Simply by featuring Song of Songs, the Bible already affirms outside of Mosaic Law or the moral doctrines of Jesus that erotic media is not contrary to God's moral nature. This form of sexual expression obviously is also not condemned elsewhere, where the obvious boundary between what is permissible and evil is whatever God does not condemn, because it is not a deviation from his nature (Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 15:3-9). Song of Songs is plainly erotic literature that is presented as if to make sexuality, when not misused through sin, seem appealing and existentially fulfilling. Ask Christians, however, and you will very likely hear the claim that all erotic media is sinful. Where the hell does the Bible state or imply that sexually explicit media, including that intended particularly to facilitate sexual pleasure, is universally, objectively evil?
It does not. Lust is sinful, yes, but this is only the coveting of someone else's partner (Exodus 20:17, Matthew 5:28), the desire to specifically have their partner by taking them away for oneself. Someone who is single could not be lusted after since they do not "belong" to anyone relationally (Song of Songs 2:16). In reality, a much more probable motivation for the general hostility to erotic media in the church is that many people might be deeply uncomfortable or upset with the idea of their partner finding nonsinful sexual joy in anything other than them. They try to "justify" this theologically by believing that the sin of lust is extramarital sexual attraction, or sometimes any kind of sexual attraction if you are single! The Greek word actually denotes coveting.
Sexual feelings directed towards someone do not mean one wishes to commit a defined sexual sin or wants to break apart a legitimate marital relationship for personal gain. If lust is not sexual attraction and anything not condemned by God directly or indirectly is nonsinful, then the creation or enjoyment of erotic media cannot be immoral on Biblical standards, not unless it is made or used to glorify actual sexual sin, none of which are dictated by the potentially conflicting, shifting social constructs of cultural norms or the meaningless subjectivity of conscience. It would be astonishing how much the typical person is willing to believe some sexual thoughts/feelings/acts are good or evil just because their irrelevant sense of morality, which of course is likely at odds with the exact, varying consciences of many other people, flares up somehow!
The other truths about sexuality and Biblical ethics aside, perhaps someone thinks Song of Songs is not immoral because it is literature, but anything like a publicly uploaded video of a husband and wife sexually enjoying each other is evil. How could it possibly be relevant that the material in Song of Songs is not visual? Visual material being sinful as opposed to the written kind, which could easily be used in conjunction with mental imagery anyway, is an arbitrary distinction that does not change the fact that all forms of this are erotic media and that the Bible clearly is not opposed to this or erotic media of the visual category. Sexuality is not sinful (Genesis 1:31) and sexual expression is only Biblically vile in specific cases. With or without masturbation, with or without a spouse, sexual media that is not created to glorify sexual sin or used for gratification at the endorsement/trivialization of sexual sin is absolutely nonsinful according to Biblical standards.
Song of Songs is one of many possible ways to celebrate these facts. It is no surprise in the context of church history that many Christians tend to ignore or forget about Song of Songs, never dare to discover the real ramifications of the Bible containing genuine erotic literature, or pretend like the book is some incredibly absent (as far as anything in the Bible actually says or necessitates) allegory for the love of Christ for the church! Prudery, attachment to tradition and assumptions, and insecurity over a spouse/partner being free to act on sexual attractions in certain ways are the things that would really lead someone to think the Bible is ever against erotic media itself. People might straw man this position as if there is no erotic media that is sinful, but that is obviously not Biblically the case. Erotic media is nonsinful except that of certain select kinds promoting sexual immorality, Song of Songs being an example of the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment