/2003 10:07 AM (GMT -6)

markus said:

quote:

I think each of these situations demands its own approach - and great care. But in individual situations, is it not better to encourage that person to find out for themselves through prayer rather than for us to try to persuade them they are sinning in our opinion?

Amen to that...I agree wholeheartedly.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reflections, I've greatly appreciated reading them.

~E

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 2/28/2003 9:43 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you Empiress, but it is I that is grateful.

I think a good discussion depends more on the ability of a good question to wriggle its way into one's mind and stir up latent thoughts sleeping there.

The questions and issues that you raise here are always an inspiration that stir my otherwise dull mind!

Blessings

Markus

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 3/19/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6)

1. Polygamy and polyandry are illegal in the U.S.

2. There are no scriptural commands to practice polygamy/polyandry.
It was tolerated among the patriarchs.

3. Apply scriptural commands for obeying your government, when
it doesn't contradict scriptural commands, to point 1.

_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1

Edited by - Laika on 03/19/2003 1:17:29 PM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:51 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual