I apologize for the delay – we’ve had some network difficulties at CBC. Today I welcome Dr. Tim Gardner to the blog. Both Dr. Gardner and I would like for my students (and other blog readers) to engage in some dialogue about Sacred Sex. Once Dr. Gardner has responded to this post, I invite everyone else to join in by offering your own reactions and questions.Dr. Gardner, thank you again for offering to help us better understand your book. Let me quote a passage from your introduction to Sacred Sex. “God wanted sex to be a lot more than just a really fun think for wives and husbands to do together…. God designed marital sex to be an encounter with the divine. Sexual intimacy, with all of its overwhelming emotions and heart-pounding sensations, was never intended to be expressed solely in the emotional and physical realms. Rather, it is to be a spiritual, even mystical, experience in which two bodies become one. God is present in a very real way every time this happens. Sex really is holy. It’s a sacred place shared in the intimacy of marriage. And it’s an act of worship, a sacrament of marriage that invites and welcomes the very presence of God. That’s the meaning and benefit of holy sex.”
Many of my students have read Sacred Sex, but there will be some readers who have not. Is this an accurate summary of your ideas? Please feel free to restate or elaborate the main idea of your book in any way you’d like.
One of the major points of discussion for my students was your view on singleness. You do spend a few pages discussing the concept of the image of God and singleness, but it isn’t the focus of your work in Sacred Sex. Some students and readers have wrestled with the following passage, for example:
"Man, before the creation of woman, was somehow incomplete.... As a man is united with his wife in sexual intimacy, they become one flesh.... That is when a man and woman together most fully represent the image of God, which was breathed into them when He gave them life at creation. This is a marvelous truth. Our Creator God, who is three persons in one Godhead, created a man and woman who become one flesh in sexual union, fully representing the God who created them and gave them His image. It is important to note that this truth about sex doesn’t mean that unmarried persons are somehow less representative of the image of God than those who are married. It does mean that the fullness of God, His complete image (albeit marred in our sinful state) is not fully represented by a lone individual. It is found only when women and men are together in community and communion in the body of Christ. ...And that togetherness of male and female is most fully expressed in the holy state of matrimony as celebrated in the oneness of the one-flesh union."
Can you please share more of your thoughts on singleness?
Posts
9 comments:
These are provocative thoughts, but I disagree that a marriage union is the only institution that can fully reveal God's image. Was Paul a less effective evangelist or a more effective one because he was single? Do we disqualify Jesus as a single man because he was the incarnation of Deity? What do we with Paul's admonition, "Do not seek a wife," if we believe all Scripture to be inerrent, infallible, and divinely inspired?
i agree with the above thought from henry. my thoughts on the author's take on singles are in a previous post. however, i have not the read the entire book, so i am interested to read any commentary on this post by the author or other readers.
So are you saying that every time I have sex with my husband, I'm worshiping God? Hold on...I need to make a phone call...
Okay, I'm back. I do agree that sex is a sacred intimacy in marriage and should always be so but frankly, it creeps me out that it would "invite the presence of God." As if the act itself is some ritual one performs to channel the Holy Spirit. While I think it does please God when a married couple fulfills their marriage vows, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of "holy sex."
First of all, I am honored that your class is reading my book. Second, I thrilled about the opportunity to participate in the blog. Prayerfully it will be an opportunity to clarify and not confuse -- though I have certainly been guilty of the later.
Included in what I consider the top five points of the book is the passage you quoted: Sex is holy. And the primary purpose of sex, more important than pleasure and even procreation, is oneness-- sex is about unification. And ultimate unification in marriage is about sex. Whenever the Bible uses the word "one" or "oneness" in relation to marriage it is talking about sex. If we miss this -- if we think the primary purpose for sex is about pleasure or kids or even expressing love -- sex will leave us confused and empty. Especially the pleasure piece. Make no mistake, it was God who intended sex to be pleasurable (sorry to disagree with certain early church fathers); but if we make pleasure the ultimate goal, it will always fail to ultimately satisfy. The other point I would re-emphasize here is the role of sexual intercourse in the marriage covenant. It is the "oath sign," the "sealing of the deal;" it is the real, "You may kiss the bride" and "exchange rings." That is another reason God stresses the importance of sex within marriage.
On the singleness question— Let me start by saying that there are people much smarter than me that have debated the question of the image of God for 100s of years, and I don’t profess to have any earth-shattering thoughts on the subject. I will also share that I did not get married until I was 28 y.o. and was constantly frustrated when members of the Christian community would insinuate (or blatantly say) that I needed to get married to be “complete.” I fully endorse the truth of 1 Cor 7 as Henry pointed out; when it comes to serving God’s Kingdom, it is better to be single; as the Apostle Paul taught, having a spouse and kids brings all sorts of concerns and time constraints that are absent when single. I was a youth minister on staff with Young Life when I got married; I told my committee folks who were pushing me to get married that I would be spending less time with kids when that happened. Now, to the question. It is very important to understand that I do not say (or didn’t intend to) that those that are single somehow reflect or embody less of the image of God than those who are married. A married man or woman on their own is certainly no more “in the image of God” than a single man or woman. However, what I do believe is that the full image of God is only found in both men and women together. Can a single man and a single woman together reflect God’s whole image? Yes. I think one of the questions we have to answer is, “Why both?” Why both men and women? Is there something more than just reproduction? Comedian Bill Cosby once said that women are not just men who can have a baby, and men are not just women who can spike a football. There are some definite differences between the two (though we have to be very careful not to paint with a broad, stereotypical brush). I think it is the combination of those differences that we find a more complete picture God’s characteristics. Still, we cannot ignore that in Eph. 5, Paul (the one who said do not seek a wife) is the one who writes that the “profound” mystery of marriage – more specifically the “oneness” of marriage (which, as I said in the previous post, means sex) was always intended to represent the intimacy that Christ has/desires with His followers. Again, it is not that individuals, either single or married, that are more important or more in the image – it is simply that it is the oneness of the marriage relationship – male and female – that was given the privilege of representing Christ’s love for the church. Okay... more confused or clearer?
Rachel ... great question. Will answer shortly. Peace.
Dr. Gardner, thanks for your comments on singles. Being a single, I do sometimes feel I have to strive harder in life to proove to people that I am a whole person, made whole in Christ, and I do not need a husband to complete me. Your previous explanation does make a bit more sense in my mind than did the excerpt from pg. 17 of your book. I would like to read the entire book someday, but feel, maybe it would be best read when I get engaged or married. Thanks!
Rachel, thanks again for your thoughts. First of all (an I know you know this), just because something creeps us out, doesn't mean it's wrong -- especially when it comes to sex. Our own pathologies can be a very skewed perspective. On the worshipping God part -- in the New Testament, our act of worship is how we live our lives. And worship is as much as acknowledging the presence of God. So, even in sex, when we honor God with our sexuality by expressing it has He designed, then, yes, we are offering a gift of worship. However, sex is not some weird channeling of the Spirit. But the oneness that occurs in sex -- which, yes, has a mysterious component to it -- was designed by God to represent Christ and the Church, so, yes, the act is holy. Re-read 1 Cor 7 -- on taking Christ into an unholy act of sex. The opposite is true as well. He is honored when it is holy. For most folks, their shame is what prevents them from acknowledging God's presence in sex. Okay, I'm rambling now.
Post a Comment