But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a man who had been caught in an homosexual act and made him stand in the middle.
They said to him, “Teacher, this man was caught in the very act of homosexuality. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such men. So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the man before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to him, “Man, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
He replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”
Your lips are like a ascarlet thread,
And your mouth is lovely.
Your temples are like a slice of a pomegranate behind your veil.
Your neck is like the tower of David, built with rows of stones
On which are hung a thousand shields,
All the round shields of the mighty men.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
Twins of a gazelle Which bfeed among the lilies. (Song of Solomon, 4:3-5 NASB)
Our culture approaches sex in a variety of ways. For the more conservative view, sex is bad, until marriage, and then suddenly and magically, it is good with no explanation of how to make it good. It is difficult to find the proper balance here. I mean, it’s like speaking to a child about about dangers of a gun but expecting the children to, in the proper time and place, know how and why to use it, naturally. Sex, in this view, is something hidden, dangerous, dirty. In the liberal view, it is a physical act which is about expressing power and independence. No more cultural and religious barriers to hold us back; we are free to seek pleasure in whatever way is more beneficial to us. Caroline J. Simon argues that these views aren’t positive and has written a marvelous book about how to sift through these various views of sex to hone in on the proper enjoyment of it.
The thrust of Simon’s work is that sex is good. After all, it is a very physical act with immediate physical positives. However, she would argue that sex behind the physicality of it produces something vital to human flourishing, both to the male and the female. Indeed, following a certain Aquinian logic, sex is what unites two souls into one, and thus, we must move beyond the succession of lenses in how we view it if we are to be successful in appropriately focusing on sex to build up our personhood. She moves past the Roman Catholic view, or the procreative view, into what she calls the covenantal view, the highest in her estimation. In this view, sex is not just about procreating (and she is absolutely sure to make sure that her Protestant readers do not misunderstand the Roman Catholic view as solely this), but about affirming one another so that there is a certain mutual spirituality present. Her hopes, if I may put it in my own words, to achieve a mystical intimacy not just with our mate, but also with us. There are more views, including romantic, expressive, power and something she labels plain sex. Through these lens, she tackles a variety of issues including homosexuality, casual sex, using sex as a commodity (prostitution, pornography, and erotica), and flirtation v. seduction. In the seven chapters, she engages current scholarship, ethicists, and other professionals, including philosophers. Not all of these professionals agree with her, or her with them, but she takes them in an even handed approach and shows why they are either wrong, or how their work can add to hers, or hers to them.
One of the highlights of the book is her view on virginity and chastity. Here, she follows Aristotle in describing chastity as a virtue and something far different than outright celibacy, or what she labels continence. This is a key to the argument which I think many people are missing. Virginity for the sake of virginity is not a virtue. Like the philosophers, Simon sees that a balance must be achieved in order for it to be virtuous. Indeed, virginity is often an objectification of the person, generally women, which would stand against virtue. What is chastity? For Simon, this virtue is where the individual who engages in sex does so with the right person, for the right reasons, using sex to aid in human flourishing. Not only does this reflect in the debates about virginity, but it Simon’s work in this area must give hope to those who struggle to remain “faithful” to their spouses, erotic, and spiritual. Chastity is not about self-denial, but about the proper use of the self, and that comes from knowing the self fully. Finally, she notes that chastity is in fact an ideal , something to be struggled for, but it is more than the “pretense of propriety. ” (160) She encourages us to stop wasting energy on the peripherals, and instead focus on the actuality of sex. One of the most important things in this chapter is her allowance for our human condition. There are times that relationships will find themselves muddled, or that one person has started to either seek attention from someone else or giving attention, unduly, to someone else. I do think, however, that her solution, comprising this book, is more helpful than what is on the market today.
There seems to be a plethora of books about sex on the market today. From pastors to philosophers, everyone wants to write a book about sex, and generally, they are on the topics of how-to and what-for, but this one takes a different track. It’s a how-to book in the sense that it is written for the person seeking to find a proper balance for sex. Simon moves through the various topics in the book and examines then through the various lens. She arrives at a way for the individual to see sex, and the complexities which surround it, as something more than a physical act. If they take her advice, sex will cease to become a way to hold on to that special person, or to conquer the unsuspecting person, but how to be fulfilled, metaphysically, which entails the fulfillment of the other. It is still a what-for book as well, in that sex is not to be used solely as a means of physical pleasure. After all, the other with whom we seek to share these pleasures must be considered as much human as we are. So, then, what is sex to be for? Can sex be used for something more than an expression of love or liberation? Indeed. Simon’s book seeks an integration of sexuality, incorporated through the convental lens, so that both people will become one.
Are their difficulties in reading this book? For some, her approach to homosexuality will be mistaken as an advocacy of it, but she doesn’t present an answer, only a possible solution. After all, we are to be reminded that the Roman Catholic Church which advocates celibacy for homosexuals does so just as they advocate celibacy for those who do not wish to have children. In all of this, her examinations of fair. She actively seeks to present a balanced picture, which is why people will have a difficult time in this. She doesn’t advocate for the usual Christian position of “sex is bad until you get married and then suddenly….” Nor does she advocate that sex is to be just about procreation, that homosexuality is an abomination, or that the loss of virginity, or failure to remain chaste always is a life-ending event. These will present difficulties for people who simply don’t get the balance employed. To all others, however, it is a welcome breath of fresh-air on the topic. No polemics, only compassion.
Highly recommend for anyone who has, wants to have, or no longer has sex.
Simon suggests that casual sex is actually worse than long-term committed sex. Her rationale is that if sex is like communicating, then, the chit-chat of casual sex is like small talk. It is boring, mundane, and forced. It leaves you with nothing to know the person by….
This essay is somewhat in her book:
Bodies remember. High-quality, committed sex is lovemaking that explores not just one another’s bodies at particular times, but one another’s embodied selves as they reach from remembered times and to anticipated times. Casual sex is tissue-thin when compared with committed sex.
Covenantal Lens: Sexual intercourse forges a permanent bond between twopeople that is intended as a representation of God’s covenantal relationship withGod’s people. Sexual intercourse is a life-uniting act that should only occurwithin marriage.
Procreative Lens: The goal or purpose of human sexuality is reproduction. Non-reproductive uses of sexuality are misuses of sexuality, because they divide thereproductive purpose of sexuality from its unifying function.
Romantic Lens: Sexual intercourse is the appropriate expression of a particularsort of deep emotional attachment (romantic love) with one’s beloved. Lovelesssex is inappropriate. People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts.
Plain Sex Lens: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact withthe body of another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex shouldbe based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
Power Lens: Sexuality is a potent instrument for controlling others. Sexual de-sire is the desire to possess another, while wanting to avoid being objectified bythe other. One must be savvy about the potential for sexual exploitation, ma-nipulation and violence.
Expressive Lens: Sex is a source of personal empowerment that is central tohuman flourishing. Sexual restraint is unnatural, yet sexuality should be de-ployed without hampering the empowerment of others.
Before I proceed, let me suggest you consider two things…
But I’ll get to that in a minute.
Click to Order
Simon, in chapter 3, follows Aristotle in suggesting that virtue is not a refusal to do something which troubles you, but the right balance, in a holistic type of way. This, she applies to being chaste. It is not about simply not having sex, but about keeping “our desires from making us view others as collections of sexually arousing body parts.” (76) She suggests that chastity is more about a balanced view of yourself and others, and using sex to make yourself flourish as well as others.
This chapter is a good one, because it is not about virginity to be cherished, which as she points out, is more often about the woman and not the man, but about chastity, something that is not defined as going without sex. As a matter of faction, she even separates chastity into celibate and non-celibate chastity.
So… can Christians have sex outside of marriage in a chaste way?
Once I finished with my previous review, I picked this one up and immediately find some interesting things. I finished the first 60 pages last night, and will be finishing the rest this weekend.
But, I have a question. So far, it seems that the author is making the statement, “Sex is good, but sexual intimacy without the proper bounds is a conventing act, an almost spiritual thing.”
Generally, males and females view sex differently. After all, and I don’t mean to be too graphic, but for males and sex, there is something rather easy to make it good, or perhaps, the summation of the physical act is rather easy.
Is sex only a physical act, or can it be a mystical, spiritual event which unites two people like no other. Sex is indeed a very physical act, usually, but is it meant to be something more?
In a culture that includes sex in everything from advertising to climbing the corporate ladder, it’s easy to feel fuzzy about the true purpose and place of sexuality.
In this book philosopher and ethicist Caroline J. Simon identifies six “lenses” through which people understand sex and sexuality: covenantal, procreative, expressive, romantic, power and “plain sex.” Guided by a virtue ethic, she applies those lenses to a variety of sexual scenarios, from flirtation and desire to marital sexuality, helping us to see what filters we run issues of sexuality through and how, properly ordered and weighted, they can help us achieve sexual integrity.
Here is a book for anyone interested in developing a holistic, biblical sexual ethic that brings into focus the bewildering array of cultural sexual presentations we’re surrounded by every day.
I have the hardcopy, not the Kindle, which is what the link goes too… If one of my contributors would like to review this, please let me know.
I am not a prude and I generally know how to read the Song of Solomon, but Mark takes it to a very ugly level. This is the sermon which was delivered to a congregation in Scotland and is similar to one which he is known for here in the States.
If you would please, turn with me to the Song of Solomon. One of the great books of the Bible. Some have allegorized this book, and in so doing, they have destroyed it. They have destroyed it. They will say that it is an allegory between Jesus and his bride the church. Which if true, is weird. Because Jesus is having sex with me and puts his hand up my shirt. And that feels weird. I love Jesus, but not in that way.
Okay, so they have indeed put too much allegory in the interpretation, but I would still counter that Driscoll doesn’t get the book right himself, but like others have done, sees only the parts he wants to see. I think that the Song is a book meant to re-engineer society to allow women a greater role and not to make them sexually subservient to their husbands as a way of “winning them to Christ.” I could not imagine that conversation in the New Creation….
Due to the backlash which Driscoll received over his comments, he has said that the Elders of his church set him down and instructed him to stick to the issues better. Both Rachel Held Evans and Dr. Robert Cargill has responded. Dr. Cargill is correct – it is not an apology. (And contrary to Anthony Bradley, what happened the other day was not slander either.) I suspect that Driscoll will not actually apologize as to do so, especially since the movement was ignited by a woman, would be to make him appear weak. Further, his exposition of David is sorely lacking or perhaps we should carry forth David’s masculine behavior to where we marry our half-sister, have our warrior killed because we knocked up his wife because we slept in after staying home from war. Or maybe Solomon’s masculine behavior in having 1000 women at our beck and call. Well, you get the picture. But, in looking at Driscoll’s exposition of the Song of Solomon, it is no doubt that he misses the other parts of Scripture – the ‘all Scripture is…profitable for correction’ bit.
And for the men who read Driscoll’s sermon and believe that it’s okay to tell your wife that, using Scripture to make them sexually submissive, then don’t read this blog anymore.