The Bible, Sex, And Ideological Fundamentalism
A DIALOGUE WITH JACQUES ELLUL
JACQUES ELLUL AND SEXUAL "ETHICS": A CRITIQUE
Rev. Dr. Thomas Hanks

Part 2:  
Proper Use of Scripture for Sexual Questions

9. "Fidelity: Freedom to Promise and the Permanence of Love
9. "Fidelity: Freedom to Promise and the Permanence of Love.

Perhaps no words in the sexual area is as loaded with patriarchal and heterosexist ideology as
"fidelity/faithful" (Richard Taylor in Baker and Elliston 1984:73-75). In the Biblical vocabulary of
Greek and Hebrew terms, such words never refer to genital sexual activity; in contemporary
heterosexist ideological usage the words are euphemisms for sexual genital activity outside of
marriage and nothing else--another clear indication that contemporary heterosexist marriage and
family ideology has little to do with the Bible. Ideological influence on Bible translation can be seen in
such texts as Mt. 5:31 and 19:9, where the NIV renders the Greek porneia (sexual immorality) as
"marital unfaithfulness"--as though marriage in the first century were governed by vows of sexual
exclusivity, which it was not.

Anyone who has agonized through a separation or divorce in our modern cultural context likely has
suffered the additional burden of friends and family swooping down on the prey to determine who is
"guilty" and who is "innocent"--the only criterion of interest being: was he/she "faithful/unfaithful"? In
our cultural cowboy reading of problems in sexual relationships, there always has to be a "good guy"
and a "bad guy." One genital act outside the relationship no longer results in stoning, but
sociological and psychological equivalents are attempted, especially in Christian contexts.

I have been amused to see, even in the lunatic fringe of Gay liberation, couples who boasted of their
"open relationship"--with no commitment whatsoever to sexually exclusivity--referring continually to
all outside sexual experience as "unfaithfulness" or "infidelity." Liberation theologians would say the
speakers had interiorized the ideology of the oppressors--the classic example of the "colonized
mind." Certainly the "lunatic fringe" of Gay liberation is not in the habit of referring to sexual matters
euphemistically, but often they are incapable of breaking out of ideological prison in this area. At this
point, with his many references to faithfulness/fidelity, Ellul finds himself (untypically) in the same
ideological prison with the lunatic fringe of Gay liberation--but they have lots of company.

In the New Testament, faithfulness/fidelity refer most often and most importantly to God and our
relationship to the God. Above all we are commanded to be faithful to the God who created and
redeemed us. This faithfulness to God--the priority of His Kingdom over family concerns (even wife,
Luke 14:26) is continually stressed in the Gospel. The cultural relativity of marriage vows (never
referred to in Scripture as part of marriage) has become obvious through feminist studies unmasking
patriarchal vows of submission as mechanisms of oppression. When a liberated Christian woman
tosses patriarchal submission out the window and unilaterally restructures her marriage relationship
accordingly, many of us applaud her (just as Protestants universally applaud Luther for tossing his
monastic vows of chastity out the window when he abandoned the monastery to marry a nun who
had acted in a similar shocking manner).

The Bible contains quite a critique against oaths and vows as common mechanisms of oppression
and cruelty (Mat. 5:33-37; 23:16-22; Jas. 5:12; Gundry 1982:91-93, 461-463; Numbers 30; Budd
1984:320-324; Wenham 1981:205-209; Mark 7; Myers 1988:220-223). Undoubtedly marriage vows
normally need to be taken very seriously in the basic and legitimate concerns they express, but as
cultural expressions of marriage, they cannot be viewed as neoplatonic ethical absolutes, which
would be idolatry. Should anthropologists discover a culture where left-handed people were required
to take vows forswearing use of their left hand as part of a marriage ceremony, universally we would
applaud those who even unilaterally restructured their relationship to enable them to be faithful first
of all to the God who created them lefthanded. The same would be true of anything resembling
traditional Chinese footbinding if made part of cultural marriage customs and vows.

Second, faithfulness/fidelity in the New Testament is basically positive and refers primarily to what we
do, not to what we avoid (van der Geest 1990:220): "Faithfulness/fidelity must...be defined positively.
Not as exclusivity: this means that what one does is decisive, not what one avoids.
Faithfulness/fidelity means: continuous attention and care, continuous taking part in the suffering,
and active engagement in the welfare of the partner, a continuous openness and sincerity also in
the painful moments. Thus seen, unfaithfulness/infidelity means neglect, and despising, lack of
interest, to hide oneself, even to deceive through word or silence" (van der Geest 1990:220; cf. 124).

On the human level fidelity normally refers to fulfillment of what was promised and in this
distinguishes us from animals. Your dog may "faithfully" bring you your newspaper every morning,
but really is not able to promise or make any commitment to do so (the language is used analogically
in such cases). Making promises, explicit or implicit, is a distinctive human capacity.

Since love in the New Testament is patient and "never fails" (1 Cor. 13), fidelity/faithfulness may
properly be understood as representing the promise and perserverance of love. This human
capacity for making and keeping agreements, commitments and promises (including those involving
the sexual area) should be understood as the highest expression and demonstration of freedom--not
as the elimination of freedom (pace Smedes 1988:10; cf. 61-81). The sovereign freedom of Yahweh
as Exodus liberator in the Old Testament is supremely demonstrated in the capacity to make and
keep promises (Ex. 3:7-10; 6:2-8 etc.). One of the major errors of certain extremes in Gay and
Lesbian liberation ideology is the notion that making and keeping promises in the sexual area means
the elimination of freedom, as if human freedom were maximally expressed simply by responding on
the level of conformity to animal instincts.

In the sexual area, our cultural marriage vows commonly refer in euphemistic language to what
"everyone knows" and hence are hardly spelled out. When we get down to the knitty gritty of
heterosexual marriage counseling or advising gay men and lesbians about their relationships,
complications proliferate, especially when partners have rigid ideological notions of love and "fidelity"
that cannot be questioned. When a man has been suffered from impotence, or premature
ejaculation, or ignored his spouse socially and sexually, steals family valuables, repeatedly
abandons his life-partner (and is apparently unable/unwilling to do anything about his failures),
should he be judged "faithful" just because genital sex outside the relationship has been avoided?
When a woman ignores her spouse socially and sexually, suffers from permanent frigidity, becomes
alcoholic or a drug addict, gambles away the family money, shall she be judged "faithful" just
because genital sex outside the relationship has been avoided? Genetic and psychological profiles
(including many factors utterly off the map for Biblical writers) may be such that despite maximum
efforts of all concerned, anything but separation/divorce can be a recipe for disaster and tragedy.

An experienced counselor may follow a couple closely for many months and listen for hours. But
even then we are likely to know only the tip of the iceberg that constitutes a long-term, complex
relationship with many facets; hence we may counsel, but are hardly in a position to take over the
divine prerogative to judge. Much less are outside friends, family members, and ecclesiastical
organizations; yet rare is the couple experiencing separation or divorce that has not faced a barrage
of presumptuous condemnation. Few couples would ever want their whole marital and sexual history
publicly displayed for critical analysis and a superficial public verdict based on "sound-bites.". Hence
respect for privacy, especially in the sexual area, is essential for human dignity (except where
violence or abuse of children is involved; on privacy see further below under voyeurism, III:8).

Privacy is important politically as well as personally. Studies in various countries repeatedly reveal
that some 25% of the population is able to accept and approve of sexual minorities such as
bisexuals, lesbians and gay men; 25% disapprove, condemn, discriminate, and/or persecute; some
50% are undecided (don't really want to take the time and trouble needed to study the matter
carefully and make up their mind) but are willing to respect the civil rights and privacy of sexual
minorities (Kirk and Madsen 1989).
 
    Continue to
    next page
This website was reconstructed in June of 2007
Visits made to this web page since June 2007
"I have other sheep that are not of this
fold.  I must bring them in also."  
John 10:16
Counter

Writings

on this page...

Tom Hanks
on
Jacques Ellul &
Sexual "Ethics"

Other Sheep
Founder, 1992.

Other Sheep
Theologian and
Director of Mission
"I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.  I must bring them also."  
John 10:16 NRSV
Other Sheep Websites