It has been a rough season for sexual ethics.
This week, the news is overloaded with story and commentary about the trial, verdict, and sentencing of a young Stanford student caught in an act of sexual assault against an unconscious young woman.
In the last weeks and months, my alma mater, St. Olaf College, has been buzzing with a protest movement against the college's handling of sexual assault cases and especially concerning the issue of victim care during and after proceedings.
This weekend's lectionary readings include the story of David and Bathsheba and the story of a woman bursting into a dinner party to anoint Jesus' feet with her tears. Too many interpretations of these stories implicate these women as sexual sinners when, in fact, the texts say nothing at all about anything regarding their sexual reputations.
I'll be honest. The topic of sexual ethics and the double standards held for men and for women with regard to sexual expression and violence are not topics that I tend to write about. I don't feel particularly qualified to add much new or important to excellent conversations that are already happening on these subjects.
But this morning, I was feeling a little sad about the state of the world, and I started thinking about how we in the church and in society tend to get hung up on the wrong details when we talk about these things.
On the question of sex, the church has too long been a place concerned with two primary questions: "Is sex sinful outside of marriage?" And "Is sex sinful outside of the boundaries of cis-gender and heteronormativity?"
To its credit, the church is very slowly turning a corner. We are beginning to talk more broadly about healthy human sexuality and healthy human relationships. We are trying to make the church a safe refuge for those who have experienced sexual abuse and exploitation (even as the church is still grappling with a horrid history of sexual abuse). We are slowly starting to engage advocacy around the issue of human trafficking..
But I realized, as I was reviewing the human sexuality lesson materials that we use for our confirmation students, that while we talk about sex, sexuality, relationships, and mutuality, nowhere in our materials do we focus the conversation on consent, nor do we discuss gender double standards regarding sex, nor do we address the important shift in consent language beyond a "no means no" standard to an "enthusiastic yes" standard. In other words, for all of the slow progress that the church is making in being willing to talk more holistically about sex and sexuality, we still aren't great about talking about the uncomfortable topics of rape, assault, and consent; and we aren't great at seeing the church as one important area of formation when it comes to teaching our young men and young women how to respect one another's bodies, wishes, and desires.
Our culture gets hung up on the wrong things and still assumes the wrong things. Even though the current standard of thought is that you are incapable of consent if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I live across town from a college campus, and I know that drunk sexual encounters happen all the time. I know that many of them are non-problematic (as in, an encounter that neither party would want to report as assault). I know that plenty of consenting adults engage in sexual acts in all manner of capacity. But I also know that when push comes to shove, you cannot claim either party to have consented if they are under the influence. And I know why that standard needs to be set. I get frustrated when society says, "lots of people have drunk sex and not all of it is rape or assault," because while that may be true, we draw a line in the sand for the protection of all those for whom drunk sex is or has been unwanted and forced.
Our culture (and even the wider church culture, I am much ashamed to say) still wants to function with the understanding that "boys will be boys" and that males are functionally incapable of controlling their own lusts, their own bodies, and their own actions. Modesty culture, especially in the church, continues to shame women for their clothing choices, implying that women need to cover up so as not to harm or tempt their brothers. Too many women are taught that men's sexual advances are their own fault, and too many men are taught that their sexuality is an untameable beast that they have no ability or responsibility to control. We still live in a culture where men who sleep with many women are praised for their conquests, while women who sleep with many men are shamed for promiscuity. All of this spills over into conversations about rape and assault where society is still likely to say things like "she was asking for it because of what she was wearing" or "she was asking for it because she had too much to drink and was being flirtatious."
I think that there is a part of each of us that finds sexual abuse, rape, and exploitation so counter to everything that we want to believe about the goodness of humanity, that we search high and low for an explanation for these terrible acts - any explanation other than admitting that a person (especially a young person, or an affluent person, or an otherwise "good" person) could be capable of something as violent, invasive, and humiliating as taking sexual advantage of another. And so we try to distribute blame between the parties. Or we try to write off first offenses as casual mistakes. Or we try to pin the blame on a party or alcohol culture. We want to find some other reason for assault and abuse rather than admit that all humans are sinful and all humans are capable of doing terrible, terrible things. And so we get hung up on the letter of the law, on matters of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," of technicalities and loopholes.
All of which makes me think about Jesus preaching the back half of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5. Everybody knows the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount - the Beatitudes, the blessings spoken to people suffering injustice, poverty, persecution, and spiritual weariness. But Jesus continues by addressing particular laws of the people and reinterpreting them.
"You have heard it said," Jesus says, quoting to the people some of the laws that they abide by, "but I say to you," he continues.
He talks about murder. He talks about adultery. He talks about divorce. He talks about making oaths. He talks about retributive justice. He talks about loving neighbors (and enemies).
And for each, Jesus expands the interpretation of the law beyond base interpretation of the letter of the law. Murder, he says, isn't just about literal murder, but also about the anger that drives us to violence. Adultery isn't just about infidelity in sexual acts, but it is about lust and about love and respect for one another. Divorce is and should never be a convenient way to shirk our responsibilities for caring for one another, or a way for a man to cast off a woman at his own whim. Swearing oaths is meaningless; keeping your promises is the important part. Justice is not "an eye for an eye," but is "turn the other cheek." Loving your neighbors isn't good enough; loving your enemies is also crucial.
In each instance, Jesus has no patience for the letter of the law as it is used to betray the spirit of the law. In each instance, Jesus takes the letter of the law and replaces it with a directive to live out the law in ways that are faithful to God and, more exceptionally, ways that take into primary consideration care and justice for others. He teaches that fulfilling the law is a matter of putting the needs and vulnerabilities and security and safety of others ahead of our own desires. He teaches that there are no loopholes or technicalities that get us out of our responsibility to honor one another.
This is an incredibly useful directive for us, as we struggle with questions of sexual ethics and sexual violence. Jesus doesn't let us off the hook. In a Christian ethic that says, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "each of you should look not to your own interests but to the interests of others," there's no room "boys will be boys" dismissives or "she was asking for it" victim-blaming. Because our faith calls us to honor the image of God in one another. Our faith calls us to put our needs and desires aside as we seek the good of others. Christ's self-giving love resists any attempt to justify selfish desires, power-hungry motives, or privileged entitlement.
As our nation, our society, our schools, our churches, and our families grapple with new questions of law, justice, and cultural norms with regard to sexual ethics, my hope is that an ethic of human dignity can begin to rise above all questions of technicalities and letters of the law. My hope is that our communities can work together to teach our children that debating the nit-picky particulars of our laws is far less radical and culture-changing than seeing one another as children of God, deserving of as much concern, care, and genuine sacrificial love as we can offer. Somehow, it seems, that if we can start seeing each other with new eyes, we might find that our sexual ethics improve and we can become a blessing to one another, even apart from the laws.
At the heart of it is learning to imagine the heart and mind of one another, to put ourselves in one anothers' shoes, to imagine the hopes, dreams, desires, fears, and vulnerabilities of our neighbors and enemies, and then to act in a way that doesn't destroy one another's hopes and does not exploit one another's weaknesses. In this, my friends, we are living the law of Christ. In this, my friends, we are doing the will of God.
This week, the news is overloaded with story and commentary about the trial, verdict, and sentencing of a young Stanford student caught in an act of sexual assault against an unconscious young woman.
In the last weeks and months, my alma mater, St. Olaf College, has been buzzing with a protest movement against the college's handling of sexual assault cases and especially concerning the issue of victim care during and after proceedings.
This weekend's lectionary readings include the story of David and Bathsheba and the story of a woman bursting into a dinner party to anoint Jesus' feet with her tears. Too many interpretations of these stories implicate these women as sexual sinners when, in fact, the texts say nothing at all about anything regarding their sexual reputations.
I'll be honest. The topic of sexual ethics and the double standards held for men and for women with regard to sexual expression and violence are not topics that I tend to write about. I don't feel particularly qualified to add much new or important to excellent conversations that are already happening on these subjects.
But this morning, I was feeling a little sad about the state of the world, and I started thinking about how we in the church and in society tend to get hung up on the wrong details when we talk about these things.
On the question of sex, the church has too long been a place concerned with two primary questions: "Is sex sinful outside of marriage?" And "Is sex sinful outside of the boundaries of cis-gender and heteronormativity?"
To its credit, the church is very slowly turning a corner. We are beginning to talk more broadly about healthy human sexuality and healthy human relationships. We are trying to make the church a safe refuge for those who have experienced sexual abuse and exploitation (even as the church is still grappling with a horrid history of sexual abuse). We are slowly starting to engage advocacy around the issue of human trafficking..
But I realized, as I was reviewing the human sexuality lesson materials that we use for our confirmation students, that while we talk about sex, sexuality, relationships, and mutuality, nowhere in our materials do we focus the conversation on consent, nor do we discuss gender double standards regarding sex, nor do we address the important shift in consent language beyond a "no means no" standard to an "enthusiastic yes" standard. In other words, for all of the slow progress that the church is making in being willing to talk more holistically about sex and sexuality, we still aren't great about talking about the uncomfortable topics of rape, assault, and consent; and we aren't great at seeing the church as one important area of formation when it comes to teaching our young men and young women how to respect one another's bodies, wishes, and desires.
Our culture gets hung up on the wrong things and still assumes the wrong things. Even though the current standard of thought is that you are incapable of consent if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I live across town from a college campus, and I know that drunk sexual encounters happen all the time. I know that many of them are non-problematic (as in, an encounter that neither party would want to report as assault). I know that plenty of consenting adults engage in sexual acts in all manner of capacity. But I also know that when push comes to shove, you cannot claim either party to have consented if they are under the influence. And I know why that standard needs to be set. I get frustrated when society says, "lots of people have drunk sex and not all of it is rape or assault," because while that may be true, we draw a line in the sand for the protection of all those for whom drunk sex is or has been unwanted and forced.
Our culture (and even the wider church culture, I am much ashamed to say) still wants to function with the understanding that "boys will be boys" and that males are functionally incapable of controlling their own lusts, their own bodies, and their own actions. Modesty culture, especially in the church, continues to shame women for their clothing choices, implying that women need to cover up so as not to harm or tempt their brothers. Too many women are taught that men's sexual advances are their own fault, and too many men are taught that their sexuality is an untameable beast that they have no ability or responsibility to control. We still live in a culture where men who sleep with many women are praised for their conquests, while women who sleep with many men are shamed for promiscuity. All of this spills over into conversations about rape and assault where society is still likely to say things like "she was asking for it because of what she was wearing" or "she was asking for it because she had too much to drink and was being flirtatious."
I think that there is a part of each of us that finds sexual abuse, rape, and exploitation so counter to everything that we want to believe about the goodness of humanity, that we search high and low for an explanation for these terrible acts - any explanation other than admitting that a person (especially a young person, or an affluent person, or an otherwise "good" person) could be capable of something as violent, invasive, and humiliating as taking sexual advantage of another. And so we try to distribute blame between the parties. Or we try to write off first offenses as casual mistakes. Or we try to pin the blame on a party or alcohol culture. We want to find some other reason for assault and abuse rather than admit that all humans are sinful and all humans are capable of doing terrible, terrible things. And so we get hung up on the letter of the law, on matters of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," of technicalities and loopholes.
All of which makes me think about Jesus preaching the back half of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5. Everybody knows the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount - the Beatitudes, the blessings spoken to people suffering injustice, poverty, persecution, and spiritual weariness. But Jesus continues by addressing particular laws of the people and reinterpreting them.
"You have heard it said," Jesus says, quoting to the people some of the laws that they abide by, "but I say to you," he continues.
He talks about murder. He talks about adultery. He talks about divorce. He talks about making oaths. He talks about retributive justice. He talks about loving neighbors (and enemies).
And for each, Jesus expands the interpretation of the law beyond base interpretation of the letter of the law. Murder, he says, isn't just about literal murder, but also about the anger that drives us to violence. Adultery isn't just about infidelity in sexual acts, but it is about lust and about love and respect for one another. Divorce is and should never be a convenient way to shirk our responsibilities for caring for one another, or a way for a man to cast off a woman at his own whim. Swearing oaths is meaningless; keeping your promises is the important part. Justice is not "an eye for an eye," but is "turn the other cheek." Loving your neighbors isn't good enough; loving your enemies is also crucial.
In each instance, Jesus has no patience for the letter of the law as it is used to betray the spirit of the law. In each instance, Jesus takes the letter of the law and replaces it with a directive to live out the law in ways that are faithful to God and, more exceptionally, ways that take into primary consideration care and justice for others. He teaches that fulfilling the law is a matter of putting the needs and vulnerabilities and security and safety of others ahead of our own desires. He teaches that there are no loopholes or technicalities that get us out of our responsibility to honor one another.
This is an incredibly useful directive for us, as we struggle with questions of sexual ethics and sexual violence. Jesus doesn't let us off the hook. In a Christian ethic that says, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "each of you should look not to your own interests but to the interests of others," there's no room "boys will be boys" dismissives or "she was asking for it" victim-blaming. Because our faith calls us to honor the image of God in one another. Our faith calls us to put our needs and desires aside as we seek the good of others. Christ's self-giving love resists any attempt to justify selfish desires, power-hungry motives, or privileged entitlement.
As our nation, our society, our schools, our churches, and our families grapple with new questions of law, justice, and cultural norms with regard to sexual ethics, my hope is that an ethic of human dignity can begin to rise above all questions of technicalities and letters of the law. My hope is that our communities can work together to teach our children that debating the nit-picky particulars of our laws is far less radical and culture-changing than seeing one another as children of God, deserving of as much concern, care, and genuine sacrificial love as we can offer. Somehow, it seems, that if we can start seeing each other with new eyes, we might find that our sexual ethics improve and we can become a blessing to one another, even apart from the laws.
At the heart of it is learning to imagine the heart and mind of one another, to put ourselves in one anothers' shoes, to imagine the hopes, dreams, desires, fears, and vulnerabilities of our neighbors and enemies, and then to act in a way that doesn't destroy one another's hopes and does not exploit one another's weaknesses. In this, my friends, we are living the law of Christ. In this, my friends, we are doing the will of God.