The Married Christian Bed and Hard Truths
Jonathan Rowe on Sep 1st 2008
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is incompatible with historic Christianity, for a number of reasons, the least of which is that Christianity teaches self sacrifice, and Objectivism teaches selfishness or pursing self-interest.
I’m neither a Christian nor an Objectivist. But I do find something intriguing about the religious notion of self sacrifice for the greater good. It has lead to heroic acts of martyrdom and human achievement. But also great evil. It also makes for interesting theoretical discussions. So let’s.
Christians are supposed to be in the world, not of the world. And their religion teaches self sacrifice for the greater good. Their worst sacrifices have come from religious persecution, being burned at the stake for heresy, for instance. I respect someone who has the courage to face that, however I might disagree with his or her religious beliefs.
So one of the things that turns my stomach is when I read arguments for religious conversion on how much better it will be for you (in the world) when you convert to Christianity. Now, religious belief does indeed give many folks psychological comfort. But that life gets easier after converting is not the message of authentic biblical Christianity. Rather the message is you have your spiritual freedom and that’s all that matters. So even if you are a lifelong chattel slave, are thrown to the lions or burned at the stake, you can deal with it, because you have what matters most.
So on to sex. I’ve seen some studies that show married couples have the best sex, and I’ve seen Christians assert there is something magical about the married “Christian” bed that gives them the best sex lives. I’m not familiar with the “Christian” married sex surveys, but I have seen some that show simply “married couples” report the best sex. There could be some self-reporting bias in these surveys, especially if one tries to use them as a tool for religious conversion. Exhibit A, Ted Haggard testifying that married Christians have the best sex and how good his sex life with his wife is (while he was having gay sex behind her back).
Indeed Christians can use biblical passages about “one flesh” to argue for great Christian marital sex. However, the early Church Fathers did not at all interpret the “one flesh” parts of the Bible to require Christian couples to have a good sex life. They tended to view sex as a necessary evil for the purposes of propagating the human race. If you are done having kids, for a husband and wife to simply cease having sex altogether would be a completely reasonable option, indeed arguably mandatory given the early Church Fathers forbade contraception.
Telling a married couple with enough children to stop having sex puts them in a hard position. But look at the position historic Christianity places homosexually oriented folks in. I far more respect the “don’t act on your orientation, make the hard sacrifice” message than the promise of a “conversion” to genuine heterosexual orientation which is a joke. Christianity teaches life is about hard choices and self sacrifice, with a great promise in the end. I might disagree with the theology; but I respect hard hitting, honest answers far more than “you can have your cake and eat it too.”
My understanding of human nature, couplings and sex lives is some/many married couples are fortunate to have regular great sex until old age. With some/many their sex/romantic life totally fizzles after so many years (especially after children and as couples age into their forties). And many, probably most, fall in between.
Do married couples have better sex? Probably. And here is likely why: Most folks are not typically George Clooneys, but average. And average folks, especially as you leave your twenties, typically have a hard time finding dates and mates to begin with [I've spoken to a number of divorced and never remarried older women who admit to not having sex for decades]. At least if you are married, you have a permanent potentially available sexual partner which is better than nothing. There is nothing magical about the “married bed” and expect your sex life to get worse with time. And if it doesn’t consider yourself lucky in this regard.
Why is this important? One word: Divorce. Reading up on divorce, I see whatever the nuts and bolts statistics on how it eats wealth or produces children with worse education/more likely to get into social trouble, it’s terrible for the children’s psychological well being.
I think the expectation that you will be as romantically and sexually satisfied with your spouse as when you first met is one of the leading causes of divorce. With many folks the magic just fades and you may find new, perhaps more attractive partners with whom to start that magic all over again. I’m not a Christian; so I have no religious issues with divorce. And if a couple has no kids, I see nothing wrong with divorcing because the romance and sex has faded; move on to greener pastures.
However, if kids are involved (at least minors) a more noble choice is you don’t get divorced. With a few exceptions like adultery or your spouse threatens your life or safety; I think the Bible speaks of judicial cause for divorce, which is quite narrow. You can always work on your sex and romantic life. But if it’s over, so be it. That’s not sufficient biblical cause for divorce. And the Christian religion is about making self-sacrifices for the greater good. For non-Christians, given how hard divorce is on children, I would advise to seriously consider a sexless (or sex rare) relationship and stay together for the children’s sake.
I know easier said than done. But given traditional Christians are supposed to have a religious conscience that forbids almost all divorce and non-religious folks have only practical reasons (it’s bad for children), you’d think Christians would be better than non-Christians on divorce. But the data doesn’t show it.
Gary North, whom I generally regard as an extremist Christian Reconstructionist nonetheless writes a great column slamming former Reconstructionist, now Roman Catholic Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. Bottom line, Terry got a divorce, was kicked out of his fundamentalist Church for it, but never admitted moral guilt.
From the article:
Terry actually told the press that the Bible doesn’t oppose divorce, but it does oppose homosexuality. This, despite the clear teaching of Jesus that anyone who divorces his or her spouse without judicial cause thereby commits adultery — a capital crime under the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10) — by remarrying.
Terry, of course, later turned out to have a homosexual son. According to traditional biblical Christianity, the sex Terry has with his second wife is by its nature, adulterous and morally equivalent to the homosexual sex his son has.
Some more interesting details about Terry’s life:
[I]n 1998, Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, abandoned his wife of 19 years, along with their four children (three were adopted), and then declared bankruptcy, so that the National Organization of Women would get off his back. This declaration deprived his wife of their home. He then married his assistant, 16 years his junior, age 22. Without informing his followers of what he had done to his wife and children, he sent out a fund-raising letter to his supporters, who responded faithfully, whereupon he bought a $432,000 home — not in New York state, where he could see his children regularly, but in Florida, where the state’s bankruptcy laws don’t permit creditors to get your home. His church in New York had brought him under discipline before the marriage, but he paid no attention.
This does not illustrate Christian self sacrifice, but rank hypocrisy. And here’s the hard truth: Terry is probably having better sex with his second wife, the one 16 years his junior. And his sex and romantic life probably fizzled with his first, who is no doubt less physically attractive than the younger. When a man married with children leaves his wife for the younger blonde (and fornicates with her before he perhaps marries her) he has better sex. The Christian thing to do is practice self sacrifice even if it means sacrificing the better sex you will get in the non-marital bed. It’s not to peddle a myth about great Christian sex.
I have no doubt that George Clooney, the permanently single philanderer has a better sex life (defined by the amount of sex he has and the “sexual thrill” he gets from it) than 99.99% of the population and that includes 99.99% of married Christians.
The biblical Christian response is not to try to argue, “no as a married Christian couple we must be having better sex than any fornicator because ours is SUPERIOR.” Rather, it’s to say, “So what? There are far more important things in the grand picture,” and not covet George Clooney’s sex life which will ALWAYS be superior to yours (”superior” in a “thrill,” not necessarily a “moral” sense). After all, you have something more important.
Filed in The Belfry, The Boudoir
I think both Christians and non-Christians would be better off if they admitted that sex was not the real point of marriage. The real point is to have someone to support and nurture you in all aspects of life — spiritually, emotionally, financially, physically, and sexually, among others. Two people who have committed to nurturing one another also make an ideal setting for children.
I know this will sound strange coming from a gay man with generally very progressive views on sexuality, but our society really does attach too much importance to sexual fulfillment and too little on those other aspects of a happy married life.
Precision points…
Christianity is not about self-sacrifice, but living for a higher cause. The distinction is important.
Gary North is also very wrong about the divorce/adultery charge. In New Testament terms re-marriage, while the divorced spouse is alive, is adultery. Also, divorcing a woman is forcing her into adultery — in other words, the husband was responsible for his ex-wife’s “equivalent adultery.” This teaching was VERY different from the Mosaic law and that was exactly the point! At the time of Christ Mosaic divorce law was being used to permit men to dump the old wife for a new one.
I think Jason makes a great point.
Very good points.
Jim you know the Bible better than I. So you assert that it’s the NT not the OT that has the stricter divorce laws; North sort of combines both of them. Though, many fundamentalists note (contrary to what seems a surface reading) the two books have utterly consistent messages.
“Christianity is not about self-sacrifice, but living for a higher cause. The distinction is important.”
Jim: I’m interested more on this point. When you google the terms “Christianity” and “self-sacrifice” you see there is a strong current in biblical Christianity that teaches this is what Christianity is about. Yet, I also realize doctrinal differences abound within Christendom.
I’ve come across a number of folks who don’t like MacArthur’s interpretation of evangelical Christianity precisely because it’s so similar to how Rousseau and Nietzsche characterized Christianity (before Marx) as a temporal opiate and hence something where tyrannical rulers can make Christians into good slaves. Yet, I find this interpretation of Christianity to be authentically part of biblical hermeneutics and orthodox tradition. After all, Nietzsche and Rousseau weren’t shabby thinkers. And neither is MacArthur.
It’s also interesting that Gregg Frazer’s PhD thesis is from Claremont Graduate University which school is imbibed in Straussian thought. And the East Coast Straussians (who get the bulk of Frazer’s citations, though Jaffa gets a couple too) tend to follow Rousseau and Nietzsche on authentic Christianity.
Frazer & MacArthur obviously don’t agree with the Christian bashing of R & N, however, they do note that the Bible DOES NOT teach political liberty and is entirely compatible with chattel slavery. If you are a chattel slave, what does it matter if you’ve got your salvation? You are still in a better position than the richest unregenerate slave master who owns more slaves and wealth than anyone.
This isn’t an interpretation of Christianity that I personally like. And I know you don’t like it. But, again, I do see a strong case to be made that THIS is authentic biblical Christianity.
AND BTW, Frazer’s thesis does assert that Christianity is about self-sacrifice. And he sees tension between that and the idea of “enlightened self interest” or “self preservation” as put forth by Locke et al.
[...] don’t really matter; sometimes they do. I asserted Christianity teaches self-sacrifice. Babka replied: “Christianity is not about self-sacrifice, but living for a higher cause. The distinction is [...]
So you assert that it’s the NT not the OT that has the stricter divorce laws… Though, many fundamentalists note…the two books have utterly consistent messages.
As a general rule, Jon, the NT is stricter on everything. We are freed from the condemnation of the law by the work of Christ, only to find that one of the reasons he did so was because it allowed us to set the bar too low. (Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. - Matt. 18:21-22)
The biblical Christian response is not to try to argue, “no as a married Christian couple we must be having better sex than any fornicator because ours is SUPERIOR.” Rather, it’s to say, “So what? There are far more important things in the grand picture…
There’s something to this, though it tends to imply that God doesn’t think the issue important. I might have gone with something along the lines of gratitude for what we’ve been given and contentment in all things. The stories you relate above usually begin with problems in these areas.
The whole point of religion and theology, and many approaches to philosophy—is deriving the ideal, the best.
Sociological data about means and averages, or citing examples of fallen religious figures, are precisely the wrong tools to explore notions of excellence.
“The Christian religion is about making self-sacrifices for the greater good.”
And
“Christianity is not about self-sacrifice, but living for a higher cause.”
But it cant be any odd “greater good” or “higher cause”. It is Salvation or Eternal Life or making us into little Jesuses (CS Lewis’ analogy).
“However, the early Church Fathers did not at all interpret the “one flesh” parts of the Bible to require Christian couples to have a good sex life. They tended to view sex as a necessary evil for the purposes of propagating the human race.”
From Christian point of view, you should not engage in sex for the express purpose of procreation. That should be incidental in your mind, if at all.
There is some criticism here of Jonathan’s claim about Christianity, but I think his major point doesn’t depend on that. As I take it, his major point is that Christians who encourage conversion to Christianity because it makes life better here on Earth are taking an un-biblical tack. I agree. In fact, despite the title, I thought he was going to write about the gospel of wealth folks, who do exactly that. I hadn’t seen the Christian bed arguments before, but I think JR is correct that the same criticisms apply.
“From Christian point of view, you should not engage in sex for the express purpose of procreation. That should be incidental in your mind, if at all.”
Bisaal: I understand there is an argument that can be made on this behalf (after all the Bible/Christian religion can mean a whole lot of different things) but the Early Church fathers disagreed and so does the weight of historic Christianity.
Jim: You are exactly right that this post could have gone in a different direction and certainly is applicable to the ghastly “prosperity gospel.” I just wrote what was on my mind, in particular inspired by some of Tony Woodlief’s recent columns on marriage at World Magazine.
Jonathan
Do you believe that Christian ought to have sex witt he express purpose of procreation is an accurate statement of historic Christianity?.
That attitude bespeaks more of Hinduism. Christianity has a balance that other religions lack
Bisaal
Thanks for this Jim. I’m going to feature your thoughts in a new post.
Bisaal: Yes it’s my understanding that the weight of “historic Christianity” teaches that sex is chiefly for the purpose of procreation. The early church fathers probably thought you shouldn’t enjoy it. And there is also a strong tradition that sees sex as “unitive” (meaning sexual pleasure is great because it unites the spouses) AND “procreative,” but that you can’t separate the two.
Now, when I say “historic Christianity,” I’m speaking rather conservatively. There is also a tradition in Christianity of heresy and dissent (prompting orthodox Christians to reply: “This isn’t ‘historic Christianity.’) And I have no problem with theologically liberal, unorthodox and heretical faiths (indeed were I to become a Christian it would probably be that kind).
I’m just stepping back and trying to understand Christianity as defined by its orthodoxy and the weight of historical tradition (that goes back thousands of years; if something occurred for instance 150 years ago, I consider it relatively “novel” looking at the big historical picture).
I think the expectation that you will be as romantically and sexually satisfied with your spouse as when you first met is one of the leading causes of divorce.
I think the expectation that if things don’t work out you can always get a divorce is the leading cause of divorce. Changed economic conditions comes in a strong second.
Even if the naive belief that even one, let alone both spouses will remain in the throes of romantic and sexual passion forever is a factor in the failure of first marriages (and I’m sure it is, not that the church has ever taught such nonsense), it hardly explains the failure of second and third, etc. marriages.
The whole point of promising is so that the person promised has reason to believe you’ll do what you said you’d do even if you later change your mind. Now, however, all we ever promise is “until I change my mind.”
I agree DA. But check the Ted Haggard link. I’ve heard a number of evangelicals repeat the nonsense that you should expect to “remain in the throes of romantic and sexual passion [practically] forever,” because 1) “marriage” meaning heterosexual marriage is such a wonderful God given institution, and 2) it’s so especially wonderful for “evangelicals” — God’s people.
[...] so it is when I write about things like historic Christianity and sex, self sacrifice, revolt against government, I really look back at the big picture. Jim Babka leaves [...]
Jonathan,
Your discussion of Christian attitudes toward marriage, procreation, and sex, brings to mind Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, declaring:
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ” 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (KJV).
“I would that all men were even as I myself,” the Apostle continues, alluding to his own celibacy. 1 Corinthians 7:7 (KJV). So of the “the unmarried and widows” he writes: “It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (KJV).
A heck of a lot better, in my experience.
Eric