This is basically where the debate stands, at least within the church. Liberals on one side, conservatives on another. Just like so many other things. I’m interested in a third way, though. I’ve seen a few other people mention that they’d like a third way too, but it usually ends up fitting within either the conservative or liberal framework within which they find themselves. Maybe mine will too. Either way, it’s worth a try.

Context within pluralism

To start: abstinence-only sex education in a pluralistic society fails because it isn’t realistic for people without convictions that sex before marriage is wrong to avoid it. It’s just not. People without this conviction shouldn’t be forced to live as though they have it. But whether a conviction is from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, another religion, straight-edge (there aren’t many of those left, but still a few), or a sincere desire to focus on other parts of life is irrelevant – the fact is that there is a conviction for certain folks, and that gives things, at the very least, the potential of being different.

Fine. But of course, focusing on folks with that conviction doesn’t account for the multitudes of teenagers who sign the oft-mocked virginity pledges at youth rallies, indicating that they’ll be abstinent until marriage. We know that most of them aren’t. We also know that many of them do genuinely desire to keep these pledges and the convictions associated with them, and that when they don’t, many of them become burdened with guilt and self-judgment, sometimes affecting their capability to have healthy sex lives once they do get married.

The reaction to this is, for some, a belief that it is unrealistic and outdated for us to expect followers of Jesus to live lives of abstinence before marriage. Various interpretative stances are taken on various Scriptures, and we are left with a vague notion of teaching teenagers about contraceptives and how to have sex intelligently.

For other folks, of course, the reaction is a deeper entrenchment into the culture wars, stating that this is all the fault of the media, politicians, liberals, homosexuals, or whoever else can be scapegoated with the blame for the “failure” of youth to live up to the standards put upon them. This, of course, leads to more guilt, and it also (rightly) leads the people that are being scapegoated to have even more dislike for Christian culture than they already do.

A possible third way

So this third way, as I call it for lack of other things to call it, is for those who do, for whatever religious or cultural or philosophical reasons, believe that sex should exist within a marriage. It doesn’t necessarily depend upon a specific faith, though it would be shaped by whatever context in which it found itself. For this purpose, I’m writing for followers of Jesus, as that is the perspective from which my wife and I approached it in our lives, and the perspective from which I’d love my own kids to approach it one day.

My wife and I married as virgins. Seriously. Both of us are genuinely grateful for this, and can’t overstate the freedom that is present in learning how to live sexually and how to be vulnerable and seek to love one another, together, without needing prior knowledge. I can’t overstate how great an opportunity I think that is. This is not to say that we suddenly became sexual creatures when we got married because we never had thoughts or desires or temptations before that time, or that we immediately became amazing sexual masters when we got married. Neither is the case, and neither is a realistic expectation for people to have.

This journey of ours is one of the reasons I believe sex is designed to happen within a marriage. I think there are marriages in which sex shouldn’t happen without intense change, because there are far too many marriages in which it happens ignorantly, oppressively, and beneath its potential for both powerful love and vulnerability, and for glimpses of the sacred. But I do, still, believe that it is designed to exist and flourish within a healthy marriage. I’m familiar with exegetical and theological arguments that put such thoughts in the realm of biblical interpretations that we should resign to the past, and I disagree with them.²

I think it is preferable and realistic for followers of Jesus to live this way. Teaching it includes everything from how to deal with temptations while seeking to live a kingdom-focused life, to understanding why sexuality is relevant to such a life, to learning how to think about one’s spouse in an holistic and egalitarian way when marriage does happen. It also involves helping people to embrace the lavish grace that Jesus gives to us in order to, and when we fail to, treat sexuality as we should – both in significant and seemingly insignificant ways, and both inside and outside of marriage. All of these things have powerful potential to impact lives and marriages.

People who believe that an important part of following Jesus is waiting for sex within marriage don’t do it by signing a pledge at a youth rally when they are 12, 13, or even 20. It doesn’t work that way. They do it the same way anyone follows Jesus in any other area – day by day, learning the rhythms of grace. They do it by seeking to be in situations, and in relationships with people, that help them and empower them, and by seeking to resist things that don’t. They do it by living in communion with the Spirit, and seeking to reject sin and injustice, both personal and systemic, as the Spirit helps them.

1. Including a recent study that indicated some success in a program that encouraged teenagers to abstain from sex. It is a small study, but it seems to have had an encouraging focus on dialog and honest discussion, rather than fear and hiding of facts.
2. Note that I’m not commenting on the biblical interpretations of homosexuality, as I feel that they are very complex, and I don’t know – or think I need to know – what the right answer is. Suffice it to say, at the moment, that I strongly support marriage for my GLBT brothers and sisters, and include their relationships as those that should have healthy, married sex.

I sometimes think about including more content about marriage on this blog, but when I think about it I usually think about telling the stories of what I’ve learned about communication, forgiveness, grace, healing, and unconditional love, among other things, through five years of marriage, and marriage to someone who is bipolar II. I still have plans to do that, as relevant times present themselves.

But at the moment I want to look at the relationship of marriage to the State, and how people are making these kinds of arguments and combining them with theology and religion and so on.

First of all, let’s establish that this is a complex issue. The sides are talking past each other. They have foundationally different views of history, culture, and religion that lead to their views on marriage. In all likelihood, there will never be a consensus. If gay marriage becomes completely legal, there will be people fighting to make it illegal again for a long time. If it does not become legal, there will be people fighting to make it legal for a long time.

And in all likelihood, it will at some point become legal.

That aside, what issues are we dealing with in these discussions? One of the significant arguments is that the State has the right to define what marriage is, while the church should have the right to tell the State what its definition should be.

Think about that for a minute. It reeks of the descent from Christianity into Christendom.

My personal belief is that marriage should be a civil issue. If one wants a religious or spiritual aspect of one’s marriage, fine: one can go to a religious or spiritual organization, have a ceremony, and more importantly live a life based on that reality. These ceremonies are great things, but seriously: there is no reason that the civil rights attached to them should be based on anyone’s theological views on anything. We could take a nice step away from the facade of Christendom if we took a step like this.

Within this issue, much of the recent uproar is over what the Bible actually says about marriage. What do you think it says? Why do you think that?

At most, there are three or four passages in the Bible that mention homosexuality, and none of them have anything to do with marriage. Two are in the Old Testament, and one of these is among 613 laws that were designed to create a society that was set apart from those around it, by this as well as other rules like wearing only clothing made of one material, and of releasing all debts and slaves every fifty years. The other occurrence in the Old Testament is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of which is not about homosexuality.

In the New Testament, it is possible, though debatable, that there are two passages that mention homosexuality. Both are written by Paul, and both are accompanied by mentions of other sins, such as lying and jealousy and greed. In addition to this, there are cultural and political aspects to what it is that Paul is condemning that make it ludicrous for the people of God to build a litmus test upon these passages, especially when we ignore his longer thoughts on many other issues. Paul is always, for example, blatantly against lust. There is much mention of this in these kinds of passages, and it is possible that he is referring to it instead.

As far as defining marriage, the Bible is fairly silent. It does not say that marriage is between one man and one woman, or that it should be defined by the State, or by the people of God. The Old Testament narratives spend a lot of time recounting events. Many times they are trying to prove a point by recounting the event in a certain way, a point which is often obscure to us. Sometimes, the moral issue is never mentioned. Sometimes, it isn’t mentioned until chapters later, or even books later. And sometimes, there isn’t a clear moral statement in a narrative at all.

The Newsweek article doesn’t catch this, and casts the Bible as something of a bumbling, outdated text that we should not consult about our closest relationship. According to Newsweek, the Bible presents an irrelevant marriage model of polygamy because some of its heroes practice it and it does not explicitly condemn it in their stories.

Newsweek, and others like it, are missing the progressive nature of the revelation of God. But so are those on the other side who sit in fear that we’ll embark on a slippery slope that leads us away from God’s design for marriage into polygamy and incest (both of which, of course, occur in the earliest parts of Scripture and are, again, not explicitly condemned).

When Scripture is like this on an issue, it is unnecessary and dangerous to make it a core issue, as evangelicals have done. There are many other issues that are clearly at the core of God’s revelation of himself. Homosexuality is not one of them. Understand that I’m not using this post to state my position on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. I’m simply using it to state that it is not the simplistic issue that evangelicals make it.

More importantly, I’m using it to state that, regardless of one’s view, it is not necessary to make the kind of statements and decisions that evangelicals make and ask government to make, in light of the complexity of an issue like this. Especially when these statements and decisions create the kind of outcasts that God is always with, evangelicals need to choose mercy over judgment.

Their failure to do so is what leads many of us to no longer call ourselves evangelicals, regardless of what we may share.

The new bride and groom are both authentic people, and at the same time they are authentically in love with each other and their God. For me, this is a great compliment, and it is one that I bestow rarely. Many couples have none of those qualities, and many only have one or two.

Kiera and I have been able to watch their relationship for a couple of years, and have been honored to be able to offer occasional encouragement and advice. We’ve learned a lot about marriage, about ourselves and each other and our God, in the last few years, and find it to be a blessing to share our various experiences, and what we’ve learned through them, with other couples.

But for now, we hope they enjoy our gift.

I haven’t written a lot of marriage-related posts on this blog, but I have beginning thoughts of some things that I feel are worth saying. The first thing is something that I’ve observed since we were dating: very close relationships affect Christian spirituality.

When we first started dating, one of the things we immediately liked about each other was that we both wanted to honestly see what Jesus might have to say about, and contribute to, our relationship. We were careful to pray together, worship together, and include spirituality in our conversations.

During those times, we learned that it was much easier for us to get into stupid arguments if we let this dimension of our relationship slip. Since we’ve been married, the spiritual connections between us have only deepened, and this has proven to be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Prior to getting married, I was very much a solitary person. I was (and still am) perfectly content to eat alone, sit alone in class or church, go to concerts alone, and spend lots of time alone in thought, work, prayer, worship, etc. Since I’ve been married, though, I don’t have as much time alone. I share my meals, my thoughts, my events, and so on with my wife.

Where this begins to relate to “married spirituality” is in my struggles, sins, victories, and in the seasons of my life in the Spirit. I’ve often spoken about the seasons that we have in seeking to live a spiritual life. There are dry seasons, rainy seasons, mountain experiences, and valley experiences. All of these are valid, and they all exist whether one is married or single.

As a married person, though, I have learned that many, if not most, of my seasons coincide with those of my wife. If she is struggling with something, or finds it difficult to connect with God, it is very likely that I do also. If she is being obviously transformed, or is enraptured by his presence, it is very likely that I am also.

I don’t want to assume that all married couples are like this, but I also do not want to understate the importance of this concept. Only recently have I begun to honestly accept that this is the case and think about its implications: not that my spirituality depends on that of my wife or that we can blame our weaknesses on each other, but that our spiritualities are inextricably and, to an extent inexplicably, linked.

Now that I’ve gotten that statement down, I want to look at a couple of challenges that a guy who makes that statement faces.

When I was in college, one of the really trendy books for “young Christian men” was Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. I must confess: I read it once. Further confession: there were certain parts of it that I liked, and that I think spoke truth to me as a man (and, I feel that I was able to integrate certain concepts into my very different perspective). But other parts of it made me sick.

I haven’t read any of his other books, and I haven’t read his wife’s book (books?) either, so I may not be entirely informed on his views. But, a fairly large part of my memory of this book is the mental image of a man feeling alive and masculine because he was able to hike up a mountain with a gun, and kill a bear. Another fairly large part of my memory is the concept of a man being alive and masculine because he can rescue his lovely princess from dreadful dangers, because of course she wants a knight in shining armor to come galloping by and do just that.

I don’t believe guns make anyone masculine, and certainly they don’t make anyone alive. I think guns are barbaric, even when they are used against other beings that know how to use them. But against a bear? Bears may be big and look impressive, but what are they really going to do to a man from hundreds of feet away? Growl? Maybe stand up and wave their arms around, if they even see him?

Further, I don’t believe my wife needs a knight in shining armor. Certainly, she needs support. She needs to feel cherished and celebrated, and her mind sees those things manifest themselves in different ways that mine does. But rescue is a universal thing, and she’s as capable of rescuing me (and I need it just as much) as I am of rescuing her. And, of course, ultimately neither of us are entirely capable of rescuing each other anyway, and will utterly fail at marriage if we expect that from each other.

I was reminded of all of this as I was watching a video called Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage. Apparently, it is a series of six (or so) videos, and I’ve seen two of them.

First video

The first one was decent. It discussed the metaphor of a man’s brain as being full of boxes that are, by default, separate. So, there is a wife box, a kid box, a work box, a car box, a recreation box, and so on. Each box stays as separate from the other boxes as possible. Then, there is the metaphor of a woman’s brain as being like interconnected wiring. Everything touches everything else, and so everything affects everything else. An argument my wife has with her boss may pop up while she’s watching a movie, while an argument I have with my boss may never pop up outside of work.

This is not a new metaphor. I learned it in counseling classes in college, from people who’s wisdom I respect, and I do see evidence that it is at least partly true. I don’t entirely disagree with it (as long as its implications are not blown out of proportion, which they often are). However, it does bring up a strange question. Is this a Western issue? Typically, Eastern worldviews (this includes Jewish thought, which is very important to those of us who seek to understand Scripture that was predominantly written by Jews) are very holistic. Spirituality is not separate from the rest of life. Eastern thought, for example, does not have the saying, “I’d do ______ if only I weren’t in church,” because it recognizes that one’s interactions with Jesus are not confined to a single location for a few hours a week.

So, does this metaphor break down outside of Western society? Are Eastern men as non-compartmentalized as Western women? If so, why? How? What can I do to become less compartmentalized? If Western women do not have compartmentalized minds, how do they have an equally compartmentalized worldview (the above quote is given by women just as often as it is by men)? If Eastern men do have compartmentalized minds, how do they manage to have a holistic worldview? What can I do to get a more holistic worldview?

Second video

Now, I also saw a second video. This second session went into the oft-repeated idea that men essentially want to be action heroes, and women essentially want to be in wonderful relationships. Men want to beat up the bad guys, and (direct quote) “go back for the girl.” Women want to be in relationships, and for men to (direct quote) “go back for the girl.”

Aside from the obvious exceptions to both of those rules, (I hate action movies, unless they have intelligent thought, and don’t care to beat up anyone or anything, and my wife loves to make fun of chick flicks) the statement that the guy needs to go back for the girl has a direct implication that she is behind him. That makes me entirely sick, and in the context where it was used it reeked of chauvinism. It brought up the image of a man doing _____ while his wife sits at home, taking care of his kids (which was used as an example) until he comes back to sit down and talk to her until he goes back out to do whatever it is that he does.

The (most) frustrating part of the message presented in this video is that it takes legitimate differences between men and women (the fact that they do not think the same way), and uses them to impose limitations and illegitimate gender roles (because they don’t think the same way, certain limitations are seen as necessary) on the people who listen to it. It’s not the kind of message that says, “everything that can go wrong in a marriage can be fixed if the woman just does what the man wants.” It at least has progressed beyond that, as it regularly talks about mutual give and take between the partners in a marriage. I think there is good information mentioned in the message, and if this post weren’t already so long I might go into some of it. But the good information in part two, at least, seemed to be subpoints to a main point that is essentially oppressive.

The struggle that makes this post worth writing is this: being a male feminist who wants to continually improve his marriage is a difficult thing. I enjoy going to marital counseling with my wife. Whether or not I think there is room to grow, of course there always is. I enjoy resources that teach me to grow as a husband. In order to get anything out of some resources, I have to filter what I’m seeing or hearing through my own perspective because the perspective of the given resource (in the case of Wild at Heart, or this video) may be entirely antithetical to my own.

Other things

For what it’s worth, there are some great resources that can speak to a desire for equality.

• Are Men Really Human? (written by a male feminist)
• Christians for Biblical Equality (always a great presence at Cornerstone Festival)
• Christian Feminism blog
• Women in the Bible – Christian Thinktank

Thoughts? I may look further into what it actually means to be a male feminist if there is interest, but for the sake of this post I wanted to look at an issue that repeatedly arises in trying to improve one’s marriage.

One of the posts deals with the conception that Emergent consists of white guys, sitting around talking about theology. The post itself is well worth a read, as are the comments. One of the comments, from Julie Clawson, is what I want to look into, at the moment.

Part of it reads like this:

“Nice Christian women" are taught to be polite, respectful, and submissive – very hard things to be if you ever want to get a word in edgewise in a conversation with men.

I saw this firsthand during the first year we led the local Emergent Cohort. The group consisted of mostly younger men and single women (wives never show up, what family shells out babysitting money just so the woman can participate in such things???). The group nearly fell apart after all the women left. They left because they never got a chance to participate in the conversation and constantly received the message that they weren't wanted. If they tried to speak up, some guy would jump in and talk them down, and as nice Christian women they were “trained” to let that happen. The guys weren't doing it intentionally or generally even aware of what they were doing, they were just holding a conversation like they had been trained to do.

I feel like there is something deeply significant in that statement, as it pertains to things like Emergent, or theological and church-related discussions in general, and also as it pertains to life in general. At this time in the development of Emergent, many of the people who are attracted to it do have a history of involvement with the evangelical church. For a number of reasons that are related to everything from serious biblical misinterpretation to simple selfishness, evangelicalism has not, especially in the last fifty years, welcomed the voices of women. There is a certain “training” that Julie alludes to that women receive in modern evangelicalism that leads them to be quiet and let themselves be shut out of conversations with men.

As a man who has both formal and informal experience in evangelicalism and training in evangelical ministry, I read this comment and was immediately struck by how true it is. I recognize guilt in myself of shutting women out from conversations, because I have spoken as I learned to speak. I have unintentionally expected women to speak in the same ways that I do, and I have neglected to recognize the differences between the framework that I have been given and the framework that they have been given.

The implications of this thought really hit home when I began to think about my marriage. I recognize guilt in shutting out my wife by expecting her to speak like I do. This occurs in public conversations as well as private ones. She has a longer, and in general far more negative, history with the church in general and evangelicalism in particular than I do, and thus this framework has been drilled into her even more than it has into me, and many times I have failed to recognize this.

I believe that a comment like Julie’s has the potential to teach guys like me how difficult it can be for a woman to get past that framework, and the damage that it can cause. This kind of learning is essential for the development of the Emergent conversation as more than a bunch of white guys discussing theology.

I have an amazing wife who walks through life with me. Plus, she’s hot. We were twenty year old college students, and I wouldn’t change a thing about our lives together.

She’s an amazing woman with a wonderful heart that sees the best and the worst of mine. I have learned so much from her, and continue to learn everyday.

Below are lyrics to our wedding song that I play on the morning of each anniversary. Tourniquet‘s When the Love is Right. Kiera, I love you. Thank you for always being with me.

The journey through our life can bring
A place and time for everything
A day of hope, a year of fears
A thousand smiles, a million tears

Our paths were meant to cross
And I couldn’t forget you
No matter what the cost
We both had to see this through

Take my hand, take my heart
We will never be apart
Never be apart
Because I love you

Follow me and I’ll lead you
Lead me and I’ll follow you
Anywhere, anytime
When the love is right
The path is bright

From the Father of lights you came
And I know I’ll never be the same again
A beautiful gift has been given to me
Your smiling face is all I see

The look that’s in your eyes
And your smile that sets me free
Has made me realize
All that you see in me

Take my hand, take my heart
We will never be apart
Never be apart
Because I love you

Follow me and I’ll lead you
Lead me and I’ll follow you
Anywhere, anytime
When the love is right
The path is bright

Together now and forever
You are the one
You are my everything
To me you bring
The love that I have waited for

The look that’s in your eyes
And your smile that sets me free
Has made me realize
All that you see in me
Our paths were meant to cross
And I couldn’t forget you
The soul in you is the soul in me
The way that it was meant to be