In what ways do you think the church is succeeding and/or failing when it comes to guiding singles on matters of sexuality and cohabitation? What does scripture teach and research show regarding cohabitation before marriage?

Chp78910.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >In what ways do you think the church is succeeding and/or failing when it comes to guiding singles on matters of sexuality and cohabitation? What does scripture teach and research show regarding cohabitation before marriage?

P A R T T W O

Authentic Sexuality

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:51:19.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Sexuality and Singleness

In 1960 Paul Goodman wrote a book about coming of age in the United States, which he aptly titled Growing Up Absurd. Not least among the absurd aspects of growing up is how to behave sexually. Exposed to the electronic media, singles are bombarded with an onslaught of messages enticing them to act out sexual impulses, yet the Christian community continues to uphold the standard of sexual absti nence before marriage.

Asking unmarried singles to control their sexual impulses for longer and longer periods of time is a fairly new phenomenon in our culture. This has been brought about by an earlier-age onset of puberty combined with later-age marriages. Throughout history, young people in most societies married just before their sexual and reproductive capacities were devel- oped. Around the middle 1800s, girls reached menarche between ages 15 and 16 and married around that same age. Today the onset of menarche has dropped to between ages 12 and 13, while the median age at first marriage is 23.6 for women and 26.9 for men. The combination of early hormonal development cou pled with a culture that encourages sexual in- volvement during dating makes it even more difficult for singles to remain celibate before marriage. The early awakening of sexuality through the constant bombardment of messages about sex in modern culture is cause for most singles to consider celibacy an absurd request that is quite im- possible to manage during this ten- to twenty-year waiting period before marriage.

We start with the assumption that sexual feelings are extremely pow-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 4 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

erful, but a person has a clear choice about sexual behaviors. We need to teach teens that it is all right to have sexual feelings and desires, but that they must learn to contain them. The media counter this message by teaching youth that if they have sexual feelings, they should act on them. We need to develop media awareness programs to train teen agers to recognize how they are being manipulated by the media and how they can take constructive steps to counter its destructive messages. One needs only to understand the economics of eroticism to realize why teenagers are among the most manipulated groups in society today. It is enormously profitable for the media to provide sexually titillating and erotically sug- gestive messages to a large group of vora cious consumers whose hormones are raging.

Sadly, many churches and parents turn a deaf ear to this dilemma, refusing to address the difficult questions about sex and singleness. Al- though rarely articulated, two messages seem to be given to teenagers and singles. Perhaps the most common message is, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” This response is actually a nonresponse. The other message, “Just say no!” may ref lect a stance that ignores the struggle of living in a sexually saturated culture.

Singles need to feel understood as well as receive helpful guidelines in their desire to follow a standard of abstinence. Pretending that young people are not sexual leaves them in a quandary concerning how to be an authentic sexual person in today’s world. They need to know how to exist in a singles’ subculture that endorses premarital sex, while holding on to the Christian belief in celibacy before marriage. Significantly, the two types of behavior most correlated with teenagers delaying sexual in- tercourse are religious behaviors such as praying and attending church. The church and biblical teachings are great resources for singles as they develop sound reasons for cultivating person-centered relationships.

In this chapter we present a brief historical outlook on sexual standards, then offer a biblical perspective and give some practical sugges tions about how to affirm sexuality while remaining true to biblical standards.

Pr em a r ita l Se x ua l Sta n da r dS There are four recognized premarital sexual standards held in the United States today: sexual abstinence, double standard, permissiveness with affection, and permissiveness without affection. Although the idea of sexual abstinence

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 4 1

continues to be a primary sexual standard when it comes to beliefs about sex before marriage, it is not the actual behavior reported by the majority of singles. The double standard, on the other hand, which accepts sexual intercourse outside marriage for males but not for females, has continued to decline during the past sixty years.

Permissiveness with affection is the most practiced sexual standard when it comes to actual behavior. Many young adults believe that sex ual intercourse between two consenting individuals is permissible when they are “in love” and have committed themselves to one another. Society gen- erally accepts this arrangement when couples are in exclusive dating rela- tionships or engaged or living together. How ever, there is still a societal sanction for legal marriage when a couple decides to have children.

Some confusion comes into play with the “permissiveness with affec- tion” standard. There are those who practice what might be called serial monogamy: they are true to one partner at a time, yet change partners every few years. They have affection for the partner during the sexually exclusive relationship, but they will move on to another partner when they “fall out of love” or become attracted to a new partner. In another sce- nario, singles report having affection for the partners they have sex with, but that affection may extend to several partners at the same time. As you can see, there is a wide variation in how this standard is interpreted. It can be justified to fit most any situ ation where there is an intentional relationship.

Permissiveness without affection, although less acceptable as a stan dard when attitudes are surveyed, has become a fairly common prac tice in the past thirty years. This view considers sexual intercourse to be a casual, recreational experience between two consenting adults. The recent AIDS epidemic has jolted many into rethinking this standard, due to the serious ramifications of such a promiscuous sexual lifestyle. There are obvious reasons to consider the grave consequences of engag ing in sex with many different persons for whom one has no affection, both from a physical and psychological perspective. Because of HIV, relationships from the past may have infected a person with a life-threatening illness in the pres- ent. Thus, casual sex for the sake of sexual pleasure has been questioned increasingly in recent years. However, there is not only concern about the increased risk of contracting sexu ally transmitted diseases but also about the emotional inf luence of being sexually intimate with a number of dif-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 4 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

ferent partners for whom there is no affection. The long-term trend is that youth have become more sexually permis-

sive. It is estimated that today approximately 90 percent of youth have en- gaged in sexual intercourse by age 20. The sexual lifestyle of many young adults could be described as serial monogamy, having sex with a series of partners, but only with one at a time. There is recent evidence to suggest that some youth are making a decision to become less sexually permissive. The number of sexually active teens decreased during the 1990s and early 2000s, according to Grunbaum and others (2002). Also, fewer youth in the 1990s, when compared to youth in the 1980s, believed that it was okay to have premarital intercourse (Ku et al. 1998). The teenage pregnancy and birth rates have also declined during the 1990s (Grunbaum et al. 2002).

It may seem evident, but worth recognizing, that marriage greatly re- duces sexual promiscuity. Upon reaching young adulthood (age 26-39) most persons are maintaining a monogamous sexual lifestyle. It is esti- mated that approximately 80 and 90 percent of sexually active single het- erosexual men and women, respectively, report having had only one sex partner with the last year (Laumann et al. 1994).

Hooking up. It is sobering to learn that the recent phenomena of hook- ing up is a form of nonrelational sex that has become a common part of the sex scene among teenagers. This term usually refers to sexual expres- sion without commitment or any expectation of future attachment. One study reports that “more than one-half of sexually active teens have had sexual partners they are not dating” (Manning, Giodano and Longmore 2006:459). The authors explain that “adolescents having sex outside of the dating context are choosing partners who are friends or ex-girlfriends and/or boyfriends.” Still, the researchers found that some teenagers (about one-third) do have hopes that the encounter will lead to a more conven- tional dating relationship.

The social context of premarital sex. A study of 1,925 seventh- and eighth- grade students revealed that males were more likely than females to have engaged in sexual activity and to hold more permissive attitudes toward sexual involvement (De Gaston, Weed and Jensen 1996). “Females were more committed to abstinence, less permissive in their views of premarital sexuality, less likely to view access to birth control or being in love as a justification for sex, and more likely to view sexual urges as controllable

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 4 3

and adolescent sexual activ ity as an impediment to future goal attain- ment” (p. 217).

A large sample survey of 26,023 adolescents in 1988 revealed that teens were less likely to become sexually active if they performed better aca- demically, were more religious, did not have suicidal thoughts, came from two-parent families, had a higher socioeconomic standing, lived in a rural area, believed that their parents or other adults cared about their behavior, and had parents who had high expectations of them (Lammers, Ireland, Resnick and Blum 2000).

Although peers have a profound effect on teenagers’ sexual behavior, there is evidence that parents also can be inf luential. Evidence shows that attitudes of parents and peers inf luence adoles cents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. De Gaston, Weed and Jensen (1996) found that girls perceived less peer pressure for sex and more support for postponing sex than did boys. Girls were more likely to discuss sex and dating practices with their parents, but also viewed their parents as having more rules and being less approving of their sexuality.

A study of 568 African American adolescent females found that both parental sexual attitudes and quality of parent-adolescent relationships predicted abstinence, after accounting for the variance associated with peer variables (Maguen and Armistead 2006). In a similar vein, a study of over 5,000 Scottish teenagers found that low parental monitoring is predictive of early sexual activity for both sons and daughters. For fe- males, this is also predictive of having more sexual partners and less condom use. In other words, lack of parental monitoring is associated with unsafe sex practices.

An interesting finding by Wright, Williamson and Henderson (2006) was that youth having a lot of spending money also enage in sexual activ- ity earlier. Especially for males, spending money is associated with having more sexual partners. Surprisingly, these researchers also found that the degree of comfort teens feel about talking with their parents about sex did not seem to be related to their sexual behavior.

A study of over 1,000 high school students helps us understand the circumstances under which adolescents experience their first sexual in- tercourse (De Gaston, Jensen and Weed 1995). When first sexual inter- course occurred, 50 percent of the students were going steady, 25 percent were dating someone they knew well, 20 percent reported that drugs or

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 4 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

alcohol were used, and 75 percent were at home or a friend’s home. Nearly 50 percent reported that they wished they had waited longer before hav- ing sex.

Ninety percent of persons who engage in premarital sex do so in their teenage years. The average age for boys’ first sexual experience is sixteen, and for girls it is seventeen. These figures are only one year younger than in 1970. A study of 1,167 high school students revealed that once sexual intercourse activity was initiated, it was persistent for most adolescents (Tubman, M. Windle and R. Windle 1996). Boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to be at high levels of sexual risk by having sex with multiple partners. Repeated intercourse with multi ple partners was associated with antisocial behaviors and substance abuse.

The earlier the use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other illicit drugs, the greater the risk of sexual activity before age 16 for both males and fe- males (Rosenbaum and Kandel 1990). Youth who begin sexual activity at an early age run a higher risk for a premarital birth (Miller and Heaton 1991). The single most powerful predictor of ado lescent pregnancy is to have been sexually abused. Sixty percent of children born to adolescent girls are fathered by adults.

Other research indicates a great deal of struggle and sexual conf lict in sexual encounters between adolescent males and females. Although a boy is more likely to coerce a girl into having sex by lying or trying to get her drunk or high, girls are more likely to stress the need for commit- ment and investment in the relationship as a basis for having sex (Eyre, Read and Millstein 1997). A study of English youth also confirmed the use of alcohol as a means of lessening a girl’s resistance to having sex. Donovan (1996) reports that young women indicate that alcohol con- sumption would make them more likely to have sex with somebody for whom they felt attraction. This research supports the traditional assump- tion about adolescent relationships that girls want romance and boys want sex. This stereotype is challenged by a recent study regarding the meaning of adolescent romantic relationship to boys (Giordano, Longmorre and Manning 2006). Based on over 1,300 interviews, the study found that adolescent boys “report significantly lower levels of confidence navigating various aspects of their romantic relataionships, similar levels of emotional engagement as girls, and greater power and inf luence on the part of their romantic partners” (p. 260). Chapter thirteen goes into more detail about

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 4 5

inauthentic sexual behavior in social dating. Virginity pledges. In 1990 Richard and Renee Durfield wrote the book

Raising Them Chaste, which began what has come to be known as the virginity pledge movement. Based on their relationships with their own teenage children, the Durfields suggested that along with a “sex talk,” parents might give a key ring to their child. The key ring was to be worn as a pledge to sexual abstience and then presented to one’s spouse at mar- riage. This creative suggestion has spawned a number of related programs seeking to promote chastity among single youth. These programs have been praised by some as the answer to preserving chastity, and ridiculed by others as too simplistic a solution to a complex problem. Unfortunately, the debate over the effectiveness of such programs has more often been fueled by ideological differences than by research findings.

According to Bearman and Bruckner (2001), the wisdom gleaned through this first comprehensive study on the effects of virginity pledges is that “critics are wrong when they think it does not work, but they are right when they think it can not work as a universal strategy” (p. 859). This study found that pledges decreased the risk of intercourse substan- tially, since those taking the pledge were 34 percent less likely to engage in premarital sexual intercourse than among nonpledgers. This was true when researchers controlled for other factors, such as socioeconomic sta- tus and closeness to parents, meaning that taking the pledge has a direct and independent effect upon the decision to remain chaste (Bearman and Bruckner 2001).

The best research on the pledge has come from the extensive National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in which 14,000 youth responded to surveys given in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Some of the earlier optimism was diminished by the finding that more than half (52%) of those taking the pledge reported having sex within a year (Rosenbaum 2006). This study also reported that responses by adolescents on their sexual experi- ences were unreliable since more than a fourth of nonvirgins in the first interview, who later took a virginity pledge, indicated in the next inteview that they had never had sex. Rosenbaum questions the accuracy of data on the virginity pledge by concluding that “adolescents who initiate sex- ual activity are likely to recant virginity pledges, whereas those who take pledges are likely to recant their sexual histories” (2006:1098).

In a positive vein, youth who make a viginity pledge were found to be

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 4 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

less likely to experience teen pregnancy, to be less sexually active while in high school and as young adults, to be less likely to give birth out of wed- lock, and to have fewer sexual partners (Rector, Johnson, and Marshall 2004). After examining follow-up data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Bruckner and Bearman (2005) tempered the optimistic report given in their previous study by noting that pledgers and nonpledgers had similar rates of sexually transmitted desceases (STDs). Explanations for this are that pledgers were less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and less likely to undergo STD testing.

A most dramatic finding was that pledgers were more likely than non- pledgers to engage in anal and oral sex, sexual behaviors with greater risks of STD. It may be that some youth who take the viginity pledge believe they are honoring their pledge if they abstain from vaginal intercourse. In order for viginity pledges to be most effective, it is necessary to include a full definition and understanding (as some do) of what chastity means. A biblical understanding of chastity must go beyond a “letter of the law” view of what it means to be a “technical virgin” to an understanding that chastity involves the whole person—body, mind and soul.

A related question centers on the effectiveness of “abstinence-only” programs. These programs teach abstinence until mariage, believing that youth should not be encouraged by experts or parents to engage in “safe sex” practices. A five-month follow-up of 2069 middle school students reveals that abstinence-until-marriage interventions increase abstinence beliefs and decrease intentions to have sex and to use condoms. The re- searchers are hopeful this will result in reducing the prevalence of “casual sex” (Borawski et al. 2005:423). A study by Bersamin, Walker, Walters, Fisher and Grube (2006) found that making a private pledge or promise to oneself to wait to have sexual intercourse or oral sex until one is older is more effective than making a formal virginity pledge. These authors recommend that sexual health programs encourage young people to make an internal, personal commitment to delay the onset of sex, foster sexual norms supportive of delaying sex and be informed that early sexual initia- tion may threaten future plans.

t he ca Se FOr a BSti nence In light of this diversity in sexual standards, Christian singles must decide about a standard for themselves. We will present scriptural support for

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 4 7

abstinence as a standard and then ask some critical questions about mak- ing sexual choices.

Throughout the Scriptures, sexual intercourse is carefully placed within the context of marriage. This idea is so strong that unmarried per sons who engage in intercourse are regarded as entering into a one-f lesh union similar to marriage. In 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 the apostle Paul reminds us that when two become one f lesh, it is similar to uniting oneself with Christ’s spirit. Paul dares to suggest that sexual oneness established be- tween two people is comparable to the unity we are meant to experience with Christ!

Marriage is that time when two persons (1) base their relationship on a mutually shared covenant commitment and (2) consummate their rela- tionship in sexual union. The sealing of the marriage covenant is likened to a sacred mystery in which two individuals become “one f lesh” (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:4-6). The act of sexual intercourse carries with it the deeper notion of uniting two persons in the spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical aspects of their relationship.

Premarital sex is defined as sexual intercourse between unmar ried per- sons who do not share a mutual covenant commitment. This is referred to in the Bible, depending on the translation, as “fornica tion” or “sexual immorality” (Acts 15:20; 1 Cor 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3). One could argue that there is no such thing as “premarital intercourse” because the act of intercourse itself, ac- cording to the bottom-line position, seals the union, whether or not the couple intends to marry.

An obvious question for couples who forgo marriage but share a cove- nant commitment is whether they are free to engage in sexual intercourse. Whereas God alone judges the hearts and intentions of any committed couple, it is clear that sexual intercourse is meant to seal their marriage vows as they promise before God to be faithful to each other for a life- time. On a practical level, merely making a mutual covenant does not automatically imply that the couple should move on to sexual intercourse. In a social-psychological sense, there is a right and wrong time to marry. The right time is when two people are pre pared to take their committed love and live together in a responsible, mutually satisfying relationship. A more complete discussion of the wisdom of this position will be given in the next chapter, on cohabita tion.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 4 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

Genesis 2:24 indicates that the right time for marriage is when a cou ple is able to “leave, unite and cleave” in a newly established union. Until both partners have a sufficient sense of self that allows them to separate from their parents/family of origin, we believe that they are unprepared to enter such a demanding relationship as marriage. Then, when two persons love each other and make a covenant commitment to each other, they are ma- ture enough to consider what is in the best interest of their partner as well as what is in the best interest of the rela tionship before making decisions about sexual intimacy or when to marry. The uniting of two lives involves a spiritual union that goes far beyond the two of them. It is vowing be- fore God to put Christ at the center as they bind their lives together in the meaningful purposes of work, procreation, family and friendship ties, recreation and service to church and community. Lauren Winner builds a case for the importance of premarital sexual chastity by stressing that sex is communal rather than private—“doing sex in a way that befits the Body of Christ, and that keeps you grounded, and bounded, in the community” (2005:123).

Si ngleneSS a n d Se x ua l in vOlv emen t In this age of tolerance, it is increasingly difficult for Christian singles to simply accept the admonition, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” The fact is, when it comes to specific sexual behaviors, the Bible is not so clearcut. This leaves room for various interpretations, increas ing the confusion in deciding what the convincing arguments are and whose opinions one chooses to follow. We believe it is more helpful to offer a series of questions that single persons can honestly ask them selves as they develop a moral basis about these gray areas concerning sexual behavior.

Do I have the right reason? Asking the question “What is the right rea- son?” helps one face some hard facts head-on. Even though pleasure and enjoyment may be a good reason, the potential harm of sexual involve- ment for a partner, yourself or your particular relationship must also be considered. “Will either of us get hurt by the sexual behaviors we engage in at this time?” “Are we emotionally ready to deepen our relationship at this level?” “Do I have a sufficient self to make a cove nant commitment to this person?” “What happens if either of us wants out after we become sexually intimate?” “Will the emotional pain of breaking up after being this involved cause either of us psychological harm?” “What happens if a

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 4 9

pregnancy occurs? Will the unborn child be hurt by this choice? Would we be able and willing to care for a child? What would be the effect of putting a child up for adoption? Would we ever consider abortion, and how would that affect us?” “Will being involved sexually at this time hurt our parents, siblings or family in any way?” We could go on and on, but you get the idea.

There are many crucial questions to consider about the level of one’s sexual involvement in a relationship before proceeding. Being hon- est about possible emotional complications keeps denial at bay. Singles, whether young or old, need to ask themselves if they have the right reasons to be involved with a partner sexually, then determine if these reasons are congruent with their psychological development, physical and emotional readiness, and Christian value system.

Will it enrich our relationship? If a couple decides they do have the right reasons for increasing the level of their sexual involvement and are assured that neither of them will be hurt by it, the next step is to consider the in- f luence on the relationship itself. Because they love each other, are deeply committed and believe that good will come out of the mutual decision for increased sexual intimacy, the question here has to do with whether it will enrich their relationship. The point of these questions is to keep the rela- tionship in focus and to assume mutual responsibility for it. “Will sexual expression enhance or take away from our committed love?” “Is it the right time for us to be this involved sexually? For example, how far away is the wedding day?” “Are we committed to the point that we would marry if a pregnancy would occur? How would that affect our relationship?” “Can we trust each other to be faithful throughout the years to our covenant love when we can’t postpone our passion now?” “Can we maintain our personal freedom along with paying attention to our partnership commitment?”

We realize that a couple may answer all these questions in the affir- mative. Such a response may confirm that they have the right reasons for themselves, each other and the relationship. On the other hand, they may see the need to look more realistically at potential complications if they increase the level of sexual involvement in their relationship at that point in time. Most important, if they have done this honest soul-search ing now, keeping unforeseen consequences in full view, they will be at a better place to take responsibility for their decisions.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 5 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

We know of an unmarried couple who decided to live together be- cause they believed it would enhance their relationship. However, they did not anticipate how difficult it would be for their families when church friends unknowingly asked questions that were too hard to cover up. So the couple stopped going to church. Then they began having dif ficulty working out finances and blamed each other for not pulling their share of the load. Soon, they were at each other’s throats, and neither family was willing to bail them out. Finally, they terminated the living arrange- ment because they were basically unable to manage their rela tionship. The breakup was painful, and each suffered emotionally. They were embar- rassed about failing at something they were sure they could handle. Each one struggled to work out the relational consequences of being so involved sexually and now to be totally apart. A decision they thought would en- hance their relationship actually became its demise. This was a difficult and painful experience for all involved.

Is it the right time? Biblical norms about sexual intercourse are not meant to deprive one of sexual pleasure, but to ensure the sanctity of a mysterious union embedded in a deeply satisfying covenant relation ship. We recog- nize that some Christians have made a full covenant to each other before God and engage in sexual intimacy before mar riage. And they seem to do this with few complications. In these cases it precedes marriage that is lasting and fulfilling. However, this is quite a different situation from those who engage in impersonal, indis criminate sex with a number of dif- ferent partners without any sense of commitment.

Jennifer and Daniel were in an exclusive relationship for four years. After thoughtful discussion, they finally decided to include intercourse as part of their sexual intimacy with each other. They were secure in their pledge to an exclusive love and eventual marriage. Even though they were not pre- pared financially to establish a household for at least another year, they felt they were ready for sexual intercourse at this stage in their courtship.

We can certainly have compassion for this couple who believed they made a choice for the right reason, yet the decision was premature due to their financial unsteadiness. Even though they had worked hard to estab- lish independence from their families of origin and had achieved a level of emotional maturity, they remained dependent when it came to money issues. This not only put a strain on their relationship with their parents, who were paying the bills, but also caused tension in their relationship as

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 5 1

well. Therefore, instead of enhancing the relationship, the added stress left them estranged from each other and their parents.

Did sexual involvement stymie the future of the relationship? By choos- ing to engage in sexual intercourse, a couple may shortchange themselves of the total package. For example, intercourse for Jennifer and Daniel di- minished their relationship because they were not able to fully enter into all aspects of married life. They ended up living out only part of their dream, so to speak. Emotional bonding occurs through the planning and setting up of a household together. Sexual involvement may help them feel physically close, but focusing on this aspect may disrupt the full mean- ing of their covenant. So they limp along without the benefit of an all- encompassing relationship.

We believe that sexual intercourse loses its deeper meaning when it is not an integral part of the total life of the couple. The mutual joy, pain, vulner- ability and accountability in all aspects of married life deepen the relationship and bring validation to the union. When bond ing is limited to the sexual realm, partners are likely to hold back from dis closing all of themselves. This robs them of a daily meshing of their lives through the thick and thin, the es- sential joys and difficult days of life together. Married life as a total package brings a couple to a higher level of intimacy and commitment.

In another case, Marsha and Gregg had both engaged in sexual inter- course with several partners before they started going steady. Nei ther had thought very much about their sexual choices or earlier indis criminate sexual behavior. So, when they came together, it was an automatic as- sumption that intercourse would be part of their relation ship. They en- gaged in sexual activity for the wrong reason (“It’s just the thing people do when they’re together”) at the wrong time (“We’re together because it’s convenient”). Neither of them discussed what the sex meant to them, nor did they ask any of the questions about it being for the right reasons, either for themselves or the relationship.

In the absence of a covenant commitment, a crucial piece was missing, leaving a tremendous gap in their sexual union. They each longed for a deeper level of emotional intimacy to match their sexual involve ment. Their relationship remained on a fairly superficial level, and they began to feel the same dissatisfaction they did with other partners. Sexual involve- ment alone does not meet the deeper longings for secure belonging and meaningful covenant commitment.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 5 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

WrOng r e a SOnS FOr Se x ua l in vOlv emen t While some singles, like Jennifer and Daniel, may have believed that they engaged in sex for good reasons, many more have sex for reasons that are wrong—and unhealthy—from the beginning.

Sex used as a substitute for emotional needs. The single life can be one of loneliness and self-doubt. Singles may long for emotional love, but due to low self-esteem, they believe there is nothing in themselves that is lov- able. So, they decide to give their bodies as a substitute for what they do not have to offer emotionally. However, the few moments of pleasure never deliver what they truly desire in meeting emotional needs. Sadly, such persons may go from one sexual relationship to another, looking for love in physical terms, only to perpetuate the belief that there is nothing of their personhood that attracts others. Their self-esteem declines even more when they perceive that they are nothing more than a sex object.

Singles who are underdeveloped in relational skills will find it hard to make satisfactory connections and are actually fearful of emotional close- ness. They deceive themselves into thinking that physical inti macy equals emotional intimacy. Hiding behind this illusion when a partner asks more of them emotionally, they run in the opposite direc tion because they can- not deliver something they do not have to give. They are likely to dump that person and become involved in another sexual encounter without ever developing in the emotional realm.

Insufficient ego strength—can’t say no! Some persons do not have the ego strength to say no to sexual approaches, so they give in even when they do not want to be sexually involved. They do not really enjoy the sexual interaction; however, they are unable to assert themselves, so they tolerate the intrusion. Some may believe they do not have a right to keep sexual boundaries; others fear rejection or ridicule, so they say yes when they want to say no.

When working at a large university, Judy saw how this inability to say no to peers became a tragedy for a college freshman. Dormmates had learned that Dennis was a virgin and began teasing him merci lessly about it. They set him up with a girl for the purpose of “helping him become a real man.” There was a big party on the fourth f loor that night to cel- ebrate his lost virginity. The dormmates felt triumphant, but Dennis was crushed by his failure to resist their pressure. Extremely guilty about what had happened, he condemned himself harshly for not standing up for

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 5 3

what he believed. He was so distraught about going against his personal and religious standards that he attempted suicide the next day. We are saddened about the circumstances that led to the inability of this young man to combat these peer pressures.

When ego strength is underdeveloped, testing a person’s sexual val ues can be a tremendous challenge. Dennis found it especially tough to assert his values in a non-Christian environment. In this case, physical sex with the girl involved proving something to his dormmates rather than coming out of a desire to express affection to someone he loved. The girl was also an innocent victim of this cruel setup. Single persons need to know that they always have the right to say no at any time, so they will never feel obligated to anyone.

Using sex to control or coerce. Sex can be used in an effort to control, co- erce or trick a person. Kristin remembers going to the college prom with Chuck and being so “in love” with him that night. They came home at midnight and slow-danced to records in her living room. Kris tin felt a nervous, butterf ly sensation in her stomach and thought for sure this was a sign of true love. One thing led to another, and soon they were petting heavily, just short of intercourse. The next few weeks Chuck and Kris- tin spent every waking moment together. Chuck began pushing for more physical involvement just when Kristin wanted to back up a step or two.

That is when Chuck started giving her guilt trips about what she owed him. After all, he said, they had been physically involved, and she was obligated to marry him. His constant pressure made Kristin want to run, but she felt trapped by her earlier behavior. She could not see that if he re- ally loved her, he would not want to badger her into doing things she did not want to do. If he truly cared about her well-being, he would be thrilled that she wanted to complete college and prepare her self for a professional career.

When someone in Kristin’s situation pulls away, the coercive part ner usually becomes even more desperate, creating ugly, embarrassing scenes in front of others. At this point we can see how the one’s pulling away threatens the instability of the one who clings and how that leads to more- forceful attempts at control. This person manipulates out of personal need, not out of love for the other.

Rape and sexual violence are other examples of hostile, coercive sex. Perpetrators have one focus in mind, to satisfy their own needs with out

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 5 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

regard for the person they victimize. Sex is used to reassure them selves of their adequacy, for they are filled with self-hate, a topic we will discuss in more depth in the chapter on sexual violence. At this point, we simply want to point out the potential danger in the contemporary singles scene, where power and control are used in sexual encounters. Emotionally inad- equate males tend to be especially susceptible to coercing their dates into having sex against their will.

Sex for sexual pleasure alone. When sex becomes an idol that suppos edly satisfies all needs, persons expect too much too soon from sex. Engaging in sex in order to reduce boredom, pain, loneliness or anxiety is an attempt to escape problems in life. Expecting sex to alleviate these problems leaves one constantly dissatisfied. Trying and trying again for instant cures, this person is continually disillusioned because sex ual solutions never satisfy the deeper longings in life.

Sex for the sake of sex is about bodily pleasure without caring who brings the pleasure. It is like having a penis and vagina get together with- out the persons attached. While it may bring a few minutes of orgasmic sensations, it is devoid of relational meaning. Having sex for pleasure can become such an obsession that one fixates on the external “high” of sex rather then seeing it become a pathway to internal and relational satisfac- tion. Thinking that it is the sexual pleasure that satis fies, people are des- perate to get more of the thing itself, rather than more of the relationship. This person may have little to give, but has a big appetite to take.

Frederick Buechner (1992) makes the following comments about an “anything goes” perspective on sexual behavior. He believes that it is not just a matter of mutual consent or mutual affection or that no one is going to get hurt psychologically, emotionally or spiritually.

What makes this a tragic situation, I believe, is not so much that by one set of standards or another it is morally wrong, but that in terms of the way human life is, it just does not work very well. Our society is filled with people for whom the sexual relationship is one where body meets body but where person fails to meet person; where the immediate need for sexual gratification is satisfied but where the deeper need for com panionship and understanding is left untouched. The result is that the relationship leads not to fulfillment but to a half-conscious sense of incompleteness, of inner loneliness, which is so much the sickness of our time. The desire to know another’s nakedness is really the desire to know the other fully as a person. It is the desire to know and to be known, not just sexually but as a total

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 5 5

human being. It is the desire for a relationship where each gives not just of one’s own body but of one’s own self, body and spirit both, for the other’s gladness. (Buechner 1992:264)

Si ngleneSS a n d Ph ySica l a F Fec tiOn: SOme gu idi ng Pr i nciPleS What can couples do when they want to show affection and express them- selves sexually while remaining true to the biblical standard of celibacy before marriage? We believe that celibacy does not mean sexual inactiv- ity. Quite the contrary, it is important for singles to express themselves in wholesome ways as authentic sexual persons. The capacity to respond to others in a positive, pleasurable way is congruent with a healthy sexuality. Physical expression requires self-awareness, knowledge, discipline and a godly value system.

Christians in the New Testament were told, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom 16:16). Admittedly, the holy kiss is not clearly defined, but this verse at least alludes to the fact that people can appropriately express affection for each other with physical contact. It is difficult to set up hard and fast rules of premarital sexual involvement due to the many factors that enter into such a decision, such as age and maturity, level of commitment, length of engagement, and the closeness to the marriage ceremony.

At this point we offer some guiding principles in the area of dating, courtship and sexual expression. We reason that it is natural and good for single persons to physically express their affection to the one they love. People need to be affirmed and touched by others. Lack of touch actu- ally makes us “skin hungry” because touching is a basic human need and an important means of communicating acceptance, love and care toward others. Children, for example, are unusually free to express themselves through touch and ask for touch from others. Unfortunately, adults are sometimes fearful of touch and withhold this expression of love and affirmation.

The discerning question about physical touch is the point where physi- cal touching becomes sexually arousing. We must be aware of our re- sponsiveness to touch so we can make good decisions about appropriate touching: what kind, how much and when. The two people involved must agree together about the degree of involvement. Here are some guiding

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 5 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

principles that may be helpful in making these decisions. The first principle is that the degree of sexual intimacy will correspond to

the degree of love and commitment present in the relationship. Where there is no love or commitment in a relationship, a high degree of sexual intimacy is inappropriate because the focus is on the physical dimension rather than the relational dimension. Physical intimacy is meant to enhance the ex- pression of the love and commitment toward the beloved. The committed lover seeks the other because being with that special one is more impor- tant than the physical pleasure between them. Covenant love involves a commitment to both the person and the relationship, and this commit- ment takes precedence over the sex ual expression between lovers.

A second helpful principle is the law of diminishing returns. As a prin- ciple in physics, the law of diminishing returns means that in order for the same stimulus effect to occur over time, a stronger force must be applied. Think of the effect that the very first kiss has on a person. Wow! It is usu- ally an exhilarating experience. However, as time passes and one becomes used to kissing, the effect of the same kind of kiss is diminished in terms of the amount of stimu lus it has upon the couple. Over time, people tend to desire more intensity in the physical lovemaking in order to achieve the same stimulus threshold. The goal of increased sexual expression is to ultimately gain a certain sexual response. The closer the couple gets to the point of orgasm, the harder it is to return to a reduced state of arousal. Every couple, then, needs to be aware of this principle so that they can determine appropriate guidelines for their physical involvement. These guidelines need to correspond to their level of commitment and the devel- opmental stage of their relationship (as stated in the first principle).

The third principle is that each partner must test their personal motive for the physical involvement and activity. Is the motive for physical involvement an expression of affection or a desire to sexually excite the other and one- self ? It does something for the ego of both men and women to know that they can sexually arouse another person. Most people feel a sense of power and control when they can bring another person to the point where they cannot be resisted. Such ego gratifica tion can be the motive behind physi- cal involvement and is more of a self-desire than a desire for the partner. Such motives have a way of separating sex from personhood since the goal does not lead to a deeper personal relationship with the other, but satisfies ego needs.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 5 7

A fourth principle is that the two persons involved in the relationship will continually communicate about all areas of the relationship. A caution should be raised for a couple when the physical dimension of a rela tionship de- velops out of proportion to the social, emotional, psycho logical and spiri- tual dimensions of the relationship. When the sexual aspect dominates a relationship, the couple is lopsided. The other important dimensions are undernourished, and the relationship is soon weakened. The fullness of a relationship comes through a communica tion process in which both partners share and get to know each other in all aspects of their lives. Get- ting to know another person intimately requires that a person appreciate all dimensions of the beloved. The hunger is to be in the presence of the beloved so that one can experi ence the multifaceted parts of that person. The relationship itself becomes strengthened in the process of such inti- mate sharing. It is a time of learning to play together, to plan and dream together, to enjoy mutual activities together and to work toward future goals and life meaning together. The spiritual oneness comes as these two persons seek God’s presence in seeking God’s blessing for the future union.

A fifth principle is that both members will take responsibility for estab- lishing guidelines and setting physical limits in the relationship. Christian males must reject the societal norm that endorses the protocol that males should go as far as they can sexually, leaving it up to the female to set the limits. Both partners are responsible together for their sexual involvement in the relationship. The couple needs to discuss the issue of limit set- ting at a neutral time and place so they can agree on mutual boundaries and guidelines. One partner may be more capable of keep ing that limit at any particular time, but since they have both commit ted to the standard ahead of time, upholding the standard is a way for each to respect the partner and the relationship. There is nothing to be argued in a passionate moment, since the commitment was mutually agreed to ahead of time. Honoring the commitment is honoring their partnership. This agreement eliminates a spontaneous changing of rules in the heat of passion, which both partners will regret later.

Of course, there are times when a couple may want to rethink an already-established boundary, to set either a looser or a more stringent limit. In this case the couple needs to find a place and time where they can honestly look at the pros and cons of such a proposed change in standards.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 5 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

In this way a mutual agreement is made where both views are respected and considered. It is splendid to practice mutual decision making like this, for this will be an ongoing process throughout the life of any couple.

A sixth principle is that each partner agrees to commit to following the standard of the person with the strongest felt limits. This is a position of respect and caring that places the person above the desire for a cer- tain sexual activity. In an authentic relationship, neither person will try to intimidate the other by judging their standards as prudish. It takes an understanding person to want to find out what that particular limit means to their partner. It also takes courage to honestly express one’s ideas about a personal value system and what it means. In the end, hon- oring the limitation of the other indicates that the person is valued and cherished. This brings about a deepening of trust. Also important is that the person who has more freedom in a particular standard not be judged for this. The essential thing is that each partner listens, understands and tries to be understood. Partners open up to each other when they recognize differences without making judgments and accept and respect these personal value systems.

The seventh principle provides an overview of these guidelines: use Scripture as your guide and recognize your freedom in Christ. In 1 Corin- thians 6:12-13 Paul says, “I can do anything I want to if Christ has not said no, but some of these things aren’t good for me. Even if I am allowed to do them, I’ll refuse to if I think they might get such a grip on me that I can’t easily stop when I want to. For instance, take the matter of eating. God has given us an appetite for food and stomachs to digest it. . . . But sexual sin is never right: our bodies were not made for that, but for the Lord” (lb).

We must refrain from exaggerating or minimizing sexual sin. When Paul talks about immorality, he lists many different kinds of problems that keep us from God’s way. When we magnify sexual sin out of pro portion to other wrongs in our lives, we can become frozen in our tracks and stuck in our hopelessness to change. When we minimize sexual sin and yield to the temptations that pull us in the direction away from God, we start down another path that leads to destructive sexual behaviors.

The idea is to establish realistic rather than unreasonable rules to govern premarital sexual involvement, in which one makes responsible decisions in accordance with God’s Word. Not everything is good or beneficial for

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 5 9

every person or couple. You must be honest with yourself and your partner about problematic sexual behaviors that may have a grip on you. This is preventive medicine. When we strive for authen ticity, we are seeking to be congruent with ourselves before God. Let ting our partner know where we are vulnerable allows the partner to understand us more deeply, to help us in personal temptations, and to keep us on the path toward God’s way. Discovering more about how we work to empower each other in our sexual journey is what helps us make decisions that are in the best interest of ourself, our partner and the relationship.

cl a i mi ng vic tOry i n chr iSt While one can never erase the past, single persons can always reaffirm their virginity and recommit themselves to celibacy again. We make this suggestion based on our understanding of the encounter Jesus had with the adulterous woman (Jn 8:3-11). The Pharisees quoted Mosaic law as commanding that such women should be stoned. Jesus, how ever, did not condemn her but told her to go and sin no more.

Showing compassion does not mean compromising standards. We must ardently uphold the standards we think are right, articulate the biblical principles behind them, and move toward God’s way with God’s help. We need to support one another in our common humanity and our common hope as we strive toward authentic sexuality.

Walter Trobisch gave readers three important reasons to keep sex ual intercourse for the covenant of marriage: the richness of love, the richness of sex and the richness of marriage (Trobisch 1968).

The richness of love has to do with keeping focus on the person (beloved partner) and priority on the committed relationship. C. S. Lewis describes eros beautifully in The Four Loves:

Very often what comes first is a delighted pre-occupation with the Be- loved—a general unspecified pre-occupation with her [him] in total ity. There is no leisure time to think of sex. He [she] is too busy thinking of a person. . . . One is full of desire, but the desire may not be sexually toned. If you asked him what he wanted, the true reply would often be, “to go on thinking of her. (1963:86-87)

Eros, though the king of pleasures, always (at its height) has the air of re- garding pleasure as a by-product. . . . Desiring a human being is distinct from desiring the pleasure that person can bring. . . . Love makes one want not a

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 6 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

person, but one particular person. . . . Eros wants the beloved! (1963:88-89)

Romantic attraction certainly leads us to want a particular person. This is evidenced in the Song of Songs, where the two lovers boldly declare, “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine. . . . His [her] desire is for me” (Song 6:3; 7:10 nrsv). These lovers are full of love for each other and take great delight in the other. Their eyes are for each other, and their desire is to give and receive of themselves in person-centered intimacy.

One of the richest aspects of love is the intimacy that comes out of sharing without fear one’s thoughts, feelings, dreams, fears, secrets and yearning. Commitment to the person safeguards the highest and deepest qualities of love. The couple desires to know each other in the deepest ways possible. One of the misconceptions about falling in love is that it just happens. We think that when we are mesmerized by the other or smitten with love, we are not volitional in our pursuit. How ever, just the opposite is true. It is precisely in that falling-in-love stage that two persons intentionally pursue each other. They cannot get enough of each other and spend hours talking in order to get to know the other person more fully. Such attraction involves conscious deci sions and purposeful action.

Bonding with each other in the richness of love makes the couple eager to want to seal it forever. The richness of sex is intricately related to the richness of love. Good sex has to do with person-centered love. Express- ing sexual love to that beloved partner brings delight to one’s soul. In the movie Phenomenon (1996) the sensual response between the lead characters as she gently shaves his face and cuts his hair is obvious. Yet the attraction is so clearly about the person. Even when sexual desire is an obvious part of allure, it does not overtake them in this intimate exchange. There is no push for sexual involvement, even though he readily acknowledges his sexual interest in her, because it is much more important that she respond to him from the core of her being. It is because sex is so rich that sexual passion is rightly anticipated as the reward of a permanent relationship.

When two lovers give themselves to each other in this manner, it truly is a mystical union of bodies, minds and souls that goes far beyond sexual pleasure. It is more than one body entwined in the other; it is a union of heart and soul. Though the couple will gladly acknowledge that they en- joy the sexual interaction, they will be quick to add that it is because they adore each other.

Granted, not everyone who engages in sexual intercourse experi ences

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

S e x u a l i t y a n d S i n g l e n e s s 1 6 1

such a full, life-giving relationship. Many find it difficult to understand that it takes time to get to know and understand another person at an in- timate level. The pleasure of making the most of the encounter comes out of a mutual passion that is well worth waiting for. Listen to these phrases from the Song of Songs to grasp this more com pletely: “I found . . . him and would not let him go. . . . You have stolen my heart. . . . I opened for my lover. . . . Your love is more delightful than wine. . . . How beautiful you are and how pleasing. . . . This is my lover, this is my friend” (Song 3:4; 4:9; 5:6; 4:10; 7:6; 5:16, cf. niv/nrsv). We listen to the erotic language and can visualize the passion expressed between these lovers. It seems to come out of pure joy for the other, which brings their bodies and souls into a harmonious rhythm. Sexual fulfillment can be like this! Person-focused passion is an interaction that involves all levels of responsive ness between the lovers.

C. S. Lewis makes the observation that sexual desire is a fact about our- selves like every other desire about us, but when sex ual desire is about the beloved, it “has the air of regarding pleasure as the by-product” (1963:89). It takes little effort to simply have a geni tal experience with someone, but making love to a multidimensional person requires attention, responsive interaction, sensitivity, time and commitment.

The richness of marriage is the final reason to keep sex a sacred part of the marriage bond. God ordained marriage as a covenant relation ship between two people who will live out their lives in the context of a sup- portive community. Marriage is not just an event between two individu- als: it is a joining of two families, two sets of friends and the community who stands with them in their commitment to each other. It is a private and yet public affair. In the Old Testament a mar riage was consummated when the couple began to reside together and had their first sexual union. Whether it was an agreement between the parents with the customary ex- change of gifts or a wed ding feast in which joining hands in the presence of witnesses made the union public, the community pledged to support the couple in their vows of commitment.

It is quite a remarkable thing that two people exchange vows and prom- ise to love each other unconditionally for the rest of their lives. Agape love calls for the extraordinary self-sacrifice that puts the best interests of the other as priority. Some argue that only God is capable of such a covenant, but with God’s help, along with the support of a committed community,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 6 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

agape love truly keeps the couple working toward this goal. It is what keeps a couple going through the thick and thin of marital disappointments and struggles. It is what brings hope during days of discouragement.

Covenant love is the highest response we can give to another. We vow that we will be faithful to our promises and agreements, we will be in- vested in our partner’s well-being, we will be involved in mutual interde- pendency.

Love demands security if it is to f lourish. Lifelong commitment is the anchor in the midst of the unknowns of life. It is a place to make mistakes, to change, to develop, to take risks, to go on when we fail. Marriage offers a place of ongoing respect, devotion, trustworthiness and gracing ways. Covenant marriage gives the context where the highest possibilities of love are possible. It is the more excellent way!

FOr F u rther r e a di ng Balswick, J. K., and J. O. Balswick. 1994. Raging hormones: What to do

when you suspect your teen may be sexually active. Grand Rapids: Zon- dervan.

Grenz, S. 1997. Sexual ethics: An evangelical perspective. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox. See chaps. 9-10.

Jones, S. L., and B. B. Jones. 1993. How and when to tell your kids about sex. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Thatcher, A., and E. Stuart. 1996. Christian perspectives on sexuality and gender. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. See sec. 10, “Sexuality and single- ness,” pp. 411-37.

Winner, L. 2005. Real sex: The naked truth about chastity. Grand Rapids: Brazos.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Premarital Cohabitation Cautions and Concerns

Few developments have been as dramatic as the rise of premarital cohab- itation—couples not married to each other but living together as sexual partners who share a household. According to recent surveys, the num- ber of unmarried cohabiting couples has increased more than twelvefold between 1960 and 2006 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2007:19). In 2000, Simmons and O’Connell reported that four out ten unmarried-couple households included one or more children under age 18 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2002). It appears that today a majority of young adults cohabit before marriage, and nearly half of all out-of-wedlock births are born to cohabiting mothers (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004:1215; Bumpass and Lu 2000).

In addition to the fact that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, a majority of couples who cohabit split up before marriage. As might be expected, people who cohabited before their first marriage have a greater propensity to cohabit with another person after they divorce (Wu 1995). Those who lived together before marriage had a 50 percent higher hazard rate of divorcing after marriage than couples who had not cohabited.

Our goal in this chapter is to develop a Christian perspective on the topic. We draw on existing research, mainly self-reported responses to

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 6 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

survey research questionnaires or interviews, to address the question “Why do people choose to cohabit?” We then examine the effect of this trend and give a response to cohabitation that is informed by both biblical and social-scientific literature.

Wh y cOh a BitatiOn? The best way to address this question is to ask, Is cohabiting an alterna- tive to being single or an alternative to being married? Premarital cohabita- tion is actually not a new idea. As early as 1966 anthropologist Margaret Mead tried to address the situation by propos ing a two-step plan for single adults. The first step would be a “trial mar riage,” in which the couple would determine whether they were compatible. The second step would be taken by couples who wanted to legalize the union when they had children. Taking it a step further, Scriven (1968) proposed a three-stage plan whereby a relationship progressed from sexual satisfaction, to social security, to sensible spawning. Cadwallader (1966) believed that cohabit- ing would free couples from feeling “trapped for life.” He liked the idea that couples could establish contracts for stated periods of time and peri- odically renew them as they saw fit.

These views stretched trial marriage about as far as it could go, even- tually leading to the concept of premarital cohabitation. It has only been within the past forty years that cohabitation has become popu lar among the middle classes, having originated among lower-class and disadvan- taged youth.

By examining cohabitation in sixteen industrial societies, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) identify several conceptually distinct statuses given to cohabitation with respect to family formation. In some societies, cohabitation is marginal since it is culturally rejected or even penalized. In more accepting cultures it can be viewed as a prelude to marriage status, where legal marriage is expected before childbearing. A similar status is referred to as a stage in the marriage process. McRae (1997) suggests that cohabitation serves as a type of marriage preparation, as the stage that occurs between courtship (mate selection) and marriage. In this case, co- habiting gives the couple a chance to test the degree of compatibility in the relationship. If the partners conclude that their personalities “fit,” they proceed to marriage.

Cohabitation is usully viewed as an alternative for persons who want a

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 5

sexual and compansionship living arrangement, but are not ready to form a family. In more accepting cultures, cohabitation is distinquished from marriage as an alternative to marriage. Last, in cultures with high ac- ceptance, cohabitation is indistinguishable from marriage. For instance, in places like Northern European countries and New Zealand, cohabitation is viewed as if the couple is married (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004).

The above types of cohabitiation can be depicted as ranging on a con- tinuum from the least to the most acceptable status in a modern societies. Given the state of cohabitation in North America, cohabitation is viewed by some as an alternative to single life and for others an alternative to be- ing married.

Based on a study of 1,293 Canadian adolescents, Manning, Longmore and Giordano (2007) report that for most, cohabitation has become part of the pathway toward marriage. As such, most youth “are not replacing marriage with cohabitation, but instead cohabit and then marry” (p. 559). Based on their study of cohabitation in the United States, King and Scott (2005:271) suggest that “older cohabitors are more likely to view their re- lationship as an alternative to marriage, whereas younger cohabitors tend to view their relationship as a prelude to it.” In general, the more accepting a society’s attitude toward cohabitation, the more cohabitation is defined as an alternative to marriage.

Many couples admittedly decide to cohabit for the conven ience and companionship of being in an exclusive sexual relationship with a chosen partner, whether there is or is not an intention to marry. By its very na- ture, a cohabiting relationship is one in which commitment is ambiguous. Smock (2000) finds that cohabiting men and women differ in the way they conceptualize commitment. She finds that women perceive cohabita- tion as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to view cohabi- tation as a step prior to making a commitment.

Marriage researcher and Christian therapist Scott Stanley (2005) de- scribes cohabiting as “relationship inertia,” in which cohabitors are “slid- ing” rather than “deciding” on a marital partner. He found that men who live with women they eventually marry are not as committed to the union as those who did not live with their mates before marriage.

The partner’s and/or couple’s view and understanding of their unique cohabitation agreement is certainly an important factor in the eventual outcome of marriage or no marriage. Given the present state of knowl-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 6 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

edge, it is probably wise to recognize that for some couples, cohabitation is an alternative to marriage, and for other couples it is a stage in a relation- ship that leads to marriage. Each interpretation might be true of different individuals, and both might be true of the same individuals at different times in their life.

What does love have to do with it? This rather detached analysis of the function of cohabitation causes us to ask, “What does love have to do with it?” What distinguishes modern forms of mate selection from the past is the greater freedom young adults have to pursue sexual/romantic relation- ships without parental involvement. No longer is marriage an economic arrangement, controlled and arranged by parents, but a participant-run system in which the concept of love drives the relationship.

Romantic love had its beginnings in European societies dur ing the eleventh century. At that time, “courtly love” became well known among the privileged class. Courtly love usually involved a romantic relationship between a married aristocratic lady and an unmarried knight or trouba- dour. As portrayed in literature, the stereo typical courtly love involved a dramatic story in which the knight goes forth into battle motivated by the love of his lady, or a mandolin-playing troubadour sings love songs to a young lady in a balcony on a moonlit night. In this early version of romantic love, it was believed that true love is free of the restrictions of sex or marriage.

The development of courtly love relationships served to introduce ten- derness and affection into male-female relationships. “Being in love” be- gan to carry a variety of meanings such as mutual attrac tion, strong sexual feelings, commitment and enjoying each other’s company. This was an uncommon experience for most married persons, who were usually united in marriage for economic reasons.

From the eleventh to the six teenth century, the nature of these love relationships changed to include sexual involvement between the lady of nobility and her “true” love. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- ries, the middle classes of European society came to value romantic love but still held to faithful ness in marriage. This dilemma was solved when the love object of the single male changed from the married woman to the single woman. For a period of time during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, parental-arranged marriage and romantic love existed side by side. As Western societies moved into the twentieth century, the custom

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 7

of a man asking the father for his daughter’s hand became a formality. During the first half of the twentieth century, the irrational “head-

over-heels” concept of romantic love reached its zenith. Confusion over the exact meaning of romantic love made it difficult for persons to really know if true love was present in their relationship.

Psychiatrist Erich Fromm recognized this fact when he wrote The Art of Loving (1956). Fromm observed that most people see love primarily as that of being loved, rather than loving the other. He argued that modern persons need to learn how to love in the same way they learn how to play a musical instrument. Fromm contended that love is an art to be practiced, and it requires discipline, concentration, patience and supreme concern. When people start “working at love,” the noticeable active elements will include behaviors like giving, car ing, responsibility, respect and knowl- edge.

During the 1950s the mate-selection process in Western societies moved to a new stage, referred to as rational/romantic love. This type of love included a strong dose of the participants’ rational consider ation of their compatibility with their true love. Although few people would marry someone they did not love, it is now true that few people will marry only on the basis of love. Rational/romantic love is especially common among college-educated persons who decide to marry after their educa- tion is completed. Today marriage is as much a ratio nal decision as it is a head-over-heels response to the partner.

When you link romantic love to erotic love, Henry Grunebaum (1997:296) proposes three identifiable features: First, there is the longing for and desire to be sexually and psychologically intimate with a particu- lar person. Second, the person is not only idealized but also regarded as necessary for one’s happiness. Finally, being preoccupied with the person often results in an overestimation of that person.

Dramatic changes in each partner can be observed during the romantic period of courtship. Current research concludes that an area of the brain known as the caudate is associated with romantic passion. Brain scan im- ages during the fevered activity during courtship reveals the “lighting up” of certain areas of the brain. Fisher (2004) believes that romantic love de- velops over three sequential stages: lust (sexual drive), attraction and emo- tional attachment. For instance, “falling in love” is a time of attachment that is different from normal relationships with family or friends. During

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 6 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

the intense romantic love, disparate emotions may quickly go from eupho- ria to anger to anxiety, especially if the partner withdraws. However, as a relationship deepens, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters to long-term attachment. The production of hormones and chemi- cal substances known as peptides, vasopressin and oxytocin are activated (Fisher 2004), which contributes to an ongoing, stable love that maintains relationships.

It behooves persons in the romantic stage of love to be cautious since committed love is about faithfulness and loyalty rather than the mushy feelings one becomes caught up with during the “in love” stage.

Developing a relationship beyond initial attraction, however wonder- ful that feels, demands so much more than being focused on each other. Commitment now includes the hard work of relationship building and making plans for a future life together.

Three kinds of love. Roger Sternberg, back in 1987, tried to sort out the complexity of romantic love. Based on research, he noted three dimen- sions of love: commitment, the cogni tive component of love; intimacy, the friendship factor and emotional component of love; and passion, the moti- vational component of love. We find these three ingredients of love to be quite similar to the three types of love known from Greek culture: agape 4, philia and eros (J. K. Balswick and J. O. Balswick 2007). C. S. Lewis (1963) has written eloquently about this in his wonderful little book The Four Loves. The self-giving agape 4 corresponds to commitment; philia, the brotherly/friendship love, corresponds to intimacy; eros, the love one feels for the beloved, corresponds to passion; and storge corresponds to affection.

The correspondence between these descriptions of love provides a basis from which to discuss the place of cohabitation in a mate-selection system. From a biblical perspective, we believe a complete love embraces all three loves; commitment/agape 4, intimacy/philia, and passion/eros. However, this is not always the case since any one of these types of love can domi- nate a relationship.

If only one type is to be dominant, it seems that it should be the self- giving, commitment/agape love. The vow to be faithful in marriage is the desired prerequisite in most societies, and commitment is consid ered a critical factor in arranged marriages. Observe that a lower proportion of arranged marriages end in divorce than those that are based on romantic

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 9

love. However, this should not imply that parent-arranged marriages are more likely than love-based marriages to achieve a Christian ideal. The strength of the courtship and premarital relation ship involves a commit- ment that can bring together friendship, emo tional intimacy and passion that grow into maturity in marriage.

While there may be a potential for intimacy and passion in arranged mar riages, the familial structure may actually hinder the formation of these relationship qualities. The commitment that keeps these marriages together may be less a self-giving commitment to one’s spouse than it is a commitment to the extended family and community.

The emergence of cohabitation may be symptomatic of a problem in Western-style mate-selection systems in which commitment is not given a primary place in defining love. In chapter four we asserted that uncon- ditional commitment is the foundation of a biblical under standing of love. Most typically in Western courtship systems, passion is likely to dominate at the beginning of a relationship, followed by emotional intimacy and finally commitment.

The least stable of all cohabiting relationships are likely those based on passion/eros. Most relationships get off to a passionate start out of physical attraction and sexual vibes. Such passionate impulses may over- ride the emotional core and commitment stability needed to sus tain a relationship. Since passion by itself cannot usually carry a relationship over time, the passionate relationship often burns out before a commit- ment occurs.

Other cohabiting relationships are based largely on friendship inti- macy. Although few relationships move into marriage on the basis of friendship alone, it has been found to be an essential factor in marital satisfaction. Persons often describe their spouse as their “best friend,” connoting a “soul-mate” connection and emotional companionship that they value.

Although cohabiting couples represent combinations of all types of love relationships, by its very nature premarital cohabitation is a rela tionship in which intimacy and passion rather than commitment are the strongest elements. Cohabitation conveniently allows for the fulfill ment of passion and intimacy, but commitment is often a low priority. This is verified by the fact that the majority of cohabiting relationships (70 percent) fail to culminate in marriage and end in a little over a year.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 7 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

dOeS Pr em a r ita l cOh a BitatiOn le a d tO Be t ter m a r ita l a dj uSt men t? When premarital cohabitation became fairly wide spread in the mid-1970s, social scientists predicted that premarital cohabitation would strengthen rather than weaken marriage (Trost 1975). Danzinger (1976) suggested that premarital cohabitation would serve as a screening device that would ensure the compatibility of pro spective spouses. Along this same line of thinking, Peterman (1975) believed that cohabitants would gain experi- ence in intimacy and therefore develop a greater degree of relational com- petence necessary for an enduring and fulfilling marriage.

However, a number of research studies conducted over the last thirty years have revealed a less optimistic picture of the effect of cohabitation on later marital adjustment. Among other things, it has been reported that married persons who had previously cohabited were more disagreeable about issues such as money, household duties and recreation; had a lower quality of communication; viewed marriage as less intrinsic to their lives and were less dependent upon each other; had lower marital satisfaction; and were more likely to divorce.

Booth and Johnson’s (1988) national random sample of over 2,000 mar ried persons who had cohabited, when compared to noncohabiting couples, had a lower level of marital success in the following four ways. First, they had less marital interaction, determined by spending time to- gether eating meals, shopping, visiting friends, working on projects or going out on lei surely or recreational activities. Second, they had more frequent and more serious marital disagreements, including behaviors like slapping, hitting, punching, kicking or throwing things at each other. Third, they were more prone to marital instability, shown through actions such as thinking the marriage was in trouble or considering the idea of getting a divorce; taking divorce action such as talking to friends or their spouse about the possibility of divorce, or consulting with clergy, coun- selor or attorney; or actually separating from the spouse or filing a peti tion for divorce. Fourth, these couples reported a higher incidence of divorce (Booth and Johnson 1988).

Research done in the 1990s continued to find that those who cohab- ited before marriage were more dissatisfied with the quality of their later mar riages when compared to couples who had not cohabited. However, Thomson and Colella (1992) interpreted the dissatisfaction in these mar-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 1

riages as having more to do with the unconventional attitudes and life- styles of these couples than the fact that they decided to cohabit. He con- cluded that their more liberal tendencies gave them the freedom to express dissatisfaction and split when things did not go well.

A comprehensive study done by DeMaris and MacDonald (1993) dis- agreed with this conclusion saying that “controlling for unconventionality had only a minimal impact on the cohabitation effect” (p. 406). These re- searchers made the point that “although family attitudes and beliefs tend to predict the attractiveness of a cohabiting lifestyle, they do not account for differences between cohabiters and non-cohabiters in instability” (p. 399).

Nock (1994) found that cohabiters expressed lower levels of com- mitment to and happiness with their relationships and had poorer rela- tionships with parents than did comparable married individuals.

In their analysis of over 12,000 responses to a national survey, Clark- berg, Stolzenberg and Waite concluded, “The choice between cohabita- tion and marriage is affected by attitudes and values toward work, family, use of leisure time, money, and sex roles, as well as toward marriage itself ” (1995:609).

In summary, research in the 1990s found that having cohabited with someone other than one’s spouse is predictive of lower marital adjustment. In a study of over 9,000 responses to a national sur vey, Stets concluded: “After controlling for other factors, results indicate that prior cohabiting relationships negatively inf luence current married and cohabiting rela- tionships” (1993:236). Stets speculated that those who had cohabited with some one other than the intended spouse are predisposed to problems in relationships that carry over to future relationships.

This was confirmed by a study indicating that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience infidelity (Treas 2000) and another study that found the cohabiting couples were more likely to separate and less likely to reconcile after a separation when compared to married couples (Binstock and Arland 2003).

On the other hand, a study based on a nationally representative sample of women by Teachman (2003) found that premarital sex and premarital cohabitation are predictive of marital dissolution, but only for those who had sex or cohabited with men other than their future husband. DeMaris and MacDonald in 1993 reported that especially among serial cohabiters,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 7 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

there is greater instability among first-married couples. Contributing fac- tors like these must be taken into account when making predictions and/ or generalizations about the future of cohabiters who marry.

A study based on over 6,000 respondents in Germany con cluded that the same “factors that increase divorce rates also increase premarital co- habitation rates” (Bruderl, Dickmann and Englehardt 1997:205). In sur- veying over 5,000 Canadian women, Hall concluded that the relationship between premarital cohabitation and divorce could be explained by the tendency for cohabitors to idealize a pure rela tionship in which one is self- actualized, which eventually “contami nates” marriage reality (1996:1).

Drawing a conclusion. Taking current findings into account, we can con- clude that contrary to predictions made in the 1970s, one’s participation in premarital cohabitation does not lead to better adjustment in marriage. In fact, evidence points to the contrary of this initial optimistic predic- tion. In McRae’s (1997) review of the relevant literature, she concludes: “The results of research suggest that a strong negative association exists between premarital cohabita tion and marital stability.” She finds that the link between premarital cohabitation and marriage dissolution is weaker among the younger generation, suggesting that “as cohabitation becomes the majority pattern before marriage, this link will become progressively weaker” (p. 159).

Is there a selective factor? While research continues to find that premari- tal cohabitation is generally predictive of lower marital adjustment after marriage, part of this might well be explained in terms of a selective factor. It is thought that certain characteristics in individuals (less traditional, more independent, less culturally constrained, and so forth) contribute to their decision to cohabit before marriage and put them at a higher risk for a divorce as well.

Indirect support for a self-selection explanation is given by Clark berg, Stolzenberg and Waite in their analysis of over 12,000 responses to a national survey. They concluded that “the choice between cohabitation and marriage is affected by attitudes and values toward work, family, use of leisure time, money, and sex roles, as well as toward marriage itself ” (1995:609).

Thus, the relationship between cohabiting and divorce is real, but one cannot say that cohabitation alone contributes to divorce. There are cer- tainly cohabiting couples who have been successful in forming quality

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 3

marriages. Brown, Sanchez, Nock and Wright (2006:454) conclude that “selection factors largely account for the deleterious effects of premarital cohabitation on marital success.”

While selection factors certainly have some inf luence on the high cor- relation between premarital cohabitation and lower marital adjust ment, the relationship between cohabitation and future marital quality is clearly a complex question.

For instance, research by Rhoades, Stanley and Markman indicates that “men who cohabited with their spouse before engagement were less dedicated than men who cohabited only after engagement or not at all be- fore marriage.” In addition, it seems these husbands were “less dedicated to their wives than their wives were to them” (2006:553). These research- ers reason that couples who otherwise would not have married end up married due to what they refer to as the inertia of cohabitation. In other words, the couple simply remains in a relationship regardless of quality or fit. The obvious implication is that persons do not make their expectations about marriage explicit before cohabiting, and that becomes a problem after they marry.

Phillips and Sweeney (2005) found that premarital cohabitation was positively associated with subsequent marital disruption among non- Hispanic white populations, but not among non-Hispanic black or Mexican Americans. In a similar vein, King and Scott (2005:271) discov- ered that “older cohabitors report significantly higher levels of relationship quality and stability than younger cohabitors, although they are less likely to have plans to marry their partners.”

Research on postdivorce cohabitation reveals that postdivorce in gen- eral, and cohabitiation with multiple partners in particular, delays remar- riage (Xu, Hudspeth and Bartkowski 2006). These researchers found that postdivorce cohabitation with a spouse is associated with lower levels of remarital happiness and higher levels of remarital instability.

iS cOh a BitatiOn gOOd FOr in di v idua lS a n d SOcie t y ? Sociologists David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead (2002) at Rutgers University have completed a comprehensive review of research on co- habitation before marriage. They caution young adults to think twice about cohabiting before marriage, offering four principles: First, consider not living together at all before marriage, since there is no evidence to support

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 7 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

the view that cohabiting will result in a stronger marriage. The evidence, they suggests, shows that living together before marriage increases the chance of divorcing after marriage. The exception may be for those couples who are committed to marriage, have formally announced their engagement, and have chosen a wedding date.

The second principle is not to make a habit of cohabiting. They see the evidence as refuting the popular myth that persons learn to develop bet- ter relationships from a number of failed cohabiting relationships. Rather, multiple cohabitation is repeatedly found to be a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships.

The third principle is to limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. While the Christian community might question the wisdom of this third principle, we should at least understand the intent and spirit with which it is given. It is based on Poponoe and Whitehead’s (2002) conclu- sion that the longer one lives together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold. This obviously is the very opposite of what is required for a successful marriage. Participation in a cohabiting relationship can have an eroding effect not only on the participants’ view of the importance of commit ment but also on societal ethics, which value unconditional commit ment as a basis for marriage. From a purely functional standpoint, Popenoe and Whitehead realize that a high-commitment ethic is neces sary for marital stability.

The fourth principle is Don’t cohabit when children are involved. The spirit of this principle is based on the value that children need and should have parents who are committed to staying together for them.

In their summary of research on cohabiting, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) cite studies estimating that between between 25 and 40 percent of all children spend some time with a parent in a cohabiting arrangement. Brown, Sanchez, Nock and Wright (2006) reports that when compared to children growing up with married couples, children growing up with cohabiting couples tend to have worse life outcomes. Since cohabiting par- ents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, the effect of cohabiting on children can be devastating.

Aronson and Huston (2004) report that among mothers with infants, those in cohabiting relationships tend to fare worse economically than married mothers. Popenoe and Whitehead (2002) point to evidence of higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence among children in co-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 5

habiting unions. DeLeire and Kalil (2005:286) report the rather sober- ing finding that “cohabiting-parent families, compared to married-parent families, spend a greater amount on 2 adult goods (alcohol and tobacco) and a smaller amount on education.” An interpretation of this finding might be that cohabiting parents invest less in the welfare of their children than married parents.

Although Popenoe and Whitehead write as social scientists, not as ad- vocates for a Christian view of mar riage, their advice certainly comports well with the biblical wis dom that marriage is to be based on lifelong covenant commitments. Those who make a marital covenant with their partner will have a better chance for marital stability and happiness than those who merely slide into marriage through default.

a chr iSti a n r eSPOnSe A Christian response to cohabitation needs to be formulated at several different levels. We will organize our response around four questions: (1) What is the nature of commitment in cohabiting relationships? (2) When are two people married in the sight of God? (3) Does cohabi tation pose a threat to the institution of marriage? and (4) How should the church respond to cohabiting couples?

Commitment in cohabiting relationships. The prominent reasons people enter cohabiting relationships include love, companionship, sexual exclu- sivity, economics, ambivalence toward marriage, loneliness and peer pres- sure. Though many of these are understandable reasons for living with a companion, the noticeable missing piece is covenant com mitment. There is no understanding that two persons make a vow before God to commit themselves to each other throughout a lifetime. The biblical concept of a “mysterious one-f lesh union” that is blessed by God is the essential miss- ing piece in a cohabiting arrangement. Although an exclusive sexual union is an important aspect of cohabita tion, just as it is in marriage, the mutual covenant provides an endur ing, ongoing, faithful commitment through all aspects of marriage. It is hesed (the Hebrew root for “covenant”) love that promises a faithful giving of oneself to the other and keeping that best interest of the part ner in mind “for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and health, till death do us part.” Although humans cannot love uncondi tionally as God does, the model of unconditional commitment is a scriptural ideal for marriage.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 7 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

The cohabiting couple may have a difficult time grasping the value of covenant love. The desired independence that keeps one free from such a commitment places a limit on the deepening maturity of the relation ship. When partners are uncertain about permanent commitment, they will be prone to keep a distance and protect themselves from the uncer tainty of the future. A relationship of reluctance, a fear of becoming too involved or interdependent, keeps emotional barriers up rather than breaking them down. Thus one of the biggest problems with cohabita tion is that it can inhibit deeper levels of per sonal sharing and knowing. Holding oneself back limits growth in the relationship and keeps partners from developing the deepest capac ity for intimacy and loving.

It takes courage to know oneself and then reveal that self to a partner. A clarified sense of self allows a partner to surrender in self-giving ways. The “forever” covenant commitment gives a capacity to share with out fear. Differentiation gives partners freedom to express personal longings and fears as well as to respond to the partner’s thoughts, feelings, needs and desires.

Communicating covenant love through thought and action, regardless of obvious f laws and failures, means partners are able to be “naked and not ashamed.” There is no need to protect oneself from a deeper attachment. Grace-filled love gives partners the courage to risk letting themselves be known. Coveant, grace, empowerment and intimacy are the essential ingredients.

When are two people married before God? The covenantal basis for Chris- tian marriage is modeled after the covenant that God made with Israel. God is pictured as trustworthy and forever faithful in expressing uncondi- tional love to the people of God. The very foundation of cove nant love is permanence, upon which sexual and emotional intimacy are built. Trust- worthiness and faithfulness are the fruit of a forever love that establishes a solid foundation for secure connection. The deepening of love throughout the years expands into an even fuller and more complete covenant.

James Olthuis (1975) argues that Scripture calls for two main condi- tions to be present between two persons who want to join their lives to- gether: (1) The relationship is based upon a mutually shared covenantal commitment. (2) It is consummated through sex ual intercourse. This places the decision to marry squarely upon the two participants involved. If Olthuis’s understanding of Scripture is correct, there might be a variety

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 7

of ways a couple can cement their cov enant commitment without fulfill- ing all of the societal expectations for marriage. This leads to several im- portant questions.

First, does the couple need consent from parents or family before they can be considered married before God? While familial consent was part of Jewish marriage during biblical times, this was a cul tural practice based on the mate-selection process. Though parental consent is certainly desir- able, it would be difficult to find scriptural evidence requiring that for marriage.

Second, does a couple need to make their commitment before a com- munity of believers before they are married in God’s sight? One could argue that though it is wise to have support from a faith commu nity, it is not a scriptural directive. Reay Tannahill (1980) points out that ecclesi- astical consent to marry actually began in the twelfth century, when the Roman Catholic Church decreed that marriage could com mence only by consent of the church.

Third, is the consent of civil authorities needed? Those who believe that persons should have the consent of the civil authorities point to health concerns, such as blood tests for the Rh-negative factor or sex ually trans- mitted diseases, which have ramifications for each partner and their future children. Also, this gives the spouse certain legal, financial and property rights. Though there are excellent reasons to seek the consent of civil au- thorities, it would be difficult to support this as a scriptural mandate.

Following a letter-of-the-law interpretation of Scripture, one could argue that none of the above conditions are required to be married in God’s sight. At the same time, we think it is important to understand the spirit of the law, which recognizes family, community and civil structures that support marriage. Cohabiting couples who say they are married “be- fore God” because they have a mutual covenant commit ment, yet fail to make it public, miss out on a vital source of collective encouragement. The strength of a commitment is multiplied when it is made before a witness of believers who offer resources as well as a place of accountability. The wis- dom of making commitments within a believing community is especially noticeable during times of trouble. A couple depends on others to keep them resilient when life stresses come their way.

Partners who fail to legalize their “marriage” must often lose out on the government’s obligation to look out for the welfare of each part-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 7 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

ner, the couple and their children. This especially has ramifications for spouses and their children in regard to financial and property rights, benefits that occur when a relationship has the legal support of society. There is a sense in which a personal commitment is maintained through a sup portive community and society.

Some endorse a mutual covenant commitment made between an un- married man and woman before God and sealed through sexual inter- course as the minimal biblical standard; others believe there is a need for the commitment to be made in the presence of the Christian community and/or within the accepted formal structure of civil soci ety. The ceremony and the license are aspects that serve to integrate a couple into society. Ev- idence points to the fact that the individualistic ethic in our society keeps people from fully realizing the importance of personal commitments em- bedded in a community context.

Is cohabitation a threat to the institution of marriage? The church must make a distinction between how it responds to individuals who are in cohabiting relationships and how it responds to cohabitation as a prac tice. We advocate that Christians should offer grace over law. At the societal level we do believe that cohabitation poses a threat to marriage and family stability. In response, the church can offer an informed voice to support a societal practice that undergirds marriage and fam ily life. At present, marriage is institutionalized and cohabitation is not. This means that marriage in the United States is the accepted way of recognizing a social and legally binding relationship between a man and a woman. Attempts to deinstitutionalize marriage and institution alize cohabitation under- mine the institution of marriage and therefore pose a threat to marriage.

At stake is the unique institutionalized status granted to marriage by the founders of our country. Rather than being a passive agent, the church can be an active participant in the legal/political system. The move to give the same legal sanction to cohabitation as marriage is not an acceptable solution since research indicates that cohabitation weak ens rather than strengthens the marital bond. In Sweden, for example, 30 percent of all couples sharing a household are unmarried (Tomasson 1998). Since co- habitation there carries similar legal rights as marriage in regard to par- enting and economic rights and responsibility, it becomes a disincentive to marry. The legitimate con cern is the further erosion of marriage as an in- stitution in society due to shorter unions, a higher rate of breakups and an

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 9

increase in the number of children growing up in single-parent homes. The negative effect of cohabitation on children should be of espe cially

grave concern to the church. Children born to cohabiting couples are less likely to spend their childhood in a two-parent home than were chil- dren born to married couples. And since there is ample evidence that the economic and emotional stresses of divorce have deleterious effects on children, we are con cerned about the impact it has on the parent/child relationship.

How should the church respond to cohabiting couples? There are a vari ety of cohabiting situations, based upon a number of differing criteria for co- habitation: degree of commitment, age of cohabit ers, premarital versus postmarital cohabitation, the absence or pres ence of children, and the intent to have children or not. A detailed discussion of how the Chris- tian community can wisely respond to each of these cohabiting situations is beyond the limits of this paper. We do offer some general guidelines, however, about how the Christian com munity might best respond to these different situations:

1. The Christian community should uphold the biblical standard that sexual intercourse is meant to be part of a permanent covenant commit- ment between two people before God and present that stan dard to couples in a compelling way.

2. When a couple engages in sexual intercourse without sharing a mu- tual covenant commitment, the church should lovingly help them under- stand how the biblical concept of covenant commitment can enhance and bring depth and stability to their relationship.

3. When a cohabiting couple is pregnant, the Christian community should be compassionate and offer a church home to them, thereby giv- ing them a glimpse of the faithful presence of love and support of God’s people. By experiencing this love, the couple will be more compelled to consider the value of making a mutual covenant to each other and their children.

4. When a cohabiting couple makes a covenant commitment to each other, the church should offer a public ceremony within the commu nity of faith to celebrate the covenant union. There should be no stigma placed on a couple who is pregnant or already have children.

5. When a couple shares a mutual covenant commitment but still chooses a cohabiting arrangement, the Christian community should con-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 8 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

tinue to show love and grace. Unconditional love expressed through the faith community offers the best model of God as the Christ who accepts people as they are.

The Christian community can win trust by welcoming cohabiting couples into churches. The tragedy is that cohabiting couples who attend church usually stop coming because they feel condemned or unacceptable to the congregation. They turn away from the very body of believers who could surround them with loving support.

Cohabiting couples who have a mutual covenant commitment but fail to make it a public event miss out on the community celebration. Perhaps our society makes it more difficult for a couple to have a cere mony because of the elaborate and expensive weddings in our churches today. In the past, the wedding was a simple ceremony, with local congregation and family members gathered to witness the couple taking covenant vows.

Judy’s mother wore a simple gold dress for her wedding ceremony after the Sunday night church service. Her aunt and uncle stood with them, and the church provided cake and coffee for a small reception afterward. Jack’s parents had a similar ceremony after the Sunday morning church service. They invited the family and a few special friends over to the house for a light Sunday brunch reception. A wed ding was an occasion to sup- port the couple’s covenant commitment without all the fuss and f lair of an expensive, elaborate wedding. Both pairs of our parents were married more than sixty years, a covenant commit ment that lasted over their long lives.

The challenge to the Christian community is to be big enough to hold the tension of all seekers who come to church to consider the claims of Christ. The church needs to hold forth biblically based mar riage and family norms, but at the same time show compassion and acceptance of persons who may not be living by these values. The dis couraging truth is that living outside of biblically based norms can negatively affect one’s attitudes toward those norms. Axinn and Bar ber found that “the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing” and the more accepting of divorce (1997:608). Rather than reacting with anger or fear, the church should keep its doors wide open, welcoming all to come. We hope these couples will be drawn to such an embrace of grace.

In its stance toward the practice of cohabitation, we believe that the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 8 1

church can err in two ways: either by compromising the truth of Scrip ture and failing to uphold the sacred purpose of marriage, or by con demning and shutting the doors to those who cohabit. In upholding marriage as God’s way with one hand, we should extend God’s grace with the other. Our gospel must be full of truth and grace. The church needs to be the very place that reaches out to seekers, both those living outside biblical norms and those for whom biblical behavior has not yet become part of their lives. The church will have a minimal inf luence on the lives of those who are cohabiting until it clearly offers the hands of both truth and grace.

A couple may be on Christ’s way without even knowing it. When a cohabiting couple establishes a covenant commitment, they have under- stood something essential about God’s way. The Christian com munity can nurture a couple’s natural inclination to continue to move in God’s way through patience, respect and love that point them in that direction. Being compassionate rather than judgmental comes out of the assurance that God, who is the final judge, is the one who loves most fully. “Christ’s love sees us with terrible clarity and sees us whole. Christ’s love so wishes our joy that it is ruthless against every thing in us that diminishes our joy” (Buechner 1992:58). The longing to help cohabiting couples find the joy of covenant love is a great privi lege. So, let the Christian community show forth God’s love in faithful, engaging ways that will draw those who co- habit closer to the way, the truth and the more abundant life.

FOr F u rther r e a di ng Popenoe, D., and B. Whitehead. 2002. Should we live together? What

young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: The Natioanal Marriage Project, Rutgers University. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SWLT2%20TEXT.htm.

Lewis, C. S. 1963. The Four loves. London: Collins/Fontana. Stanley, S., and G. Smalley. 2005. The power of commitment: A guide to ac-

tive, lifelong love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Marital Sexuality Maximizing Sexual Fulfillment

Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep each other warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken.

( E c c l e s 4 : 9 - 1 2 n r s v)

Marriage is a holy place in which profound personal, spiritual, emo- tional and sexual growth is possible. The partnership formed by husband and wife is an entity that goes far beyond what each one can accomplish alone. As two unique persons support and commit themselves to each other throughout life’s journey, they reap rewards of differentiation, connec tion and united strength. And with God at the center weaving these two lives together into a threefold cord that is not easily broken, the potential for a vital and fulfilling union is at its height.

Transforming oneself in relation to one’s spouse is the ultimate grind- stone (differentiation process) upon which marriage is sharpened. Each spouse is chal lenged to round off the rough edges and fill out the f lat sides in order to make a more complete whole.

Marriage is full of wondrous possibilities, but it can be a grueling pro- cess as well. Heartache and disappointment will be part of the refining process of living and loving in relationship. Hesitation about keeping covenant and fears about establishing close ness can hinder each spouse

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 8 3

and the couple from reaching the possibili ties described in the first para- graph.

It takes courage to proceed in the direction of “two becoming one,” for it takes determination to keep the best interest of one’s spouse and the relationship in the forefront. The human tendency is to protect oneself from the vulnerability it takes to become emotionally and sexually inter- dependent. In fact, it is easy to become discouraged and hopeless about the marital relationship.

In chapter four we presented a biblical basis for understanding how one is to be a sexual being in relationship. In this chapter we build upon the theological foundation presented there, suggesting that the relationality found in the Holy Trinity is meant to be mirrored in marriage.

Ray Anderson (2004) has suggested that in Adam and Eve’s human encounter as man and women, as well as in their distinctive task of being a man or a woman of God, they affirm the divine image. A similar sugges- tion is given by Stanley Grenz (1990:47) when he states that “the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 provide a hint that the plurality of human- ity as male and female is to be viewed as an expression of a foundational plurality within the unity of the divine reality.”

Colin Gunton observes that “Adam can find no true fellow creature among the animals, none that will enable him truly to be himself. It is only when he can rejoice in the fellowship with one who is a true other- in-relation that he is able to transcend the merely individual state that is a denial of human fullness” (1993:216).

For a couple to ref lect the image of God means to become part of a re- lationship unity, without giving up unique identity. Unity does not mean one spouse is absorbed by the other. Marriage is a sanctifying process where each spouse strives for unity in the presence of the unique dif- ferences of each. The ideal for each marriage relationship is that it joins together two persons as one, yet respects the uniqueness of each person as a separate being.

The trinitarian model for marriage comports well with David Schnarch’s description of martial sexuality in his book The Passionate Marriage (1997). Schnarch believes that a deep sexual encounter is pos- sible only between two fully differentiated mature persons. Sex is not for the young, he asserts, because youth rarely possess a mature differentiated sense of who they are. Without a solid differentiated self, a person has dif-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 8 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

ficulty engaging with a partner without either trying to engulf the other or staying distant out of a fear of being engulfed by the other. Thus, he reasons, most people settle for much less in their sexual relationships.

The less that most people settle for is body-centered sex rather than person-centered sex. In person-centered sex, one is intimately and emo- tionally engaged with the other in a way that creates a deep connection and interdependence. In contrast to this, body-centered sex involves be- ing engaged with the other for the mere pleasure one gains from the encounter. Though passion and pleasure are important aspects of a sexual engagement, vital sex is so much more than a bodily release expressed through an orgasm.

Schnarch (1997) asks challenging questions: Do persons really see each other during the sexual encounter? Or are they simply going through the motions that bring bodily pleasure? Person-centered sex is the ability to see and respond to the other person in mutually engaging ways. It is an en- counter “eye to eye,” and “I” to “I,” and “I-Thou.” Unfortunately, according to Schnarch, most people lack the mature differentiation to engage in this meaningful personal-centered sex.

In the giving and receiving of two whole selves, spouses reach the deep- est levels of knowing and being known. They are vulnerable as they open themselves up to each other during the sexual engagement. Differentiated persons have the capacity to lose themselves in each other’s embrace— without fear of being absorbed by the other. Here they find a mysterious one-f lesh unity of body, spirit and soul.

nO mOr e luSter i n Ou r lOv e liFe Not long ago a married couple in their forties came to talk to us at the close of a marital sexuality workshop. They were rather hesitant at first, but then the wife blurted out their frustration: “Sex for us is like drink- ing day-old soda with the fizz gone out of it. Can you help us get the passion back into our marriage that we once had?” Unfortunately, this is a common complaint about the sex life of more than a few mar ried cou- ples. Ironically, when you ask married couples about their courting days, you often hear about the struggles they went through trying to control the fiery passion they felt for each other. But ten, twenty or thirty years later, the fire seems to have fizzled away.

One of the comical scenes in the 1992 film Fried Green Tomatoes cen-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 8 5

tered on the attempts of a bored, sexually frustrated housewife trying to rekindle passion in her marriage. After fixing a scrumptious meal, she sets a beautiful table with scented candles, their best china and crystal. She turns down the lights, anticipating her husband’s delight with this roman- tic atmosphere after a long day at the office. As a final touch, she dresses herself in Saran Wrap to meet him at the door. When she opens the door to greet him, he takes one look at her, gasps in disbelief and screams, “For crying out loud, Kathy, have you gone mad? Get out of that silly outfit and let’s eat.” Her bubble is burst; she feels his rejec tion and wearily goes back to the complacency of the way things were.

Fortunately, marital sex doesn’t have to be this way! We believe that it is not only possible for a couple to rediscover sexual passion but also to increase the capacity for deeper levels of emotional and sexual fulfillment. The trouble is that many couples have accepted a com fortable blandness in their sex lives, thinking that this is the way married sex is supposed to be. When they notice the sexual energy proudly displayed by young couples in public, they think to them selves, Just wait a few years; it won’t last. Or when they hear an older couple speak about sexual passion in their mar- riage, they roll their eyes in disbelief, doubting that it is possible.

God created humans with the capacity for intimate, passionate sex throughout their married life. However, only a “blessed few” reach a ma- ture sexual experience, says David Schnarch in The Passionate Marriage (1997). Can one maintain passionate sex? The answer lies in recapturing, or perhaps capturing for the first time, the essence of a profoundly mean- ingful sexual relationship as God fully intended it to be.

The recent survey conducted by researchers from the University of Chi- cago (Laumann et al. 1994) found that those in monogamous marriages not only had sex more often but enjoyed it more than any other group in their study. Though a third of the married couples reported having sex two to three times a month, nearly 40 percent of the married couples had sex two to three times a week, with the great majority saying they enjoyed orgasm as a part of their lovemaking experience. Marital commitment proved to be extremely important to these couples, and the vast majority had been faithful to their partner. This should not surprise us!

Authentic sexual expression based on covenant, gracing and empower- ing principles is most likely to occur in a long-term committed relation- ship. Based on our model of sexual relationship presented in chapter four

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 8 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

(covenant, grace, empowerment, inti macy), we look at the factors impor- tant in achieving a high level of marital sexual fulfillment.

Marital sexual fulfillment will be high when there is • a high level of covenant commitment between spouses, • a low level of conditional relating between spouses, • a high level of mutual acceptance between spouses, • a low level of shaming and blaming between spouses, • a high level of differentiation between spouses, • a low level of spousal fusion and overdependency, • a high level of emotional intimacy between spouses, and • a low level of emotional distance between spouses.

cOv ena n t eSta BliSheS truSt The permanence of lifelong covenant commitment establishes a solid foundation for a relationship as demanding as marriage. Each spouse brings unique strengths as well as human frailties as they pledge to put the priority on the relationship. In this holy marital covenant, spouses have the profound opportunity to know themselves more fully (identity) so they can share themselves more deeply (intimacy). In the vulnerability of the sexual relationship, spouses are learning to be in tune with themselves, their partner and the relationship unity. The role of marital sexuality is to energize the marital bond of respect, trust and intimacy.

A sexual principle based on covenant is that the more secure a cou ple is in the relationship, the more complete and satisfying is the sexual re- sponse. Shere Hite (2006) reports that women consistently say that they are most able to invest themselves sexually in a lifelong, monog amous re- lationship. When security is lacking, emotional restriction hampers their sexual responsiveness. Women who find their husband untrustworthy or fear being rejected or abandoned by him are less willing to give themselves sexually. This same survey also found that men benefit from a covenant commitment. They report feeling warm, secure and affirmed in their masculinity during sex with their spouse. These relationship themes of security and trust bring authenticity to the sexual act.

An Old Testament view of person-centered passion comes from the Song of Songs. The focus of the love is mutual: “I am my beloved’s and

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 8 7

my beloved is mine” (Song 6:3 nrsv). This unreserved expression of love bursts forth out of confidence in the person and the relationship. The pleasuring principle in marital sex involves a mutual giving and receiving that takes place between two lovers. The greater the sensory pleasuring in a relationship, the greater the sexual adequacy. Person-centered sexual passion opens the lovers up to each other emotionally as well as bodily through expressions of touch and talk during the lovemaking. The lyr- ics of a popular country and Western song express this principle in the vernacular: “I want a man with a slow hand, I want a lover with an easy touch.” Authentic sexual expression is about the tender touching that communicates affection, desire, warmth and excitement. As evident in the great love scenes throughout the Song of Songs, the couple delights in the erotic passion they have for one another. Sexual exclusivity, according to Waite and Joyner (2001), is related to emotional satisfaction in marriage for both women and men.

gr ace eSta BliSheS acceP ta nce While covenant provides security, grace establishes an atmosphere in which spouses can reach their full potential. Accepting a spouse just as he or she is means accepting his or her sexual value system. The personal value system determines the spouse’s unique way of being a sexual per son. Having deep regard and respect for a spouse’s sexual value system is to have deep regard and respect for the spouse. A desire to know the spouse deeply includes a willingness to know about that person’s hurts, failures and pains as well as successes, rewards and victories. Personal preferences about the sexual relationship must be understood in light of the beliefs, values and emotions that underlie them.

Sexual attitudes and values are developed through early childhood ex- periences and learned from the family, church and society. An important aspect of marital growth has to do with a couple’s ability to attend to and grapple with differences. For instance, if either spouse is uncomfortable with some aspect of their sexual relationship, it is imperative that they can speak about their differences without being judged or feeling ashamed. Labels like “prudish” or “overly sexed” have no place in this discussion, for such responses only serve to undermine and condemn.

Acceptance allows the couple to determine what is right for each spouse as well as what is right for the relationship at any particular stage in the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 8 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

marriage. For example, after partners listen carefully to each other and honor their different value systems, sometimes a spouse will relinquish a sexual request for the sake of the other, while at other times a spouse will reevaluate and stretch beyond a comfort zone for the other’s sake. The key is that both spouses are working for the good of the relationship to- ward a loving resolution. The gracing attitude helps the spouses see their differences as an opportunity for growth. Putting the priority on grace, differences become paths of deeper understanding that enhance sexual connections.

Another aspect of grace is forgiveness. Rather than trying to per suade a spouse or hold grudges, mercy softens the sharp edges of dif ferences. Mis- understandings and blunders that are part of every human relationship need to be forgiven so the couple can move on to better places. Undoubt- edly, spouses will fail each other in a number of ways in the marriage, for no relationship is ever perfect! Each spouse will disappoint, offend and make mistakes in the sexual arena, which will be hurtful. One spouse, for example, may feel rejected when the other fails to respond to a sexual invitation. Circumstances like busy schedules, young children, hormonal changes, illness and work will sometimes inhibit or alter sexual interest.

Grace is needed on a daily basis to bring restora tion after disappoint- ments occur. Those who have experienced trau matic sexual events in their past may struggle in various ways with the sexual relationship. Such situa- tions require extraordinary understand ing because of the seriousness of the violation. It takes time for sexual wholeness to be restored in such circum- stances. Grace is the environ ment that helps heal those painful wounds.

emPOW er i ng eSta BliSheS POten ti a l The model of two becoming one f lesh does not eradicate the individ- ual. An individual spouse actually becomes even more defined through self-discovery in the context of the sexual relationship. Behind the “Two are better than one” model is the idea that two independent per sons have unique strengths to offer the relationship, which gives a potential that is not possible in isolation. A sufficient self gives each spouse an increased capacity to express and clarify sexual desires or values in a way that en- hances the marriage. Without two separate identities, mutual interdepen- dence is impossible. Some hold to the false notion that fusion is the ideal, as in saying, “I can’t do it without you, and I must lean on you to be

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 8 9

strong.” Two spouses who are hanging on to each other for dear life have no solid ground on which to stand. Strength is multiplied by two when each spouse stands on their own feet as they empower each other by work- ing in tandem.

An empowering principle of marital sex is mutuality. This idea is con- veyed in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5: “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one an- other except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer; and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (nrsv).

This passage acknowledges that each spouse has a separate body with separate sexual desires, and therefore they must be able to work out a mutually satisfying sexual relationship. Paul holds up full mutuality as the highest ideal in marital sexuality. Each spouse is encouraged to express personal preferences as well as acknowledge the desires of their spouse. It’s not a matter of either spouse acting only out of their needs, but of finding ways to incorporate the needs of their spouse as well. One does not act simply out of personal needs and must recognize the need to find mutual resolve. The words “by agreement” are translated from the Greek word symphōnon, using the same root from which symphony is derived. The idea is to be of “one voice,” “out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21).

Authentic marital sexuality is best achieved when spouses engage each other out of mutual desire. There is no place for the misguided idea that the husband initiates while the wife acquiesces. Marital sexu ality is to be char- acterized by mutual regard for the other, for oneself and for the relationship. Just as the orchestra makes harmonious music when each instrument con- tributes its own unique part, so the married couple reaches sexual harmony through personal expression of sexual interest and mutual consumation.

Some couples succumb to a give-to-get sexual exchange, striving to maximize personal gain. Each gives with the underlying expectation of gaining a return on what has been given. We believe this idea is contrary to a biblical view of marital empowerment. A give-to-get model focuses on power issues in a relationship. Spouses with less interest in sex can eas- ily control the sexual relationship by withholding sex, just as the spouses with more interest in sex can be coercive in try ing to get what they believe they deserve.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 9 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

Control and sexual fulfillment are at basic odds with each other. Sexual fulfillment comes out of desiring and being desired. When one spouse freely expresses desire as an invitation rather than a demand, there is great joy when the partner responds. It is completely unaccept able for a spouse to respond out of obligation or duty, because this leaves the initiator emo- tionally bankrupt. There is little satisfaction if a spouse responds only because he or she cannot say no. The pleasure and emotional satisfaction comes when one knows the response is out of choice, true desire and love. Here, spouses make room in themselves for the partner and join freely into a union of mutual exchange. Empowering love comes out of vulnerability and strength, rather than out of control and weakness. The empowering principle seeks the full potential of each spouse through a synchronous rhythm of interaction and interde pendence.

in ti m ac y eSta BliSheS cOn nec tiOn Finally, sexual intimacy deepens connection and understanding of one’s personal sexuality. Sexual disclosure and vulnerability open spouses up to deeper self-knowledge. The ability to know and be known as spouses requires an emotional and sexual exposure in which intimacy f lourishes.

“Men want sex! Women want intimacy!” The common notion is debat- able that men experience intimacy through sex, while women experience inti macy through emotional closeness. Certainly, many men enjoy emo- tional intimacy and many women enjoy sexual intimacy. However, though this may not be the whole truth, there seems to be a tendency in this di- rection. We believe that every couple must find a balance between these two dimensions of intimacy in order to blend them in mutually satisfying ways. Women may need to stretch them selves in sexual areas; men need to challenge themselves in the emotional dimension.

When emotional security is lacking, the sexual appetite usually deteri- orates; and when the sexual relationship is lacking, the emotional connec- tion diminishes. A paper by Duncombe and Marsden (1994) investigated attempts that partners make to sustain their sexual rela tionship. They rec- ognized that today’s women refuse to fake orgasms to make their spouses feel good, which means it is more difficult to keep up the illusion that the marriage is fulfilling when it is not. The authors suggest that taking intentional steps to keep sexual and emotional inti macy alive in marriage increases the likelihood of mutual satisfaction. A couple can have the best

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 9 1

of both worlds by attending to both aspects of intimacy. The erotic en- ergy moves spouses toward deep emotional connection, which enhances erotic expression. When women take greater responsibility for their sexual satisfaction and men make a stronger link between sexual and emotional intimacy, they say yes to couple intimacy.

Sexuality and spirituality are closely linked to couple intimacy. Ac- cording to Paul Ricoeur, eros expressed with tenderness and fidelity leads to spiritual fulfillment (1994:73). Eros has creative power for harmony in marriage, for it brings understanding and lessens the effect of differences. Ricoeur believes that many people fear the “yes” to their deepest sexual and emotional cravings. Yet, these cravings call people to accountability to bring their life into accordance with their desires. In acknowledging the cravings, a person is able to choose mutual gratification and enjoyment (1994:80-84).

In the last thirty years the market has been f looded with material on how to enhance the sexual relationship. Perusing the many books on mar- ital sexuality at any well-stocked bookstore will reveal the extent to which couples are interested in improving their sex lives. Though the informa- tion for the most part is helpful, we have a nagging suspicion that most approaches focus far too much on the mechanics of sex. Pick up any one of these books, and you will find an emphasis on technique. Based on our technologically oriented society, these books presume that the correct technique is the answer to most problems. To make an analogy, while we would all agree that the secret of maintaining a high-performance auto- mobile is to keep it tuned up in accordance with the automobile manual, human beings are certainly much more com plex than a machine.

Good marital sex, we believe, is much more an art than a science. We compare it to playing music or painting a work of art. The ability to com- plete a paint-by-number picture by matching the numbered paint colors with the numbered areas on the canvas may produce a multicolored land- scape, but most of us would find it less than aesthetically pleasing. Unfor- tunately, instructing couples on strategies to improve the sexual relation- ship is often given with a sex-by-number mentality.

Some sex manuals present page after page of illustrations depicting dif- ferent positions that are supposed to enhance sexual pleasure. Reducing sex to body maneuvers often leaves a couple puzzled about just how to get their bodies into those complex contortions. In addi tion, when disil-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 9 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

lusioned or dissatisfied with how things are going in the sexual relation- ship, it is now possible to blame a spouse for not get ting the technique right. Imagine, if you will, a couple in one of those incredibly challenging sexual positions. With sex manual in hand, the husband gazes intently at the illustration they are trying to manage. At the most inopportune time, his wife makes an unnerving comment, “You’d better turn back a page, Sam. You must have missed something because this isn’t doing a thing for me!”

Person-centered sex is so much more than technique! It involves the meaning of the sexual connection for the two individuals who are giv ing themselves to each other. Their sexual expression tells a story of their love for each other. It is about the mystery of these two unique persons who invited each other to participate in a mutually responsive union. This bold action of giving oneself and receiving the other is an exciting interaction that maximizes emotional and sexual intimacy.

cOm mOn Se x ua l StruggleS A national sample of 6,029 married persons revealed that 16 percent of the married couples surveyed had been sexually inactive during the month before the interview. Factors that predicted the sexual inactiv ity in these couples were unhappiness with the marital relationship, lack of shared activity, increased age and poor health. The researcher concluded that the lack of sexual activity is often a danger signal for married couples (Don- nelly 1993). The University of Chicago research team (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels 1994) found that while 75 percent of the married women said they usually reached and enjoyed orgasm during sex, there were significant variations in spouses when it came to sex ual frequency and preferences regarding sexual activities. Every couple has to work out conf licts in their marital relationship, and sexual dis agreements are part of that struggle. Resolving differences in the fol lowing common struggles in the sexual relationship will make a difference in the marriage.

Keeping the sexual relationship vital. If evidence from advice columns is to be trusted, then many married couples struggle to keep sex vital in their marriage. Ann Lander’s asked, “Has your sex life gone downhill after mar- riage? If so, why?” In response she received over 140,000 replies, with 80 percent indicating that sex after marriage was less exciting. The adjectives most used to describe marital sex were boring, dull, monotonous and rou-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 9 3

tine (as reported by Cox 2002:245). Sex therapists Cliff and Joyce Penner (2003) advise couples to keep sex alive and exciting through creativity, inventiveness, fun-loving activities, and openness to new experiences. The question of keeping vitality in the sexual relationship sometimes centers on the question of who initiates sex. This is a crucial point, not just about wanting to satisfy sexual desire but about having feelings about being de- sired as a per son. Some have said that the most important sex organ is the brain, since the mind has more to do with sexual response than the body. To become sexually aroused, the spouse must be in tune with and able to receive the signals that come into the brain so the body will respond. If the mind is saturated with worries, commitments and responsibilities, it easily can prohibit sexual thoughts from entering in.

Sexual desire is not an automatic response, but one that takes purpose- ful action. While all couples have periodic difficulty with sexual arousal due to external pressures, regular sexual activity is generally conducive to keeping this aspect of married life alive. Each spouse must be intentional in finding ways to get in touch with the sexual side and stay tuned into the sexual aspect of the marriage. Taking time out from a busy schedule to relax, having some moments of quiet conver sation together as a couple, or spending some time in each other’s arms while listening to music or watching a movie—this is often enough to put the spouses in a responsive, receptive mood. Each spouse, as well as the couple together, is responsible for putting a priority on the emotional and physical connection, which enhances sexual readiness.

Unresolved conflicts. Some spouses have difficulty being sexually in- timate because of significant unresolved conf licts in the marriage. In a study of couples in their first years of marriage, it was found that ten sion had a negative impact on sexual satisfaction (Henderson-King and Veroff 1994). Sex can become a power struggle in which one spouse refuses the other sexually or manipulates in order to gain an advantage over the other. For example, a wife who wants to have a baby may seduce her husband into having sex without using birth con trol. Or the husband may withhold sexual intercourse because he does not want to risk a pregnancy. Whatever the conf licts, they can become a battleground on the sex field. When sex is used as a bargaining tool or weapon to punish, express anger or gain power, intimacy is sabo taged. The point is, conf lict and misuse of power are major barriers to intimate sex. In well-functioning marriages, spouses

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 9 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

are able to work out conf licts without carrying them into the marriage bed.

Sexual ebb and flow. The mutual active enjoyment of being erot ically attracted to and stimulated by a spouse is ego gratifying and empowering. There certainly will be natural times of ebb and f low in sexual arousal and desire in any marriage. Jobs, combined with child-caring responsi- bilities, household tasks, hormonal f luxuation, and health problems, tend to diminish sexual responsiveness. The wife who works at an office all day, fixes the evening meal and cares for the children until bedtime is not likely to have much sexual energy when she f lops into bed dead tired. The husband who works long hours on a demanding job and spends the eve- ning helping his son with homework and getting the laundry done while worrying about a report that is due the next day will also be depleted and may lack sexual energy.

Dry spells require patience, restraint and support. Good sexual func- tioning takes time, energy and commitment. Couples who recognize these dry spells and adapt to the particular life circumstances will be better able to maintain their relationship through the ebb and f low. Then, when they have weathered the dry spell, they will avail themselves of the lush and fruitful season.

Diminished sexual desire. A problem far more acute for married couples than regulating ebb and f low is low desire for sex, sometimes referred to as diminished sexual desire. This common problem reported by married couples is complex but undoubtedly has a profound impact on the couple. Whether the lack of interest has to do with hormonal factors, physical or mental illness, use of medication, psychological stressors or problems, the formerly positive aspect of coming together sexually now becomes a nega- tive in their life.

Perhaps it would be good to acknowledge some common desire dif- ferences between men and women. Baumeister (2000) found women’s sexuality to be more f lexible, variable and responsive to social norms and settings than men’s. The typical male model of desire-arousal-orgasm is inadequate for most women. Women’s desire is more connected with believing their partner desires them as a person, not just as a means of sexual release. So, when a woman gives herself out of commitment rather than personal desire, something is lacking for both spouses. Though it may certainly be an appropriate response from time to time, it is certainly

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 9 5

less gratifying for the couple overall. Indeed, the encounter becomes less person-centered and more a relationship commitment response.

Differentiation promises to help spouses give and receive in person- centered ways that enhance unity. Mutually desiring and being desired is what drives the relationship dynamic of person-centered sex. Even when there are physical reasons for diminished desire, the desire for touch connnection and engagement is the more important aspect of the love- making. When the couple keeps a quality sex life, it is less about frequency than about enjoying intimate connection. McCarthy, Ginsberg and Fucito (2006:59) encourage couples to establish resilent sexual desire by empha- sizing the importance of a person-centered sexuality that includes a vast array of activities, such as expressions of intimacy, pleasure, satisfaction and realistic sexual experiences.

Good sex makes a positive contribution to marriage, and conversely bad sex has a detrimental impact. McCarthy (1999:1) reports that “when sexuality functions well in a marriage, it’s a positive, integral component, contributing 15-20% to the marital bond. However, when sexuality is dys- functional or non-existent it plays an inordinately powerful role, 50-75%, robbing the marriage of intimacy and vitality.”

Anxiety about lack of sexual interest in both men and women leads to self-consciousness, guilt, shame, low self-esteem and fear. Unfortunately, most spouses fail to deal directly with this problem, keeping silent about their feelings and avoiding sexual overtones at all costs. Fear about re- peated physcial failure and desire keeps the anxiety cycle going.

A person-centered honest discussion about feelings, fears and the im- pact on the relationship is what is needed. When spouses are vulnerable with each other, expressing their fears and struggles, then there is poten- tial for understanding, change and relationship action.

Feeling neglected as a spouse. In a study of couples in their first years of marriage, researchers found that affirmation was associated with sex- ual satisfaction (Henderson-King and Veroff 1994). A study of Korean American couples found that higher levels of self-esteem, positive regard, communication and cohesion were all associated with sexual sat isfaction (Song, Bergen and Schumm 1995).

Both men and women need affirmation from their partner and com- plain when they feel neglected. In the busyness of life it is often the couple’s relationship that becomes neglected. Keeping alert to a spouse’s needs,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 9 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

moods, emotions, thoughts and desires in nonsexual ways can combat some of this feeling of neglect.

Planning creative ways to enhance the relationship through weekly dates, spontaneous lunch meetings or weekends at the beach or moun- tains will go a long way in helping a couple reconnect. Writing down small requests or desires that the partner can respond to each day will help spouses feel appreciated. These actions of care keep spouses in tune with each other’s wishes. Taking time to communicate verbally and nonverbally through expressions of affection and understand ing will go a long way in showing the per son that he or she is valued. Covenant vows include reach- ing out and staying in touch with the one you love.

Infertility. Approximately one out of five married couples have infer tility problems at some point in their relationship. Infertility can negatively af- fect a couple’s sex life due to the invasiveness of the medical professional, scheduled intercourse times, and sex becoming a means to an end, all be- ing constant reminders of the couple’s infertility (Magnacca 2004). These are painful issues for the couple to overcome. Support groups have been especially helpful to couples in this situation. Sharing these circumstances with others who are going through a similar struggle forms a caring com- munity of compassion and hope.

Boredom. Sexual routines quickly become ruts of dissatisfaction. Bore- dom with sex is a complaint that can not be addressed unless a couple is willing to talk about the problem and make the needed changes. Talking about sexual dissatisfaction is one of the more difficult areas of communi- cation, yet it is crucial that couples periodically talk together about these feelings. Being open and honest is the pathway to discovering positive steps that will increase couple satisfaction. Working together to keep the sexual relationship fresh and alive is well worth the time.

Sexuality is often enhanced by an element of playfulness. The sexual rela tionship benefits from enjoyable, uninhibited interaction. The ability to be spontaneous indicates a certain comfort with sexual passion just as self-consciousness inhibits free expression. Ritualized structure can stif le the person-centered process of lovers engaging each other through the sexual interaction. Being authentically differentiated means spouses need not put on pretenses or make a production out of sex, but can respond to the partner’s invitation to try new things.

Communication. Intimacy is communicated in a number of ways:

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 9 7

through body language, overt physical behavior, symbolic gestures, and oral and written language. Spouses can also communicate a lack of inter- est by refusing to participate in an activity, turning silent or neglecting an important event. Love can be expressed through a letter, poem or song. Judy cherishes the love poems Jack has written to her throughout their marriage, although they are disastrous as poetic art forms. Our eyes, lips, face, posture and general body movement do a great deal to express our sexual and emotional feel ings. Some find it easy to use words, while oth- ers express their feelings through actions. A partner’s body language can also give ambiguous messages that result in misinterpre tation and misun- derstanding.

A couple communicates sexual feelings and desires both verbally and nonverbally. The question is whether the partner picks up on it. It is im- portant to let the spouse know what one desires sexually. There is no room for a guessing game. If a particular kind of touch inhibits rather than stimulates plea sure, it is crucial to let the spouse know. Although sexual desire can be communicated in nonverbal ways, verbal communication ensures that partners do their best to attend to the sexual requests. Guid- ing each other through touch and short words of encouragement during love making is a good way to care for the sexual relationship.

Spectatoring. A common problem for couples is taking on the role of “spectator” in the sexual event. This occurs when either partner removes themselves mentally during coitus in order to observe what is happening from the outside. Like being a spectator rather than a participant in a sports event, the spouse gets lost in their head rather than being part of it. Unfortu nately, when the partner loses the lover, the love gets lost as well.

Spectatoring sometimes occurs because a spouse is overly con cerned about her or his performance as a lover. Being self-conscious about how one is doing as a lover often places more anxiety on that person. Invariably it becomes a self-defeating activity because it reduces the interactional aspect to a minimum.

In authentic sexual encounters the couple allows natural feelings, in- clinations and actions to be part of the creative process between them. Seeing and sensing the partner gives important cues about how to move in harmony with one’s partner. When spouses are passionately involved with each other in the act of coitus, there is no time to evaluate how they are doing because they are totally invested in the moment. In the presence

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

1 9 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

of each other, the erotic dance of love happens between two people who are both acutely aware of and lost to each other in the mutual passion of giving and receiving. It is a fantastic and sacred adventure.

Su m m a ry Monogamous, lifelong marriage has always been the ideal context for au- thentic sexuality. When covenant love permeates every aspect of life, it permeates marital sexuality as well. When grace offers acceptance and forgiveness, we can freely accept ourselves and each other sexually. When mutual empowerment leads to mature differentiation, our relationship in- terdependence and sexual unity becomes a reality. When we are vulerable and open to each other, our sexual intimacy deepens. As Christians, our relationship purpose is deeply embedded in our marital and sexual rela- tionship. Our lifelong goal is to ref lect the meaning and richness of our God-given sexuality.

In a lovely article titled “Sleeping Like Spoons,” John Milhaven ex- plains how the familiar gesture of curling up next to his wife moves him: “The resistance goes out of me. The bed has my full weight on it. The nothingness of sleep has my full weight on it. All of me falls. Nothing holds back. . . . It is a blissful giving way by bodily self to itself. A sweet- ness of complete relaxing, of luxurious let ting go of muscles, skins, nerves, and all. An effortless, sensuous shed ding of all concerns, worries, even thoughts. . . . As I slope down with Julie to sleep, thoughts f loat off. I don’t think, I enjoy” (Nelson and Longfellow 1994:88).

Why is falling to sleep in the arms of a spouse such an appealing pic- ture? It’s the comfort of being known, accepted and loved by one who is committed to you. And when two lie together, they keep each other warm, for two is better than one. In this place one can be in touch with the hidden parts of oneself. This safe haven is a place where fears do not penetrate. Two wrapped together in bodily trust is what inti macy is all about. The marital relationship is not just a refining crucible of growth but also a comforting container of trust. Sleeping like spoons is what mar- ital emotional and sexual intimacy is all about. Being part of a mysterious one-f lesh union leaves a sense of well-being in one’s soul.

FOr F u rther r e a di ng Penner, C., and J. Penner. 2003. The gift of sex: A guide to sexual fullfill-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

M a r i t a l S e x u a l i t y 1 9 9

ment. Nashville: W Publishing Group. Rousenau, D. 2005. A celebration of sex for newlyweds. Nashville: Thomas

Nelson. Schnarch, D., and J. Maddock. 2002. Resurrecting sex: Resolving sexual

problems and rejuvenating your relationship. San Fransico: HarperCol- lins.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Extramarital Sex Causes and Consequences

The Garden of Eden depicts the image of perfect intimacy between Adam and Eve. There was equality, similarity, diversity and union that God claimed weas “very good” (Gen 1:31). Adam’s cry “bone of my bones and f lesh of my f lesh” (Gen 2:23) indicates a deep longing to be with the one who was a suitable partner for deep communion and connection. But not all went well in paradise. This ideal union fell apart when Adam and Eve fell away from God. From this day on, inti macy would be hard to achieve. The propensity to follow their own way rather than God’s way would wreak havoc on their one-f lesh relationship.

The commandment “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14) urges couples to work out their struggles in the context of their marriage. In fact, three of the ten commandments warn about veering outside the mar- riage covenant: “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not covet your neighbor’s spouse,” and “Do not lie” (cf. Ex 20:14, 17, 16 lb). These commands el- evate the marital bond as sacred and not to be bro ken. In other words, married persons should neither seek nor have inter course with anyone other than their spouse. Although these Old Testament laws were expressed in a patriarchal, polygamous culture where husbands had the right to take and divorce as many wives as they wished, these sexual options were to be

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 0 1

within a legal marriage contract. These commandments protected women because they afforded them rights and privileges.

The warning against adultery sets the marriage bond up as a prior ity that must be guarded at all costs. The affirmative aspect of these com- mandments encourages married persons to work together toward an emo- tional and sexual union that keeps their relationship vital. Each spouse is responsible to God to keep the marriage covenant.

The ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not lie,” has implications for extramarital sex too. Lies and falsehoods are an inevitable part of an af- fair. Secrets come between the marital couple, for one cannot avoid the impact of deceit that impinges on vows of fidelity.

Novelist Frederick Buechner declares, “I AM MY SECRETS!” Se- crets indeed tell a story about who we are. The falsehoods told or lived out become part of and reveal truth about that person. When spouses dis- cover that they have been deceived, their tremendous rage has to do with betrayal. When the covenant vow is broken, it pierces to the core of that promise. It is not only the adultery that is hurtful, but also the secret that undermines the integrity of the relationship. The lie keeps the betrayed in the dark (and in a one-down position), giving them no choice in the mat- ter. Lying compounds the destructive effect of adultery upon the marriage relationship. Truthfulness about the affair at least gives betrayed spouses an equal chance to protest, express opinions and feelings, and decide what to do about the partic ular situation. To rob them of choice leaves them at a profound disad vantage. Our bias for disclosure versus cover-up, must be given with caution. Confessing about an affair must be out of a desire for reconciliation and healing. The confessor must weigh the potential hurt or harm that could come to the resolute spouse. It is wise to have a pas- tor or therapist help with these questions, the timing and the method of disclosure.

The Ten Commandments remind us that we are fallen creatures and liv ing in a fallen world. Although spouses may not always escape the temptation of wrongful desire, they can ask for forgiveness and seek the help of their spouse and God to keep the promises of the marital vows.

The New Testament teaching builds on the Old Testament views on adultery, but it broadens the focus to include attitudes as well as behavior. In his book Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition, William Loader (2005:234) states that “the change of focus from act to attitude in Jesus’ teaching (on

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 0 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

adultery, as on murder) creates an important ethical perspective. It leads us to consider the attitudes which inform behaviors and to see behaviors as the result of such sin” (Mt 5:22, 28).

By broadening the definition of infidelity to include emotional as well as sexual involvement, recent reseach also takes into account the subjective aspects of adultery found in Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Based on their extensive review of the literature, Blow and Hartnett (2005:220) conclude: “Research that limits the defintion of infidelity to sexual intercourse minimizes the devastating effects that other types of sexual involvement and emotional connection can have on relationships.”

In summarizing how men and women differ in their experience of infi- delity, Blow and Hartnett (2005) report that women experience infidelity more in terms of emotional connection, whereas it is more of a sexual ex- perience for men. While men justify infidelity more in terms of the sexual dimension, women tend to resort to emotion-based justifications (Glass and Wright 1997; Allen and Baucom 2004).

The seriousness of adultery is addressed in New Testament pas sages such as 1 Corinthians 6:18: “Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself ” (nrsv). Sexual intercourse is regarded not only as an external act but also as an inter nal offense that impacts self and spouse. One-f lesh union symbolically joins a man and woman through memories, expectations, fantasies and secrets, so that even a casual affair has implication for the adulterer, adulteress, the spouse and all three relationships.

It is difficult to estimate the proportion of married persons who actu- ally engage in extramarital sex due to secrecy and differences in defining EMI (extramarital intimacy). One also considers motivational factors and causes for sexual involvement.

Initially, survey reports by Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin (1948, 1953), Cos mopolitan (Wolfe 1981) and Playboy (Petersen et al. 1983) indicated the rate of extramarital sex to be over 50 percent for women and over 75 percent for men. However, due to biased sampling, these rates are un- doubtedly inf lated.

The most recent research, based upon a probability sample of over 3,000 adults, finds that 25 percent of men and 15 percent of women report having had sex with someone other than their spouse while married (Lau- mann et al. 1994). This is consistent with what we find about people’s at-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 0 3

titudes toward extramarital sex, since roughly 75 per cent of adults believe that extramarital sex is “always wrong,” and another 15 percent believe it is “almost always wrong” (Laumann et al. 1994:22). But given the sensitive nature of the question, the authors caution that subjects may underreport incidents of extramarital sexual involvement. Regardless of what persons morally believe about adul tery, their behavior may not be congruent with those beliefs. The actual rate for extramarital sex is undoubtedly higher today than it has been in the past generation.

Based on their extensive review of the literature on infidelity, Blow and Hartnett (2005:220) conclude that “over the course of married, het- erosexual relationships in the United States, EMI sex occurs in less than 25% of committed relationships, and more men than women appear to be engaging in infidelity.”

t he deciSiOn tO h av e a n a F Fa ir Although there is no single cause of infidelity, there are a number of fac- tors that have been found to be correlated with it. These factors include premarital sexual involvement, marital dissatisfaction, sexual dissatisfac- tion, low religiosity, high interest in sex, parental divorce, insecure attach- ment styles, and attitudes of gender inequality and inequality in mari- tal power and control (Blow and Hartnett 2005; Reiss, Anderson and Sponaugle 1980).

Although the spouse who had more power and control in the mar- riage was more likely to engage in extramarital sex, Prins, Buunk and Van Yperen (1993) found that females who felt a lack of equality in their marital relationship were more likely to desire and actually engage in ex- tramarital sexual behavior.

These findings are consistent with equity theory, which predicts higher rates of extramarital sex in marriages where there is unequal power. The basic idea of this theory is that people need to feel they are getting as much out of the relationship as they are putting into it. Most people keep men- tal tabulations to figure out whether the benefits out weigh the sacrifices they put forth. Underbenefited partners engage in extramarital sex earlier in their marriage and with more partners than those who feel equitably treated. Women who felt they were not getting all that they deserved in their marriage were more likely to consider extramar ital sexual involve- ment as an acceptable behavior.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 0 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

Beyond these correlates, infidelity seems to be related to situation fac- tors such as an opportunity for infidelity. Such things as daily contact with coworkers and/or frequent traveling away home are examples of this. Another situational factor is age, since younger persons appear to be more vulnerable to infidelity in the relationship (Amoto and Rogers 1997; At- kins, Baucom and Jacobson 2001).

Wiederman and Allgeier (1996) found that young mar ried couples pre- sumed that the major source of extramarital sex is mar ital dissatisfaction. Although there may be as many reasons for adultery as there are adulter- ous affairs, affairs are known to follow certain patterns. We shall discuss these patterns in light of different types of affairs, then look at sociological and psychological explanations for why persons have affairs, and finally offer a moral explanation.

Atkins (2003) found that individuals with a tendency toward a narcis- sistic personality were significantly correlated with higher rates of EMI. Glass (2003) found that employment is a primary context for EMI, where coworkers are emotionally connected and approached as alternative part- ners to their spouse.

Based on hundreds of clinical cases of infidelity, psychologist Frank Pittman (1989) suggests four types of infidelity in his book Private Lies: Infidelity and the Betrayal of Intimacy. In the accidental affair there is no ad- vanced plan ning; the affair “ just happens.” Philandering is the practice of seeking many partners for the precise purpose of engaging in affairs as if it were a sport. Romantic affairs are usually the culmination of a developing relationship between two people who feel they love each other. Marital ar- rangements constitute a type of affair in which a couple agrees to stay mar- ried (sometimes without living together) but allows for long-term sexual relationships with persons outside of the marriage. Each of these types of affairs involves different reasons for adultery. There is a mixture of socio- logical, psychological, relational and moral reasons behind the choice to indulge in extramarital sex.

Marital therapists point to both individual and interactional needs and how they are met or fail to be met in the marriage relationship as an im- portant dimension in understanding what leads to an extramarital affair. Based on clinical research David Schnarch (1991, 1997) has developed an explanation of extramarital sexual involvement based on one’s level of differentiation. He suggests that spouses with low levels of differentiation

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 0 5

tend to be fused (overly dependent) at one extreme or emotionally cut off (overly distant) at the other.

Earlier in this book we defined differentiation as a balanced integratra- tion of one’s need for connection and separateness. Key aspects of differ- entiation in the marital context are (1) the ability to maintain a clear sense of self in close proximity to one’s spouse, (2) the ability to soothe personal fears and anxieties (self-regulate) from within the self, (3) the ability to be nonreactive to the anxiety of the spouse, and (4) the ability to tolerate the natural struggle and discomfort of marital discord in order to grow toward a healthy interdependence.

According to Schnarch, “ The struggle in marriage is to find out who you are while maintaining your boundaries with a partner who is all too eager and ready to tell you who you are” (1993:1). Herein lies the “mar- riage cruci ble,” a refining place where spouses must grapple with their unique differences in the context of forming a bond as a couple. It can be described as developing a “self-in-relation.” Each spouse holds on to a fully differentiated self, resisting the partner’s attempt to define him or her, and in the process is rewarded by a deeply rewarding interdependency.

One becomes more highly differentiated in the context of the relation- ship by taking risks (expressing wants, needs, desires, passion) and be- ing vulnerable (expressing hurts, pains, weakness, hopes, fears) with one’s spouse. Intimacy occurs because spouses let themselves be known and seek to know and be responsive (not reactive) to their spouse. Through open communi cation and relationship struggle, highly differentiated spouses have an increased ability to put the best interests of the spouse and the relationship as a priority.

People who lack a healthy degree of differentiation are ripe for extra- marital affairs, according to Schnarch (1993). There is a tendency to con- fuse fusion with emotional closeness. In marriage, therefore, undifferen- tiated spouses tend to be overly dependent on each other for validation and self-definition. In many ways this places an incredible power in the hands of the spouses. It is extremely disconcerting not to be validated (one has failed to be validated internally), and therefore an extramarital affair becomes attractive.

The affair gives undifferentiated spouses the impression that they are desireable, sexy, admired, and they thrive on this idea. Feeling inadequate to meet the spouse’s needs, the affair gives a new focus and becomes an

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 0 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

escape route to personal growth and real differentiation. Idealization of the new relationship (affair) f lames a fantasy about oneself. The thinking goes something like this: I must be really attractive for this person to take such an interest in me. Therefore I’m perfectly adequate and don’t need to change anything.

Living in the real world of marriage, spouses must face various strug- gles, disappointments, desires and failures together in a way that brings mutual respect and relational interdependence. The two spouses are in it together and accountable to each other, so there are no illusions about self or the other. Honest communica tion, self-awareness, vulnerable ref lection and open sharing lead them to deeper levels of intimacy, increasing dif- ferentiation that deepens connection.

Highly differentiated spouses do not fear losing themselves in the emotional closeness of the marriage, because their solid sense of self frees them to love in more expressive and more vulnerable ways. The bottom line, according to Schnarch (1993), is that affairs occur more frequently among those who fear intimacy rather than those who desire to become more intimate with one’s spouse.

Booth and Dabbs (1993) considered biological evidence that may affect one’s tendency to have affairs. They found that men who pro duce high levels of testosterone were less likely to marry, and when they did marry were more likely to show violence toward a spouse and have troubled mar- ital relations, extramarital sex violations, and a lower qual ity of marital interaction.

Though one must consider the complex social, psychological, rela- tional or even hormonal factors that inf luence the decision to have an extramarital affair, we must not forget that the person makes a moral choice. Although some may follow a spur-of-the-moment impulse, the extramarital affair is more often a premeditated act. Based on her early research, Lynn Atwater (1982) found extramarital affairs usually move through five stages:

1. A tolerant attitude toward the possibility of the affair 2. The opportunity for the affair 3. The presence of extramarital models (in novels, movies, television

dramas) 4. A time of mental rehearsing about how the affair will take place 5. The consummation of the affair

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 0 7

The progression from thought to action suggested in these stages is consistent with the social-psychological literature that indicates how hu- man attitudes and behaviors are related. Just as behavior can affect our attitudes, so can our thoughts affect our behavior if we allow them to germinate in the desires of our mind.

This understanding of why affairs occur is consistent with the biblical view of sin, holiness and temptation. Sin is not only a matter of the exter- nal: our behavior. It is also a matter of the heart: our attitudes and desires. Jesus spoke of adultery of the heart in Matthew 5:28. The thrust of this teaching is that adulterous thoughts can be the beginning of adul terous affairs. Jesus shows how hidden thoughts, as well as actions, keep a per son from reaching the deepest possible communion with their spouse.

Coveting or lusting after someone outside the marriage harms those in- volved. The one who commits adultery shapes his or her character through the deceitful and unfaithful action. The abandoned spouse feels betrayed, angry, neglected and confused about what’s happening. The children are insecure as they sense the distance and disruption between their parents. And the other person involved in the affair remains uncer tain about his or her place and future in the adulterer’s life.

Thoughts and action go together, says Jesus; adultery (even of the heart) is against God’s way. We must not merely do the right things; we must also desire the right things. When desire goes astray in thought, action is soon to follow. To live responsible lives in contemporary soci ety means we must cope with temptations in a culture saturated with sexual messages. We must keep our conscience clear, drawing appro priate boundaries so we will make responsible choices about what we desire and toward whom our desire is directed. When we read Atwater’s findings in the light of Scripture, we realize that movement from each stage to the next involves a conscious choice. And everyone is respon sible for their choices and the consequences of their action.

cOnSequ enceS OF BrOK en cOv ena n t Affairs can have very serious consequences on marriage. In writing about the crises of infidelity, Pittman and Wagers (1995) contrast seven myths with seven truths about infidelity. The first myth is that since everybody is unfaithful, affairs are to be expected as a normal part of marriage. In truth, infidelity is not normal behavior but a symptom of some problem,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 0 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

usually having to do with the person or the marriage relationship. The second myth is that affairs are good for a marriage. In truth, while af- fairs can bring about a crisis in which an enduring mari tal problem can be solved, affairs are dangerous and often inadvert ently end marriages. Though the third myth states that affairs prove that spouses no longer love each other, the truth is that before the affair the marriage may be seen as quite good, and many spouses still claim to love each other. The fourth myth asserts that the unfaithful partners are the sexier spouses since they are seeking more sex than what is available in the marriage. The truth is that, although affairs involve sex, sex is usually not the primary reason to have an affair. The motiva tion is usually to bolster a lack of ego or sexual confidence. Myth num ber five is that the affair is the fault of the resolute (faithful) spouse. The truth is that no one can drive someone else to have an affair. Although the sixth myth states that there is protection through ignorance of a spouse’s affair, the truth is that affairs are fueled by secrecy and threat ened by exposure. Finally, the seventh myth is that after an af- fair, divorce is inevitable. The truth is that marriages can, with effort, sur- vive affairs if the affairs are exposed and relational trust is rebuilt. Based on their clinical experience, Pittman and Wagers (1995) believe that this last truth is a crucial point. Couples need to know that it is important to rebuild trust by dealing openly with the two key fac tors—dishonesty and jealousy—if the marriage is to survive.

Balance of power. Another consequence of an affair is that it affects the balance of power in the marriage. For example, the resolute (faith- ful) spouse may take a morally superior attitude and blame or shame the unfaithful spouse. The offended spouse may hold the affair over the other by pointing out the moral weakness in the other. This shift in power can be especially noticeable when marriage partners hold to faithfulness in marriage as a standard.

Although we might assume that the resolute spouse has the upper hand and gains the power in the marriage, the reverse can also be true. Resolute spouses can be peppered with questions of self-doubt and in- adequacy, asking themselves, What’s wrong with me? and wondering whether they are attractive or adequate as a sex partner. The emotional fusion common in many couples leaves them with the unspoken belief that the affair is a negative ref lection on their compe tence. Even lan- guage that is used, such as “dumpee” and “dumper,” puts the power in

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 0 9

the hands of the one who has had the affair. In a strange way, the spouse who strays is somehow validated because

he or she has found acceptance by somebody else. Now it is two against one, and the offending spouse may actually have more sta tus than the resolute spouse. In a certain sense, spouses who are having the affairs are powerful because they have been able to diminish or betray the resolute spouse through their actions. Especially if the reso lute spouse is overly dependent, it is easy for the offending spouse to insinuate that the resolute spouse is blameworthy or inadequate. In this case, they use the affair to their advantage and can be defiant and seemingly gratified by depriving, hurting or being “one up” on the res olute spouse.

In cases where there is unequal power, the resolute spouses often suc- cumb to the defeating self-doubts and spousal-inf licted doubts, fail ing to rightly protest the broken covenant. This lets the offending spouses off the hook, fails to keep them accountable, and continues to let them escape with little consequence. The lack of confrontation not only avoids the issue of the affair, but also fails to deal directly with important differ- entiation issues in the marital relationship. Therefore the inability to deal effectively with the affair leaves the problem unresolved, main tains the emotional fusion (dependency) in the couple, continues the lack of self- determination in each spouse, keeps the power hierarchy one-sided, and allows a lack of intimacy to continue permeating the marriage. In other words, things stay the same rather than partners letting this situation be- come an impetus for growth and change.

Emotional versus sexual infidelity. Though we generally think of affairs as being sexual, there can also be such a thing as emotional infidelity or affairs of the heart. Research indicates that “women tend to feel more threatened if their mate develops a close, emotionaly intimate relation with another women, [while] . . . men appear to feel more threatened when their partners are sexually unfaithful” (R. Firestone, L. Firestone and Catlett 2006:206). One explanation for this is that “men derive relatively more self-esteem from their sex lives, whereas women’s self-esteem is more con- tingent on romantic commitment” (Goldenberg et al. 2003:1585).

In a study of Dutch couples, it was found that though jealousy evoked by emotional infidelity was primarily characterized by feelings of threat, jealousy evoked by sexual infidelity was primarily characterized by feel- ings of betrayal and anger (Buunk and Dijkstra 2004:395). When the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 1 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

authors looked at differences by sex, they found that “following emotional infidelity, in men, a rival’s dominance, and in women, a rival’s physical attractiveness, evoked feelings of threat but not feelings of anger-betrayal. In contrast, after sexual infidelity, in men, but not in women, a rival’s physical attractiveness evoked feelings of betrayal-anger but not anxiety or suspicion” (p. 395).

Whatever the response, threat, anger, betrayal, fear, depression or even apathy, the affair takes a serious toll on the relationship itself. Emotional and physical affairs have broken the covenant trust, and that must be re- paired if the marriage is to survive and thrive.

iS he a li ng POSSiBle? Infidelity can have such a devastating effect upon a marriage that it does not survive. However, an affair can be a wake-up call in which spouses make incredible strides in working through the pain and efforts to renew their marriage in the process. One study found that infidelity had unin- tended positive outcomes such as developing a closer marital relationship, realizing the importance of good marital communication, increasing as- sertiveness, placing higher value on family, and taking better care of one- self (Olson et al. 2002).

Atkins and others (2005) report that couples who were in therapy and openly dealing with the infidelity made as much or better progress as other distressed couples. The manner in which disclosure of the infidelity takes place is an extremely imporant factor in the healing process. Progress is greatest among couples for whom an infidelity is shared rather than kept a secret (Atkins et al. 2005). In addition, while disclosure is a process, it is best for the offending partner to fess up rather than give information a little at a time. Also, the most effective therapy focuses on the whole of a couple’s relationship and not just the infidelity, according to J. Schneider, Irons and Corley (1999).

Based on their qualitative research, Olson and others (2002) describe a three-stage process following the disclosure of infidelity. The beginning roller-coaster stage is chacterized by a range of strong feelings (anger, am- biguity, self-blame, panic) that causes spouses to alternate between giving up on the relationship and determining to make it work. In the morato- rium stage there is less emotional reactivity, with only occasional emotional f lare-ups. Finally, couples who make it through the second stage enter the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 1 1

trust-building stage. This third stage is characterized by increased com- munication, forgiveness and recommitment. It is important for a couple in this stage to be willing to focus on problems leading up to the infidelity.

We know that it is possible for a couple not only to survive an affair, but also to experience healing of the broken trust and to transform their relationship by facing the affair head-on. It is important to have family members, friends, counselors and ministers who support and wisely come alongside the couple to bring hope.

A ministerial response to an affair is to walk with the couple at a slow enough pace so they can deal with what has happened rather than rush into a quick solution. Staying with the anxiety and tension is essential so that the wronged spouse can express the myriad feelings, thoughts and reactions about what has happened. Whether this is done alone or as a couple takes discernment.

Once the secret has been disclosed, it is important that there is an ac- knowledgment of one’s disobedience to God and awareness of the conse- quences of sin. Personal confession to the spouse quite likely will be an ongoing process throughout the course of healing. Asking forgiveness, showing repentance, and making amends is an essential part of express- ing one’s brokenness, humility and serious intention to recommit to the spouse and the marriage vows.

Relationship recovery continues on a path of healing. From a psycho- logical point of view, it is important to help spouses grapple with their internal as well as external responses. There is a likelihood that unequal power or dependency are common themes. The affair may bring up im- portant issues about fusion and fear of intimacy in a relationship, as dis- cussed in the section on differentiation.

As the couple is able to tolerate the tough examination of themselves and their marriage, they will need to find the strength to eventually re- linquish their pain and the desire to pun ish. Hope for recovery has to do with focusing on the future. They begin to ask questions like “What do I want to do?” “What would God have me do?” “What kind of relationship do we want to create?” During this period of redefinition, a couple usually is able to grow as they humbly stand before God to ask a blessing on their renewed covenant.

If the spouses happen to be particularly young in their faith or lack ma- turity in the Lord, we can gently offer Christ as the solid place to stand.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 1 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

It is God who ultimately validates, forgives, empowers and renews. While is it certainly good to be validated by others, and our spouse in particular, our true validation is in Christ Jesus. Understanding the concept of being “differentiated in Christ” gives freedom to make choices out of spiritual strength.

The nature of marriage changes when people raise their level of dif- ferentiation in Christ. It means that a spouse chooses to be faithful out of a personal, moral conviction, not because it is demanded by spouse or society. Actions are not out of desire to control or hurt a partner or because one is afraid to challenge a spouse. The decision to be monog amous comes out of a clear conviction that this is God’s best plan. A covenant is not a social exchange that says faithfulness begets faithful ness, but one of per- sonal conviction and obedience to God’s law. Thus we seek Christ’s vali- dation, and no one else can take our identity in Christ away from us. This spiritual perspective means the resolute spouse does not have to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the wrong that has been done. Demanding penance and placing guilt on the unfaith ful spouse may make the resolute spouse feel powerful, but the obses sive thoughts and angry desire to punish actually are attempts to control the spouse. True repen- tance and accountable action through the power of God’s Spirit ultimately move the couple forward.

The move toward reconciliation does not excuse or make light of the seriousness of the wrongdoing or the breaking of God’s command. Nei- ther does it minimize the grievous consequences of broken trust. Both spouses are encouraged to find their true place of belonging in Christ as they respond to what has happened between them. Dealing honestly with hurt, pain and betrayal is part of the personal healing process that eventu- ally clarifies one’s identity and self-worth in rela tionship to God. Indeed, genuine repentance and forgiveness lead to the needed restoration.

The resolute spouse can draw strength from the book of Hosea, con- sidering the anguish and anger that God expressed to Israel, who had gone “whoring” after other gods. Israel’s choice was a ref lection on them, not on God. Yet their unfaithfulness broke God’s heart, so he reminds them how much he loved them from the beginning, how he held them close to his heart and guided them by the hand of loving-kindness. Rejection is espe- cially heartbreaking when one has experienced such deep connection.

The unfaithful spouse can also be encouraged by the parable of the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 1 3

Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32) and know that even when one strays away from the Father, God is waiting with open arms to offer grace and for- giveness. God’s loving arms are wide open, ready for the one who has strayed to turn around and come back home to the Father—a beautiful picture of restoration. When the unfaithful spouse repents and changes through action and attitude, recovery is well on its way.

t he he a li ng h a n d OF gOd Frederick Buechner (1992) offers the following ref lection about the rami- fications of keeping secrets in a covenant relationship and how healing is necessary to restore that breach of trust. He opens the scene with God strolling through the Garden of Eden the day after Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. They did what was for bidden and in the process broke their covenant with their Creator. God quickly lays bare the present situation by asking them, “Where are you?” They must admit that they are hiding themselves from God. Buechner wonders, “What is it they want to hide? From whom do they want to hide it?” and “What does it cost them to hide it?”

Then to lay bare the past, God asks them what they have done. Once again, Buechner ponders, “What did they hope would happen by doing it? What did they fear would happen? What was it that made them so ashamed?” They must face the consequences of what they have done. These questions offer them a way to reveal the truth so they then have the opportunity to heal what has been broken between them.

But this is not all! The most moving part of the story comes next, as God makes garments of skins and clothes them with his own hands. Buechner writes, “They can’t go back, but they can go forward clothed in a new way—clothed, that is, not in the sense of having their old defenses again behind which to hide who they are and what they have done but in the sense of having a new understanding of who they are and a new strength to draw on for what lies before them to do now” (p. 70). Healing and blessing are possible as the couple reestablishes their covenant com- mitment.

aFFair Prev entiOn: three t y PeS OF FriendShiP intim ac y Sexuality is an integral part of ourselves as we interact with opposite- gender persons outside the marriage. Sharing different sides of our selves

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 1 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

with others in close friendship is a wonderful part of being cre ated in rela- tionship. In modern society, men and women work and socialize together in close proximity, have meaningful friendships, and develop significant relationships with others. We have much to gain from these interactions, but we have much to lose if we do not learn how to integrate them into our lives as married persons.

One answer to preventing extramarital affairs is to avoid close con tact with those of the opposite sex. But such an extreme reaction con tradicts the biblical ideal of living in community and being members of the body of Christ. It also assumes that we are incapable of being mor ally responsible in our relationships. Also, the idea that a spouse must meet all our needs gives an unrealistic picture of marriage. God brings people into our lives to deepen our experiences and help us become what God wants us to be. The key is not to pull away from others, but to establish guidelines about the relationships we have outside the marriage. We might ask ourselves, “Does the friendship enhance or threaten our marriage?” Following are descriptions of three types of friendship intimacy and discussions of the implications of each in terms of marital fidelity.

Similar interest and intellectual intimacy. Common interests and simi- lar intellectual pursuits bring people together in engaging interactions. Colleagues in any field of interest love to debate and dialogue with one another about their specialties. Just go to any party and notice how people gravitate to each other according to their interests. The discus sions are often invigorating, whether it be the latest theory about some thing or a classical debate about an issue. Discussions like this are stimulating; they help us define our ideas, beliefs and values. Dia logue with others brings us fresh ways of thinking and expands our horizons.

Intellectual intimacy is seldom threatening to a spouse, so there is usu- ally no need to restrict connections on this plane. It often even relieves a spouse from feeling obligated to be interested in everything one’s partner is invested in. One example is those who love talking sports as opposed to those who have no interest whatever in that topic. There certainly are times, however, when for one reason or another a spouse may be threat- ened by such a relationship; these situations must be discussed and at- tended to with care.

Emotional intimacy. Sharing with friends about our life’s journey is a special way of coming to know them at a personal level. In particular,

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 1 5

having someone share disappointments, joys, feelings, doubts, hopes and dreams can bring about a level of emotional connection. This may include talking to each other about the friendship itself, disclosing how we feel about events going on in our lives, or opening up in other vulnerable ways that let this person know us better. We often look for some one to talk to about our problems when we are down or facing particular struggles in our lives. Being listened to, cared for and understood deep ens our emo- tional connection with this special person in our life.

You may rightly suspect that this kind of intimacy has more poten tial for misunderstanding. Your spouse may understandably be uncomfortable with the depth of emotional sharing and personal dis closure between you and another person. Perhaps the spouse is jealous of the closeness and tenderness shared between you and another person. Other spouses are quite relieved that their partner has someone else to share with, because they may feel overly responsible or have difficulty relating on an emotional level.

In most cases, emotional sharing with a same-gender friend is no threat to a spouse. However, inattentive spouses can lose out on these deeper lev- els of personal disclosure. When spouses abdicate this position to others, spousal intimacy is limited, increasing distance between spouses.

Emotional sharing with someone of the opposite gender is more likely to lead to jealousy and anger. Such spousal concerns, when openly dis- cussed and negotiated, can lead to clear and reasonable boundaries and appropriate guidelines in opposite-gender emotional sharing. One obvi- ous guideline is to take time and effort for spousal communication. A couple must make concerted efforts to share what is going on in their lives. Though some spouses are better at sharing than others, interacting about personal things needs to be practiced throughout the marriage. When emotional sharing needs go unmet, the desire for emotional connection with someone outside the marriage increases the potential for an affair.

Physical intimacy. All people need to be touched in caring ways by car- ing friends. Some people are skin hungry because they have received so little physical affirmation in childhood and have an enormous need for concrete evidence of love expressed through touch. We call some friends “teddy bears” because they give such wonderful, warm hugs to let us know that we are loved. Some people are great at giving us that pat on the back, a shoulder to cry on or a comforting touch when we need encouragement.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 1 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

This is physical touch without sexual connotation. It is genuine friendship freely given, no matter who is around to see. Even when such touch is of- fered in private, it is free of sexual overtones.

However, although physical touch can bring warmth, comfort and closeness, it can also be misunderstood. Sometimes even a comforting touch can unknowingly bring out a sexual response. One person may feel it and the other be totally unaware or deny anything sexual. Some times both persons sense the sexual vibes and pull away in order to keep appro- priate boundaries. However, it may happen that one or both will not only sense the sexual feelings but also choose to follow through on them.

How does one deal with physical intimacy? How is the touch you give received by the other person? Are boundaries unclear or being violated in any way? Is there ever discomfort or confusion about the touch? What about kisses—are they okay? What kind, how long, and in what context? What is the meaning of the kiss? Is it simply a greeting of fond expression, or is there a romantic or sexual connotation? For instance, in our couples’ group, we greet one another with a “holy kiss.” It is an agreed-on way we show our affection for one another.

Once again, in the area of physical expression, spouses need to dis- cuss together how they feel about the giving and receiving of touch in relation ships outside the marriage. Perhaps one simple guideline is to al- ways touch in a public setting. Some spouses are quite comfortable mak- ing personal choices in this matter, based on trust and disclosure. Yet it behooves spouses to openly share experiences they have with others outside the marriage. Couple integrity is increased by discussing implica- tions of these relationships and faithfully following through on mutual deci sions about touch.

a F Fa ir Pr ev en tiOn: gu ideli neS FOr cOu Ple in tegr it y Affair prevention begins with an awareness of the type of relational needs discussed above. Beyond this, we must realize that we will have attrac- tions for others, and we need to recognize our vulnerability and have a plan in mind about our behavior. We offer the following guidelines for couples.

Be aware of feelings. A first principle is to be alert and aware of thoughts and feelings you have about your friendships. This is best accomplished by openly communicating with your spouse about your interactions with

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 1 7

same- and opposite-sex friends. Denial and defen siveness are the first signs that indicate a questionable intention or motive. Deceit is tempt- ing when you want something bad enough, writes Lewis Smedes in Sex for Christians (1994). It is not lust that gets most people into trouble but their lack of awareness of, or denial of, attractions and temptations, and their tendency to make exceptions for themselves. Honesty with self and partner is the only policy.

We believe it is important to talk openly with your spouse about any- thing that comes up for you in any particular friendship. Discuss the ex- tent of the intellectual, emotional and physical interaction. Mutually set limitations in terms of the kinds of activities or amount of time you spend with friends. Establish appropriate boundaries in each unique situation. For the best interest of your marriage, come to a united decision about any matter of concern and mutually commit to it.

No secrets, please. Keeping secrets about a friendship is an automatic red f lag that must be addressed immediately. If there are sexual feel ings, you must admit this to your spouse so the two of you can decide how to appro- priately proceed with that situation. If as a spouse you are uncomfortable for any reason, you are obliged to bring this up for discussion. The integ- rity of the marriage is of foremost importance. Bringing out all feelings and questions is absolutely the right thing to do. Sometimes a spouse is the better judge of things you may not notice in a social interaction. For example, listen when a spouse says, “I notice you being especially f lirta- tious around so-and-so. Are you aware of how much she/he seems to seek you out?” Your willingness to hear what your spouse says is a sign that you are completely open in these areas. In an attitude of love, keeping a spouse’s best inter est and the integrity of the marriage as the top priorities will safeguard your relationship.

The current state of the marriage. When a marriage is at its peak strength, there are more possibilities for a spouse to be close to others at all levels of friendship. When a marriage is at its weakest, there is greater vulner- ability, and special caution must be taken to keep the integrity of the mar- riage as the priority. Questions to ask yourself and your spouse center on how each spouse’s personal needs are being met in the marriage and what might be lacking at this particular time in married life. Until you ad- dress your marital issues, friendship inti macy may have to be put on hold because it takes away from working on your own relationship. When the

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

2 1 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

marriage is at a vulnerable place, this is exactly when the spouse is most tempted to look for attention outside the marriage. The new relationship becomes a distraction or substitute for what is missing in the marriage, and the marital troubles are sidetracked or avoided altogether.

Marriage always has priority. Couples who are newly married have strong expectations that they will be faithful to each other. Marriage is your primary commitment, and friendship is always secondary. When your intimate friendships support and strengthen the marital dyad, you will feel safe and content with those intimate connections. But when such a friendship takes away or undermines the marriage in any way, it jeopar- dizes your marriage covenant.

Unfaithfulness is a serious offense because it breaks the marital vows made to each other in the presence of God. However, lest we be smug, we must remember that one can commit adultery of the heart, as Jesus reminded us. This is a sin that easily besets us. Every spouse must take an honest look at their positive contributions to the marriage rather than act- ing pious because they have never technically committed adultery. Lewis Smedes helps us take an honest look at our selves by asking how we have failed to keep our marriage covenant:

A man or woman can be just too busy, too tired, too timid, too prudent, or too hemmed in with fear to be seriously tempted by an adulterous affair. But this same person can be a bore at home, callous to the delicate needs of the partner. He or she may be too prudish to be an adventuresome lover, and too cowardly to be in honest communication and too busy to put one- self out for anything more than a routine ritual of personal commitment. One may be able to claim to have never cheated . . . but may never have tried to grow along with their partner into a deep personal relationship of respect and regard within marriage. Their brand of negative fidelity may be an excuse for letting the marriage fall by neglect into dreary conformity to habit and, with that, into a dull routine of depersonalized sex. I am not minimizing the importance of sexual fidelity, but anyone who thinks that morality in marriage is fulfilled by avoiding an affair has short-circuited the personal dynamics of fidelity. (1994:168-69)

William Loader (2005:134-35) affirms and broadens Smede’s insights by stating that “the healthy marriage is not only the one free from adul- tery or even adulterous attitudes in either partner, but one in which other values we have learned in the Jesus tradition become central, such as re-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

E x t r a m a r i t a l S e x 2 1 9

specting the dignity and worth of all people and engaging in love for one’s neighbor as for oneself. Many marriages totally free from adultery or adulterous attitudes have been highly destructive for one or both parties when these other values have been missing.”

FOr F u rther r e a di ng Harley, W., Jr., and J. H. Chalmers. 1998. Surviving an affair. Grand

Rapids: Revell. Glass, S. 2003. Not “ just friends”: Protect your relationship from infidelity

and heal the trauma of betrayal. New York: Free Press.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 1 . In

te rV

a rs

ity P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_(PART_TWO)
Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_(Chapter_7)
Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_(Chapter_8)
Chp 9-10

Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_(Chapter_9)
Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_(Chapter_10)