Skubalon

Our sexual nature is – to say the minimum – complicated. If we want to cast blame for that reality – and I’m not suggesting we should – we have to blame God. He, after all, is the One who made us “male and female.” We’ve been confused about what that reality means for most of human history.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that the history of humankind is littered with story after story, describing our sexual identity, behavior, and morality. We don’t have to look beyond the text of Scripture itself to see these brutal but real phenomena. From Abraham’s dishonesty about the role Sarah plays in his life to Solomon’s innumerable wives and concubines, with David’s indiscretion tucked between, the very heroes of the Hebrew Bible seem to battle their sexual identity, behavior, and morality regularly.

What has always seemed a bit odd to me in all of this is that it is so easy to be unmoving and unforgiving about the sexual discretions of those whose behavior is different (we think worse) than ours, but completely understanding of what is more “normal,” which mostly means is something we either have done or people we know and love have done.

As clear evidence of that, think about the current trend among conservative Christians to promote some sort of legal definition of marriage that is clearly a “one man, one woman” definition. At the heart of those trends is a level of discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the idea that a legal definition of marriage will at least be a way of “taking a stand.”

I’m very comfortable thinking that marriage is, as intended by God, “one man and one woman.” But I’m not sure, if we are serious about taking a stand for God, that such a definition of marriage is adequate. Shouldn’t we add “committed to each other for life?” Jesus Himself said that God “permitted” divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, not because it could be included in the definition of a biblical marriage. That we never hear that from those who would have believers join forces and manipulate the federal or state governments we live under to include the idea that marriage is “one man, one woman, one time” in the definition, seems to suggest that our concerns here are more in the context of anti-homosexual behavior than they are “defense of marriage.”

Oddly, we tend to ignore what Jesus Himself said about divorce and remarriage, while making an issue out of something to which He never directly speaks. In case you’re wondering, I know about the “exception clause” in Matthew and I know about the comments in Romans 1 Paul makes about homosexual behavior. I’ve read and studied Paul’s comments about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and his seeming option to remarry because an unbelieving spouse leaves his or her partner later in that chapter. I’m neither attempting to suggest that a divorced and remarried person isn’t fit for the kingdom, nor am I attempting to suggest that homosexual behavior is an acceptable approach to our sexual natures.

It just seems a bit more complicated than getting the church to sign petitions, pass ballot initiatives, and outlaw any kind of marriage that isn’t “one man and one woman.” How is it that we are relatively comfortable with what often is a kind of “serial polygamy” approach to divorce and remarriage, but unbending on homosexual behavior? Again, no attempt here to throw divorced and remarried people out of the church, or to merely wink at homosexual behavior as acceptable.

But, if we are going to decide that some state or federal law can save the world if we can get a “defense of marriage proposal” made into law, then shouldn’t we aim for it to be a reflection of God’s ideal, and not our own cultural, religious version of God’s ideal? And while I’m at it, what in the world makes us think that a law passed by a state legislature or the federal congress can actually accomplish God’s ideal in the first place? For crying out loud, God gave Israel some rather direct laws, and it was still necessary for Jesus to come and redeem us. Can we somehow outdo God here?

Vicki and I have been married to each other for almost 38 years. We have been absolutely faithful to each other for those nearly 38 years and I don’t see that changing. We are “legally married,” and have the Florida marriage certificate to prove it. But that legal document has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to be a faithful husband to her. I promised God, her, my family, and a church full of friends that I would be faithful until death parted us. No piece of paper signed by a probate court judge could ever trump that promise.

Sometime I hear people trying to define “sexual immorality” in all sorts of ways. Of course things like adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, and the like get on the list. But when it comes to our sexual natures, humans are far too creative for there to be a list which covers it all. It seems to me that a better approach is that we define “sexual morality.” That’s easier, shorter, and less likely to be misunderstood.

It is this simple: sexual morality is either a healthy, fulfilling, loving relationship between one man and one woman committed to each other for life; or a life of celibacy. That really is God’s ideal. I have to wonder what difference it would make if followers of Jesus were better known for proclaiming God’s ideals on the subject than people who pick and choose from the list of immoral behaviors. If I were gay and thinking about the whole following Jesus thing, I’m pretty confident some preacher type would have to answer my question about why my particular sexual misbehavior was worthy of exclusion, but other kinds of sexual misbehavior weren’t.

In 1 Corinthians 5, the chapter in Paul’s epistles that addresses the most egregious kind of sexual misconduct (“of a kind that is not tolerated even among the pagans” 5:1), Paul makes it clear that his concern is not that the Corinthian believers isolate themselves for sexually immoral people in the world, but that sexual misbehavior not be accepted among believers. (5:9-13) Unless I’ve completely misread those words, his point seems to be that the church has no right to demand that non-believers abide by our values. There is a sense in which it seems that to do so gets it backwards. Clearly some of the believers at Corinth had interesting pedigrees – spiritually speaking. (6:9-11)

Paul has a kind of confidence in the Christian gospel that suggests any life can be changed. “Such were some of you” (6:11) leaves no doubt. But unless we find a way to engage sinners – homosexuals and heterosexuals who haven’t lived up to God’s ideals – we will never know whether or not the gospel has that power. We won’t even have a chance to declare it.