Archives for March 2013

If you’ve ever heard me teach, you know—sooner or later—I’m going to talk about the story of Adam and Eve. It’s not because I’m obsessed with the story (although I admit that I am); it’s because the account has served as the backbone for much of Western thought and culture, including the subjects of sex and marriage.

In the account of Adam and Eve, we are told, “…a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This brief statement has served as the model for marriage in the Western world, outlining the union between a man and a woman in a sacred, three-step process.

Leave

The first step in marriage is for a man “to leave” his father and mother, meaning that the man is to exit the protective care of his parents; he is to step out on his own and establish his independence. This leaving is not a severing of the parent-child relationship, but a recognition that the man is no longer under his parent’s authority. Leaving one’s parents is an essential step in getting married, and if you’ve ever watched an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, you’ve seen the conflict and chaos that inevitably occurs when a man refuses “to leave” his mother and father.

Cleave

The second step in marriage is for a man “to cleave” to his wife. The verb that’s used here can be translated as “unite,” “bond,” “cling,” or “cleave,” and conveys the idea of two separate entities being joined together. In the context of Genesis 2, a man is supposed to form a permanent connection to his wife to replace the bond that he previously shared with his parents. This union of a man and a woman is typically recognized and celebrated by the couple’s family and friends through a formal, public ceremony—a wedding—in which the couple makes a lifelong commitment to one another.

Two Become One Flesh

The final step in marriage is for the two to become one flesh, which traditionally occurs on the couple’s wedding night as they consummate their marriage by having intercourse for the first time. Yes, “they will become one flesh” is a euphemism for sex. Now I understand that it’s in vogue these days to say that the two becoming one flesh reflects a oneness more mysterious and wonderful than sex alone, and I realize that such a mystical teaching makes for a transcendent-sounding sermon, but it’s a weak interpretation of the expression that cheapens both sex and marriage.

If you search the Bible to see how this expression is used, you’ll discover that it’s always mentioned in the context of marriage, except in one instance. 1 Corinthians 6:16 states “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that when a man unites himself with a prostitute it means that they had sex. And I don’t think prostitution is the oldest profession because men have an insatiable desire for emotional and spiritual oneness.

The idea of “two becoming one flesh” is a vivid and dramatic image of intercourse. And by saying that it’s more than sex or something other than sex, misses the meaning and purpose of sex. Sex is not merely a physical act for personal gratification. Sex is a holistic experience that engages our mind, body, soul, and spirit, and it’s the ultimate expression of intimacy between a man and a woman, making the two one flesh. That’s why sex between two people forms a lasting bond between them whether they know it or not, whether they want it or not. Sex is never just sex.

So what do we do? As I mentioned in a previous post, in today’s world most adults are having sex, most couples are engaging in intercourse before marriage, and most individuals lose their virginity long before their wedding day. What is a girl supposed to do when her boyfriend dumps her after they have sex for the first time? What is a man supposed to do when he feels guilty for becoming one flesh with more women than he can remember? And what should a pastor say to a couple in pre-marital counseling that has been sexually active for most of their relationship?

Now that we have defined sex and marriage from a biblical perspective, these are some of the real-life situations we will address in the weeks to come.

In last week’s post—Can the Church Still Be Relevant—I wrote about how the Church needs to contextualize the Christian faith in 21^st century terms if it wants to stay relevant. This week, I want to begin fleshing out what that might look like through a series of posts titled, Sex, Marriage, and the Church.

Sex is a popular subject these days. Television shows like Sex in the City and movies like Pleasantville have brought sex out of the dark and into the light of mainstream culture. What was once a utilitarian act performed for the sake of begetting children is now a recreational activity for everyone (over the age of 18) to discuss, explore, and enjoy. In response to this sexual revolution what is the Church supposed to say? What is the Church supposed to do?

Here’s what the Church is saying: “Don’t have sex outside of marriage, and if you are having sex outside of marriage, stop it.” And here’s what the Church is doing: nothing. The Church’s commentary on sex hasn’t changed or progressed in 2,000 years, and in what appears to be a losing battle, the church is doing less and less to address this epidemic. It’s remarkable to think that instead of engaging one of the most important social and moral issues of our time, the Church occasionally whispers, “You shouldn’t do that,” and has turned a blind eye to sexual promiscuity, except, of course, in the case of homosexual relations.

So what is the Church supposed to do? Should the Church take a stronger position on abstinence and discipline those having sex outside of marriage? Should the Church go in the opposite direction and somehow try to reconcile traditional beliefs with the values of our current culture? Or should the Church mind its own business by continuing its current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

As I mentioned last week, being relevant is not about defending your theology or changing your doctrine; being relevant is about explaining your beliefs in a way that connects with people and the world in which they live. In today’s world, most adults are having sex, most couples engage in intercourse before marriage, and most individuals lose their virginity long before their wedding day. For a priest or a pastor to stand in front of a congregation and say, “Don’t have sex,” is like a principal telling a group of children in detention, “Don’t get in trouble.” It’s too late, it’s already happened. At that point, what people need is a relevant message to help them deal with what’s already been done.

On the issue of sex, the Church doesn’t need to change its position, but it better have more to say about sex outside of marriage than, “Stop it.” The Church needs to reclaim sex—it needs to educate people about how this most intimate of acts transcends physical gratification—and the Church needs to explain how every sexual encounter binds two people together forever. You see, being relevant is about meeting people where they are, in the world in which they live, with a message that has real-life implications. The Church needs to be talking about sex in a relevant way, which is what I’m trying to do in this series on sex, marriage, and the Church.

Join me next time as we look at sex in how it’s evolved From Procreation to Recreation.