Not all interpersonal sexual behaviors involve actual sex, however. When elaborating on their legalistic ideas about other forms of premarital affection, evangelicals tend to be very imprecise while detailing just where the line separating legitimate and illegitimate behaviors is. They scarcely even attempt to do anything more than blindly assert that sexual interaction outside of marriage must be immoral, admit that finding the line between licit and illicit behaviors for unmarried couples is difficult within the evangelical framework, and then oppose all behavior that subjectively upsets them. There is almost never any acknowledgment of the fact that there is a dramatic difference between premarital sex and other premarital sexual behaviors.
Even regarding premarital sex itself, there is an enormous difference between casual sex with no intention to remain committed to one's partner and sex with the intention to remain committed to or become legally married to one's partner. It is not as if having sex with someone outside of a legal marriage indicates an absence of affection, commitment, or concern for Biblical ethics. Exodus 22:16-17 makes it clear that merely sleeping with an unengaged, unmarried single of the opposite gender in a consensual manner is not automatic grounds for moral condemnation. In fact, this act is amoral as long as it is handled within the guidelines of Exodus 22.
Since lesser sexual activities involving two people, like oral sex or mutual masturbation, are not themselves sex despite having an inherently sexual nature, the requirement of commitment attached to premarital sex in Exodus 22 would not apply in other cases. A couple that engages in sexual fondling, for example, is under no obligation to formally marry or stop seeing each other, as they have committed no sinful act and have not done anything that warrants lifetime commitment. As long as they are able to manage their excitement and stop short of actual sex without the legitimate desire to commit to each other, they are morally free to continue.
Premarital affection of an explicitly sexual kind is far from Biblically immoral in itself, as the exact lines are described in Mosaic Law with clarity. There is a vast difference between actual intercourse and all other interpersonal sexual behaviors, and thus the Biblical condemnation of the former in contexts without commitment is not automatically a condemnation of the latter. Moreover, since the Bible does not prohibit premarital sexual interaction short of sex itself, nor does it follow from any Biblical command that such a thing is immoral, it is an act of legalism to denounce expressions of premarital sexual attraction and affection sinful by default (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Fear of sexuality, complementarian overtones of evangelical stances on dating, and reluctance to investigate the Bible without assumptions are at the heart of the opposition to premarital affection that can be so easily found in the church. It is apparent from any rationalistic analysis of Mosaic Law and the New Testament writings that there is nothing inherently sinful about a man and woman enjoying each other's bodies outside of marriage as long as noncommittal sex, betrayal of a spouse, and objectification are not involved. Pleasure itself, and especially sensual and sexual pleasure, is not an enemy of Christian morality; indulgence in pleasure without regard for future consequences, the rights of other people (or animals), or one's relationship with God is the enemy of Biblical ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment