Evangelicals’ “Sexual Ethic” Seems Haughty and Inaccurate
WARNING: This analysis of sexual ethic may bother you
In today’s American culture, Evangelicals seem to take it upon themselves to define the sexual ethics of all Christians. This determination is a haughty exercise, as it presumes that Evangelicals actually know the correct moral sexual behavior for all Christians.
For example, it is fashionable these days for Evangelicals to use any of the following adjectives:
· “I follow the historical sexual ethic.”
· “I hold a traditional sexual ethic.”
· “I believe in the biblical sexual ethic.”
Evangelicals generally mandate that the only correct sexual ethic is one simple statement:
“Sexual intercourse is only to occur between a husband and his wife.”
And Evangelicals claim that the above singular phrase is “historical,” “traditional,” and “biblical.”
This article attempts to demonstrate that there is no singular agreed upon sexual ethic for those who are Christians — and the Evangelicals’ adjectives “historical,” “traditional,” and “biblical” seem inaccurate.
We will look at the historical events that influenced Christian sexual ethic, followed by the traditional sexual behaviors of Christians, and then examine what the Protestant bible says about the proper use of sexuality. Furthermore, the paper examines Jesus’s sexual ethic. Finally, we will end with a reminder that the most important ethic is love.
Historical
What was the sexual ethic of the earliest Christians? We must first examine the sexual ethic of the earliest Jewish leaders (i.e., “God’s chosen people”) who preceded and modeled the standard for the Christians.
Abraham is the “father” of the original Jewish tribe. His sexual ethic was polygamy — having perhaps two wives plus one concubine (i.e., Sarah, Hagar, Coutura). Furthermore, Abraham abandoned Hagar (today, we would call that “divorce”).
Jacob (later renamed Israel) was also one of the Jews’ Patriarchs; Jacob was Abraham’s grandson. Jacob also engaged in polygamy, having four wives.
Later, King David (referred to in the bible as “a man after God’s own heart”) had eight wives.
David’s successor was Solomon — purported to be “the wisest man alive.” Solomon is claimed to have had 700 wives plus 300 concubines.
What do we glean as the “historical” sexual ethic, as demonstrated by the most famous original leaders? Polygamy.
Traditional
For this category, I will examine contemporary Christians’ sexual activity. If something is “traditional,” then it should be distinct and commonly practiced.
In a 2008 study, it was reported that 80% of self-identified Christians engaged in premarital intercourse. This frequency mirrored the general population (88% engaged in premarital intercourse).
In a 2014 study, Evangelicals were among the highest groups engaged in adultery (25% of the responding Evangelicals). This percentage is more than Catholics and Mainline Protestants (23% each) and dramatically more than atheists (1%).
Regarding attitudes toward having consensual casual sex, a 2020 survey reported that 36% of Evangelicals say that such activity is at least sometimes acceptable.
What is the bottom line of how Evangelicals traditionally believe and act regarding engaging in premarital intercourse, adultery and casual sex?
The “traditional” sexual ethic is full of premarital sex and adultery, and not really any different than non-Evangelicals.
Biblical
Evangelicals revere the bible as inerrant; other Christians view it as sacred but not infallible nor the only source of truth. Regardless of one’s biblical worldview, the bible does speak to unacceptable sexual behaviors.
Old Testament. The bulk of sexual ethics in the Old Testament comes from the book of Leviticus (chapter 18), the Song of Songs, and the 10 Commandments.
Leviticus 18 lists numerous “do not” commands regarding sexual relations. Thirteen of these restrictions refer to inappropriate sexual ties between relatives (e.g., no sexual relations with your mother, sister, daughter, aunt, etc.). Additionally, there are three hodge-podge restrictions: 1) never during a woman’s monthly period; 2) homosexuality; and 3) bestiality. Nothing is said denouncing premarital sex.
The Old Testament book of “Song of Songs” provides allusions to sexual longing and ecstasy. And yet, the two lovers are not married. Many scholars debate the true meaning of this racy book, but it certainly could be read as embracing premarital sexuality. Thus, when Evangelicals speak of a biblical sexual ethic, they conveniently ignore the Song of Songs.
The 10 Commandments are an important part of the bible, right? One of the 10 Commandments prohibits adultery, and another Commandment forbids coveting a neighbor’s wife. Are those the only sexual commands to make it to the Top 10? Yep. Again, none of the 10 Commandments ban premarital intercourse.
New Testament. The New Testament’s primary sexual restrictions involve adultery and “sexual immorality.” Adultery is repeatedly listed as a taboo throughout the bible. But what exactly is “sexual immorality?”
The Greek word is “porneia” — i.e., female prostitution (with “pornos” as a male who prostitutes himself). It, therefore, appears that a primary meaning of “sexual immorality” is having intercourse with a prostitute. However, in a broader definition, “sexual immorality” means treating another person as an “object.”
Of note, only in recent generation has “porneia” become translated as “sexual immorality.” Modern translators improperly connote “sexual immorality” as “fornication,” “premarital sex,” and “every kind of promiscuity.” Thus, according to modern New Testament bible interpretations, “sexual immorality” becomes a puritanical “catch-all” for every form of sexuality (apart from sex between husband and his wife). These are incorrect interpretations of the Greek words porneia and pornos.
In summary, the “biblical” sexual ethic (as described in either the Old or New Testaments) appears to be a litany of “do nots” involving intercourse between relatives, adultery, prostitution, and intercourse between men and with animals. Premarital intercourse is not listed.
This is a good moment to discuss “homosexuality” as it appears in the Protestant bible. Progressive Christian scholars believe that the sexual ethic regarding the condemnation of homosexuality (found in both the Old and New Testaments) does not refer to today’s understanding of an innate sexual attraction/orientation.
Rather, historians agree that the biblical wrongness of two men having anal intercourse is that the penetrating man is raping a man of lesser status — and the receiving man is considered too feminine (and thus “weak”). Indeed, in the Greco-Roman era, a wealthy man would penetrate a “weaker” man to demonstrate his power and affluence. Such “weaker” men were those of less money or esteem, conquered soldiers, enslaved people, male prostitutes, and pubescent boys. Such horrific sexual abuse is what the bible condemns.
Jesus
So, what sexual activity did Jesus specifically condemn? His list is short: adultery and “sexual immorality” (which earlier was connoted with prostitution). Somewhat relatedly, Jesus condemned mentally coveting a man’s wife and divorce. Is that it? Yep.
The Primary Role of “the Law of Love”
Jesus’s sexual ethic must be understood as the flip side of the most important ethic: love. Jesus said that all of the 613 commands from the Jewish bible could be replaced by two commands: loving God and loving others. Furthermore, all Bible commands could be waived when one satisfies Jesus’s new, final command: “Love one another as I have loved you.”
How does the law of love relate to the Christians’ sexual ethic for today?
The answer appears to be providing the kind of love that Jesus gave: center your attention and behaviors on treating others with lawfulness, dignity, and “other-centered” care.
Regarding sexual ethics’ lawfulness (as expressed in the Old and New Testaments), Jesus specifically prohibits adultery and prostitution — assumedly because they do not meet His law of love.
And regardless of one’s sexual ethic, Jesus would have us love and treat each person with dignity and “other-centered care” — regardless of the person’s sexual ethic or sexual behavior. For example, Jesus certainly loved prostitutes and the divorced.
Love should therefore be every person’s sexual ethic.
Currently, people all around the globe — regardless of their religion or lack thereof — appear to have one sexual ethic:
Obtain legal, informed sexual consent from your partner.
This ethic never hides sexually transmitted diseases from a potential partner, plus uses birth control when applicable. This sexual ethic never forces oneself upon another. It is mutual consent for the safety and pleasure of both people.
Christians should do nothing less than that.
Summary
Evangelicals declare they stand for the historical, traditional, and biblical sexual ethic. On the face of it, these three adjectives appear to be reasonable. Certainly, we hear these three adjectives quoted a lot!
However, upon closer inspection, the historical sexual ethic would be to engage in polygamy. Likewise, the traditional sexual ethic would appear to be participation in premarital sex. Also, the biblical sexual ethic condemns sexuality that is arguably no longer taboo (i.e., sex during menstruation; anal intercourse between consenting gay men). Finally, Jesus’s sexual ethic emphasized the law of love above any particular restriction.
Personal Opinion
While I am an Exvangelical and no longer an Evangelical, I aim to love every person whom I come in contact (to include Evangelicals). Thus, I have no problem whatsoever when an Evangelical tells me that his personal sexual ethic is: “Sexual intercourse should only be between a man and his wife.”
This is a simple, behavioral, verifiable statement of one’s belief. And I respect people’s right to their beliefs. And I respect people’s right to declare and live their own legal sexual ethic.
What I do not appreciate is when an Evangelical tells me something that attempts to “claim the higher moral ground.” Standing upon a “historical” or “traditional” or “biblical” position sounds haughty, like you are “talking down” to me. Sorry, my beloved Evangelical friends — it is a gross generalization to say that your opinion speaks for all Christians. And, as described above, your three adjectives (i.e., historical, traditional, biblical) are inaccurate.
Having a prudent sexual ethic is important, but is not the supreme ideal. Rather, it is essential that we treat each other with love.
In Jesus’s kingdom, Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals have no room to look down upon the other.
Perhaps we Christians can progress to a sexual ethic that aligns with Jesus’s emphasis on “loving others” — and less on a quotable phrase that that supposedly speaks for everyone, while using adjectives that are inaccurate. Therefore, Evangelicals, please stop using the adjectives traditional, historical, and biblical in reference to stating your personal sexual ethic.
Personally, my sexual ethic might sound something like this:
“I intend to extend Jesus’s love and dignity in every relationship — and therefore refuse adultery, illegal, non-consenting, or selfish sexual behaviors.’”
What is your personal sexual ethic?
“Loving like Jesus” is good enough for me.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please stay on the page for 30 seconds, give it a few claps (up to 50), highlight something, and leave a comment. I respond to every comment.
Dr. Mike Rosebush (Ph.D., Counseling Psychology; he, him, his;) is the creator and editor of GAYoda, plus a writer for Backyard Church. A short synopsis of Dr. Rosebush’s life can be found at I Lived the Most Unusual Gay Christian Life Ever. He may be contacted at mikerosebush75@gmail.com.
