Mike's musings

Sex, marriage and the rest

Here are the two comments that I've now put on John Smulo's blog. I don't pretend that they represent systematic theology, but were in response to a request for comments - please see the original post and comments for some context.

Comment 1

Well, I'm going to say it: "I'm not sure that the sex is always wrong outside a married relationship."

In fact, "I'm not even sure that that sex is always wrong outside a long-term committed relationship."

This is something that we're bad at as Christians, partly because we have a model for relationships, and that's marriage. It's an ideal, and not everyone can live with it. And, of course, it's rather difficult to apply to gays and lesbians.

But is restraint always right? It can damage, and lead to sin. Sexuality is part of us, and part of being human. Not sure I'm going to say more than this, at least for now, but I'm happy to discuss in more detail if it would be helpful. I know it's going to upset some people, but if it liberates some people too, then good. And by "liberate", I mean "set free in Christ".

One guiding principle? "God is Love". Think hard about that, and don't trivialise it: it's a responsibility, not an excuse for promiscuity.

Comment 2

Let's step away from the second of my statements for a moment, and look only at the first. If we take the proposition: "Sex is not always wrong outside a married relationship", and assume that we _are_ talking about long-term committed relationships.

I'm not going to try to prove this point (partly because I struggle here, too: my "I'm not sure" was heartfelt), but only to come up with some points of view which may or may not be valid for some or all people.

I'm going to start with a reductio ad absurdum argument. I know this is dangerous, but I want us to be aware of what we're saying. So, the first question is: what do we mean by marriage? Do we mean a Christian marriage? If not, there are ramifications for all those who are not Christians who, just by having sex (making love), are sinning. Of course we can say that people who aren't Christians have a broken relationship with God, but does every action they take become automatically sinful therefore? I don't think I can accept that - in fact, I think it's dangerous theologically.

So, what about non-religious marriages? I think the same goes. So, let's say we're now accepting civil weddings. How does the acceptance of the state of a relationship stop sex within that relationship being sinful?

And then, what about those who, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to sign up for such a state ceremony? If we (as Christians) are questioning the validity of a state ceremony (a tacit question above), then who are we to tell such people to marry? If they're happy to make a long-term commitment to each other (I personally believe that the question of whether they make this a public commitment is actually very important), then how do we define that as different to a state ceremony, for instance?

So, that's one argument. My next one won't work for many, but it's really a core one for me. Again, it's "what do we mean by marriage?" but from a different angle. I believe that homosexual sexual activity is not necessarily sinful. That's to say a similar thing to "I believe that heterosexual sexual activity is not necessarily sinful." Pretty much exactly the same thing, in fact. Except for one core point: if we say that sex outside marriage is always sinful, then there is no sort of relationship for homosexuals (or bisexuals engaging in homosexual sex) in which sex can be anything other than sinful. I just don't believe this to be true. I struggle with enlarging our definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, but I do wonder whether that is the most honest (and therefore Godly) thing to consider.

Another point: if marriages are not only about child-bearing (and I don't think that many people would defend this view these days), then the place of love and non-procreational sex - call it recreational or relationship-affirming sex if you prefer - is safe within our concept of marriage. Marriages are about lots more than sex - friendship, support, prayer and non-sexual love, for starters.

Sex before marriage used to be expected within mediaeval and early modern societies - if the woman didn't get pregnant, then marriage wasn't necessarily on the cards. If she did, then all well and good, and the Church would bless the union: there would be a wedding service. This, with the last point, tells us that the concept of marriage has changed over the centuries. And that's before we even start on feminist attacks on the historical institution of marriage as a patriarchal power structure (some of which I believe have a lot of merit).

Before I finish, I'd like to point out that I'm not against marriage. Absolutely not: I'm strongly for it. I believe that marriage is a sacrament, and is the strongest affirmation of my faith in God that I have (despite the fact, I'd point out, that my wife is not a believer). It is an ideal, and not one to which everyone feels able to aspire. It is also (like all human reflections of God's will here on earth) a difficult, fractured, often broken institution which requires work.

Making sex the "big question" isn't always healthy. I think we have other things to worry about. Not to say that we shouldn't talk about it, though.

I'm also aware that the initial question, as posed, wasn't just about sex, but also about sexuality and singleness. I've not addressed this question. But I've written more than I'd intended to, and had better stop here.