Skip to main content

Sex as a relational act

In my previous post, I showed how naturalistic science depersonalises sexuality, turning it into a mere manipulation of bodily functions.

In contrast, the Bible treats our sexuality as a good gift from a personal, Triune God, who is love (1 John 4:16) – who is constituted within himself by his relationships. The logic of the Bible is, unsurprisingly, the opposite to atheistic materialistic naturalism. Humans are fundamentally relational beings. God gave us our bodies – including the sexual nature of our bodies – to express these relationships. The way to care for our bodies is, generally, to attend to our relationships: if we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will flourish; if we are in toxic relationships, they will deteriorate. So, from a Biblical perspective, the way to rightly use our sexuality, which both acknowledges its status as a divine gift, and helps us lead healthy, happy sex lives, is to consider how we are using our sexuality to enhance our relationships.

This perspective is not unique to the Bible or Christianity. Creation itself, being the creation of the Biblical God, embodies within itself principles that are coherent with the Bible. Open-minded, responsible scientific investigation, which seeks to genuinely discern how the physical world operates, will therefore render results that are broadly compatible with the Bible. We therefore expect sexual research to demonstrate that healthy sexuality is intimately connected to healthy relationships.

Recent sexual research demonstrates that our neurological sexual responses show that we're wired for long-term intimacy. I reviewed this research in a paper I presented last year at the Religion In the Public Square conference of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. You can download the conference proceedings here, from Reformers books.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more