Review: Liberated Christians Website (http://www.libchrist.com/).

Warning: this article and the website it’s about is dangerous, and I suspect many visit it for prurient purposes. Be honest about that, eh? My critique is at the foot of this long summary-article. Briefly: whilst ultra-conservative notions of sex can inculcate a lot of unnecessary guilt, a too-permissive approach can be equally dangerous. What are the Maker’s Instructions telling us? 

~~

# ‘Why don’t Southern Baptists make love standing up? Because people might think they were dancing.’

# Naked woman at ‘Christian’ swingers’ party to man massaging her head: ‘You ask how it feels? O.K. But I’d have liked the three guys massaging me down below to have introduced themselves first.’

# ‘Some people may enjoy swinging or being exhibitionists or being tied up while having sex. No one has to pursue these or any other type of activity if it doesn’t turn them on. If it does turn them on, then why not?’ ‘There is no prohibition on what we know as premarital sex, post-marital sex or extra-marital sex among consenting partners. There is no prohibition on adolescent or teenage sexual sharing. (Bill, a ‘liberated Christian’).

# Loving intimacy is the social, emotional, spiritual and physical sharing of oneself with a partner in ways which create closeness, honest communications and communion. Intimacy involves the sharing of deep feeling (not necessarily verbal) through tactile (touch) and visual stimulation, using our bodies as well as spirits to comfort and pleasure one another. This intimacy has value in itself and may or may not lead to erotic activity.’ (Bill, again).

# In “Dirt, Greed, And Sex,” Professor of NT Rev. Countryman points out “nowhere does the Bible make monogamy a clear and explicit standard” (quoted several times on the Liberated Christians’ Website).

~~~

‘The Internet is full of sex.’ Right, it is. Mostly erotic sex, bad sex, exploitative sex, kinky sex – on websites that are often brilliantly creative. Anything you can imagine (and much you haven’t) is on the ‘Net somewhere.

The Liberated Christians Website is professionally presented (with cool background music) devoted to the ‘freeing up’ of conventional Christian attitudes regarding sexuality, nudity, monogamy etc. Thousands visit the site daily. It’s a website that encourages Christians to be open to ‘swinging’ – and claims the Bible isn’t against a lifestyle of sexual freedom with multiple partners.

Below I have summarized its approach. The summary is fairly lengthy, to do justice to this phenomenon.

The aim of the Liberated Christians Website : ‘Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Nonmonogamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others / Exposing false traditions of sexual repression that have no biblical basis. Promoting Intimacy & Other-Centered, Loving Sexuality, Sybian for Maximum G-spot orgasms for women’s pleasure and therapy.’

Its thesis: ‘Our Culture & Traditional Christianity Wounds People Emotionally & Sexually. Our culture is full of tease, titillation, sexual repression and guilt. We lack especially women-centered, meaningful intimacy skills, sensual or sexual education. The result is often sexual abuse and sexual “wounding” of people. Women are often the most wounded and hurt by our lack of meaningful intimacy skills since they miss the caring, fulfilling intimacy that few men have a clue how to provide. Some women don’t even know how to be fed intimately or sexually for maximum emotional and physical pleasure since they have seldom experienced such fulfilment. For example, from the letters we receive it is obvious that few people know such basic skills as g-spot stimulation.’

Its goal: ‘Our goal at Liberated Christians is to try and offer a safe, loving place for those wounded to explore healing and communications as well as liberation from the sexual repression of our culture. Healing can be both emotional and spiritual. Recovery from the wounds of repressive anti-sex religious views is just as important as healing from physical sexual abuse. The results of both kinds of abuse are often the same.’

‘Liberated Christians is a practical educational group for Christians and others who are interested in exploring liberation from the traditional body negativity and false sexual repression of traditional Christian teachings. We support responsible non-monogamy in a way that honors and respects others and ourselves, with integrity but without guilt, blame or shame. Participation is open to both Christians and non-Christians. Traditional Christian values have set the stage for sexual repression toward everyone.’

~~~

‘Dave’, ‘Bill’ and others here consider themselves ‘biblical Christians,’ ‘who take the Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously as the word of God.’ They believe there’s a ‘biblical case for polyamory’ (http://www.libchrist.com/bible/compatible.html) and they offer a bibliography which supports their views (http://www.libchrist.com/bible/books.html).

~~~

The essence of ‘biblical polyamory’: ‘Hand closed… we are a couple and no one else will come in.’ ‘Open hands….we welcome other warm loving spirits into our relationship which is secure with love and honestly.’ ‘I am not trying to tell you one choice is better than the other…’ They warn that ‘for some, primarily just looking for sex, the swing club scene may be of more interest. We are more suited for couples who are looking for more friendship, real intimacy and honest, open, intelligent discussion as well as exploring more sensual/sexual experiences.’ And: ‘we also seek to offer fulfilling sexual opportunities for those who escaped such wounding and repression in their backgrounds and don’t need healing, but who just want to share with others and perhaps help those that have been repressed.’

They make the point (a valid one in my view) that violence is often condoned but we’re often puritanical when it comes to sex: ‘We use sex to sell, tease and titillate. We can watch all sorts of heads being blown off in movies and lots of violence and killing. Zillions of kids go to watch boxing, the only objective is to knock another person out and hurt him, or the very popular wrestling making millions of dollars on violence. But when it comes to loving sexuality a natural good human function it is “dirty”… That is sick.’

One problem they want to address: ‘Occasionally, monogamous marriages last a lifetime; more often, they give way to multiple partners (acknowledged or not), divorce and/or serial polygamy (also known as serial monogamy), wherein a person is married and monogamous with one person, then divorces and becomes monogamous with another. Repeat as boredom or incompatibility (or lack of desire to work on problems) requires.’ Solution? ‘The European way is to have “liaisons” as long as it is done with discretion. Its much like the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military. In America the term “cheating” is usually used.

But in providing a remedy they acknowledge ‘we have an identity problem. We don’t want to be “just” a traditional swing club, but hope more people will also enjoy good intimacy and sex together along with good social friendship and real nurturing. We have wound up being far too boring for some more interested in “swinging” and too scary for some with little or no experience.’ ‘We are not a swing club, church, or religious cult. We teach the empowerment to make your own choices. We share loving intimacy and meaningful sexuality, based on honest and caring relationships.’

Again: ‘Why Is There So Much Interest In Sex, And Lots Of “Cheating” In Our Culture? Whether you are Christian or not, our culture has been influenced by a sexually repressive Christian tradition that denies the God-given natural desire to connect emotionally and sexually with more than one person, which is the essence of polyamory. The repression of both sexual experience and knowledge results in a society titillated by the tease of sex, but with little intimacy skills or sexual knowledge. “Cheating” is common since many people can’t be honest about their desires. Responsible non-monogamy or polyamory fulfills this need with dignity and honesty in our relationships. Our culture teaches us to be jealous of such openness and somehow we have a twisted notion that love is somehow proven by monogamy.’

‘Doesn’t The Bible Teach That Sex Belongs Only In Monogamous Marriage? Take out your Bible and show us where! Traditional Christian teaching wants you to believe this. But if you search the scriptures and understand the original Hebrew/Greek texts, the history of biblical interpretation and the influence of non-Christian thought on Christian tradition, you will discover you have been sold a lie all these years. We will provide you the historical background and share from scripture what was really taught by God and Christ. We suggest that responsible non-monogamy, loving intimacy and other-centered sexual pleasure sharing is much more in line with Christ’s teaching that love is the greatest commandment than the repressive traditional teachings which make rules based on false foundations.’

‘We support both monogamous & responsible non-monogamous lifestyles and show how traditional marriage forms are optional, not biblically required.’

‘Bill’ and ‘Dave’ (they don’t want their last names publicised, but their surnames are on the site in various places) founded Liberated Christians in 1995 with 4 main goals:

1. To help people overcome false sexual guilt taught by traditional Christianity, but which has no biblical basis.

2. To help people learn and share more intimate sexuality beyond just “thrusting sex.”

3. To provide meaningful sex education.

4. To encourage and provide group support for encouraging long-term polyamory relationships.

The interesting Liberated Christians ‘Couple Dialog Question From Intimacy Workshop’ gives one an accurate idea of their basic approach:

1. Where does sexual guilt come from? How has it effected you?

2. Do you think men have traditionally had more sexual rights than women? Why?

3. Do you think you have a real desire or need for physical relationships with more than one person or do you think this is no more than unrealistic fantasy?

4. How do you feel about your partner experiencing sensual intimacy with someone else?

5. How important for you is body attraction in choosing someone to share intimacy with?

6. What do you want to know from your partner about what he/she is feeling and thinking about the opportunities for personal growth and/or new relationships in Liberated Christians?

I have ‘met’ and corresponded with Dave by email. His presence is (or was, when I was a newsgroup lurker during the last five years) all over the ‘Net. Dave, who refers to himself as a “liberated Christian,” proselytizes in some rather unorthodox places, including Internet newsgroups with titles like alt.sex.orgy, alt.sex.breathless, alt.sex.strip-clubs and alt.sex.prostitution. He is also, by the way, a ‘Certified Financial Planner ‘, and ‘Registered Investment Advisor’.

Members are also recruited through ads posted both on the Internet and in sex Tabloids. The Phoenix-based group is/was believed to be the only Christian-oriented swingers group in the U.S.. They say they are not a church, and don’t intend becoming one. And they’re not into orgies or wild parties. (Dave says he’s a nonmonogamist, but not a hedonist).

A newspaper article puts it this way: ‘.The product of a “repressive Christian background” Dave jokes, “If my parents knew what I was doing, they’d die. In fact, one of them already did.” The 49-year-old bachelor now claims he wasn’t even aware of the lifestyle he now espouses until his marriage broke up in the early ’80s. When “resingled,” after an unhappy marriage, the future nonmonogamist took a long, hard look into the figurative mirror mounted over his onetime marital bed. He didn’t like what he saw. That prompted the intense self-awareness odyssey that’s taken him from theological debates and nude encounter groups on through sex surrogate workshops and practically every touchy-feely movement of the past 25 years.

‘A fit, intense-looking man who appears a good ten years younger than his actual age (mid-50s), Bill speaks from experience. Although his own wife never did “get” his desire to share their love with other couples, she eventually got something else–a divorce. When the eyebrow-raising story behind the split hit the grapevine, Bill claims he was “persecuted” by friends and family.’

The main point: “The guys in the pulpit have been telling us that God says only one-on-one couple relationships are right,” explains Dave. “But if you go back to Hebrew times, that’s not how it was practiced.” “Responsible nonmonogamy”–“is totally compatible with true Christianity and Christ’s love.”

But what about the seventh commandment, the one that takes a dim view of adultery?

No problem, says Dave. He explains that, as originally written, the edict “was understood only to apply to women, because back then they were understood to be the property rights of man.” And, he reasons, since men no longer “own” their wives, the commandment theoretically doesn’t apply to anyone.

Bill has a partner, a female minister named Julie. Trouble is, she lives in Pennsylvania. “We’re trying to get her out here, though,” says Bill. Dave is not as lucky. Although he estimates he’s met “hundreds” of women through newspaper personal ads, he’s still looking for that certain Christian someone who shares his “the more, the merrier” zeal for loving.

What started this journey? For Dave: ‘ I never really learned true love in a Church.’ Intimacy: ‘I have little personal fulfilment in that area and am a single guy without a prime relationship’ (August 1997). ‘I especially seek a partner who is exciting about the same things I am and would want to help with Liberated Christians, attend conventions where I speak and want to meet together with other couples to help with issues etc. But that may be a dream but I still spend time meeting many women in hopes of someday finding having that dream come true. Until I find that partner I’ve also suspended the Phoenix Local group which was so successful for 3 years. My single male status was never a problem for the couples in the group but it was a big problem for me personally.’

They know their limitations: ‘At Liberated Christians, we don’t pretend to deal with some of the emotional issues and depth of healing that can be done at long weekend workshops with much more experienced leaders.’

(One question at this point: why does Dave have difficulty finding a woman who is willing to share her man with countless other women? As a counselor who’s had 13,000 hours’ experience listening to women, I’m battling to recollect ever meeting a woman of integrity who would be comfortable with that lifestyle).

At their gatherings there are some strict rules. For example: ‘For the depraved and selfish: the absolute rule about any sex in any public area of the hotels or convention center. That is illegal and people should know better.’

Let’s be more specific (in the ‘Did You Know?’ category):

* HIV transmission in the heterosexual community is primarily associated with drug use. However, there are heterosexual non-drug related cases, with the risk for women much higher than for men.

* Anal intercourse also is very high risk since there is a very abundant blood supply in that area, making it easy to transfer HIV.

* Hepatitis B is 100 times more contagious than HIV. Never use vaginal deodorants since they double the risk of ovarian cancer.

# And this: India’s Roadside Romeos To Be Caged. Policewomen in parts of India will now wear sexy clothes and indulge in amorous acts and gestures to attract Eve teasers. Once in the trap of these policewomen decoys, the roadside Romeos will be paraded around the city in mobile cages, the Times of India newspaper reported. In an effort to curb the growing menace of Eve teasing, the police have positioned several mobile cages on the main roads. The words “Romeo Cages” are boldly painted on the cages pulled by big trucks hired by the police as a psychological deterrent. In most Indian cities, women are verbally and physically harassed by youngsters. The situation is the worst in the buses and trains.

# From a recent newsletter (22/10/00): Enjoying an active sex life can make you look up to seven years younger, it is being claimed by a team of Scots sex researchers. You do not even have to get out of bed to benefit. The secret of the “superyoung” is to keep the sex life going, despite the age-old excuse of a headache or the distraction of something good on late night television. Authors of a new book say improving your sex life can lead to significant reductions in stress, greater contentment, better sleep, and an increase in male testosterone output. Dr David Weeks, head of Old Age Psychology at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, and science writer Jamie James, say two things are important for maintaining a youthful appearance:

# In the ‘why do you think it is so?’ category: The Arizona Stroking Community is a couples only group. Single men need to make reservations or be on a waiting list since there often is “too much male energy” and gender balance is roughly maintained… There is a number of men whose wives have quit attending parties. The husband blames menopause and thinks she is losing interest in sex. But in my discussions with some of these women I find that they are not losing interest in sex as much as they are increasing their need for affection and not getting it at the parties. The Lifestyle is full of men who just think about themselves and forget that they are supposed to give pleasure too. Men are not programmed to give pleasure, except for a few.’

# ‘In the workshops we often stress the physical intimacy. But for most couples emotional intimacy is the most important before any physical intimacy. For others it is the intellectual intimacy that turns them on, and others aren’t interested in just physical intimacy without first establishing an intellectual, emotional or sexual connection. Further, each partner within a couple may find he/she is seeking or is comfortable with different kinds of intimacy and may want to move at a slower pace in some areas than others.’ ‘I’ve noticed that some in the group have said they have no interest in physical intimacy without the emotional first, but sometimes they have acted the opposite. Or, the time to get the emotional intimacy may be very short.’ (My comment: I wonder why?)

~~~

Let’s now look at the biblical material as Dave and Bill view it. Here are some quotes from SEXUAL FREEDOM, POLYAMORY AND CHRISTIANITY: THE CASE FOR COMPATIBILITY by BILL PARIS

‘Jesus did not outlaw polygamy, nor did anyone else in the biblical era. The church has always taught us that sexual gratification and most sexual relationships are unspiritual and that polygamy was outlawed somewhere in the New Testament. Many Christians today are discovering, that sexual freedom and poly relationships are in fact very compatible with a true faith in Christ.

‘Sexuality is at the core of our humanity and if that part of our lives is unhealthy, imprisoned and restricted, one’s entire person will be unhealthy. Consequently our relationship with God is damaged as well as our relationship with others.

‘The gospel of Christ is a gospel of the freedom that enables human beings to live life to the fullest. A sexuality that is bound . with artificial and legalistic religious restrictions cannot participate in that freedom and thus cannot be a true Christian sexuality.

‘The dominant attitude of traditional Christianity towards sexuality has been a negative one. This attitude has spawned innumerable religious rules and regulations designed to restrict, repress and otherwise regulate sexual behavior. Very early in Christian history Christian teachers began to associate sexual pleasure with sin. From a theological point of view, the primary source for this belief was a mistaken view of the nature of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The notion early gained acceptance that original sin had something to do with sex and sexual pleasure. The great theologian Augustine, the man to whom all branches of Christianity owe their greatest debt for the early systematizing of their theology, developed the view of original sin which prevails today in the church. This view holds that the sin of Adam and Eve is somehow transmitted throughout history by inheritance from these original parents.

‘Opposition to sexual pleasure did not originate with the Hebrew people of the Old Testament, from whose spiritual fountain Christianity flowed. Nor can these attitudes be found in the teachings of Jesus or the writers of the New Testament in spite of centuries of effort by the church to use these sources to justify such attitudes.

‘Behind much of this opposition to the physical pleasures in particular lies the unbiblical view that the physical world, including the human body, is essentially corrupt and therefore the source of much temptation and moral decadence. This idea. often referred to as Gnosticism, very early came to be incorporated into Christian teaching and has corrupted the church’s understanding of human life ever since.

‘It is significant that one of the most important biblical texts on this subject was written by St. Paul, who is often portrayed as anti-sexual and even anti-marriage. In 1Timothy 4:4-5 Paul writes against some teachers in the church “who forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” This is an astonishing statement. In it Paul, in effect, opposes those who forbid sexual pleasure. The purpose these teachers had for opposing marriage in the early church was to promote an ascetic spiritual “purity,” untainted by the “flesh.” What we should actually understand from Paul’s teaching is that God himself has ordained and approved of such pleasure and has given it as a spiritual gift for the good of those who can receive it, as from him, with thanksgiving. Even more remarkable is the fact that Paul associates these anti-pleasure teachings with those who “depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.”! (1Timothy 4:1) He even calls them “liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.” (verse 2)

‘What are we to conclude from these teachings? Simply, in my view, that God celebrates physical pleasure and provides it for the good of those who believe in him.’

Bill goes on to warn that ‘what has been said is not an endorsement of an irresponsible pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, in disregard of the biblical principles of love which call on us to guard the well-being of ourselves or others in all of our activities. In terms of the sexual sphere, the way I have interpreted Scripture does not provide an excuse for an obnoxious, discourteous or careless approach to sexual activity, which might include such foolish behavior as disregard for the emotional sensitivities of others or the neglect of various safety and health concerns in alternative sexual lifestyles.

‘The system of freedom which Christ came to bring to mankind through his redemptive act is “subverted” into a system which limits freedom in the interests of order and control. Jesus and his Apostles turned upside down the traditional roles of ruler and servant that were not only common in their day but remain so today. The ruler becomes the servant, although it is taken a step further in other New Testament texts in that all of the people of God become servants of one another, caring more for others than for themselves.

[Through church history] ‘not only did “moral” authority become concentrated in the hands of the few, but the idea also gained preeminence that a “higher” spirituality also resided in those few. The non-Christian idea that a higher spirituality lay in celibacy led to the notion of celibacy for the church leadership. This elevated these people even further above the plane of the laity who were “permitted” to marry in order to escape the sin of lust, but who clearly could not attain the level of spiritual purity of the clergy. Many books have documented the connections between the rise of a celibate clergy and the oppression of sexuality in the church.

‘Until the Middle Ages the church did not regulate marriage in a formal sense. The marriage customs of various cultures were considered acceptable. With the consolidation of the power of the church in the Roman Papacy and the flowering of the church’s opposition to sexual activity, the church took on the task of controlling the sex lives of the faithful in many ways, not the least of which was in demanding final authority over marriage rights. Not only was marriage generally discouraged in favor of lifelong celibacy, even for the laity, but elaborate rules were created relating to sexual relations between married people that were intended to both restrict their conjugal activities and instill guilt and fear as well. The penitential manuals of the medieval church, used by priests in levying penance for sins, are full of excruciating moral punishments for engaging in what we understand today are the most natural and normal of sexual acts.

‘As for monogamy, there is no biblical proof that monogamy was ever prescribed for the church as a whole. The only realistic text on the subject in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 3:4 (repeated in Titus 1:6) in which Paul exhorts church leaders to be “husbands of one wife.” Debate has raged for centuries as to the meaning of this passage. The most likely meaning is that it is indeed an exhortation to the leaders of the particular local churches in question to be monogamous. It is likely that the purpose of this exhortation was to prevent scandal in churches whose largest membership was of Jewish origin at a time when polygamy had generally passed away among the Jews.

‘Many scriptures have been twisted in the history of the church in an attempt to prove a monogamous rule, but the interpretations do not stand up under serious scrutiny in their contexts. The classic example is Genesis 2:24, the text on leaving father and mother and cleaving to one’s wife. This text is repeated various places in the New Testament, including by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6. In the first place, the Jews of the Old Testament never understood this text as prohibiting polygamy and it is never cited for this purpose in the Old Testament. No Jewish authority in history called for a ban on polygamy until 1040 AD, although for social and economic, not moral, reasons the practice had probably begun to disappear among the Jews during the captivities. Jesus’ use of the passage in Matthew 19 is in the context of a exhorting the Jews regarding their careless practices of divorce (see verses 7-9) and has no application to the question of monogamy.

‘One of the errors in the attempt to support monogamy from this passage has been to take the reference to “one” flesh as a numerical reference and therefore as meaning that each person shall have only “one” mate. But this interpretation is completely off the point of the text. The reference is not to numerical oneness but to the unitary oneness of Adam and Eve. The interpretation and application of this text elsewhere in Scripture must follow this meaning and, indeed, that is what we find in the New Testament. In particular, the well-known teaching about marriage by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5 quotes this same Genesis passage and clearly shows that the unitary sense was understood by Paul. Greek lexicons also support this meaning of the Greek word for “one” in the Matthew passage and in other places where the Genesis passage is quoted in the New Testament.

‘As for the form and definition of marriage, neither is described or prescribed in detail in Scripture as if God endorses or requires one and only one idea about this social structure. As noted above, until the Middle Ages the church simply accepted the ideas of marriage that were practiced by various cultures. This may come as a shock to most Christians, but there is absolutely no mandate whatever in the Bible for either synagogue or church, as a religious institution, to regulate or even define marriage!

‘In the sexual or otherwise intimate relationship area, many couples prefer to function strictly as couples. For others a more “open” marriage structure may not only work, but will provide a kind of fulfillment not otherwise possible for one or another of the spouses. In such structures, spouses may create secondary relationships in which their primary partners do not participate. It is challenging to attempt such a pattern and it will certainly not work for everyone. A great deal of mutual trust as well as an unusual security in the primary relationship are both necessary.

‘My own belief, based on the simple biblical principles cited above, with the corresponding freedom God gives us, is that many kinds of relationships, lived out in a variety of circumstances and numbers of partners, qualify as marriages.’

‘No small reason for the development of the anti-sexual teachings of the church was that all of the church’s theology was developed by men, that is, males. The anti-sexual attitudes of early Christianity derived from the anti-female attitudes of much of Greek philosophy. The Greek attitude that women were ill-formed men, clearly inferior in intellectual and moral capacity, was handed down directly to the male hierarchy of the early church. The same was true of the notion that held that women were responsible for the moral corruption of men by sexual temptations, which turned them away from the pursuit of “spiritual” things. No less an evil than the “madonna-whore” syndrome has infected the church (and society) throughout its history as the result of this package of unbiblical attitudes. Men, on the one hand, have elevated women to unrealistic heights of “purity” and at the same time sought to use them selfishly for their own pleasure. The effects of this neurosis can be seen throughout our culture in the many contradictory ways that women are treated.

‘If the New Testament is studied with an open mind, it will be seen that neither Jesus nor his Apostles were the woman-haters that many have made them out to be and the anti-woman elements of Christianity mentioned above cannot be laid at their feet. If anything, we may find in their teachings a kind of “holy feminism.”‘

Pre-marital Sex

‘The traditional Christian doctrine on this subject, a doctrine which strictly forbids sexual intercourse with anyone prior to church-sanctioned marriage, is primarily based on the usage of the term “porneia” in the New Testament. This word is usually translated “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” It is interesting that neither of these English translations really defines the sin involved. This has to be determined by the context and the historical situation that appears to be involved and unless these factors throw specific light on the meaning, the terms themselves do not help us.

‘While the term “porneia” has various uses in the New Testament, including the idea of being born illegitimately, possibly of a prostitute, the most relevant texts for personal sexual behavior are those in the letters of the Apostle Paul. The most likely meaning of “porneia” in Paul’s writings has to do with the practice of cultic prostitution in the pagan temples of the New Testament world. Even the possible reference to being born of a prostitute (John 8:41) may be a reference to cultic prostitution, although it is more likely that ordinary commercial prostitution is in view.

‘Paul’s admonition is that it is inconsistent with the worship of the true God for Christian men to be frequenting these pagan temples (1Cor. 6:9, 13, 15-18). Not incidentally, the primary issue here is not even sexual acts but idolatry. In any case, this exhortation has nothing to do with what is thought of today as pre-marital sex.

‘Another passage that has been used against sexual activity before marriage is Matthew 5:27-28. This is the famous passage in which Jesus quotes the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” and adds: “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

‘The most important thing to remember about this passage is that what Jesus is really discussing is not sexual activity with a person other than one’s spouse, but actually divorce (v. 31-32). The real point of this passage (and of a similar one in Mt. 19:3-10, mentioned earlier) is to discourage Jewish men from frivolously divorcing their wives after spotting a more desirable mate who probably belonged to someone else, thus violating both the traditional view of male ownership of wives and the greater principle of true emotional possession. This “skirt chasing” is what is being referred to in Mt. 5 in terms of “lusting.” This has nothing whatever to do with sexually admiring or even fantasizing about someone of the opposite sex and likewise has nothing to do with premarital sex.

‘In his very helpful book, “The Poisoning of Eros: Sexual Values in Conflict,” Raymond J. Lawrence, Jr., notes that for Paul the meaning of “porneia” would have followed the meaning and usage of the Hebrew word “zanah.” This meaning would be: “illicit sexual behavior as defined by the Torah.” (p. 35) The point is that in these Mosaic writings there is no prohibition against “fornication” as it is defined in our modern culture in the sense of premarital sexual activity. Consequently, Paul is not creating a new category of sexual immorality here and thus is not prohibiting what we know today as premarital sex.

Adultery

‘The essential meaning of adultery in the Old Testament setting was the idea of stealing another man’s wife, who, in the culture of the day, was regarded as his physical property. In the New Testament Jesus expands on this idea in such passages as Mt. 5 and 19, referred to above, and introduces the idea of “emotional property,” an idea which is further expanded by the Apostle Paul in such passages as Ephesians 5.

‘The point of this in terms of modern polyamory relationships is that consensual polyamory has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical teachings concerning adultery. As a Jewish rabbi once said about swinging: “If a man steals my wife, its adultery; if I loan him my wife, it is not.”‘

Extra-Marital “Affairs”

‘At one level, affairs are an entirely different story from consensual polyamory relationships and the comments of the rabbi are a succinct description of the difference.

‘The damage done to relationships from affairs stems from the deception involved. This deception often becomes extremely elaborate and consequently extremely damaging. In Liberated Christians we have never endorsed affairs and have never even allowed one spouse to join our groups without the participation or consent of the other.

‘The important thing to remember, however, is that we believe that human beings were never intended to be restricted to only one intimate/sexual relationship, but rather that multiple relationships are entirely normal. This being the case, it is possible to view affairs with much greater compassion than is usually afforded them, without actually endorsing them. To put it simply, the underlying problem with affairs is not sinful, lustful cheating on the part of a spouse, but the struggle to find fulfillment in a variety of relationships in a religious, cultural and legal structure which prohibits this fulfillment.

‘Much of our writing and group teaching in Liberated Christians uses the theme of love as its centerpiece. We believe that the heart of being a Christian is love–being loved by God and loving God, our neighbors and ourselves, as taught by Jesus in the Gospels and constantly reinforced by the writers of the New Testament.

‘In a striking passage in the Book of Acts (chapter 15) the Jewish leaders of the first church in Jerusalem clearly state that obedience to the letter of the Old Testament law is not to be required of gentile converts, thus sweeping away in one stroke the notion that Christians are still bound by such obedience. What “binds” Christians, both to God and to one another, is love, a force of infinitely greater power than the power of the law.

‘Fortunately some Christian theologians have begun to help us toward a uniting of our sexuality and our spirituality. In his wonderful book, “The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality,” James B. Nelson lists a number of shifts that he believes are beginning to occur within the church in terms of our views of sexuality. One of these shifts, he says, is “from understanding our sexuality as either incidental to or detrimental to the experience of God, to understanding sexuality as intrinsic to the divine-human experience.” (p. 116)

‘If this is true, then it is not too much to say that there is a true spiritual communion between partners who engage in their sexual encounters in love to one another and mindful of the love of God who makes the experience possible. It is not too much to say that we may learn much of God and his love through our experience of loving sexuality.

‘Sex is who we are, what we do, how we feel (about far more than just sexual acts) and how we relate. Sex is what it is to be human and spiritual.

‘Sex is perhaps the ultimate way in which we reach out for connections with other human beings and receive connection from others. This is communion at the deepest human level.

‘Instead of the curse the church has often made it to be, sex is in reality a blessing and gift that God has given his creatures. If it is abused it is because it is misunderstood as a curse; if we are unfulfilled it is because we have not received and enjoyed it as a gift.

‘There are good and valid reasons the Bible says virtually nothing about sex itself (with the exception of the glorious Song of Solomon, couched in the beautiful imagery of Near Eastern poetry).

‘First, the Bible is not the analytical style of literature that we are used to in Western culture. The Bible, rather, is synthetic, not in the sense of artificial, but in the sense of seeing life holistically, as a unit. For the Hebrews, for example, sex was seen as natural and integrated into the whole of life; thus it was not talked about and picked apart the way we like to do.

‘Second, I also believe that God’s point of view is that sex is so normal and right that the biblical writers saw no need to discuss the thing itself. They rightly assumed its goodness, its giftedness from God and, apart from certain abuses, that was the end of it.

‘Just as the Bible does not give the church a mandate to regulate marriage, likewise there is no biblical authority for the church, as a religious institution, to regulate the sex lives of its people. I mean this in terms of a couple’s, a triad’s or other marital form’s desire or right to either procreate or recreate sexually, to choose partners or to decide what types of sexual activity to engage in.’

And Dave’s view on a few other topics:

‘Jesus upsets literalists who seek to exclude others from God’s love by labeling them sinners. He shows the only requirements of scripture are love of God, neighbor, and self, which is revealed in loving actions.

‘Concubinage (women as breeders), polygyny,(men multiple wives) capturing women in battle and forcing them to be wives, levirate marriages, fathers forcing their daughters to marry a man that pays the father the marriage price, regardless of girl’s wishes, and women as property of husbands, may not be a good thing, but they sure are Biblical!

‘Christ’s teachings are dynamic as it relates to the culture. His principals of love are universal, but how the principals are applied may be very different than in Hebrew culture of 2000 years ago.

“Lust The Other Side Of Love” by M White, former Prof of Communications, Fuller Theological Seminary: “It is not clear that Paul condemns all other forms of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Paul’s original Greek word was ‘porneia’ which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for prostitution. Where Paul was condemning prostitution or trafficking in slaves, the Latin fathers substituted ‘fornicatio’, which led readers to falsely believe that Paul was condemning all forms of premarital sexual intercourse.”

‘Many Christians use selected verses to point out wrongs in someone’s life and call them sinners. Perhaps this makes them feel powerful but is not what Jesus taught or acted. For example in Leviticus God gave Moses laws to follow. According to God no one with disabilities is allowed to make an offering to God (Lev 27:18-33). Lev 19:19 forbids wearing clothing made of two fibers. Lev 17:10 clearly says that if we eat rare meat God will turn against us.’

~~~

My responses:

There is so much here to critique. I think I’ve given Dave and Bill more than adequate space to explain their views. Many articles on the John Mark Ministries website ( put ‘sex’ into the keyword search on http://jmm.org.au) address these issues.

The Liberated Christians site is like the curate’s egg – good in patches. I want to reassert my agreement with many of Dave’s and Bill’s key observations – particularly about the repressive nature of the church’s edicts and preachments against recreational as distinct from procreative sex. I too have been critical of missionaries who have insisted that monogamy is the only Christian marital mode. And yes, it’s important for sexual partners to ‘connect’ emotionally as well as physically. There are some valid insights, but what it doesn’t address is dangerous.

In this review I will look at just just six matters.

1. ‘Dave’ and ‘Bill’ say: ‘We expose the false traditional “Christian” teachings about fornication/adultery, show how these teachings are not biblical and how sex was made a sin by man, not God.’ Now it’s true that many medieval and legalistic Christian leaders have propagated repressive views about sex. But to say ‘Sex was made a sin by man, not God’ is quite contrary to the biblical affirmation of sex as good, in its proper, responsible context.

2. It might seem that the idea of a consenting swinging couple ‘not cheating, just enjoying sex’ is harmless enough. And it’s nice that the primary rule is no touching without permission – ‘No means No’. Further, it’s a cute rationalization to say ‘Good sex is OK, but I think life is built on touching inside each other not just on the outside.’ I ran this one past a non-Christian female counselor. Her response: ‘Just the sort of statement only a male would make, and which is the justification for a lot of serious sexual abuse’. Makes you wonder why women are far less likely to initiate ‘swinging’ than their men! When Paul talked about sexual union with someone being an act of deep ‘joining’ he was alluding to a more dynamic event happening than two bodies enjoying mutual pleasuring. In my counseling I come across the havoc in the lives of people who began their sexual adventuring with an idea like the Liberated Christians’, but who ended up a mess – with very serious repercussions for their loved ones and families. Our psyches are touched in these acts – not just our bodies. And in a mysterious way our rationality is bypassed in the act of serious sexual stimulation and orgasm. And, more importantly: a responsible Christian sexual ethic must involve commitment, not simply situational consent. The Judeo-Christian ethic is simply stated at this point: Whatever the socio-cultural factors surrounding the sanction and meaning of ‘marriage ‘, God’s intent is that the partners be committed to one another, for better/worse, for life. ‘Commitment’ in this sense is not a dominant theme on this website.

3. It’s one thing to say the Bible isn’t against polygamy. But it’s quite another to suggest that the Bible therefore condones casual free sex with any consenting person. Polygamy in the ancient Near Eastern cultures also involved covenantal obligations. Nowhere does the Bible encourage casual sex as this website does. Yes, the injunction in Leviticus 18:20 (‘Sex with your neighbour’s wife is forbidden’) may need to be understood in the context of wives-as-property. But the New Testament, as for example in Hebrews 13:4, is quite clear: ‘Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers’ (a text I could not find addressed on the website – but I might have missed it). Some – but not all – of the biblical references to fornication/adultery in the Bible seem to imply a wider context than either religious prostitution or pagan orgies. Sexual activity in religious temples by both male and female prostitutes is clearly prohibited in the Hebrew Scriptures. Such behavior was common in the Canaanite fertility religions. Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is always condemned in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

A little note at this point: In principle I’m in favour of same-sex ‘marriage equality’, provided the two partners have the same sort of loving life-long commitment to one another expected of any other form of marriage – heterosexual monogamous or polygamous – and it’s sanctioned by the law.

See http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/28630.htm

4. A key question here is the hermeneutical one. Dave’s and Bill’s approach to biblical interpretation follow the more liberal line – hence a long diatribe on the website against the notion of biblical inerrancy. At the liberal end of the Christian spectrum, Bishop Spong, for example, prefers midrash (‘traditions always changing’ as he puts it in several of his books) to ‘hysterical literalism’. He wants to ‘free [Scripture] from its literalistic imprisonment’ (Living in Sin?). As I understand him, he believes Scripture is authoritative only as the Christian community gives it authority. It’s not that the old orthodoxies or traditions were wrong: they’re now mostly irrelevant. When any part of Scripture is inappropriate to a community’s reasoning (my word), it has the power to render those bits inoperative: our quest is to understand Jesus as a Jew, then be free to comprehend him within the thought-forms of our day. So where is the Word of God? In Christ, Spong says. (Ah, but whose/which Christ? I want to ask). The incongruity of all this, for me, lies in Spong’s avowed love for Scripture and his cavalier attitude towards it. On the other hand, a literalistic legalistic view of sexual behavior which isn’t cognizant of the ancient near-eastern cultural background is equally disastrous. Most biblical references to fornication and orgies, for example, are given in the context of pagan rituals which were forbidden to God’s people. The difficulty today is that the notion of a non-religious ‘secular’ setting for considering sexual promiscuity is foreign to ancient thinking.

5. So we have, essentially, a conservative/liberal divide on these issues. The problem with conservative approaches is their assumption that a sexual act is a sin simply in terms of defining it in terms of an act. So many young people I counsel from these churches assume that just about anything goes in terms of sexual behavior, short of sexual penetration/intercourse. Such a mechanical, legalistic mind-set, leads to all sorts of confusion and guilt. Liberal approaches define ‘sin’ (though they might not use the word) in terms of the participant’s relationship, not by the act itself. They prefer to ask: ‘Is the relationship functioning according to principles of justice and dignity? Does the partnership demonstrate mutual trust and compassion?’ My main problem here is its naive approach to the perversity of human nature. Humans can’t be trusted sometimes (mostly?) to make a good moral judgment about ‘holy sex’ as Spong describes it, for example. We’re too prone, without the moral boundaries set by precedent/law, to make value-judgments based on selfishness (the Bible calls it ‘sin’). One example: I am concerned that ‘only a few people come planning to used condoms’ in many of these situations of making love to strangers. That’s a worry…

6. There’s very little help on the website to help us distinguish love from lust, eros from agape. Or to warn about the tendency to be prurient/voyeuristic. C S Lewis in his excellent book The Four Loves distinguishes between ‘agape’ love and ‘eros’ love. Agape love is a mature self-giving love while eros love is simply sexual attraction. Agape love is a matter of commitment; eros is based in the emotions. (See my article on Romantic vs. Realistic Love – http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/4852.htm .  Lust is the use of another person for one’s own ends. Any intelligent hormonally-driven person can be ‘compassionate/loving’ in the sense Dave and Bill uses those terms. I am sometimes amazed at the ability to listen deeply to another which happens in the context of ‘flirting’. Dave and Bill call it love, emotional connectedness. I call a lot of it ‘come-ons’.

So, to sum up: we have a baby and the bathwater. The baby: sexual enjoyment, sexual fidelity, marital commitment, faithfulness. The bathwater: legalistic notions which are not in the spirit of Jesus. Let us be careful to ask why a good God who created us sexual beings put some proscriptions on our sexual behavior. There must have been some good reasons for it.

Rowland Croucher

December 2000 (Revgised June 2013).