Monday, July 19, 2010

Sex in Church

I've already had some fun and interesting conversations since Saturday Night's peek into the 7th Commandment, "You must not commit adultery."

Clearly, by Matt's post, Saturday Night inspired is inspiring some to speak more boldly about the subject.

A few of the conversations I've had since Saturday Night have really had me thinking a ton... I am wondering more and more the Church's ambiguity and confusion about marriage is compounding the sexuality issue for us?

Here's a (really) rough analogy: what if we told our kids they could only eat cookies out of a cookie jar, because that was the only way we could guarantee the cookies would be clean?  This seems a reasonable edict as a parent.  Don't eat cookies out of the garbage, off the floor, that have been sitting out, that are under your bed, in the couch cushions, or behind the toilet.  But... what if our cookie jar breaks, is lost, or is no longer usable for a variety of reasons?  According to our rules, our children now have no way to enjoy sweet, yummy cookies.  So, what to do?  Some will have the self-control not to eat cookies.  Some really aren't that interested in cookies.  But the rest, are fairly excited about the possibility of enjoying cookies in the future. 

God has told us that the appropriate container for enjoying and participating in sex is marriage.  Our problem is that the container has gone missing and what is standing in as the replacement is nothing like a cookie jar and is less appealing that cookies off the floor.  The "marriage" that our world encourages and promotes looks nothing like the safe, clean cookie jar that promises cookies that won't kill us.

Like I said...rough analogy.  Still haven't thought through it all the way...

Young people think marriage is for people who are "in love." 
HOWEVER, the wedding liturgy of the Church has never asked a bride and groom "Do you love each other." 
Why?  Because it doesn't really matter. (that much)
The question that is asked is: "Will you commit your life to growing in love for as long as you live?" 
This is a very different view of marriage than its popular versions.  I think this might be a good starting place for talking about healthy sexuality within the healthy context of marriage.
Posted by at

3 comments:

Matt Tennyson said...

I really like the cookie jar analogy with the cookies. I am having a harder time swallowing the last paragraph about marriage. Maybe you could expand on that a little more?

July 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Meagan said...

I like the cookie thing too. It is an interesting notion that you don't have to be "IN LOVE" to be married. Any good and successful partnership (business or otherwise) is proof of that, but I'm not sure I could do it...

July 19, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Unknown said...

So, weird... I posted a reply earlier in the week, but just discovered that it disappeared somewhere into the cyber-world.

Glad the "Cookie jar" analogy worked for you guys...still gotta think through that a bit.

Matt - Great question...I thought that maybe I was too brief...
Robert Bellah's book "Habits of the Heart" details the results of an extensive study on the commitments of Americans. His team of researchers identify four basic forms of commitment articulated by Americans: "What do you do for me?", "How do you make me feel?", commitment based citizenship, and "covenant."

They then reveal that the large majority of Americans talk about commitment primarily with the language of the first two kinds of commitment. Most of the people who use citizen language are over 65 and dying off. Some, still use the language of COVENANT.

Based on the research, there is only one place left in America that is training its people to use covenant language in relation to commitment: the Church. BUT, they observe, the Church in America is rapidly abandoning the language of covenant for the language of "what does he do for me?" and "how does she make me feel?"

When those who used the language of the first two were asked about why they would stay with somebody if that person no longer did anything for them, or made them feel a particular way... they had no way of expressing any reason to continue the relationship.
(These insights are actually from a sermon I heard this week from Scott Daniels at Point Loma)

It seems to me that the Church should focus on its own definition of marriage before it concerns itself with how the state defines it. The Church's speech about marriage will be far more compelling when we have our own definitions in order. It is not enough to say "marriage is between a man and a woman." Perhaps, first, we must say (and mean) "marriage is for life" - until death do us part.

So... using the language of "baby talk" from Luther, if we are going to start somewhere, it should be reclaiming COVENANT by speaking of COVENANT, living COVENANT, and being faithful to COVENANT.

Does that help? Thoughts?

July 23, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)