Category: Society

Posts relating to social and ethical issues.

Posted on Posted in Politics, Australian Politics, Marriage & Sexuality, Q&A No Comments

Q&AClara asks (on my facebook wall): I read an interesting article today titled, ‘Ministers take aim at religious extremists: we accept equality’. Wondered your thoughts on this issue.

The article that Clara refers to is this: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/ministers-take-aim-at-religious-extremists-we-accept-equality/story-fnho52ip-1226676430143

The signatories to the letter referred to in the article can be found here: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/2012/04/04/42-multi-faith-clergy-call-for-marriage-equality/

The letter is actually quite old (April 2012).  The fact that it is being raised in July 2013 as a rhetorical riposte to ACL attacks on Kevin Rudd is symptomatic of how these things get used as political footballs:  “Christians talking against gay marriage? Well, here’s our Christians talking about gay marriage and they support us!”  There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, that’s one of the reasons the letter was written in the first place I’m sure.

So what are my thoughts? Nothing profound really.

This not a surprise.  The signatories to the letter are mostly your left-leaning Anglicans and Unitings with the odd Baptist and so forth.  Nothing unexpected.  We could talk about how representative these leaders are of the Christian populace and the fact that they generally belong to the parts of the church that are in decline, but whatever, that isn’t the point.

For me the two interesting things are this:

1) Firstly: Christians must demonstrate that their views are Christian.

I’m not saying that these leaders aren’t Christian.  What I am saying is that it is not enough to say “I’m a Christian and I support SSM.”  They need to articulate and demonstrate the connections between the Christian philosophy and the SSM agenda and why they are congruous and supportive of one another.  This is how you give your support substance and weight.

It is particularly so when you have signatories from a wide range of faith positions (including non-Christian) – what philosophical ground, that is common and not antagonistic to the positions held, is being used to espouse the opinion?  Without that it’s not much more than a rather small petition.

From what I can see of the text of the letter (not easily accessible as far as I can see, even through the AME website) this hasn’t been done.  The two texts I do have are this excerpt:

“As clergy from various different faiths and denominations in Australia, we believe marriage is a fundamental institution in our society. It fosters greater commitment between partners, provides children with a sense of security and stability, and strengthens ties with families and communities. Marriage is a blessing to be shared, so we encourage people of faith who support marriage equality to voice their support for the reform by responding to the  House of Representatives inquiry on same-sex marriage today.”

This isn’t much more than the “marriage is a blessing” and “blessing should be shared” argument.  Which says nothing at all really.  None of us will disagree on the blessing of marriage.  What we do disagree on is the characteristics of marriage which inform and construct and advance that blessing.

Rowland Croucher (say it ain’t so Rowland!) is the other text which does inform this a bit:

“How can I, a heterosexual who’s been very happily married for 50 years, tell anyone else they don’t have the right to form a loving, committed, lifelong union and enjoy the fruits of marriage as I have done?” wrote Reverend Dr Rowland Croucher, from John Mark Ministries, Victoria. “Marriage is not a club to be restricted to some. Like the Gospel, it is a blessing to be shared.”

And at least he gives some reasoning, albeit thin.  Here Dr. Croucher connects “marriage” to the inclusivity of the gospel.  Which has some merit, because the gospel is inclusive.

(The “how can I tell anyone else line” is rhetorical fluff because it doesn’t speak to the core issue of what marriage actually is, just to the fact that whatever it is it cannot be arbitrarily restricted – we all agree with that.)

Now this is all great, but as Christian leaders, these people need to present a clear and coherent connection between a Christian framework and their position.  I won’t reiterate all that here, but the sorts of questions that go unanswered by Croucher et al. include clear rebuttals “OK, Rowland, but the Gospel is also exclusive (Christ alone) and calls for a surrender of one’s whole life (including sexual activity, both hetereosexual and homosexual), how do you coincide these Christian truths with your statement about marriage?”  And also fundamental questions of epistemology, Scriptural affirmations of the connection of marriage with the created order and so on.

In other words (and this speaks to why marriage is so contentious), our understanding of marriage derives from the full sweep of Christian philosophy.  If you’re going to talk about this you need to demonstrate coherence across the whole. These signatories haven’t done this.

2) Secondly:  “Christian” is not a badge.  It’s used that way by revisionists all the time who think in terms of “attributes” and “minorities.

Religion has become an “attribute” of a person, not a voluntary and adopted wholistic framework for life.  Therefore if you can demonstrate that one “Christian” agrees with you, you can assert that there is no reason why someone else wearing that badge shouldn’t also.

This is an insipid and patronising understanding of how religion and worldviews work.  The badges don’t matter, it’s the substance that counts.  The people that don’t support SSM have good reasons for not doing so.  It’s not enough to throw their badge back at them, you actually have to deal with their reasonings and demonstrate their unreasonableness.

To conclude.  What are my thoughts? Nothing unexpected, just another demonstration of the insipidness that tends to dominate this debate.

Posted on Posted in Marriage & Sexuality, Q&A

Thanks for the question, which I assume derives from an article on my blog ( http://god-s-will.blogspot.com/2010/09/asking-right-question-in-marriage.html ). Caveat: These are initial thoughts only.

The fundamental question to ask is whether or not we want marriage law to be _passive_ or _active_. The passive sense of law is to reflect society – to enact or provide a legal model that encapsulates societal reality and allows for legally guided (and bound) interactions between members of society according to those reflected norms. The active sense of law is to guide, shape or even control society – to provide rights, assert responsibilities, and enable punitive measures in order to modify behaviour or shape cultural norms.

FLOW OF THOUGHT #1 – We need something in the passive sense, to reflect society.
————————————————————————–

The problem is that if we look at society I don’t think this “something” is the Marriage Act. In particular, it is not the concept encapsulated in the Marriage Act that is the “solemnisation” of a marriage.

Solemnisation is not just about something being solemn or heartfelt. Legally speaking we can consider it to be a “formality necessary to validate a deed, act, contract.” I guess its much like the settlement on a house – something happens when the keys are exchanged. It is not wrong to think of a solemnified marriage as an enacted contract then, in two senses:

a) A contract between the parties. Entering into marriage implies (as is recognised in law) a whole bunch of rights and responsibilities. These only usually come into play when a marriage ends (e.g. inheritance rights) or breaks down and where some form of reparation for obligations-not-met are required – alimony, custody of children, separation of assets etc.

b) A contract with society. Entering into marriage implies a legal state that is recognised and taken into account when it comes to affairs external to the couple – everything from taxation, social welfare, interaction with the education system, issues relating to privacy, issues relating to next-of-kin, and (topically for NSW at the moment) the adoption of children etc. – all take into account (to a greater or lesser extent) the existence, or not, of a marriage contract.

But solemnnisation, legally speaking, is becoming more and more meaningless. For instance, the “common law” or “de facto” marriage, is now pretty much taken as an implied contract even thought it has never been “solemnifed.” This is true in both sense of the contract. As a contract between the parties the implications of a relationship breakdown financially and in terms of children etc. is now pretty much identical to that of “real” marriages. Similarly, as a contract with society, there is very little distinction made between solemnified and registered marriages, and de facto situations.

To a lesser extent, the advent of “civil unions” or the ability in some jurisdictions to register a same-sex relationship, also provides the rights of the contract without the solemnisation of a marriage. This is particularly the case in the sense of the contract between the partners (shared property rights etc.), yet increasingly so in the sense of the contract with society (availability of the privilege to adopt etc.)

As the distinctiveness of solemnised marriage is reduced, so is its value.

Solemnisation alone, therefore, provides very few things, legally, that are not provided for by other means. Perhaps this is simplistic, but the only thing you can get via legally solemnised marriage that you can’t get anywhere else is:

a) Convenience. Sign four or five pieces of paper and you have the legal recognition of your relationship in a few easy steps. More importantly: your relationship can be enacted by proclamation (we are now married) rather than by demonstration (we are cohabiting, so consider us married).
b) Cross-recognition. Generally speaking (and less uniquely now that there is provision for cross-recognition of civil unions), a legal marriage in one jurisdiction is recognised in another.
c) Symbolism – you get to refer to your relationship, unquestioningly, as a “marriage” and have the certificate to prove it.

And none of these things are inherent to any deeper concept of “marriage.”

Personally, I would, for instance, and for some good theological reasons (for another time), define a marriage relationship as: a faithful, sexual, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman in a covenant freely entered before God, each other and the community. If any of those characteristics were not present a relationship would not easily be classified as a marriage in my thinking.

Legal solemnisation is not needed for any of these characteristics to exist. It is not even needed for a relationship with these characteristics to be legally recognised (although it is a possible way in which that legal recognition can occur).

So why have legal solemnisation at all? Let relationships be formed either by behaviour or voiced intention or religious rite and then them recognised as legal by registering them. Let the legal reality be a _recognition_ of relationship rather than the creation of the relationship. Let marriage (defined by man-and-woman) be, legally, simply one form of recognised civil union (defined more broadly as the case may be – including non-sexual relationships).

After all, that is, in practice, what we have now. And if we are looking at representing reality, let us represent it.

Freedom can still be exercised. Ministers of Religion would, just like now, be able to lead people through religious rites – to solemnify spiritually – and exercise their conscience and religious freedom as to who they would do this for and who they wouldn’t do it for. Relationships covenanted within those rites would be able to be registered and recognised legally. All is well.

The debate about what gets to be called “marriage” therefore becomes what it actually is – a cultural debate about definitions and nomenclature.

However,

FLOW OF THOUGHT #2 – Do we need something in the active sense, to shape society?
————————————————————————–

Starting with my definition of the characteristics of marriage – a faithful, sexual, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman in a covenant freely entered before God, each other and the community. Is it possible to ensure that the legal representation of marriage reflects that definition?

Only partially, but substantially. Solemnisation, with any effect, can only insist on the objective characteristics of a relationship – that it is a covenant freely entered before the civic community, and that it is between a “man and a woman.”

The debate is about whether to reduce the restriction of this latter characteristic to “between two people.” Some would even like to see the characteristic further liberalise to recognise polyamory – i.e. more than two people.

The fact that the law is resistant to change in this characterisation of marriage is itself a “shaping of society.” The law is active. And there is value to that.

The problem is that it is only active in a shallow sense. If the legal affirmation of marriage will only extend to the depths to which solemnisation under the marriage act extends then this is not very far because the activity of solemnisation is of lessening practical effect (see previous flow of thought). It confers fewer and fewer parti
cular rights and the choice to not seek legal solemnisation of a relationship carries less and less penalty.

Those who are intent on marriage law maintaining a particular objective definition of marriage need to not only argue for the retention of that definition but also consider the extent of its enforceability. Their needs to be an increased discussion of how the law can actively assert that definition. The argument needs to not just be about what legal marriage _is_ but what legal marriage _does_ – what unique rights does it bestow? What things are unavailable to those who do not avail themselves of legal marriage? What penalties apply where a marriage covenant is broken?

The question becomes: where do we draw the line as to what the law should do?

Which is where I’ll leave it – unanswered for now.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/1093895321

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality 1 Comment

William Struthers’ Wired for Intimacy: How pornography hijacks the male brain is one of those books that can only be reviewed in comparison.  In this case to Allan Meyer’s From Good Man to Valiant Man. Both books deal with the topic of sexual integrity in men.  Both books take a holistic approach – dealing with pornography and sexual addiction as a combined spiritual, psychological, and neurological issue.  This approach, in both books, is a very helpful one as it allows men to get a handle on the real value and tangible outcome of what it means to discipline oneself and take every thought captive.

Struthers is better than Meyers’ in a number of areas.  As a professor of psychology and a lecturer in behavioural neuroscience he is certainly more qualified when it comes to unpacking how negative neurological pathways are built up and then reinforced by pornographic habits.

“This is how a pornography addiction and sexual compulsion is built form scratch.  It involves the visual system.. the motor system… the sensory system… and neurological effects of orgasm (sexual euphoria from opiates, addictive dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and reduced fear in the amygdale).  They have now begun to to store this pattern as a reinforced neurological habit.” (Page 99)

His applied theology is also better.  His chapters on masculinity (“Made male in God’s image” and “Masculinity”) are a more helpful exploration than Meyer’s eisegetic four-faces ox-lion-eagle-man imagery.

But when it comes down to the “so what do I do with it?” question – this is where Struthers is weak and where Meyers’ pastoral and discipling heart shows its strength.  For instance Struthers’ dealing with masturbation begins with the pastoral equivalent of “don’t do it or you’ll go blind”

“Men who compulsively masturbate (more than 2-3 times a week) can suffer form depression, memory problems, lack of focus, concentration problems, fatigue, back pain, decreased erections, premature ejaculation, and pelvic or testicular pain” (Page 169) [I wonder if the same is said of men who have sex more than 2-3 times per week?]

And while he does move beyond this it is mostly description rather than prescription of help.  This is typical throughout the book.

So in the end, go to Struthers for a better understanding, go to Meyers for some thoughts as to how to help someone (or yourself).  Would love to see the book that merges the strengths of both.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality No Comments

Barbara Roberts’ book is subtitled “Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion.”  It is a thorough consideration of how issues surrounding divorce and remarriage are handled by Scripture.  While there is a definite pastoral aspect to this book (Roberts herself has been through an abusive marriage) it’s main approach is exegetical. After setting the scene, and summarising her conclusions and where she is coming from, Roberts makes a decent consideration of relevant Pauline (1 Corinthians 7 in particular) and Old Testament passages as well as unpacking the teaching of Jesus.

The questions are clear: What are the Biblical grounds for divorce?  And, if divorce is allowed, is remarriage also allowed?  She helpfully puts forward the key concepts at the beginning of the book:

  • The Bible distinguishes between “treacherous divorce” and “disciplinary divorce”.
  • Disciplinary divorce is permitted by the Bible.  This applies in cases of abuse, adultery or desertion, where a seriously mistreated spouse divorces a seriously offending spouse.
  • Treacherous divorce is condemned by the Bible.  It occurs when a spouse obtains divorce for reasons other than abuse, adultery or desertion.
  • If the offending partner was sexually immoral, the Bible allows the non-offending partner to remarry.
  • If the offending partner was abused, deserted or unjustly dismissed the other, and the offender has been judged to be “as an unbeliever”, the Bible allows the mistreated partner to remarry.

By taking an exegetical approach Roberts is providing a service to victims of abuse who tend, often as a consequence of their abuse, to be “better at understanding the letter of God’s Word than they are at interpreting general principles from scripture.” (Page 37, emphasis mine).  Here there is assistance to those who are vulnerable to being on the receiving end of scripture misapplied cruelly and abusively.

Coming to this book from a pastoral point of view I was encouraged by some of her conclusions.  For instance, in general, the principle that “it is impossible to tell a victim that she ought to leave or stay at any particular juncture – the decision when or whether to leave must be left to each victim… all we can do is lay out the biblical principles that permit separation and help the victim to assess the discernible risk factors, leaving the ultimate choice to her.” (Page 43)  When people come for answers what they often really looking for is empowerment, freedom to choose the right thing.

The main food for thought for me was her consideration of 1 Corinthians 7. In particular, a key plank in her “abuse is grounds for divorce” argument rests on firstly, the equating of the abuser with being an “unbeliever” who has left (or has brought a separation to the marriage – see Page 48) , and secondly, the necessity for church discipline to determiner whether the abusing party is “acting as an unbeliever.”  The exegesis may need some strengthening in parts but I do not think this is an invalid application of a difficult text.  It certainly aligns with her aim of allowing all of Scripture to speak – a harmonizing of Moses, Jesus and Paul (Page 108), if you like.

This part, and the rest of the book, certainly gels with my experience (and myriad mistakes) in engaging with people who are facing marital breakdown.  I think evangelical considerations of marriage often take an overly-sacramental view that inappropriately elevates the covenantal bond to something eternal and unbreakable.  My analogy is that in marriage a new “unit” is formed (the couple in unity) – it is valuable, like a person.  It should not be harmed, but can be harmed, it should not be killed, but can be killed.  Roberts unpacks how the Bible affirms the value of marriage in the strongest possible way, without becoming separated from the reality that marriage covenants are broken.

Roberts’ insistence on church discipline should not be ignored.  Yet, for me, it is the most difficult of her exhortations.  Not because I disagree with her in the principle of it – but overwhelmed by the practice of it.  So often it is incredibly difficult to find out what the truth is behind a marriage breakdown: who is the abuser, who is not? is the marriage sick, or just broken? is what the person saying a true expression of victimhood or manipulative lie?  Roberts would do well to expand on how church leadership may go about exercising the judgement it needs to exercise.

For those trapped in abuse – particular those who are or have experienced religious justifications for that abuse – this book is invaluable.  For those expected to give Biblically-grounded advice, this book is a must-read.  I by-and-large agree with Roberts’ principles but they needs careful application wrapped in a cry to God for wisdom.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality No Comments

Unlike recent books on sex that I have read, which are based on pyschology and some mild theology, Pure Sex, by Sydney Anglican stalwarts Tony Payne and Phillip Jensen is a solid historical and doctrinal look at the topic.

The negatives first.  Firstly, it seems a bit dated – concentrating more on newspaper commentary more than the more relevant new media for instance – but we might forgive that as it was written in 1998 when it was still fine to refer to The Internet with breathless capitalisation.  Secondly, it reads like an article in The Briefing.  Again this is unsurprising as the authors are regular TB contributors.  But it means that it reads like a stale academic essay being read by Kel Richards (“you may think dear reader” on page 93, groan) and covers the soft inner heart of application in half a mile of doctrinal concrete.

But these are just stylistic complaints.  The content is basically fine stuff that by and large sums up my own thoughts on sexuality and helped me consider some different ways of articulating it.  The second and third chapters are the best.

The second chapter is entitled “the search for nudity” and unpacks the beauty and bounds of sexuality in the Bible extremely well.  Introducing the concept of nudity-without-shame that is part of God’s good creation we read:

“How do we hope that our lives will be better because of sex?  Is it a case of simply accumulating orgasms, and the one who has had the most when he dies wins? Or is there more to it than that?  What do we really want from sex?
“It could be the answer is nudity.
“Is it possible that what we really want is a relationship not simply of physical nakedness and pleasure, but of deep personal nakedness as well?” (Page 18)

I found one of those gem-phrases of wisdom in this chapter: “Once a sexual relationship has begun, it cannot be ended without grief.” (Page 30)

The third chapter is entitled “A brief history of sex” and unpacks some of the historical framework for the sexual revolution of the 1960s.  I learned a lot here – particularly about the nature of Victorian moralism and the Freudian basis for the strangely axiomatic notion that repression of sexual expression is inherently neurotic.

“As this brief history has tried to demonstrate, the sexual revolution of the last 30 years has been a long time in the making…  It was there [in the Victorian era] that the fuse was lit.  Freud, Mead, Russell and Kinesy all played their part… It was in the mid-60’s, when the conditions were right, that the bomb went off.” (Page 45)

There are other things worthy of mention.  The failure to talk about masturbation (apart from a wave off on Page 98) is unhelpful.  The consideration of singleness in chapter 7 is very helpful.  The appendix on homosexuality is a good overview.  And why shouldn’t they throw in a Two Ways to Live?

The book is short and to the point.  If a person is enquiring, seeking, willing to unpack and engage then this book would be a valuable resource.  Pastorally, this is a tool, not a substitute.  There is very little (beyond the essential turn-to-Jesus gospel) by way of specific application and words of wisdom from other places would be needed. In this way they have not quite totally achieved their aim of having something to say, in practical terms, other than “Don’t” (Page 16).  But it’s good foundational stuff and a worthy read.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality 9 Comments

We use some of the Careforce Lifekeys courses in our church.  They are a useful tool for discipleship and the promotiong of a practical spiritual engagement with real life.  From Good Man to Valiant Man has been written by Careforce’s Allan Meyer and is closely tied to the “Valiant Man” Lifekeys course which concentrates on the sexual discipleship of men. The sub-title of the book says it all: the aim of both course and book is to promote “Sexual integrity in a sex crazy world.”

The discipling of the sexual man is a topic gaining significant ground in recent times.  Driscoll’s Porn-Again Christian is an obvious example of someone unafraid to deal with issues surrounding sexuality and holiness and robustly calls men to responsibility. I also recently scanned through a Tim Challies ebook called Sexual Detox that covers very similar ground to Meyer albeit less thoroughly.  Tellingly, both Driscoll and Challies provide their material freely online where it can be of the best use.  Meyer doesn’t but that does not prevent his book from being a worthy contribution.

The framework of the book is, unsurprisingly, shaped around the Lifekeys course structure – inviting people to discover the blessing of recovery by entering the “arena of healing” (Page 38).  While the related exegesis of the beattitudes may be weak, the application of the “eight attitudes” of humility, emotional honesty, teachability, proactivity, forgiveness, pure motive, healing love, and courage is helpful. It means that the substantial topic can be approached from the point of view of a man as a man – not a man within distracting contexts of relationship fraught with the tendency to blameshift.

Meyer makes the framework specific in two ways.  Firstly, through a metaphor for masculinity which is, once again exegetically weak but practically useful.  This metaphor is the four faces of a man as an “ox” (provider), “lion” (protector), “eagle” (spiritual leader), and man (sexual, physical person).  The fundamental thrust is to promote masculinity as servant-heartedness and self-sacrifice – for instance the basis of headship in a marriage relationship is boiled down to “you die first.” (Page 23).

Secondly, and much more usefully, Meyer unpacks the physical, psychological and neurological aspects of masculine sexuality.  He describes the chemical mechanics of sexual development and physical attraction and makes the most valuable point of the entire book: “You renew your mind biologically not just spiritually” (Page 175).  This shows how the task of holiness and goodness is so clearly a masculine endeavour – earthy, practical, not a task relegated to the effeminately, ethereally spiritual.  Neural pathways built from years of fantasy, pornography and masturbation can be retrained and bypassed by those willing to walk that path.

Retraining the brain requires that you deliberately judge your thought patterns, build an off-ramp, and take your thoughts to godly places.” (Page 179)

This is a call to holiness in grace not shame – an exhortation, a championing for men to succeed in sexual purity and so find the blessing of right-living in themselves and the ones close to them.  It is helpful.

Other aspects are less robust.  The “ewe-lamb principle” (Page 146) which encourages a husband to consider their wife in terms of the 2 Samuel 12 parable of a “ewe-lamb” in need of their tender protection is not necessarily invalid, but it doesn’t avoid paternalism and doesn’t interact with the reality of diverse personalities.  How would a phlegmatic man married to a choleric wife apply this principle?  Our wives are not children in need of father, but women in need of a godly husband.

This book obviously derives from years of experience as a man and a pastor and from a wealth of research and pastoral care.  The content is practical and educational.  It will need to be unpacked for some – but that’s our job.  I will be using many of the principles in this book in my own discipleship and in the discipling of others.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality 1 Comment

One of the increasingly frequent tasks I have in a growing church is the need to lead engaged couples through preparation for marriage. I find it useful to be on the look out for better resources and fresh input and insight – and find the benefit to Gill’s and my own relationship a blessed side-effect.

When it comes to books the stock-standard resource we use has been Gary Chapman’s Five Love Languages. I will now be adding Smalley & Cunningham’s The Language of Sex to the pile of “recommended’s” and have some on hand to give away when appropriate.

There’s a whole bunch of Christian pop-pysch “improve your sex life” books going around at the moment. Most of them can’t seem to get away from some sort of giggle-factor adolescent “married Christians are allowed to be naughty” type shallowness. I find Leman’s Sheet Music to be a bit like this and of little value. They often read like a breathless over-eagerness to catch up with the sex of the ’90’s presuming (and wrongly so, most twentysomething Christians don’t need to be told, yet again, of the non-proscription of oral sex) that Christians are still repressed in the ’50’s. And for those who are genuinely struggling there is often a tantalising picture of marital sexual freedom painted with little help provided or light shed to actually help them get there.

Smalley and Cunningham’s book is different. It takes an appropriately long time to get to issues such as technique and sexual education – and even then only covers them relatively briefly. In their own words, they explain:

“You’ll notice that this chapter about creativity [in sex] is not near the front of the book. That’s on purpose. The foundation of honor, security and intimacy is the bedrock on which to build creativity. One reason affairs get started is because individuals are looking for “greener grass.” Greener grass deceives you into believing that you must go outside the marriage to experience greater heights of sexual intimacy, without all the responsibility. That’s simply not true.” (page 147)

Their key framework is their “formula”:

Honour → Security → Intimacy → Sex

“… honor creates security. Security creastes intimacy. And intimacy sets the stage for great sex. The truth is that you cannot have great sex without honor and an open spirit.” (page 16)

And so they spend the bulk of the time effectively and usefully teaching the readers to build honour, security and intimacy into their marriage before they get to the “sex ed” detail. The path to sexual fulfillment is through investing in the other person and in relationship – and that’s where they concentrate their teaching.

Much of it is common sense. But it is usefully constructed and presented common sense. It makes the book a useful tool for helping get past the presenting issue to the actual issue. It is advice that, while not exhaustive, is followable and practical and solidly cognisant of the realities of Christian growth and the difficulties and stumbles that often come on the road of maturation.

Some of those who are significantly struggling or facing overwhelming abuse-recovery or addictive behaviour issues will quickly reach the end of what this book has to offer. Yet, even then, I could see the material providing a “way in” to understand and so be an effective stepping stone on the path to finding necessary help.

I found this book to be biblical, gentle, and real. Recommended.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality 5 Comments

Al Hsu’s The Single Issue should have been called “The Person Issue.” It is a book that is meant to be about singleness – it it certainly is that – but it so well-handles the issue that it provides an excellent insight into life itself, the place of relationships, community, marriage, celibacy and God-given identity. Without realising it, I think Al Hsu’s has provided an excellent work on the spiritual disciplines of life – no matter what your marital status.

I was lent the book by a friend of mine as a means of preparing for our current sermon series on “Money, Sex, Power.” There is plenty of material on sex and sexuality (consider my previous review of the book Sacred Sex) and its expression in married life. What material out there affirms both sex and singleness without seeing them as uncomfortable guests in an awkward conversation? A lot of writers are condescending at best and deluded at worst when it comes to commentary on sexuality and singleness. Al Hsu brings a contribution that is biblical, meaningful, applicable, and delightful.

Hsu recognises that there is an overemphasis on married life in the church and a misplaced ideal. The church’s response to the sexual liberation of the 20th century has meant an idealisation of the nuclear family – and the Christian single person comes under a significant amount of pressure and expectation to marry and fit into that ideal. But Hsu asks:

“Is there an alternative to all this? Can Christian singles find a positive view of singleness that moves beyond traditional expectations and stereotypes? However one might classify or categorize today’s singles, several things are clear. One is that singleness itself does not determine a particular lifestyle… More significant is our attitude towards being single and how we choose to live as singles.

“To that end, singles are asking many questions. ‘Am I to be single for ever, or will I eventually marry?’ ‘What is God’s will for my life as a single person?’ ‘How do I satisfy my needs for companionship and relationship?’ ‘What is my identity in a world of married couples?'” (p28-29)

And so Hsu does a fantastic job of unpacking singleness – it’s history (chapter 2) and biblical expression – and the many misconceptions concerning it. For instance, “the significance of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 is that it affirms that single persons are no less whole people for lack of marriage, in contrast to Jewish thought.” (p35) Later on he uncovers the incorrect Greek mythology of “soul partner” that lies behind the prevalent thought in Western culture that “each one of us is an incomplete half searching for the perfect other half who will make us whole. This belief runs completely counter to biblical teaching.” (p76)

He also does well to unpack the issue of God’s will when it comes to marriage – not just the general will of God but the particular will that causes people to perhaps even blame God for the lack of a partner. In this regard he gives an excellent exegetical exposition of the concept of the “gift of singleness.”

“… the ‘gift of singleness’ is not something that must be spiritually discerned or subjectively felt. Singles do not need to search their hearts to see if they are truly able to live as contented singles. It is not some supernatural empowerment for some function of ministry. Rather, the gift is a description of an objective status. If you are single, then you have the gift of singleness. If you are married, you don’t. If you marry, you exchange the gift of singleness for the gift of marriedness. Both are good. Simple as that.” (p61)

He then affirms how singleness is indeed a gift – providing freedoms and opportunities that are not available to the married person. And I love how he demonstrates how holy singleness expresses God’s love just as much as holy matrimony:

“By not having a spouse, a single person is free to build many relationships with many people. In this way, the single adult is an example of the fact that God loves all people, not just a few. While married Christians emulate God’s exclusive love, single Christians demonstrate God’s non-exclusive love.” (p98)

The two chapters of the book that have the most broad applicability are the chapters entitle “From loneliness to solitude” and “From aloneness to community.” These are chapters that unpack and help us not just with our marital status but with our humanity. There is much depth to these chapters and a constant drawing of a person to live their life for God in the kairos (time/opportunity) of the present. A summary seems trite, but it gives the broad idea – “Fellowship with God is the solution for loneliness. Companionship with fellow Christians is the cure for aloneness.” (p138)

Finally Hsu touches on the issue of sex and sexuality. He does not waiver from the biblical view of marriage being the only place for sexual intercourse. But he is never negative. Here we have pure sweetness of beautiful, counter-cultural truths. “Sex is a drive, not a need,” (p173) he asserts. “It is no higher calling for singles to be celibate than for married couples to be monogamous.” (p177) Celibacy is not a denying of sexuality, rather celibate people are “fully aware of themselves as sexual beings but who express their sexuality in a celibate way.” (p178)

Even here the application is not just for singles – but for all those who struggle to express sexuality in a godly way. The world cries out for us to express our every whim – whatever comes “naturally.” But as Hsu asserts:

“The answer to this point of view is to recognize that the Christian life is rarely ‘natural.’ Far from it. It is not natural to love your neighbour, or to turn the other cheek, or to forgive someone who has wronged you. In the same way, resisting sexual temptation – or any kind of temptation – is not the ‘natural’ thing to do.”(p183)

And applies:

“Instead of fighting an endless and losing battles against sexual temptations, a more constructive approach for Christian singles [and I would add married people as well] is to come to view sexual temptations as an affirmation of our identity as sexual beings – and also as a reminder of our dependence on God.” (p180)

This is an excellent book. I have a couple of small quibbles -I think he overemphasises advice for people to wait for a while before they get married – I can see his point, yet I cheer for young people in their early twenties (even late teens) who are willing to step up to the plate of commitment – for that is also counter-cultu
ral. But this book is a good read – especially for singles, and those who are struggling with their singleness – but this book would be a benefit for anyone seeking to engage with the deep things of life.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality 1 Comment

Money, Sex, Power by Richard Foster is an “oldy but a goody” book (I was only 10 years old when it was first published) that I’ve had on my bookshelf for years but have never got round to reading. Necessity breeds opportunity and so I dusted off the book to help prepare for a sermon series on “Power, Sex and Money.” I found it to be a not-too-heavy not-too-light introduction to these topics pushed forward by an evangelical and prophetic heart. Foster lists one of his reasons for writing a book on these topics:

“Historically it seems spiritual revivals have been accompanied by a clear, bold response to the issues of money, sex, and power… When these revivals occur in a culture, there is a renewal of both devotional experience and ethical life. We need a modern-day renewal of spiritual experience that is ethically potent.” (p3)

This intention echoes the beat of my own heart for the formation and transformation of the people of God’s church – a vision that I’m cogitating on publicly on my other blog in a couple of places). And, by and large, I appreciated how Foster goes about delivering his exhortation in this book.

One particular appreciation was his ability to bring each issue back to the core basis of a relationship with God – in terms of both positive and negative engagements with that relationship. And so, for instance, on the topic of money Foster writes:

“The farmers of ancient Israel had a keen sense of reality… They knew and understood on a very deep level that a good harvest was the gracious provision of a loving God… And so, as we learn to receive money and the things it buys as gracious gifts froma loving God, we discover how they enrich our relationship with God… Doxology becomes the posture of our experience.” (p40)

but only after he has shown us that

“The New Testament teaching on money makes sense only when we see it in the context of the “principalities and powers”… Money is one of these powers. When Jesus uses the Aramaic term mammon to refer to wealth, he is giving it a personal and spiritual character. When he declares, “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt 6:24), he is personifying mammon as a rival god. In saying this, Jesus is making it unmistakeably clear that money is not some impersonal medium of exchange… Mammon is a power that seeks to dominate us.” (p25-26)

and

“This radical criticism of wealth makes no sense to us at all unless we see it in the context of its spiritual reality. It is one of the principalities and powers that must be conquered and redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ before it can be useable for the greater good of the kingdom of God.” (p31)

The exploration of the topic of sex I found to be the least helpful of the three topics covered. This was mostly due to style and emphasis rather than theological content. And I remain thoughtful about whether this is because engagement with the topic of sex by the church has become bolder in the last two decades (consider for instance Mark Driscoll’s infamous sermon on the Song of Solomon) – or whether I’m simply having a personal reaction: The last two decades have been extremely formative for me and I have moved beyond some of the more “sex education” (a la James Dobson) aspects of Foster’s presentation.

Nevertheless there was some good gems on the topic of sex – I liked, for instance, his description of how sex in marriage is a “celebration in the bedroom”:

“Frankly, sex in marriage should be a voluptuous experience. It is a gift to celebrate, excellent in every way.” (p138)

The main problem was something of a utilitarian (albeit kingdom-motivated) approach to issues of sex and marriage. I agree with certain comments. The following quote, for instance, echoes my own (rather simplistic) adage often delivered to those searching for a mate – “know where you’re going before choosing who you go with”:

“The basis for getting married that conforms to the way of Christ is a regard for the well-being of ourselves and others and a regard for the advancement of the kingdom of God upon the earth.” (p135)

This ethical criteria, however, means that Foster sometimes avoids a substantial engagement with the inherent rights or wrongs of issues such as masturbation (p123ff) and even divorce where, without totally tying up the loose ends, he makes statements such as:

“The basis for divorce that conforms to the way of Christ is, therefore, precisely the same as the basis for marriage. When it is clear that the continuation of the marriage is substantially more destructive than a divorce, then the marriage should end.” (p145)

and

“Jesus therefore spoke of remarriage as adultery, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it, but because of the attitude of contempt with which the man lived with the woman.” (p148)

If he does err, however, he errs on the side of grace and avoids unhelpful legalism. This is also something to be appreciated.

The section on power is based heavily, and effectively, on Christ as the example of how power is to be used by Christians. It is summed up well by his reference to the “marks” of “spiritual power” – love, humility, self-limitation, joy, vulnerability, submission, and freedom (p201ff).

Foster recognises the clear reality of spiritual power – particularly over the demonic and “power and principalities” of the world. But emphasises this Christ-like marks as the basis for that power, for instance:

“… we defeat the powers by an inner renunciation of all things… we have nothing to lose; the powers have no control over us. Suppose the powers take our goods and possessions – no matter, our possessions are only on loan from God; protecting them is more his business than ours… reputation… fear of death… we belong to One who can lead us through death’s dark pathway into greater life… we simply have nothing to lose. We are positionless and possessionless, and this complete and total vulnerability is our greatest strength. You cannot take something from someone who has nothing.” (p191)

I particularly appreciated what basically amounts to advice given to those who find themselves in Christian leadership and must keep their eyes firmly fixed upon Jesus lest they become full of themselves. Some gems of advice include:

“Small things are genuinely big things in the kingdom of God. It is here we truly face the issues of obedience and discipleship. It is not hard to be a model disciple amid camera lights and press releases. But in the small corners of life, in those areas of service that will never be newsworthy or gain us any recognition, we must hammer out the meaning of obedience
. Amid the obscurity of family and friends, neighbors and work associates, we find God. And it is this finding of God, this intimacy with God, that is essential to the exercise of power. The ministry of small things must be prior to and more valued than the ministry of power. Without this perspective we will view power as a “big deal.” (p219)

“Those who exercise spiritual power mus be prepared for alonenes… I did not say loneliness… Aloneness means having to decide and act alone, for no others can share the burden or even understand the issues involved… Most poignant of all is the scne in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus singled out the Three to watch and pray with him. On that holy night they abandoned their Master for sleep, and Jesus was forced to wrestle with the powers alone. We too must wrestle alone. We cannot even depend upon our husband or wife to understand what is occuring in the inner sanctuary of our soul… James Nayler wrote of the aloneness of divine intimacy and power, “I found it alone, being forsaken. I have fellowship therein with them who live in dens and desolate places in the earth, who through death obtained this resurrection and eternal holy life.” Aloneness is the price of spiritual power.” (p220-221)

The book was written more than two decades ago. But some things never change – even specific things in the last twenty years such as debates on homosexuality (“…homosexuality is so volatile a matter right now in the Christian community…” (p106)) and use of military power (“Military strategists plot, not how to make the world more stable, but how to make it less stable. Terrorism and spy networks are the order of the day.” (p188)).

In the end, the usefulness of this book depends upon the readers willingness to be renewed – to be changed by God and convicted of error and disobedience in these heart-felt areas – to embrace the heart of the a re-engaged ethical “vow” that bring the areas of money, sex and power, under Christ’s authority in our lives. It is in these areas that Christians are often, in practical terms, atheistic in their actual conduct. Read this book, but especially if you think that if you’ve got it all sorted out – it may just wake you up.

Posted on Posted in Book Reviews, Marriage & Sexuality No Comments

One of the reasons, I have discovered, that I like blogging is the opportunity to express my thoughts about things that I otherwise wouldn’t, but should. One of the biggest examples of this is reviewing books that I read. So here is my first blogged book review. As I finish a book, I’ll hope to review it here, for my own edification if nothing else!

So here’s hoping this first review doesn’t cause my blog to be filtered by overzealous keyword filters!

Tim Alan Gardner’s Sacred Sex is one of the better Christian books on sexuality that I’ve read. It differs from the “stock standard” (and now somewhat outdated) Christian books on sex, such as Ed Wheat’s Intended for Pleasure, LaHaye’s The Act of Marriage, or Penner’s The Gift of Sex in that it’s consideration is not so much about sex education of the practical tips for newlyweds variety. There isn’t a single “diagram” in the book! Gardner’s emphasis is to consider the spirituality of the sexual (and thus, of course, marital) relationship.

The author’s intent is to help couples experience a joy and freedom and strength of relationship that is born out of a sense of God’s delight, God’s presence, and a unity that is precious and holistic. The point of the sexual relationship is about this unity. The subtitle says it all – “A spiritual celebration of oneness in marriage.”

This doesn’t mean that Gardner is afraid to confront the issues. He acknowledges the reality that sex is handled by the world in a destructive manner – he talks about the “horsemen” of sexual abuse, pornography, “casual” sex, and broken promises (including adultery). He is frank about the poor state of the sex lives of many ordinary marriages – differing appetites, mishandled communications, and resigned indifferences.

He is, as they say, “frank but not crass,” occasionally blunt, but never titillating. In short, he handles the subject well. I can see why those who have worked with people who have struggled with pornography or other sexual addictions have said that this is one of the few books on sex that they would recommend to people in such a situation.

A premise of the book is the inherent interplay of marriage covenant, sexual relationship, and intimacy and oneness. A definitive quote comes from page 196 of the book:

Since marriage has always been defined by God as two becoming one, the sexual union of a wife and husband is the perfect, God-intended oath sign that a marriage has been established. We speak an oath with our vows; we seal that oath with our bodies. Together, our words and our action form a covenant. And once again we see why God so forcefully opposes sex outside of marriage. It’s not because He is a kill-joy Creator who goes out of His way to steal our fun, but rather because He created sexual intimacy to be so much more than self-pleasure. Sex is not only part of the covenant of marriage, but it functions in the creation of the covenant. Sex is the divine seal.
Moreover, sexual intercourse reestablishes the covenant each time it is celebrated…
This covenant theology of marriage and sex ties together everything we’ve been discussing: the holiness of sex, the mystery of sexual oneness, and the worship that happens when we acknowledge God’s presence during our intimate celebration. All these aspects of sacred sex are protected by this elected relationship of obligation. The marriage covenant is what drives us towards each other in times of joy and in times of sadness. It’s what causes us to ache to be with each other when we’re apart… Each time we enter into the holy act of sex, we again pronounce our solemn declaration: “I do. I still do.”

This book isn’t for everyone. Unmarried persons, I suspect, would find little immediate application. Those who have a significant amount of brokenness in their sexuality and background would need more than this book to find healing and restoration.

In the end, this book serves as an affirmation of marriage and celebrates and promotes oneness and intimate celebration that cements a God-ordained covenant through whatever stages of life, situations or occurrences might come along. A recommended read for any couple.

image_pdfimage_print