Who's Values Part One--Sexuality

I've been playing with an idea now for a couple weeks and am really interested in feedback (I know commenting on this blog isn't of highest importance for everyone, but I'd love to get in some face to face conversations about this).

My basic premise is this--the sins the evangelical church has been most critical of are the ones that have been most strongly opposed in our nation's history. The ones we let slide (and sometimes even promote) are the correspond to the values applauded in our nation's history. I will deal with four issues here by way of example--sexuality, alcohol consumption, wealth, and pride. Because this takes some time to develop I'm just going to take one per post.

Sexuality
I recently had a friend who was asked to marry a couple who claimed to be Christians. He asked them if they were living together and they responded that they were. He told them that if they didn't live separately until the wedding that he would not do a Christian ceremony. He would still do the ceremony (and believed that they were Christians who had gotten off track in this area), but he would do the same thing he does for people who are not Christians.

Until the sexual revolution of the 1960s the United States was a fairly conservative nation in regard to sexuality. I don't pretend people weren't having affairs, premarital sex. and homosexual sex, but these were not things people broadcast. To a large extent they were looked down upon, even outside the church (and in what I'm trying to develop that is actually more important). Then the era of free love came along and blew up the conventional sensibilities of the nation in this area. At the time, many looked down on those who led and participated in the revolution that shifted how we think about sexuality. But over the years our nation's culture has come to accept and even glorify promiscuous and liberated sexuality.

But not so with the church. We would like to point to the Bible and say that we take a strong stand on issues of sexuality because it instructs us to do so--and I don't dispute that it does. However, we don't take a strong stand on all the issues the Bible speaks to, even those it speaks to strongly, so why this one? For many years we were able to stand with our nation in affirming a certain sexual ethic. Our nation has shifted but we have remained steadfast. It seems even that may be changing.

To come back to my friend. I don't think he did the wrong thing. He took a stand on an important topic. And he did it out of love because he knew the people he was dealing with. It made them do some reflecting and helped them realize they had stopped trying to please Christ above all else. So my example of him is not a negative one, I'm just asking the question, why are we so strong on this area where sin can manifest itself?

Sex God

After enjoying Velvet Elvis and recommending it to many people I was looking forward to Rob Bell's new book Sex God. Now if you're about to make some joke about how this book is about you, you're too late. Unofficial statistics from the Denver Seminary bookstore (David) are that about 63% of people who see the title make that joke.

The book is actually about the connections between sex(uality) and God. Here's my thoughts on it.

The Good

1) As he usually does, Rob (we're on a first name basis, he just doesn't know it) brings out some very interesting points. He spends a lot of time unpacking Hebrew concepts that bring life to biblical concepts.
2) This would be a good book for someone who doesn't have much biblical or Christian theological background. He does a good job giving accessible descriptions of concepts like "oneness."
3) He does a good job working through the submission issue.
4) So often in Christian circles we communicate, "Don't have sex until you're married. God says so and that settles it." But for anything God tells us to do there are good reasons. He wants what's best for us. Rob presents clearly many of the reasons why a Christian sexual ethic is best for us--not just random rules to follow.

The Bad (at least for me)

1) "Our sexuality is all of the ways we strive to reconnect with our world, with each other, and with God." This statement just seems way too broad to me. From this statement and other parts of the book I get the sense he's saying, "anything relational in any fashion is sexual." I suppose you can redefine sexuality in this way, but then what does it really mean? There are some relationships that are sexual and others that aren't. I suppose a relationship with a good friend could be related to sexuality in that it is or isn't sexual based on our sexuality, but now I'm confusing myself!
2) This seems to be a collection of a number of things he wanted to talk about that aren't all that connected. He strays from his stated purpose for the book. Although assuming the broad view of sexuality in #1 I suppose it's all related.
3) There wasn't much substance. I think some of the concepts are great but probably could have been covered in an article or two. There really wasn't enough to warrant a book.

So having said all that--it's a quick enough read that it's worth picking up. I'd love to hear reactions to the book as you read it.