T(r)oy's Marbles

Sexual Boundaries

I’d like to begin and end this sermon with a single theme: grace. How’s this for a message of grace? God made us sexual, so our sexuality is good.

I heard a story recently that reminds us: the inherent goodness of sex is a precious gift from God. Once, a husband and wife who had several children were having some troubles in their marriage. So, they went to see a marriage counselor. They told the counselor, “We’ve got some problems in our sex life.” The counselor asked what those problems were. The man said, “Well, me and my wife have never seen each other naked.” Shocked, the counselor said: “But, HOW…did you do that? I mean…You’ve got…how many children???” So, the man explained. “Well, my wife was told by her parents from a very early age that sex itself was a sin. So, whenever we wanted to have sex, I would go into the bathroom and take my clothes off; then she would take her clothes off in the bedroom, turn out the lights, and get under the covers. I would come out, we’d do the dirty deed in the dark, and then confess our sin afterwards.”

If I were counseling this couple I would start by saying: “God made you sexual. Your sexuality is good! Don’t be ashamed of it! Delight in it!” That’s grace.

But this story tells us another thing: it’s possible to have a sexual relationship with someone in a way that God never intended, even in marriage. Our sexual impulse may be God-given, but our sexual behavior can become dysfunctional. I feel safe in saying that what that couple was experiencing in their sexual union was not what God intended. And here lies the problem of today’s topic: the establishment of appropriate sexual boundaries. In this instance, the boundaries were drawn too tightly.

Let’s say that sex is like football. By my house in Madrid, we have a small concrete pitch that is a scaled down version of a full-size field. If you were to play 11-man football on that pitch, you would soon feel that the boundaries are drawn too tightly. The game would lose its joy. In a similar way, sexual boundaries (when drawn too tightly) have a way of taking the joy out of sex.

But, the reverse is also a problem: sexual boundaries, when drawn too broadly, also have a way of sapping sex of its intended significance and meaning. Let’s say, in the case of our football analogy, that the pitch was 10 kilometers square in dimension. What would happen to the game? It would, in fact, have to become a whole new game. In the same way, sexual boundaries, when drawn too broadly change the meaning of sex so significantly that it ceases to reflect sex as God intended it. And this is the problem that is most common these days. Rarely do we suffer from the problem of drawing the boundaries too tightly. In fact, if our appetite for sex had a similar effect on our bodies as our appetite for food we would all weigh 300 kilos! It seems that modern society has developed an unhealthy fascination with sex. If we are honest, we would all have to admit that that much is not really up for debate. What seems to be up for debate is: “Who’s to say what the ‘appropriate’ boundaries should be? Who defines that?”

This is where the Song of Songs from the Bible can help us. Some time ago, I heard a sermon based out of the Song of Songs by my friend and mentor Brian Newman of Crossroads Church in Amsterdam. In that sermon, Brian defined the three kinds of love mentioned in the Song of Songs. He mentioned that the Song of Songs distinguishes between love in friendship, romantic love, and physical, sexual love through the use of three distinct Hebrew words (raya, ahaba and dod, respectively). To illustrate the difference, Brian had three candles up on stage to represent these three types of love. At the end of his message, he addressed people who were single and noted that they may be thinking: “So what you’re saying is…we get to light just two of these candles, but married people get to light all three?” Now: because of our fascination with sex, and because sex is, admittedly, so powerful, we’re all waiting to hear the answer to the following questions: “When do I get to light the third candle? Under what conditions is it appropriate to ‘light the third candle?’ And who’s to say what’s appropriate?”

This message is based on the conviction that God is the best one to say what’s appropriate. After all, He loves us and has our best interest at heart and He has proven that love through Christ’s sacrifice. But: “How do we know what God thinks about this issue?” I would suggest at least 3 ways:

1. The Bible
2. Common sense
and
3. The law of grace.

I, by the way, think we need all three.

I’d like to look first at what the Bible says about “appropriate sexual boundaries” because I believe that’s the simplest way we can find out what God thinks about this issue.

Look at Song of Songs chapter 8, verse 4. Here, the Song gives us a helpful boundary with sexuality: “Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.” “There is a time for everything,” Solomon says in another book he wrote. Here he’s saying, “Wait until the right time.” So, when is the right time to “light the third candle?” When is the right time to “awaken physical love?”

Verses 6 and 7 tell us: “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm…” Make note of the word “seal.” A seal is a sign of promise, a symbol of commitment. In this case, it’s a wedding ring. In other words, don’t indulge this kind of love until a firm commitment has been made in marriage.

This idea is reinforced later in verses 8 and following: “We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for? If she is a wall, we will build towers of silver on her. If she is a door, we will enclose her with panels of cedar. I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers…”

The text is pretty clear. Close “the vineyard” to all “would-be tenants” until a definite commitment has been made in marriage.

There are other texts in the Scriptures that confirm this idea even more clearly. They can be found in places like Romans 13, I Corinthians 5 and 6, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, I Thessalonians 4, I Peter 4, II Peter 2, Hebrews 13, and I John 2. In fact, in some of those texts (and in many other texts) the Bible tells us “any sexual activity outside of marriage is out of line with God’s intentions.” This, of course, includes adultery.

So that’s what God tells us in the Bible: Sex is intended to be enjoyed exclusively within the security and protection of a marriage relationship. Those are the “boundary lines”, so to speak.

Now here’s the problem: some of us honestly disagree with the boundaries the Bible delineates. Some of us would say, “What the Bible tells us is out-of-touch with the modern era. It was written for a particular time and place, so it isn’t binding anymore. So, why can’t we just use common sense and the law of grace? Why do we need the Bible?”

Let’s pursue this for sake of argument. Let’s assume we don’t need the Bible. Let’s see where “mere common sense” takes us with regard to sexual boundaries. The question is: Under that criteria how would you go about deciding what is ‘appropriate’ in our sexual expression?

I assert that most people using mere common sense would tell you: “Here’s how you can draw some healthy sexual boundaries: First, you can do whatever you want, as long as all parties concerned mutually consent of their own free will.” We could call this “the law of mutual consent.” I can think of 4 scenarios where the law of mutual consent is needed: A. and B. in the case of disallowing rape and child molestation C. in the case of adultery where one person is clearly the victim, or D. in the case of marital sex where one party takes on the role of the oppressor and demands sexual output by the other party against their own wishes. In all 4 cases, we would all say the law of mutual consent is a good guide. But common sense dictates we need another “law” to guide us…So…

2. You can do whatever you want as long as no one gets hurt. Now, some of you may be thinking. “Why do we need this law? That goes without saying.” But does it? What happens if we base our sexual expression solely on the law of mutual consent? I’ll tell you what happens: Cannibalism in Germany. Some time ago, there was a case reported in the news of a man being charged with eating another man. What was so surprising about this case was that the man who was eaten willingly went into it knowing what was going to happen: he responded to a classified ad posted by the cannibal specifying the gruesome “terms of engagement”! These two guys mutually agreed to do this! And here’s what’s even more interesting about this case: the façade placed on this horrific act of “mutual consent” was sexual in nature. So, it seems we need to add this second point that upholds the law of doing no harm.

But, third, let’s add: You can do whatever you want as long as you love each other. Now (since sex is empty without love) that makes sense. Love should be involved there somewhere.

Still others would add a fourth: there should be some kind of commitment. Now: people who base their stance on common sense alone would say the nature of that commitment can vary, but there should be some kind of commitment.

But, here’s the problem: some people, relying solely on common sense, would say: “Who’s to say all four of these criteria need to be met? What’s wrong with sexual exploration without commitment, as long as it’s by mutual consent and no one gets hurt? For that matter, why would the parties concerned even need to be in love? What’s wrong, for example, with going to see a prostitute? I mean, she’s doing this of her own free will…And what’s wrong with a little internet porn? Nobody gets hurt, do they?” Or do they? I don’t think I need to tell you stories about this, so let me just say: prostitution is not good for the prostitute in any way (physically, emotionally, spiritually). Prostitution is slow death by sexual decay. And let’s not delude ourselves thinking the pornography industry is humanity’s latest brilliant innovation to stabilize culture. We preoccupy ourselves with the question: “What harm does it do?” and fail to ask the more appropriate question: “What good does it do?” That, after all, is the question God is asking! He gave us sex for our benefit, so let us not lose sight of that. At any rate, you can see it’s impossible to do away with laws 3 and 4 and still keep law 2. When you do away with commitment and real love, someone always gets hurt.

But let’s say we were to attempt to devise a strategy in which it was possible to keep all 4 “laws” and yet still engage in sex outside of marriage. There are two possible scenarios where, according to mere common sense, this could “potentially” happen.

The first is: Consensual, mutually-beneficial sex among a couple who love each other and are committed to each other but who are not yet married. This is sex before marriage, or premarital sex.

At first glance, it seems like it should be possible to have premarital sex while still upholding all four laws of common sense. But upon further investigation, we see this is not true, and that common sense upholds what we’ve already noted in the Bible.

For starters, the level of certainty in a premarital relationship regarding commitment to each other (and only to each other) is quite variable. While one person in the premarital relationship may be thinking one thing, the other may be thinking something entirely different! For example, one study reports that 80 percent of women who had sexual intercourse with their boyfriend hoped to marry that person, while only 12 percent of their boyfriends said the same. See: there’s differing expectations, differing levels of commitment in the relationship. So the simplest thing in this instance is to say, “Let’s wait until we’re married. If you want my body, you need to make a truly firm commitment.” That, in my mind, is incredibly refreshing and positively strong: that’s why the Beloved says in Song of Songs 8:12—“My own vineyard is mine to give…” She says, “You want it? Make a commitment. I’m not giving away the precious flower of my body to just anybody. I’m more valuable than that. So, make a real commitment. Marry me.”

Another problem with premarital sex deals with the myth of its benefits. I don’t know why we think this, but we think “I can do it just this once. Nobody will get hurt, and it’ll be fun.” But, premarital sex time and time again violates the second law of common sense. So often, sex before marriage hurts us psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. In some cases, it can hurt you physically. In many cases, it devolves into codependency. Premarital sex hurts. Song 2:15 says—“Catch for us the foxes, the little foxes that ruin the vineyards...” This tells us premarital sex hurts. Premarital sexual experimentation is like “the foxes”. They seem cute and cuddly and harmless, but in reality they come in, taking a little piece of you here, a little piece there--and they never bring anything back. Be strong. Reinforce your boundaries. It’s healthy. It’s for your own good. Don’t let the thieves steal you away, little by little. Be strong. Wait until you’re married. Why risk the hurt?

So basically, when we try to justify premarital sex based on the laws of common sense you can see we end up breaking those laws. Both the Bible and common sense confirm: premarital sex is not a good idea.

Now: to be fair and open-minded about all this, there’s a second type of extramarital sex we must explore: we’ve talked about extramarital sex before marriage, now let’s talk about it after marriage. This type of extramarital sex is being touted as the latest “common sense” approach to sexuality. It’s called “Open Marriage.”

“Open Marriage” asks: “What if you married someone where the two of you mutually consent to engage in sex with other people yet still affirm your love and commitment to one another?” By the way, lest you think this is just a fringe idea, you should know there’s a whole group of thinkers trying to legitimize this new paradigm. To them, “Open Marriage” is basically “diffused sensuality-sexuality and constant feedback and re-evaluation within a flexible process philosophy.” (Sounds really sophisticated, doesn’t it?!) This paradigm is based on the assumption that “Traditional marriage…bricks people in. [Men and women] are forced to [neglect] their own self-interest. Indeed they are not allowed to 'be themselves'…”

So “Open Marriage” presents us with a seemingly viable alternative to Traditional Monogamy. In a book called "Open Marriage", authors Nena and George O'Neill protest that “closed" marriage means 'rigid role behavior, excessive togetherness,and possessiveness,' [so] they advise pluralism within marriage—'a little additional sharing,' as they put it.”

Now: most of us can’t relate to the idea of “Open Marriage” as it is expressed here. But I wonder if there might be a few married people here who are indulging in “a little additional sharing” in their hearts with someone else besides their marriage partner? This is to say: please guard your heart and stay tuned to its pulse and rhythm. Perhaps you’re drawn to someone at work or a neighbor or friend. Guard your heart. Strengthen your boundaries.

Having said that, let’s return to “Open Marriage” as we’ve defined it. At first glance, it seems like this should make sense (not!). There is mutual consent, granted. But, I’m imagining actually being in one of those marriages! What would that be like? How would you ever know what your partner is expecting or thinking or feeling? How would you ever know where their commitment will be in 25 years when your body gets flabby? That’s why the Beloved says in Song 8:10-- “I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment.”

Contentment is underrated. But in relationships it is so important. Contentment, in fact, is beautiful. Think about it: Learning to love just one person really well is beautiful. I look forward to the day 30 years from now, when I will be able to look into my wife’s eyes and say to her, “I’m so glad I married you. I love you like no other. I’ve saved myself for you and only for you all these years, both before and after the wedding. You are everything to me. I wouldn’t trade you for anyone else.” That’s contentment. And, to me, that’s beauty.

Now: what’s another word for beauty? Grace. I promised we’d begin and end with grace so let’s look at this last point quickly. In figuring out this sexual boundary issue, we’ve seen we should live according to the Bible, we’ve seen we should use common sense and third, we should live according to the law of grace. Grace, I believe, is like the Bible: it helps us inject some much-needed simplicity into a very complicated issue. Here’s how it applies:

Suppose someone says, “Okay, according to the Bible, sexual intercourse is forbidden outside marriage. I grant you that. But what if there’s no penetration? What about oral sex, or heavy petting or things that don’t involve intercourse?” This is where the law of grace comes in handy.

The law of grace, we know, runs contrary to the law of legalism. To understand the law of grace, we need to understand the nature of legalism. Legalism looks like this: In Jesus’ day the religious leaders had a catalogue of 248 affirmative precepts (which was the same number as the parts of the human body); they also catalogued 365 negative precepts (which was the same number as the days in the year). The total: 613 (which was the same number of letters in the Ten Commandments!). The hidden message: “You need to make sure every centimeter of your body is obeying every letter of the Ten Commandments every day of every year!” Legalism, then, is always concerned with “what can I do and what can’t I do? Where’s the line? What can I get away with?

Grace, on the other hand, never asks “What can I get away with?” Grace doesn’t keep a list of 613 precepts, and it certainly would never look on any such list to say “See! I can do that! That’s allowable!” Grace doesn’t live by a list; it listens to a heart.

Jesus, by the way, is our best example in this. He was so gracious! I think, first of all, of the woman who was caught in adultery. The religious leaders wanted to stone her for breaking the boundaries, but Jesus stopped them and said, “Wait! Grace! Hold on! Don’t kill her! Let’s give her another chance!” He brought grace, healing, restoration.

This day, you may realize that you too have gone too far with your sexual expression. This is to say: It’s not too late. Jesus doesn’t condemn you. He forgives. Restoration and healing is possible. This day is pregnant with the opportunity to embrace wholeness in Christ. Jesus brings you His grace.

So, that’s one way we can model Jesus: by being gracious to ourselves and to each other when we “mess up.” But there’s another, more basic, way we can be more like Jesus. Have you ever noticed how Jesus related to members of the opposite sex? He honored them. He esteemed them, He respected them, He was affectionate with them, He touched them, He healed them, He loved them, He was close to them. Jesus is our best example, really, of healthy boundaries in relating to people of the opposite sex outside of marriage. If only we all could be more like Jesus! Whether we’re married or not. If only we could all be more like Jesus! I mean: Why bother asking, “What can I get away with?” when we could be asking, “How can I serve you? How can I be more like Jesus to you?” If we concern ourselves with simply living with a true heart of grace, giving, service, and unselfish love that reflects the model Jesus gave us, our sexuality, ironically, will feel unbound.