Why the Christian and Secular Sexual Ethics Diverge

Why is the sexual ethic in the Bible so narrow?

The Bible forbids every sexual relationship with the exception of one man and one woman in a lifelong covenantal relationship.

Our culture increasingly believes sex is merely a biologically conditioned appetite to be satisfied in any way two consenting adults choose.

But before we argue with one another about which ethic is better we must understand that the Christian and the secular person are asking two radically different questions to arrive at their ethic.

The secular person is asking which sexual ethic will result in greater individual fulfillment.

The Biblical Christian first asks, “what does God command in the Scripture?”. But it’s important to take these questions a step further and ask why does the Bible present so narrow a sexual ethic. It appears that the Biblical sexual ethic is founded on determining which ethic will create the most flourishing family, community and society.

There’s a vexing problem here for the Christian in a secular society.

The benefits of the Christian sexual ethic appear most obvious when an entire community follows the Biblical sexual ethic. In that community you will have more stable families, children provided for and the sexually vulnerable better protected. In that community you will also have some profoundly sexually frustrated individuals because of their circumstances or their sexual orientation. 

Allowing for this kind of individual sexual frustration is an unforgivable consequence in the mind of the modern secular person. The individual, not the family or the society, is the basic unit whose pursuit of happiness must be protected. 

The secular sexual ethic creates a very different world. Individuals must have the opportunity to indulge and relieve their sexual frustration in a variety of ways but that results in weaker families. Children will routinely experience fatherlessness. Women will frequently be preyed on by sexually aggressive men. “But it’s not that bad” defenders of the secular ethic say. But college rape culture, the Me Too movement and the growing confusion around what constitutes sexual consent is just stage 1. This problem doesn’t reach its zenith while believers and non-believers alike are still influenced by the Biblical sexual ethic but given a few generations the full implications of detaching sex from covenant will begin to be experienced.

Allowing for this kind of breakdown in the family and the suffering of those most vulnerable in society is an unacceptable consequence to followers of Jesus.

Christians need to understand that we’re judging these sexual ethics by two different criteria. 

Too often Christians inadvertently argue that their narrow sexual ethic is superior than the secular sexual ethic at providing for individual fulfillment. And while they may find evidence for this in the aggregate it’s easy for the secular person to refer to people in their own relational circle for whom this seems obviously not the case. They have friends and family members who are forbidden to experience any sexual fulfillment in the only way they crave it.

Followers of Jesus need to understand the sexual ethics argument is not about the act of sex, it’s about the purpose of sex.

If the purpose of sex is individual fulfillment then the Biblical sexual ethic will never make sense to a secular world and it will seem increasingly strange to a Christian who has become convinced that sex is centered on the individual.

But if the purpose of sex is primarily for the formation and strengthening of the family and individual fulfillment is a secondary element the biblical sexual ethic makes the most sense.

Christians must acknowledge that our ethic does demand a terrible trade-off for many individuals in society, especially for those who find heterosexual sex undesirable. Consider the plight of this person. Scripture is commanded that he or she refuses to satisfy their sexual desire not primarily for their own sake but for the sake of strengthening other families while at the same time many will find themselves unable to enjoy the sexual benefits of the married life.

This is a considerable sacrifice that should not be understated especially by those not making the sacrifice.

I believe the callousness and lack of empathy on the part of Christians toward those paying the highest price for our narrow sexual ethic has increased the animosity of many in the secular world toward those holding to the Biblical ethic.

Add to that the history of Christians pursuing legislation based on the Biblical sexual ethic over the society as a whole and it’s understandable why hostility runs high on this topic.

The disciples of Jesus saw the challenge this would create. When they first heard how narrow the teaching of Jesus was regarding marriage and divorce they exclaimed, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 

Jesus’ response is very helpful, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” (Matthew 19:10-11)

Don’t expect everyone to receive the Biblical ethic regarding sex and marriage.

But if someone chooses to commit his or her life to following Jesus they are voluntarily saying they will follow his commands. 

This allows us to move into the secular world with compassion and empathy, not using power to enforce the commands on Scripture on those who have never chosen to receive them but also with confidence that the King’s commands are good and are intended to bring forth a good Kingdom.

—-

Here are the questions I need to explore with others to understand the implications of this thesis:

• Where would you differ from this thesis or how would you refine it?

• Does it make sense for Christians to recommend the Biblical sexual ethic to secular people?

• How ought a Christian with political influence treat these issues when considering legislation?

• What are the implications for same-sex attracted followers of Jesus? How do we best support them?