Yesterday Tony Jones directed me to Tim Dalrymple's blog entry entitled "The Young Christian's Guide to Sex at Seminary." I was particularly intrigued by his argument since he uses Princeton Theological Seminary as an example of where, in his estimation, mainline Christian seminaries seem to be failing in their task of training young men and women for Christian discipleship. Since he and Tony and I all went there, there's an interesting sort of "class reunion" quality to this discussion that made it seem worth some deeper reflection.
Since reading it I've given a lot of thought to Tim's main points, and I think that while he elaborates on some important issues, his diagnosis stems very strongly from his confessed "evangelical with conservative leanings" point of view. Clearly the sexual mores that he took for granted coming from his background and outlook aren't reflective of every Christian (even, I suspect, every evangelical Christian). They certainly aren't reflective of the sexual mores that I grew up with, or experienced as being widespread in two mainline seminaries (including PTS). But Tim's blog post gave me pause and caused me to wonder why that is. I've come up with several possibilities, none of which, I think, exclude the others, and all of which may contribute to the liberalization of sexual mores among Christians in general and seminarians in particular.
Let me just note that I suspect that Tim would like to think that his position represents the normative base point for Christians in the early part of the 21st century, and can't figure out why folks in seminary have deviated from it. I think the truth is the opposite. Tim's very sincerely held belief is, and has been for a very long time (I'd guess since at least the early 20th century), very far from the norm among Christians. However, it took until the 1960s before people were willing to be more open about the rarity of actual adherence to the principle of premarital chastity (I remember reading a statistic at one point that fully 50% of all childbirths in the middle ages were undertaken in relationships that were, as they say, "without benefit of clergy"). Tim's position is the outlier, and has been for a very long time.
But why is this? There are, I think, several possibilities:
1. IT'S JUST NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. This, I think, is at the heart of most young people's attitude toward premarital sex in contemporary America. In the grand scheme of things, whether you have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend is of only somewhat more significance than the question of whether you take your junior year abroad or major on political science rather than sociology. It matters, of course, but the actual decision isn't that earth shattering. I would guess that even among those Christians who believe that doing it is a "sin" (again, a sharply declining number would be my guess), they wouldn't consider it a very important sin. No more important perhaps than drinking a few too many beers on a Friday night, taking a puff on a joint, or failing to return a borrowed book. Sure, it may be wrong, but on the spectrum of wrong things, a loving, consensual, pleasurable act between two unmarried people is of a very minor variety.
From an evangelical perspective, of course, it would be argued in response that sexual fidelity is central to Christian morality, but I've got to say that I don't see it. You can point to Biblical passages that accentuate it, but you can point to other passages where it really is not that big a deal. Certainly in his own teaching and preaching, Jesus had a lot more room for the sexually "impure" than for those that were quick to condemn them. Concubines abound in the Old Testament! And the story of Judah and Tamar doesn't even blink at Judah's willingness to sleep with a prostitute.
On the other hand, clearly sex carries implications that ARE a big deal, particularly when issues of emotional exploitation and pregnancy are raised. But these issues, in a world of birth control and frequent serial monogamy can be separated to some degree from sex by people who are careful enough and willing to to do so. Ultimately, if the sexual relationship takes place in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship, then the question of marriage is secondary.
2. TRADITIONAL SEXUAL ETHICS AREN'T THAT RELEVANT. The social conditions that were at the heart of the more traditional sexual ethics that Tim is advocating don't really have much to say to those of us in mainstream culture who were born after, say, 1960. The world we grew up in is a world where, as above, birth control is widespread and where marriage is often deferred until quite late in one's reproductive life.
In a world where the average age of marriage continues to climb, where women are often interested in pursuing other things besides marriage and motherhood, where economic pressures often necessarily make marriage and childbearing wait, it's very hard to see the relevance of a set of sexual mores that assume most people will be married by their mid-to-late teens.
While for some Christians, sexual ethics -- or any ethics for that matter -- don't have to be relevant, since they are simply rooted in obedience to a divine command (something that I think that is embedded in Tim's assumptions, though he may dispute that), for most Christians, as for most people in general, if a moral norm seems irrelevant and, indeed, arbitrary, and if violating it doesn't seem to harm anyone, it's very hard to convince them to adhere to it. I'd go farther and say that, if there is not a comprehensible, sensible reason to adhere to a set of mores, people WON'T. Even Christians. Even seminarians. And again, as above, even if they might abstractly understand it to be sinful, in the absence of any rational understanding of what is HARMFUL about it, the idea that it's sinful simply because God (or more probably accurately, some pastor somewhere) said so won't amount to much, any more than with drinking or dancing.
Connected to this is the fact that for many mainline protestants, and an increasing number of evangelicals, who care about gay and lesbian inclusion in the life of the church, it's hard to square the relevance of more traditional sexual ethics for heterosexuals when those ethics seem to have been so harmful to homosexuals over the years.
Can an ethic that includes unreasonable demands for gays and lesbians be any more reasonable when applied to heterosexual relationships? Again, even a relatively conservative stand which might say, for example, "gay and lesbian relationships aren't optimal, but for those men and women who are incapable of having heterosexual relationships, they can be embraced within the church as doing the best they can," can be extended to many heterosexual men and women's experience. They can just as easily say: "Ideally, I'd like to have remained chaste until marriage, but I haven't and I won't, so I'll do the best I can until I get married."
But at core, I suspect, it's really simply an belief that those traditional sexual mores don't really have much to say to contemporary Christians, because they are rooted in a very, very different time and place.
3. THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT. This is connected to #1 above, but takes a different angle. Premarital sex isn't that big a deal because, quite frankly, SO MANY OTHER THINGS ARE. From a Christian ethical perspective there are poor to be fed, justice to be fought for, prisoners to be visited, naked to be clothed, thirsty to be given water, etc. With all of this going on, it's hard to view sexual morality as being near the top of the list of things Christians should be concerning themselves with. Again, even if one might think that there are better and worse ways of engaging in a sexual relationship, it's something that I'll get to after I've solved all of these other problems first.
4. IT'S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID. For liberal Christians, I think that there is a bit of eye-rolling that takes place when more conservative Christians start going on about sexual ethics because there often seems to be an assumption on the part of conservatives that if they've got their sexual house rightly ordered, they're doing their job to adhere to Chritian morality. It's almost the polar opposite of what I've described above.
What's more, while concentrating on sexual ethics, and seeking to root that in Biblical teaching, little attention is paid, for example, to what the Bible says about usury, and what that implies for seminary students' use of credit cards, or their student loan debt, or even the fact that they keep their meager savings in an interest-bearing savings account. By the same token, little attention is paid to the Biblical teaching about the communal character of the church, and the early church's example of a community that held all things in common. Particularly given the potential that exists for a seminary to become a model community for the larger world, the failure to take these elements of Christian morality into account represents an abject failure to consider what it would mean for the Church to truly be a "contrast society."
5. SECTS FOR CHRISTIANS. I think that Tim's analysis is rooted, even if he wouldn't put it this way, in an church/sect model of Christianity where he's occupying the "sect" category and he sees the other students at PTS as occupying the "church" category. As a sectarian, he views the church as being essentially counter cultural, and contemporary sexual ethics as reflecting a very "pro-cultural" failure on the part of many Chrisitans, and many of his fellow seminarians. But even sectarian Christians aren't counter-cultural about EVERYTHING (Amish perhaps being an exception, but even then, not everywhere). Tim will play frisbee, and presumably take out a student loan for his education, thus engaging in very "pro-cultural" behaviors. He'll drive a car and use the internet. But he's "counter-cultural" on sex, and this, for him, is a mark, I think that his Christianity is more "genuine" than that of many of his peers, since it is a reflection of his "obedience" to the command of God.
And as I suggest above, there is something to be said for a conception of the church as a for of "contrast society," representing an alternative to the pro-cultural biases of the world at large. But how that counter-cultural spirit is embodied in the church, and what moral norms are viewed as central to it, requires a lot more reflection on the part of both mainline and evangelical Christians than Tim's sniffing at the cultural captivity of mainline protestantism lends itself to.
And yet … if Tim's obedience to the command of God required him to abstain from premarital sex (a triumph that he's sad to see so few of his peers achieved), then is it disobedience for him to take a loan, keep his money in savings, refuse to share all of his goods in common, drive a car? Or would he reply, that these things aren't that big a deal, and aren't really all that relevant to his Christian life? Would he say than there are more important things to worry about? Or would he say that liberal Christians, by focusing on these matters to the exclusion of sexual ethics are at the end of the day engaged in acts of hypocrisy?
This is what makes Christian discipleship so hard, and Christian ethics so difficult. It's also why, I think, at the end of the day it's vitally important that we affirm we're saved by Grace.
"a culture that has slowly but steadily carved away the theological and moral commitments that teach us who God is and how he is best known and loved and served"
That is a helluva way to describe an entire faith tradition.
Posted by: Rebecca | October 29, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Yes, yes and yes. The only thing I wonder about is tim's assumption that all Christians agree on abstaining from pre-marital sex. It's an understandable assumption given that I have yet to see a mainline Protestant Sunday school or youth group curriculum about making godly sexual choices other than abstainance. Without a countering voice, the conservative morality will cause us all to be painted with the same brush.
Posted by: Rebecca | October 29, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Rebecca, regarding your first post: It's hard to believe anyone could ever have found him judgmental on the issue, isn't it?
Regarding your second post: I'm certainly not OPPOSED to more traditional approaches to sexual ethics, but as I said above, it's nonsensical to take them for granted in today's culture. Nor do I think it's particularly necessary to do so. We need, as I think you are implying, a way of talking about human sexuality in Christian churches that includes a broad array of possible relationships without simply declaring one very -- and increasingly -- rare instance as the inviolable norm and all others somehow deficient.
Those who do practice a more traditional form of "wait till the wedding night" monogamy may be engaged in an act of supererogation, something particularly saintly perhaps, but we needn't take that as the basis by which all other relationships are found deficient.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | October 29, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Scott, I find this conversation interesting as well, since we all attended PES during the same time-frame. While I think you make some valid points, I also think Tim does. I do not think his argument means to point out the monogamous dating couple who happen to be sleeping together. He meant to bring attention to the random hook-ups and other college-level shenanigans that went on. Though Tony says he never knew of this, I suspect it's because a) he wasn't living in a dorm and b) he spent more time with PhD students. I could add some stories to Tim's list from my first year in the dorm. And I couldn't help but think, regardless of how judgmental this may make me, that I couldn't quite imagine some of these people being pastors in a few short years. (Granted, some of them dropped out.) So for me, Tim's real question is: what does it say when a seminarian doesn't seem to have some basic levels of self-control and maturity? I think if there's a liberal/conservative divide, it's that you might respond by saying, "Is that person, however, helping the poor?" while the conservative would say, "Can that person really live into full potential without his/her own house in order?" As someone who tries to stand between those two camps, I think there's a place for the validity of both questions.
Posted by: Danielle Shroyer | October 31, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Hey there Danielle,
You may be right, and perhaps I'm "over reading" Tim's piece a bit. I'd just make two observations: First, I still do think his piece takes aim at ANY premarital shenanigans among seminarians, whether in a committed dating relationship or not.
Second, in either case, I do think that the analysis above applies. And let me note my response in comments to Rebecca -- I do think there's a lot to be said, perhaps an enormous amount, for upholding a more "traditional" sexual ethic among Christians. But I think we need to find a way in the church to deal with a much broader array of sexual relationships, and to teach about them meaningfully within the Church.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | October 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Another issue is that so many of the people who hold to a "traditional" sexual ethic also think that people like Danielle shouldn't be pastors simply because they don't have Y-chromosomes. Maybe Tim is one of the exceptions, however he doesn't clarify this in his post. That would be an interesting post to see, a self proclaimed conservative defending women's leadership in the church.
The truly unfortunate part in my estimation is that a significant number of people might be more willing to give traditional sexual ethics a second look if it didn't so often come across as having all this anti-woman baggage attached to it.
Posted by: Alex | October 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM
You've completely missed the point of Genesis 38 in Judah's willingness to sleep with a prostitute. The reason it doesn't bat an eye at the fact is because the writer is endeavoring to show Judah is a failure as a son of the promise and a wicked man. The point and climax of the story is when he comes to his senses, confesses his sin, and repents. He undertands his wickedness in light of Tamar's righteousness (which is anything but pure or ideal).
God is gracious and sovereign, merciful and the judge of wicked men. He saves failures like Judah and prostitutes like Tamar, when they confess and repent of their sin...and he smokes wicked men like Er and Onan without having to give any other rationale than "They were wicked in my sight."
Posted by: Casey | October 31, 2011 at 05:15 PM
Casey, I don't think so. I think you're reading in a Christian interpretation, and a whole huge raft of Christian assumptions about what this narrative "means" that aren't borne by the narrative itself. It's fine to have a hermeneutical lens for your interpretation, but don't go acting like this "is" what the passage "means" without qualification.
I happen to have Gerhard von Rad's commentary on Genesis right here. He makes a number of salient points: "It would be barbarism to want to decipher the main point in ethnological terms,as this would be to misunderstand something of its essence, namely, its wonderful openness to what is human -- passions, guilt, paternal anxiety, love, honor, chivalry, all churning up the narrot circle of one family in labyrinthine entanglement! Of course the narrative presumes readers whose perspicacity lets them be caught by the hopelessly complicated legal situation and who then rejoice in the solution because it respects both parties. For this narrative, however, in contrast to many others, we are in the fortunate position of knowing the narrator's opinion of the vent. The narrative is so constructed that there can be no doubt: Tamar, in spite of her action which borders on a crime, is throne justified in the end. Judah states it at the climax of the story, and only Tamar is unmistakably praised by the narrator. The dominating role of man and things human becomes clear from that fact that the actual narrative in vs. 12-30 does not speak at all of Yahweh's acting or speaking. There does not seem to be any specifically religious aspect of the obscure event. Nevertheless, here is a world in which the narrator clearly believes that Yahweh is present. He need not always be spoken of explicitly. Here the astonishing humanity of a woman has attracted the narrator's attention." (361-2)
Of course, if I had to preach a sermon on the topic, what you say would be very useful, but I don't think it bears up under a straight exegetical analysis.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | November 01, 2011 at 05:53 AM
Scott,
I'd like to address points 2 and 3 above. I believe that Sexual ethics should be relevant to younger folk and in fact should be seen as a social justice issue. Given the sex trade, global HIV pandemic, rapidly growing STD rates in our own country etc. how can anyone honestly say that Sexual ethics are irrelevant (I realize you might not think that personally)? I believe a case for chastity and fidelity could (and probably should) be made on social issues alone. I admit that the "biblical" case isn't as air tight as we conservatives would like to make it on this issue but I do think the social issues surrounding sex should cause us to at least pause and at least give abstinence a fair hearing. That is that it might just be a way to deal with some of these social justice issues. A difficult way indeed, but a way none the less. (p.s. I also went to PTSem and am aware of the Dorm atmosphere though I lived in family housing and had a much different experience)
Posted by: Jason R | November 01, 2011 at 01:28 PM
My two cents: http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2011/10/evangelical-takes-princeton-seminary-to-task.html
Posted by: John Petty | November 01, 2011 at 02:49 PM
I have found this subject particularly interesting especially since I am fellow seminarian. Unfortunately, I did not go to PTS, but I can speak from evangelical Baptist perspective. I attended Logsdon Seminary at Hardin-Simmons University for both my undergraduate degree in theology and part of my seminary education. I am looking to go to SMU to finish up my degree. All of that to say I can attest to the fact that even evangelical seminary’s like Logsdon which is heavily rooted in the Baptist tradition have some of the same features that PTS has. I think what Tim is noticing is that the Christian norms on sexuality are changing and many are afraid of what that might mean. I for one am completely convinced that our description of sexual ethics is outdated and is largely based on “traditional” ethics that seem more appropriate for a pre 1960s generation. I strongly feel that we need to reorient our Christian morals about sex around some of the ethics that the GLBT community has formed. Now in saying this many people who call themselves evangelicals might reject me, but I think there are some valid points to be made.
For the sake of space I want to just focus on one key point: sexuality has for most of Christian history has been defined by heterosexual males. Marriage as we know it today is invention of late modern and Romantic periods. ‘Traditional’ marriage was more a social, political, and honestly reproductive enterprise. Romantic love and marriage as a social construct didn’t exist until much later. Many authors have noted this, but for some reason most seems to think this is somehow a bad thing. I for one really like the idea of romantic love. Call me a product of my age, but the thought that I can love someone and engage in a loving sexual relationship with them seems much more enjoyable than marrying just for social reasons or to bear offspring. All of that to say that sexual ethics needs to move past dichotomies of male and female, heterosexual and homosexual into something more holistic. Brian Ammons early this year gave a spectacular talk on sexuality with Richard Rohr which described sexuality as conception of worship and of liturgy. I think Brian is on the right tract here when discussing sexuality. Why can’t sex be an act of communion with God? I guess what I am really trying to get at is that the Christian church really needs to get past the polarities of liberal and conservative and we need to have some honest discussion about sexuality. Ultimately, I think the Church can be counter cultural by focusing its sexual morality on loving committed relationships that embody God’s character of love and sacrifice.
Posted by: Travis I | November 02, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Travis, I think there's a lot to what you say here. It might be interesting to do a genealogy of the idea of "romantic love" as it has come to define much of western, and particularly American conceptions of marriage in the modern context. It's not at all clear to me that marriage has historically represented the kind of intimacy and relationality that is at the heart of a lot of the traditionalist defense of marriage. Indeed, for someone like Aristotle, the idea of having genuine intimacy with a woman was, for a man, impossible, since intimacy required equality, which was impossible for men and women to achieve. This, of course, underscores a lot of what you're saying above.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | November 02, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Scott,
Genesis 38 clearly shows the raw and terrible reality of social, as well as sexual, sin. Tamar is put in the position she is because of the faithlessness of Judah. On that much I think we can agree. The rest of what you say, not so much. Lively discussion though!
p.s. Von Rad's commentary reads like about like an overcooked steak tastes. He could use a good dose of the Spirit to juicen things up a bit. :)
Posted by: Casey | November 03, 2011 at 06:49 AM
Casey, I'm sure old Gerhard would also have preached the passage differently as well. But yes, I think you and I do agree that at heart this story is about Judah's failure to act in good faith toward Tamar, to recognize his obligations to her, and to act responsibly. That said, the central sexual act that draws Judah's attention to these truths is treated in a rather matter of fact way. Had the prostitute not been Tamar, it would have been of no account whatsoever.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | November 03, 2011 at 07:34 AM