In the mood for love – but before marriage?
In the mood for love – but before marriage? |
|
Key words: premarital sex; christian church; relationship; betrothal; marriage
Introduction
When I was young, one of the things our church youth group was told about
relationships was: “Some people draw the line at a passionate kiss. Some people
draw the line much….sooner”! This (I hope!) was tongue in cheek even then, but
now even the sentiments behind it look pathetically naÔve and unrealistic. What
exactly is the church supposed to say in the face of today’s “shagging” culture,
when one night stands have become commonplace and sex is seen as just one more
pleasure to be indulged? Does the church have anything useful to say or will it
inevitably be seen as irrelevant and prudish? The church’s line (at least in
evangelical circles) is often that sex before marriage is simply wrong and is
contrary to “the will of God” as expressed in Scripture or in the church’s
“traditional” teaching. Our bodies were not designed for sex outside marriage1.
Unfortunately for the proponents of this approach, there is no specific
condemnation in the bible of sex before marriage. There is condemnation of
adultery, prostitution, whoring and harlotry. No doubt these categories would
include “shagging” but it is certainly not self-evident that they would include
sex in a committed (but unmarried) relationship. At the very least, sexual
activity in a committed relationship between two people of opposite sexes
neither of whom have ever been married seems to escape any specific biblical
condemnation.
Sex, sin and marriage
The average age at marriage today is roughly 27 for women and 29 for men. It
seems unlikely that celibacy is a real option for most people for this length of
time but either they have to repress their natural feelings, or else be regarded
by the church as fornicators. Is this really the will of God? Is it even
traditional teaching? Could there not be a better way for the church to affirm
the sanctity of marriage and the beauty of sex? Even if the church feels that
marriage is a “better way” does this mean that all other forms of sexual
activity should be condemned – and where exactly does one “draw the line”?
To me, some starting points seem uncontroversial. The church must affirm that sex is good – we have lived too long under the shadow of Augustine’s condemnation of sex as sin – and that it is a gift from God to be enjoyed. The church must condemn all sexual relationships that involve promiscuity, infidelity, violence, exploitation, and abuse of power or coercion. The church should affirm that marriage is indeed a better way and certainly the best context for the nurturing of children. However, that still leaves the questions surrounding cohabitation and sexual activity in developing relationships unresolved. Recent sociological changes now seem to make the relationship (rather than the marriage) the focus of commitment. We live in an age of “coupledom” where marriage is an optional extra. Many couples have deeply committed relationships without ever considering marriage or frequently they consider marriage only as a prelude to starting a family. Prior to about 1750 in England the normal pattern was for couples to enter a period of betrothal (which was dissoluble) prior to marriage (which was indissoluble). The period of betrothal was a time of transition involving both social and sexual intimacy when the couple grew together as friends and lovers.2 Arguably, in the twentieth century, law and society have reinstated a situation very similar to pre-1750. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Rather than condemning all sexual activity before marriage surely the church could be encouraging appropriate sexual intimacy like holding hands, dancing and kissing. Sexuality is part of our human nature and is inevitably involved in all of our relationships – though not always expressed in sexual activity. If the relationship between partners in a couple is to develop in a balanced or holistic way then the sexual dimension of the relationship surely must develop in parallel with the intellectual and spiritual dimensions. This means that increasing levels of sexual intimacy will be appropriate as a relationship develops.
Teenagers, condoms, and safer sex
Perhaps this is what the church should be saying to today’s teenagers – although
in order to be credible it will have to overcome its embarrassment at talking
about sex at all, familiarise itself with the culture in which teenagers find
themselves and become fully conversant with the principles of safer sex and
contraception. The chances are that, whatever the church says, probably the vast
majority of people will continue to indulge in sex before marriage. There is no
point hiding our head in the sand and wishing it were not so! Surely it is
better to explain the church’s views on sex as positive and good while marking
out some clear boundaries and educating teenagers in how to protect their sexual
health. This may be controversial in some churches and their parochial councils
but in that sort of context I for one would be happy to distribute condoms to
the teenagers in a church youth group for example. The questions of where to
draw the line and of the appropriate level of sexual activity for any particular
relationship do not seem to me to be capable of resolution by strict rules or
simple logical reason. Surely our ethical decision-making needs an affective and
passionate dimension. In my opinion living a good life is a project more akin to
a work of art than to a scientific problem susceptible of a rational solution. I
am quite at ease with the idea that “the line” might properly be drawn in
different places for different relationships even when superficially those
relationships look the same. We must respect people as individuals and encourage
them to take responsibility for their own decisions within a communal framework.
I believe that marriage is the best context for the nurturing of children. I
also believe that unprotected penetrative sexual intercourse is wrong as well as
unsafe prior to the commitment of marriage. However, that restriction and the
others I have outlined above still leave a lot of scope (no doubt some would say
far too much scope) for couples to engage responsibly and creatively in the
artistic project of finding and constantly readjusting the level of sexual
relationship that is appropriate to them. I think Jesus himself would have been
more concerned to encourage the quality of relationships than to condemn
specific actions in particular circumstances. For the church to say simply that
sex before marriage is always wrong means that it loses the opportunity to
communicate more subtle messages about marriage as a better way or about
committed relationships being preferable to “shagging”.
Bibliography
1. Gumbel, Nicky, Searching Issues (London: Kingsway, 1995)
2. Thatcher, Adrian, “”Crying Out for Discernment” - Premodern Marriage in Postmodern Times.” in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found. Ed. Stephen C Barton. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999).
Further Reading
General Synod, Marriage and the Church’s Task (London: CIO, 1978).
General Synod, Something to Celebrate: Valuing Families in Church and Society (London: Church House Publishing, 1999).
House of Bishops, Marriage (London: Church House Publishing, 1999).
House of Bishops, Marriage and the Doctrine of the Church of England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
House of Bishops, Marriage in Church after Divorce (London: Church House Publishing, 2000).
Thatcher, Adrian, Marriage after Modernity. Studies in Theology and Sexuality. Eds. Elizabeth Stuart, Alison R Webster & Gerard Loughlin. Vol. 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
©2001 Sexual Health Matters. Published Quarterly by Express Print Works, Middlesbrough,
UK
ISSN 1469-7556
http://www.sexualhealthmatters.com