by Mark Johnson | 25 April 2024 |
Adam was confused.
Bewildered and frustrated might better describe his thoughts and feelings.
While reviewing and naming the animals, Adam noted that they each had complementary partners. He did not. As he studied the mammals, particularly the great apes, he must have recognized that he shared many anatomical similarities with them. But his genital organs were apparently useless. We can almost hear his plaintive cry as he pointed to himself and asked, “God, what is this all about?”
God had an answer. “It’s not good for man to be alone.” In dramatic fashion God then created a complementary mate for Adam. I think we can hear him once again as he woke up and saw Eve. “Wow! Now I understand!”
But did he?
Humans were not created solely for sexual intercourse. While sexuality may be a major part of our lives and identities, we were created for social intercourse. We were created to fulfill our role in God’s great purpose: “to make manifest to all created intelligences…the glories of the divine character.”
Our ability to create in our own image seems to have been “a new and distinct” capability in intelligent creatures, one that directly addressed some of Lucifer’s charges against God. The sex act clearly has unitive and procreative purposes that reflect the image of God in us.
But the power to fulfill our role in God’s great purpose is also tied to our sexual capabilities to provide joy, pleasure, and physical completeness to others. We are told that two great institutions came to us straight from the Garden of Eden: the Sabbath and marriage. The Sabbath was created for loving, intimate, direct communion between us and our Creator. Marriage was instituted for loving, intimate, direct, communion between us as humans.
I would contend, however, that nothing comes to us directly from Eden. The purity and perfection of Eden was destroyed by sin. Nothing that was created or instituted in Eden survived completely intact. Adam and Eve entered a different and dangerous world as they were escorted out through the garden gates. Everything had changed. Direct communion with God was now lethal. The times spent walking and talking with the Creator, on Sabbath days and in the cool of the evenings, were canceled. The feeling of oneness between Adam and Eve had also been damaged. They no longer lived in unadulterated communion.
In self-centered defense, Adam had thrown both God and Eve under the bus. “This woman that you put here with me….” We, Adam’s offspring, still battle against placing self before our loved ones.
Extremely complicated
Sex at its very best is complicated. At its worst, it’s destructive. Adam’s puzzlement regarding the presence of his genitalia continues to this day. Many of our current problems can be traced directly to our complex and multilayered sexuality. It is physical, it is emotional, it is mental, it is spiritual, it is social. Martin Luther even suggested that had he been consulted as to the issue of human reproduction, he would have advised God to continue forming them individually out of clay.
When dealing with heterosexual couples who are contemplating marriage, we tend to focus on the non-sexual aspects of marriage. We advise them that most of the struggles in their married life will be involved with communicating with each other, with facing financial issues that arise, with the time-intensive work involved in raising a potential family, and with the social aspects of fitting into their communities. We encourage them not to focus on the sexual aspects too much.
We do not automatically turn our thoughts to the excessive, profligate heterosexual displays found at such things as Carnival pageants or allow our thoughts to linger on what sexual positions or practices the couples will adopt.
Are we so different?
It has been my experience, however, that many heterosexual individuals immediately think of two things when the topic of homosexual marriage arises: the hedonistic excesses of most Gay Pride parades and the physical placement of genitalia during homosexual intercourse. One is clearly outside the realm of acceptable Christian behavior. The other, perhaps, is open to question.
As the late comedienne, Joan Rivers, used to say when approaching a sensitive topic, “Can we talk?”
Christians are often embarrassed by any talk of sex. Early church fathers went so far as to declare that the heterosexual sex act was disgusting and sinful. Some denominations teach that the most holy Christians will avoid sexual contact completely. Paul has been interpreted by some as saying sexual intercourse is only for those who can’t control their passions. But despite all the embarrassment, shame, and disgrace, it is very hard to make the sex act unpopular.
I have heard and read numerous interpretations of the biblical texts that mention same-sex sexual activities. The analyses all seem to eventually come down to either believing that God gets physically sick when He encounters LGBTQ+ community members or that these texts are describing things like ritual cultic practices, or same-sex rape, or master-slave contacts, or social domination, and that they in no way describe monogamous, loving, life-long relationships that may be encountered today.
So, for me, this antithetical debate raises questions: Is it possible, within our wildest thoughts and most imaginative deliberations, to agree that while there are hedonistic, promiscuous, licentious, and profligate same-sex behaviors, there might also be same-sex, sexually active, marriage relationships that live up to the biblical principles of pure, self-less, mutual love?
That there may be those homosexuals who take the ideas that it is not good for man to be alone and that it is better to marry than to burn with passion to their logical, biblical conclusions? Is it within the realm of possibilities that the statement about the greatest men in world calling sin by its right name might actually mean that some of the things we have so easily called sins, do not in fact stem from a rebellious lack of faith in God, but may indeed be a reflection of a trusting, loving relationship with Him? Are these things even possible?
Instead of limiting our thoughts to a dualistic model, is it possible, this far from the Garden of Eden, with broken bodies and minds, for us to define a biblically based moral approach that covers all sexual activity?
Ethical concerns
Here is an attempt to list at least some of the important ethical concerns, based on biblical principles:
Is trust being betrayed?
Is there a monogamous, lifelong commitment between both participants?
Is it a transactional experience?
Are both participants old enough and mature enough to understand the importance of the experience and the issues involved?
Are the dangers of disease being adequately addressed and prevented?
Is any type of force or domination involved, or is it a consensual event?
Are the positions or actions in any way putting the physical, emotional, or spiritual components of either participant at risk?
Do both participants agree to accept and share the potential procreational consequences?
Is each participant’s desire for the pleasure of the other at least equal to their own?
Where are the thoughts during the experience?
I’m sure there are others, but this is a start. I would once again point out that this ethical base for a moral approach to sexual activity can be applied to both heterosexual couples and those from the LGBTQ+ community. They set limits that are healthy and are based on the biblical principles of selfless, mutual love.
If it is still not possible for a heterosexual individual to conceive of a morally and biblically acceptable sexual relationship between committed same-sex couples, I would hazard a guess that this is based on one or both of two possibilities:
a literal, concrete belief that their interpretation of the biblical texts on this issue is unfailing, or;
a viscerally negative reaction to the thought of what occurs during the activities of same-sex love.
I have little to say that might convince someone with a literal, concrete view of infallible verbal inspiration to change their views. I would, however, remind those who are consumed with the thought reflected in number 2 in the paragraph above, that many monogamous, loving, committed heterosexual couples participate in all of the common sexual positions and practices used by those in the LGBTQ+ community. All of them.
Perhaps evangelical author Lewis Smedes should be obeyed here:
We who are heterosexual need to exercise humility when we talk about homosexuality simply because we are very ignorant.
Mark B. Johnson is a graduate of Pacific Union College and Loma Linda University, with a medical residency at Johns Hopkins University in Preventive Medicine and Public Health. He is the local public health officer in the Denver metropolitan region. He’s an adult Sabbath School class teacher and church board chair at the Boulder Adventist church.
