BOTH SINNER AND JUSTIFIED:
A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FAMILY SYSTEMS AND THERAPY (1990)
The Rev. Christopher Noel Hershman, MA, STM, DMin, CGP, CFLE, CAS, LP, LMFT, LPC
Marriage, Intimacy and Family Systems
Scripture tells us that, "...the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him'" (Gen. 2:18).
People get married for companionship and many other reasons. Males and females make "fit" companions for each other because of the complementarity of maleness and femaleness in creation. Not only are males and females complementary to each other, but also have equality in relationship to each other and to God. Together they reflect the image of God.
This is clearly evident in the parallelism of the Hebrew text: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:26-27). Finding identity through one thing, such as a job or a relationship is contrary to biblical teaching. It turns a created thing into a false god or idol, seeks after self- salvation, and neglects numerous other levels of relationship, including with God, self and others. Consequently, marriage and family are not the ultimate goals for human life (cf. Matt. 10:37). A healthy marriage does not mean the loss of identity or absorption into another person, but provides for a hightening of identity (Achtemeier, 1976). Healthy marriages allow partners to be more than they could be as individuals, not less.
This contrasts with many marriages which hinder differentiation, and which were contracted for unhealthy reasons. Healthy relationships necessitate the development of intimacy. This is frightening because intimacy means being vulnerable to and trusting another person within a relationship whereby both have freedom and acceptance to be individuals while participating in a relationship which facilitates mutual growth. In other words, intimacy means having a sense of self which is strong enough to exist in relationship with another without losing self in the dynamics of domination and submission.
Bowen taught eight concepts (1978) that are foundational for understanding marriage and family systems. The first concept is "differentiation of self."
Persons have a basic or solid self, and a pseudo self. The solid self has an internal locus of control, remains stable under stress, and is uninfluenced by the relational system. Meanwhile, the pseudo self is negotiable in relationship with others, and is changed under pressure. Differentiation of self is the ability of a person to be able to exist side by side with others and still be different.
Bowen proposed that individuals can be rated on a Differentiation Scale, which has been determined by the level of parents, type of relationship with parents, and unresolved attachment to parents upon leaving home. Persons on the lower level of the scale: are rigid, and can't distinguish between thinking and feeling (and live in a very feeling or thinking dominated world); are not able to realistically evaluate self, and spend much energy in seeking approval from others; have unrealistic expectations regarding relationships (which are characterized by fusion), and react acutely to the problems of others without the ability to emotionally detach; experience chronic anxiety and are highly vulnerable to stress and illness.
At the same time, persons at the higher level of the scale: can distinguish between fact and feeling, and value both; are able to realistically appraise self, do not hold others responsible for their happiness or other feelings, and allow others to be themselves; desire emotional connection with others, but do not lose self in relationships; are able to accept differences of opinion and change; are not afraid to encounter stress, move through stressful situations and recover rapidly from them.
Bowen's second concept is "triangulation." A triangle are an emotional avoidance mechanism, that attempt to maintain homeostatic equilibrium in a family system by dissipating stress through the pulling in of a third party. A triangle is the basic molecule of a family system, because diads are not stable in themselves, and tend to gravitate toward triangles. The less differentiated systems tend to be characterized by a higher degree of triangulation. Some examples of triangulation include alignments, coalitions and alliances, as well as indirect communication, griping, secrets, extramarital affairs, and addiction to substances or work.
Bowen's third concept is the "nuclear family emotional system." This concept is that patterns from family of origin are replicated in forthcoming marriages and families. This means that spouses tend to be at a similar level of differentiation, and are complimentary to each other. This is because individuals at either a higher or lower level of differentiation create anxiety. It is also true that the lower the level of self differentiation, the higher the degree of emotional fusion. While many individuals take a victim role in life, define themselves as innocent victims of circumstance, and triangulate about how badly they are being abused, persons actually enter into relationships in which they are complimentary to each other. This means that in fact they have some responsibility for the overall dynamics of the relational system. Some complicity exists simply by remaining and functioning within a system. In marriages, the dominant spouse tends to gain self at the expense of the adaptive spouse, who may then tend to display a symptom of dysfunction. Distancing and marital conflict are common ways of reducing anxiety. Another way that anxiety is absorbed is through the "family projection process," which is
Bowen's fourth concept. The family projection process begins with the birth of a child, as parents begin to project their own anxiety upon the child, evoking an anxious response. When this happens, parents are really responding out of their own anxiety and needs, but the child becomes more demanding and impaired. When there is stress between parents, it is often absorbed by the children and manifested by symptoms. These symptoms occur, because the children do not know how to function in any other way. The family projection process especially becomes a problem during adolescence, when children need to function on their own. This process can also be called parentification, and involves unconsciously selecting a child to be a symptom bearer or scapegoat for the family. The more fused the system is, the more severe the symptoms will be.
Bowen's fifth concept is the "multigenerational transmission process." This concept refers to the emergence over a number of generations of children with higher or lower levels of differentiation of self. This is how severe dysfunctions are developed through family systems. For example, Bowen (1978) believed that it took at least three generations to create a schizophrenic. This multigenerational transmission process works because no child or family exists in a vacuum. When a child enters into a family system either through birth or adoption, that child enters a system that has a history. This history includes crises as well as successes, traumas as well as glories, victimizations as well as accomplishments. In addition, the family system has also been influenced by generations of interrelationships and styles of relating. These are the legacies which are assumed by a child through being a participant in a family system. They may be experienced negatively through emotional/physical neglect or exploitation. The individual who has been neglected or exploited may carry this legacy of negative entitlement throughout life, and may neglect or exploit others in order to fulfill unmet needs. Often these legacies have continuing impact from one generation to another. Boszormenyi-Nagy calls this a revolving slate (1986).
Bowen's sixth concept is called "sibling position profiles." This means that children learn to accept a role in the family system. These roles are learned and continue into adulthood as characteristic ways of relating to others. Examples of these roles are the oldest as "family hero," the "scapegoat," the "lost child," and the "mascot" (Woititz, 1983).
Bowen's seventh concept is "emotional cut-off." This is an unhealthy way of separating from parents in order to live in the present. It is akin to running away. Individuals who do not go through the process of differentiation tend to duplicate their parental relationships through new relationships.
Finally, his eighth concept, is that of "societal regression," which means, that institutions and that society as a whole can regress to lower and lower levels of differentiation of self.
Justification
Justification is the way which God defines and shapes people as the subjects of faith through his grace. Justification is the center of the Gospel, which is the unconditional acceptance of the sinner on account of Jesus Christ. This is hard to grasp because human life is often limited by legalisms, moralisms and conditions. Consequently, people are suspect of and distrusting of unconditional love, because all they know is the conditional love of human life. Full and complete justification by unconditional decree is death and resurrection (Forde, 1982), and means a complete change in thinking.
Death and resurrection are not just metaphor, symbol or allegory, but the opportunity for new life experienced through the unconditional acceptance by God of unworthy sinners. As the central core of Christian theology, justification offers a new way of approaching all the problems and issues of which life consists.
As baptized people, Christians are not removed from the arena of human sin. Instead, through baptism the guilt of original sin is removed (Jensen, 1984) and Christians are freed to approach life with a new self- understanding and perspective on life and the world. This is a 'now, but not yet' experience of living in the world, yet not being of the world (Jn. 17: 14ff.).
Lutheran theology terms this living within these two realms the doctrine of the "Two Kingdoms" (Forde, 1984), because Christians simutaneously live in tension between the two realms of the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of this world. Christians cannot simply accept the authority of the world as definitive for Christian life, but also acknowledge that God ultimately rules over both kingdoms, and acts within the realm of human history (Pannenberg, 1969).
Several metaphors are used to describe and understand justification. The first is the moral or legal metaphor, which speaks in terms of law, morality, and justice. The other is the life-death metaphor, which spoke in terms of mortality, dying to the old and rising to a new life in Christ and the Spirit. Both are helpful and necessary (Forde, 1982).
Faith is a living relationship of trust, which Schleiermacher described as "the feeling of absolute dependence." To know Christ is to accept his Lordship, and as Melanchthon wrote, "...to know his benefits" (Mildenberger, 1986, p. 76). The surrender of human will and power over to the care of God, and daily dependence upon him is the transforming power of the Gospel. Bultmann described this as being more than just a psychological act of coming into consciousness, but a transformation of one's entire situation, through which the understanding self, other people and world takes on a new character (1958, p. 75).
Through faith Christians can be open to the future with hope because God is the power of the future. Pannenberg (1969, p. 25) writes that the truth of the universe is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Sin is the distrust or unbelief that builds defenses against the future, because without faith the future is a threat. The Christ event, however, is a proleptic event which allows us to experience a foretaste of the future of God in which the power of sin, evil and suffering is destroyed (Pannenberg, 1977). The Gospel allows the people of God to have hope (CA XVII) because the promises of God as revealed through the death and resurrection of Jesus mean that God himself is the future. God is the power of the future. And being assured of the absolute victory of God over the forces of evil in the world, God's people can experience a new self-understanding, and be open to the future with hope.
Scripture is the cradle of the Gospel.
The purpose of scripture is the proclamation of God's Word. Christ himself is present in this Word, which is God personally addressing himself to the sinner (Mildenberger, 1986, p. 75). God does not work without his Word (Tappert, 1959, p. 471). This means that the message of the Gospel is not found through introspection, proper behavior, works, or religious experience. Rather, God approaches sinners through his external Word. It is the external Word, which is the application and interpretation of the scriptural witness to Jesus Christ, that mediates and announces the activity of the Holy Spirit in people (Mildenberger, 1986). We need the gospel that comes to us as a Word from outside ourselves in order to recognize God's activity and differentiate it from our own inner feelings, for without the Word, faith is trapped in the ambiguity of human experience, and is not addressed personally to individuals (Mildenberger, 1986, p. 42).
Faith does not stem from internal process, but results from hearing and responding to the Word of God which comes from outside of ourselves. Through the external Word individuals learn about faith and realize where the Holy Spirit is at work in us. The Holy Spirit is God working personally in people, works only through the external Word of the Gospel, and may be described as God making a saving relationship possible (Mildenberger, 1986, p. 75).
The church, as the family of God, exists to proclaim this Good News. It does not exist to serve simply as the moral guardian of society, a role to which it is often relegated, but is "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel" (CA VII).
Hearing the Word of God is an external and cognitive experience of being challenged by the law of God's judgement which, on the one hand condemns us as unrighteous sinners and drives us to grace, and on the other hand releases and frees us from the power of sin by the power of God's promises and their impact on our lives. Its power is experienced through the power of the opening up of scripture as to its meaning for the daily lives of believers.
The sacraments are visible forms of the Word. They are not magical but function as visible forms of the Word and draw the believer to God's promises. The power of both Word and sacraments is to bring us to the reality of God's promises in the here and now, that we may know nothing but Jesus and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2), that we have entered into to community to whom his promises are addressed through our baptism into Christ, and that the body and blood of Christ have been given and shed for us. Because faith results from thankful response by believers, there is no such thing as perfection or a righteousness through proper behavior.
In a sinful world, there are no choices that are perfect, and no persons without sin (1 Jn. 1). Individuals who claim to be righteous generally are in denial of the real implications of their attitudes, behavior, inaction, selfishness and self-satisfaction. Righteousness can only be found through relationship with God, and is a result of faith (Ro. 4).
The centrality of the Good News of God's unconditional acceptance which is proclaimed through the Christ event allows Christians to rejoice with the knowledge that human worth is a gift which is offered and received through the power of God. Because justification is a gift (Ro. 3:24) Luther insisted that the real enemy of the grace of God is not so much the so-called 'godless sinner,' but precisely the 'righteous' who think in terms of moral process and progress which renders grace fictional and gradually unnecessary (Forde, 1982, p. 31).
If this were true, justification as a unconditional gift would make little or no sense at all. The more perfect one became, the less grace one would need, until one would finally be in a position where one could get along without it at all. Grace would be like an initial loan to help the sinner along at the begining, and sanctification the process of paying off the loan (Forde, 1982). The spontaneity of the believer in living a Christian life can be understood as dependence on the Gospel. As soon as believers begin to think about their faith, rather than the Gospel, the reality of faith begins to disintegrate (Mildenberger, 1986, p. 91).
Christian growth is not human movement towards a goal, but the movement of Christ towards us. Christians do not get better and better, but Christ becomes more and more the center of our lives (Prenter, 1953).
The problem for the Christian is that he or she does not believe that he or she is good in God's eyes because of the conditionality of human life. Can we believe what God has declared? Can we trust in God and giving our lives over to his care, dying to the old, and rising to live? Forde (1982, p. 22) wrote, "Just be still, shut up, and listen for once in your life to what God the Almighty, creator and redeemer, is saying to his world and to you in the death and resurrection of his Son! Listen and believe!"
Jesus summarized the law by teaching that we are to love God with heart soul and mind, and neighbor as self (Mt. 23:37, 39). We are to abide in the love of God (Jn. 15:9). Foundational to Christian ethics, is that relationship with God alone results in positive action. Left to ourselves, without any awareness of God's love and acceptance, we experience worthlessness and resort to self-seeking acts of sin and evil. We can only love God because we have heard the Gospel and know that we have worth through him which heals us. Only by being healed can we shed our self-absorption and love others.
As Christians we participate in a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ. The ability to truly love others, be intimate with them, and nurture them, stems from this primary relationship. As relationship with God in Christ grows, behavior is influenced through the development of character. and thereby positively changed as a by-product of the process. For this reason, it is said that, "Good works do not make a person good, but a good person does good works" (Forde, 1982, p. 51).
This does not mean that Christians do not have particular values which are based on response in faithfulness to Christ, and which shape Christian life through belonging to this distinctive community of character (Hauerwas, 1981), and which therefore shape character in the lives of Christians. This is because, although on the one hand, Christians are freed from the law (Gal. 5:1), on the other hand, Christians are also called to responsible life in the world (Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 9; Ja. 2:26).
This perspective calls Christians to always return to the core Gospel message, which has the power to change us in real and powerful ways. It also means that Christians will have a distinctive approach to ethical issues involved with life in the world. The proper core of Christian ethics, including ethical perspectives on marriage and family issues, is the Good News of God's unconditional acceptance. It is through this acceptance that human behavior is changed.
Human Sexuality and Marriage
Sexual intercourse is a joyful means of giving oneself in the mutual expression of love, and it is through the permanent covenant of marital fidelity that the full potential of sexual intimacy, personal growth, and the responsible conception of children is realized. Biblical theology affirms that we have been created as social beings in community and for community (Nelson, 1978). Since human identity and existence is experienced through community and through relationships with God and others, and since human sin has broken and distorted this human community and all relationships, the Gospel functions to restore human community and these relationships.
As creator, God has blessed his children with many gifts. Human sexuality is "a sign, a symbol, and a means of our call to communication and communion" (Nelson, 1978, p. 18). It is much more than what we do with our genitals. This is why the Old Testament has regulations regarding sexual behaviors such as bestiality (Ex. 22:19), homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), incest (Lev. 18:6-18), rape (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:28-29), and adultery (Deut. 22:22).
Sexual experience is deeply interwoven with our sense of identity, our being and our personhood. It is also the way in which we can be most intimate with another. This intimacy is experienced through the trust and vulnerability shared in the marriage relationship. The sexual expression between husbands and wives is good, positive and a integral to the relationship. In fact, Paul writes that husbands and wives should not avoid sexual intercourse, but should be concerned about the each other's sexual needs, because their bodies belong to each other (1 Cor. 7: 1-7). The only exception that he suggests, is for a short period of time for the purpose of prayer.
Often, the Bible is misused as a sourcebook for prooftexts to make women inferior and subservient to men. This is neither helpful nor true to the real meaning of the biblical texts. While understanding the cultural context, and exploring how women were treated by Jesus and Paul is more helpful than turning to any particular text, a text must also be understood within its scriptural context. For example, in Ephesians 5:22-23 it says, "Wives, be subject to your husbands ...For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church." This passage begins with, "Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ" (vs. 21), and later, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (vs. 25)." Further, it says that "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies" (vs. 28). In addition, in light of Jesus teachings about servanthood (cf. Lk. 22:24-27; Jn. 13: 2-20, etc.) these passages simply do not place a divine stamp of approval upon social practices that discriminate against women. Rather, their function was to maintain order in the early Christian community amid its social context.
Both Jesus and Paul were very open to the involvement of women in their ministries. In the early decades of Christianity women were equal to men and participated in every level of church activity (Scroggs, 1976). Only later were women placed in subordinate roles. The equality of men and women has profound implications for how men and women are able to be in healthy relationships that express mutual values, needs and interests.
Unfortunately, we have been deeply influenced by hellenistic thought, which set up dualistic polarities between mind and body, as well as between male and female. These dualisms alienate individuals from the depth of feelings, and therefore, from reality and from self. In this type of thinking the body simply becomes an object to be used, and to feel shame about. Because alienation is the root of sin, this is a failure to become who and what we are. Alienation from one's body is part of our experience of alienation from God (Nelson, 1976). In contrast to this way of thinking,
Hebraic biblical thinking is wholistic, and understands the body and mind as an integrated self. Christian theology is also incarnational. Scripture (Jn. 1: 14) tells us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as a human and therefore a necessarily sexual being. The reality of the incarnation affirms that the body is a good creation of God. By the incarnation, our personhood as wholistic, physical as well as spiritual beings, is affirmed. This strictly contrasts dualistic notions that the flesh is evil, insignificant or something of which we should be ashamed.
In order to be fully human and to live in human community, it is necessary to be both a physical and sexual being. This is the only way that persons have identity. As wholistic beings we cannot be known or have identity without our bodies, which are by nature sexual. To be in touch with one's body and one's feelings is to be in touch with reality. Perhaps it is because our sexuality is so essential to our personhood and identity, that power motives, based on the domination of one person or group over others who are to be submissive, have so often been expressed through acts of violence and repression that have involved sexuality. This includes the sexual discrimination of women, as well as the occurance of rape. This is also true of homosexual rape in situations such as prisons. These forms of sexual repression and violence are not new. Throughout history, women were often treated as property. In the ancient world, conquering armies generally saw the rape of women, and even captured male prisoners of war, as part of the spoils. For the same reason, it seems that human culture has tended to be preoccupied with the notion that sexual sin is distinctly more serious and 'sinful' than other types of sin.
The biblical canon, including the teachings of Jesus and Paul, does not display this distinction (cf. Mt. 5; 1 Cor. 5,6) but points to the lack of distinction between sins or levels of sin (cf. Ja. 2: 8-13), as well as to the sinful tendency for individuals to point to the speck in another person's eye, while ignoring the log hanging out of his or her own (Lk. 6: 41).
Many other types of sins, including gossip and anger, are often listed along with sexual sins, as behaviors to avoid (cf. Ro. 1: 26-32, 13: 11-14, etc.). The biblical canon tends to always display sin as not fulfilling the obligations of a relationship. These cultural notions, however, have tended to result in a number of perspectives that are really not helpful.
On the one hand, there is the perspective that attempts to retain conservative reservation about human sexuality. Extremes in this camp call masturbation and pre-marital petting sinful.
Traditional Lutheran recourse to the 'orders of creation' (Thielicke, 1979) also tends to fall into this danger of simply affirming the status quo, what ever that may mean, and presents this as the norm for Christian sexuality. On the other hand, the opposite extreme of the dialectic assumes the possibility of sexual neutrality, in which sexuality and values can be kept separate by individuals. Extremes in this camp promote sex as just an adult recreational activity.
Neither of these approaches is helpful, because on the one hand, they do not do justice to God as creator and redeemer who continues to relate to the contemporary human situation, and on the other hand, they are not really all that helpful to people of faith who live in a modern sinful world. This is very clear in a clinical situation, where neither judgement nor permission is particularly helpful. Actually, one often discovers that individuals who have been promiscuous do not ascribe to a valueless understanding of sexual behavior. Instead, they tend to be self-destructive rigid individuals with a very low sense of self-esteem, who judge themselves without mercy for their behavior. They may also be emotionally-needy persons who were abused psychologically or sexually as children, and who have a very diffuse conception of personal boundries.
It must also be noted that while there are many similarities between persons living in any historical period, there are also some distinct differences between our era, and those that have passed before. Obviously, the women's movement, the advent of birth control, the legalization of abortion and the ability to treat many sexually transmitted diseases have resulted in a revolution in attitudes about human sexuality. This revolution has only been partially off-set through the emergence of AIDS and the prevalence of other sexually transmitted diseases such as Herpes.
Increases in standards of living and technology also play factors, through the extention of life and health (e.g. the average life expectence in 1900 was only 45, and there was a very high infant mortality rate), the earlier arrival of puberty, and the postponement of marriage in advanced industrial cultures. These factors, as well as others, have contributed to a situation in which adolescents and young adults are not able to sexually express themselves in socially acceptable ways in the same way that they could in past generations.
In addition, persons are not willing to remain in unhappy marriages for the many more years of life which may remain ahead. Because of better awareness and education, individuals are also not as willing to simply accept or continue in a situation of misery or abuse. Obviously, there is also the negative effect of the incredible stress, transformation and pressure which has been placed upon marriage and the family. The traditional functions of the family included: the control of sexual access and relations; to provide an orderly context for reproduction; to nurture and socialize children; to furnish emotional nurture for its adult members; to provide a context for economic activity; and to ascribe social status to its members (Nelson, 1978, pp. 130-131).
In our modern social context, each of these functions is in crisis. For this reason, one cannot simply recourse to traditional explanations and assumptions about marriage and fidelity. Nor can one simply decide to do something entirely new and detached from traditional values. One must be able to look at the core meaning of scripture, and relate scriptural principles to the needs of contemporary persons in ways that go beyond both the valuelessness and permissive social standards of 'the enlightened' who live in the present, and blind adherence to the social norms of the past.
The Lutheran Church in America statement Sex, Marriage, and Family (1970) pointed out that ethical decisions are made in the context of relationships with God and other persons, as well as within the daily awareness of alienation and need for forgiveness. Christians are aware that there is freedom to choose how best to serve one another in Christian love, and that all people are unique individuals with particular gifts and responsibilities, and who live in particular places and relationships. Yet people need more than love to regulate life amid a sinful world. This is true, even though finite human laws can never be the direct expression of Christian love. Even so, Christians should support just laws which promote love and good order in society and human relationships.
But beyond laws and regulations, Christians continue to question how to live lives of character in the world. On the basis of a wholistic perspective on human sexuality, Nelson (1978) developed three principles as a way of attempting a responsible, helpful and practical way of approaching sex, marriage and family issues:
(1) love requires a single standard and not a double standard of sexual morality (i.e. the need for a sense of equality in relationships between men and women);
(2) the physical expression of one's sexuality with another person ought to be appropriate to the level of loving commitment present in the relationship (This principle challenges notions of morally neutral, valueless or casual sex); and
(3) genital sexual expression should be evaluated in regard to motivations, intentions, the nature of the act itself, and the consequences of the act, each of which is informed and shaped by love.
In light of these principles, Nelson (1978, p. 157) argues that within our present sexual context there is a world of difference between "morally-justifiable acts of intercourse before marriage," and "recreational sex" or "fun sex." This means that sexual behavior cannot simply be reduced to the simple distinctions of good and bad, or right and wrong.
If a couple is engaging in pre-marital sexual expression, it is helpful to make some distinctions between levels of sexual involvement. It is also helpful to reflect upon the meaning and context of the sexual behavior: in regard to their relationship with God and with each other; in regard to responsible moral choices such as the transmission of disease and possible pregnancy; in regard to the meaning of the sexual expression in light of the intimacy of the relationship, the future of the relationship, and the responsible choice to marry; and finally, the impact of the couple's behavior through its modeling of morality upon family, friends and society at large.
In regard to particular sexual practices, such as fantasy, erotic literature, masturbation, oral intercourse, anal intercourse, sado-masochism, and varities of positions in genital intercourse, a Christian may find some guidance through Paul's statement that nothing is unclean in itself (Ro. 14: 14), as well as a concern for the integrity and personhood of individuals that they not be debased or exploited.
Reflecting on popular assumptions about what is "devient behavior," one needs to question the meaning of "devience" in light of ambiguous social "norms," as well as continuing to reflect upon what practices are truly an expression of fidelity and love. For example, although masturbation has often been considered sinful, there is no biblical basis for this perspective.
The often cited story of Onan (Gen. 38: 6-10) really has nothing to do with masturbation. In this story Onan prematurely withdraws as an attempt to refuse to fulfill the requirements of a relationship, and is struck dead. Medical opinion seems to understand masturbation as normal and healthy. Is there any real basis for considering masturbation a sin? Obviously, there may be times when it is not helpful or loving to masturbate, such as the interference with normal intercourse within the context of marriage.
Celibacy
If the primary reason for marriage is understood as companionship, then marriage is not considered either a better or worse state than celibacy. Individuals can responsibly choose not to marry. In fact, Paul himself was celibate and holds up celibacy, and therefore chastity, as a positive choice (1 Cor. 7: 8, 26). But he does not hold up celibacy as the preferable choice for everyone. It is a gift, and he believes that it is better to marry than to be aflame with sexual passion (1 Cor. 7: 9).
Unfortunately, the church has often transmitted confusing signals regarding the unmarried. On the one hand, it has been legislated into a requirement for religious professionals in the Roman Catholic church, while on the other hand, the church has often tended to imply that being single is not good as being married. Specifically, single people have felt excluded from many elements of church life. Presently, the increasingly frequent instance of single, divorced, and widowed, many with children, presents the church with a responsibility to be more inclusive and responsive to the needs of single people.
Birth Control, Procreation Ethics and Abortion
Traditional notions of marriage often cite the blessing "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 28) as a proscription that:
(1) producing children is the primary reason for marriage, and is what gives men and women identity and a future life; and
(2) that for this reason a couple has no right to responsibly decide not to have children, or to limit the number of their children through the use of birth control.
Actually, the agrarian and pastoral context of this text, written during the period of Babylonian captivity, when the Hebrew people faced extinction as a people held captive in a foreign land, and who believed that eternal life came through having many children, does not find easy application in our context of an overpopulated world.
In any event, its scriptural context is that of a blessing, not a legalistic precept. Therefore, in light of the Gospel, a couple can responsibly choose to use birth control and to limit the amount of children which they have. Presently we are facing many ethical issues involving procreation. These include abortion, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, genetic screening and counseling, surrogate motherhood, the non-treatment of seriously handicapped newborns, genetic manipulation and ethical questions involving genetic screening and counseling.
Many ethical issues that emerge from these activities are serious matters which can only find difficult solutions. Often ethical reflection comes only after decisions have been made and technology is already available and accepted by many.
Unknown ethical and physical problems may also develop which presently may not even be forseen. For example, in regard to artificial insemination, the possiblity of genetic difficulties of the offspring of incestuous sexual partners who are themselves the unknowing offspring of the same annonymous sperm donor. We have already experienced in the media the anguish resultant from surrogate parenthood and the impassioned controversy regarding abortion.
On the positive side, much good has been accomplished through modern procreation technology. This is what makes the ethical dilemmas so difficult. Much more ethical reflection is needed on these issues. In the meantime, some Gospel centered principles are helpful in approaching these issues:
(1) People cannot be God, and need to realize that some things, such as the sex of one's child need to be out of our control;
(2) Since our worth as people is a gift of God and resultant to his unconditional love, fulfilled personhood is neither the result of, nor limited to being a parent;
(3) If parenthood is not possible for whatever reason, opportunities exist to adopt or serve God through many other forms of service and activities;
(4) People are created children of God, and are not to be treated as objects or exploited, whether used as 'baby factories' (as in surrogate motherhood), or as items to be bought and sold (as in surrogate motherhood, and in abuses of adoption, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization [as in court battles over the disposition of frozen embryos]); and
(5) the economic exploitation of economically poor women by the wealthy (as in surrogate parenthood) is an injustice which cannot be tolerated.
Abortion also evokes a number of pertinent theological and ethical issues. Several passages in scripture (Ps. 139: 13; Lk. 1: 13, 31, 41; etc.) point to the personhood of a fetus from the moment of conception. This has also been the traditional teaching of the church. Therefore, the termination of a fetus at any point is a matter of utmost seriousness. This means that abortion cannot simply be considered an ethically neutral act.
REFERENCES
Achtemeier, E. (1976). The committed marriage. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Adler, A. (1954). Understanding human nature. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett.
Althaus, P. (1972). The ethics of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Althaus, P. (1966). The theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Barth, K. (1959). Dogmatics in outline. N.Y.: Harper & Row.
Beare, F. The Gospel according to Matthew. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Behm, J. (1967). Metanoia. Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. IV). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. & Krasner, B. (1986). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. N.Y.: Brunner/Mazel.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.
Bultmann, R. (1958). Jesus Christ and mythology. N.Y.: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Ellis, A. (1983). The case against religiosity. N.Y.: Institue For Rational-Emotive Therapy.
Fiedler, F. (1950). The concept of an ideal therapeutic relationship. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, pp. 239-245.
Forde, G. (1982). Justification by faith - a matter of death and life. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Hauerwas, S. (1981). A community of character: Toward a constructive Christian social ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Heffner, P. (1984). The creation. In Braaten, C. & Jensen, R. Christian dogmatics (Vol. I). Philadelphia: Fortress.
Jensen, R. (1984). The means of grace: The sacraments. In Braaten, C. & Jensen, R. Christian dogmatics (Vol. II). Philadelphia: Fortress.
Keller, J. (1985). Let go, let God: Surrendering self-centered delusions in the costly journey of faith. Minneapolis, Augsburg.
Kysar, M. & Kysar, R. (1978). The assundered: Biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage. Atlanta: John Knox.
Lidz, T. (1983). The person: His and her development the throughout life cycle. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Lull, T. (1981). Weariness with our basic task? Partners 3: 2. pp. 12-15
Lutheran Church in America. (1986). A study of issues concerning homosexuality. Lutheran Church in America. (1970).
Sex, Marriage and Family. Mendenhall, G. (1962). Covenant. In Buttrick, G. The interpreter's dictionary of the Bible (Vol. I). Nashville: Abingdon.
Mildenberger, F. (1986). Theology of the Lutheran Confessions. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nelson, J. (1978). Embodiment: An approach to sexuality and Christian theology. Minn.: Augsburg.
Pannenberg, W. (1977). Jesus--God and man. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Pannenberg, W. (1969). Theology and the kingdom of God. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Prenter, R. (1953) Spiritus creator: Luther's concept of the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg.
Quanbeck, W. (1979). The Confessions and their influence upon biblical interpretation. In Reumann, J. (ed.) Studies in Lutheran hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Reumann, J. (ed.) (1979). Studies in Lutheran hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.
Scroggs, R. (1976). Woman in the New Testament. In Crim, K. The interpreter's dictionary of the Bible (Supplementary Vol.). Nashville: Abingdon.
Sponheim, P. (1984). Sin and evil. In Braaten, C. & Jensen, R. Christian Dogmatics (Vol. I). Philadelphia: Fortress.
Tappert, T. (Ed.) (1959). The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Thielicke, H. (1964). Theological ethics (Vol. 3: Sex). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology (Vol. I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
von Loewenich, W. (1976). Luther's theology of the cross. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
von Rad, G. (1973). Genesis. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Woititz, J. (1983). Adult children of alcoholics. Pompano Beach, FL: Health Communications.
|