In religion and Christianity in particular, the question of sexuality is one of the debatable ones. Changes in culture and morality influence the idea of sex an interpretation of sexuality by church leaders. Still, they use the scripture to define and interpret this issue and its moral base. Many people regard sexual intercourse as simply a recreational activity, like playing tennis or swimming. They look for different partners, as a surfer seeks the perfect wave, hoping that the next one will be better, that the blast will be bigger. Sexuality is accepted by Church as a natural human behavior but the church admits it should reflect universal moral and ethical values.
There is no general agreement on whether young people should or should not have sex, about whether it is right or wrong. Many people will say that it is wrong and that young people shouldn’t. Sometimes this absolutist stand is based on strict religious teaching, on the traditional belief that sex and sin are synonymous. Such a viewpoint might cite the religious text, which tells us to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (Robertson 43), or Saint Paul’s stern warning: “For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean or covetous person hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Robertson 43). For orthodox Christians, the pleasure of sex was put there by God to induce humans to continue the species so that they could, in turn, worship Him. It was not, they hold, instituted to be enjoyed for its own sake. Sometimes those who oppose premarital sex on religious grounds maintain that abstinence, except in marriage, purifies the soul and makes us better persons. By fighting and overcoming our animal instincts people demonstrate the use of consciences that make them different from and superior to animals, consciences that make us moral and give us human dignity. Some of the early church fathers even believed that married couples who enjoyed sexual relations were “befouling” an act that they had to concede was essential if the earth was to be populated. It was, in their minds, a necessary evil (Ellingson and Green 72)
The meaning of love is further borne out by his teaching. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, he stresses the return to the original purpose of the Old Testament law which can be fulfilled not just by refraining from murder, adultery, and false oaths, but only positively in respect for other people, in a genuine appreciation of the role of sex in life. His emphasis on service is primary: “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10). Other individuals are against having sex before marriage because such behavior might make it difficult for one to be sexually faithful in a marriage; the reason being that the couple that engages in premarital sex treats it lightly. Still, others cite psychological studies showing that sex before marriage can cause guilt, which in turn adversely affects the sexual relationship of two people when they marry. And finally, some oppose premarital sex for their daughters but not for their sons. The fact that someone else’s daughter is having sex with a son is somehow ignored. Several states also apply this discriminatory double standard when considering the legality of sexual intercourse. For instance, they define intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman as fornication, a minor offense; but intercourse between a married woman and an unmarried man is often defined as adultery, a more serious charge. It’s not always easy to figure out what people should or should not do, and why. Sometimes the philosophy they hold today isn’t so appealing tomorrow. People grow impatient with two opposing schools of thought that make so much sense on their own sometimes but can’t seem to be able to exist side by side. It’s understandable if people just want to forget it all — too long for some ironclad rule that would force us to behave one way or the other. That might uncomplicate matters. What it would mean is that the decisions in this area of your life would always be made for a person. More rules only mean less opportunity for the individual to choose (Ellingson and Green 87)
Like everything else people do in life, however, it can be done in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. The act of having sex is not wrong, no more than is the generation of nuclear energy or the manipulation of a gene in a laboratory or placing a bet on a football game. But while these things are not wrong in themselves, the potential for wrong is there, all the time. If, for example, your attitudes toward sex condone indulgence without considering the possible emotional harm you may be doing to yourself or others, the odds are fairly good that your attitude as an adult will be equally mechanical, because you have never really learned how to enjoy. Sexual partners can become mere objects to be used when convenient as a means to an end, to disguise a down moment, to supply a buzz just as liquor does. That urge for physical release is a strong one, generally stronger when people are young. Some people are more sexually responsive than others for a wide range of reasons including our genetic makeup, and our upbringing. But all of us, young and old, learn to control our sexual urges to varying degrees depending, again, on our biological makeup, and our cultural, emotional, or religious environment. As a teenager, your sexual feelings may be stronger and your controls weaker than those of an adult, but only you can best determine how to exercise those controls. After all, you are in charge. You can choose to have sex or not. Although people compared the sex drive to eating and drinking, it’s not the same as feeling hungry for a meal or thirsty for a glass of water. If you pass up food and drink for very long, you’ll become ill and die. That’s not going to happen if you avoid sex. If this talk about controls sounds a bit moralistic, it’s meant to be. Though the act of having sex is not an immoral one, it is linked closely to the issue of morality, because when you have the sex you’re involving another human being. What you do will affect others, as well as on yourself and your future behavior. It is the consequences of your actions that make human sexuality such an integral part of morality. People can no more ignore moral considerations when discussing sexuality than people can ignore alcoholism when discussing alcohol (Ellingson and Green 65)
The church is against immoral actions and sexual services. A young man might seek the company of a prostitute or an acquaintance who is not particular about her sexual partners. It is as though the partners were merely erotic pictures, capable of arousing fantasies but with no substance, certainly not enough to make them remember one another in a few weeks. Complete giving, which is what the sexual act is all about, means complete in a broader sense, too — that is, fully carried out, thorough, and that entails something more than a one-night stand (Ellingson and Green 87)
A few years ago, the United Church of Christ distributed a statement on sexual ethics to its seven thousand congregations. Its message was that sex should not be regarded as a furtive and shameful activity to be hedged about with prohibitions. “Sex… is good as a form of unity and communication between persons” (Robertson 43) the church said. Implicit in that statement is that sexual intercourse is permissible in or out of marriage, provided the relationship between the partners is deep and sincere if the couple is truly in love. It has been suggested, too, that although more young people are having sex today, the average number of partners has not risen. This means that many of those who do have sexual intercourse engage in it only with the ones they truly care for or plan to marry. If this is true, it means that unmarried young people are far more loyal to their partners than are husbands and wives, a great many of whom admit to cheating on their mates. People are in charge, but they all need a compass now and then, something people can rely on for direction.
In sum, the church does not reject sexuality and sex but admits the importance of moral and ethical principles. Sometimes people learn from models like church leaders, inspirational literature, and decent friends. But they can also learn from those people and things that are not generally considered to be the best models. People can imitate them if people choose, for they do tend to emulate what they admire. They can also react, that is, move in the opposite direction. Sometimes being exposed to decidedly wrong actions makes us think twice before people do them. Or, listening to someone’s strong opposing views may make us even more glad that people hold the ones people do. This, of course, can work both ways, and people might stick closer to the wrong values the more people hear about the correct ones.
Works Cited
Robertson, Carl. K. Religion And Sexuality: Passionate Debates. Peter Lang Publishing, 2005.
Ellingson, Stephen. and M. Christian Green. Religion and Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Routledge; 1 edition, 2002.