In a recent video for PragerU entitled "Sex: What if the Bible is Right?" Sean McDowell considers the societal impacts of the "Sexual Revolution" and the counter-arguments in favor of the biblical standard for sex and marriage.
Let's consider three questions to understand that standard better.
First, what is the Bible's teaching on sex and marriage? Second, how does the Bible's teaching differ from the claims of the "Sexual Revolution"? And third, how might our societies be changed if people returned to the Biblical standard?
What is the Bible's Teaching on Sex and Marriage?
In Matthew 19:3-9, some Pharisees approach Jesus to test Him. They asked Him about divorce, but He brought the discussion back to marriage. (After all, if marriage is "done right," divorce is not a concern!)
Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh'?" (Matthew 19:4-5). They asked Jesus why Moses "commanded" them to "give her a certificate of divorce and send her away." Jesus told them that Moses had done so because people's hearts were hardened – in other words, they were not willing to follow God's command. Jesus then explained that divorce was not part of God's plan from the beginning.
That's the marriage part; sex is part of God's plan for marriage. Logically, if "the two become one flesh" – the result of sexual union – then God intends for sexual relationships to be experienced within the stability and security of a lifetime marriage covenant. That's also why the Biblical grounds for divorce, as explained by Jesus, are restricted to cases of "sexual immorality" (Matthew 19:9).
In the video, McDowell mentions God's commands regarding sexual relationships, which Moses relayed to the people at Mount Sinai. Leviticus 18 sets forth a number of God's commands in regard to sexual relationships and immorality. Interestingly, God begins these commands by telling the people "not to do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor…what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you" (Leviticus 18:3). In other words, other people may not follow God's laws, but God's people must do so.
The first part of Leviticus 18 deals with sexual relationships between relatives. It should go without saying that engaging in sexual relationships with family members is not a good thing! God then adds a number of other prohibitions, including adultery (sex with another person's spouse, Leviticus 18:20); same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22); and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). God's standard is clear: He designed sex to be between one man and one woman in a lifetime marriage relationship.
Some would argue that Christians should not insist on the Bible's standards for sex when other commands in the Old Testament are no longer followed. For instance, some have argued that God's prohibition against same-sex relationships is no different than His command not to eat pork or shellfish; Christians should not insist on one set of commands while ignoring others. This argument misses an important distinction. In the New Testament, God clearly abrogated the dietary prohibitions of the Old Testament (see, for instance, Mark 7:18-19). However, nothing in the New Testament nullifies God's commands on sexuality.
How Does the Bible's Teaching on Sexuality Differ From the Tenets of the "Sexual Revolution"?
In the PragerU video, Sean McDowell identifies three "principles" (he refers to them as "lies") of the Sexual Revolution:
- Sex is merely a leisure activity with no deeper meaning
- Men and women are interchangeable
- Consent alone makes sex moral
The biblical standards clearly contradict each of these ideas.
First, while sex is certainly enjoyable, it is not "merely a leisure activity with no deeper meaning." If, as the Bible clearly states, sexual union makes a man and a woman "one flesh," there is clearly something far deeper than mere "recreation" going on.
First, there is the creative aspect of sex – sex is how we reproduce. While sex is not only for reproduction, we cannot simply remove that element. Physically, humanity has tried to remove the reproductive element through birth control and through abortion, for example. In fact, much of humanity's efforts to separate the reproductive aspect from the "recreational" aspect is simply an attempt to remove one of the consequences of sinful behavior. It is no coincidence that the rise of the "Sexual Revolution" coincided with the development of birth control pills and other contraceptive methods. (This does not mean that birth control itself is "wrong"; it simply recognizes that, like many other things, "good" and "bad" use of birth control depends on human motives and actions.)
The second principle is that "men and women are interchangeable." Clearly, this is not what the Bible teaches! In the beginning, God created them "male and female" – both in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Men and women are complementary, not interchangeable. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Nowhere does Scripture indicate that men and women are interchangeable in this regard.
That does not mean that men are superior to women; the directive that men would be "in charge" in the family unity came after the Fall; in other words, it was the result of humanity's disobedience, not part of God's original plan.
"For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28, emphasis added). In the spiritual realm of Christ's kingdom, we are all one in Christ. But in the physical realm of God's creation, men and women are different; they are not interchangeable.
People who challenge Scripture often posit a conflict between science and faith. However, in this case, science – specifically biology – supports the teaching of Scripture. Men and women are physically and biologically different. Men cannot bear children. Neither men nor women can create a child on their own. It takes both. Modern efforts to create children outside the natural participation of both a man and a woman still require the elements each supplies. Two women can only become "parents" through the "donation" from a man. Two men can only become "parents" through a female surrogate. (Or through adoption, of course – but that takes the matter outside the scope of the sexual relationship.) Biology affirms, just as the Bible does, that men and women are different; they are not interchangeable.
The final lie of the Sexual Revolution is that consent alone makes sex "moral." That, of course, ignores the question of what "morality" is. Morality is defined as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." That entry also includes an alternate definition: "virtue in sexual matters; chastity." Consent, on its own, does not make a sexual relationship "moral." What does "consent" mean? The "Me Too" movement has demonstrated, for example, that coerced "consent" is no consent at all. The law recognizes that children under a certain age are deemed incapable of consent. Some people have argued that consent can be implied – if someone doesn't resist or complain "enough," have they consented? Clearly, there can be no "moral" sexual relationship without consent, but consent alone is not enough.
How Might Society Change if People Returned to the Biblical Standard For Sex?
In the video, McDowell says that when he discusses this question with his students, they generally identify several outcomes that would result if society returned to the Biblical standard:
- No pregnancies outside a loving, committed marriage relationship
- No pain and devastation from adultery
- No absent fathers
- Less domestic violence and child abuse
- No sex trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexually transmitted diseases
Why would McDowell talk about this - in the video, or in his classes? Why might people be interested in this subject? Clearly, people recognize the "fallout" from the Sexual Revolution. No matter how much secular culture may claim that sex can be separated from marriage and Biblical morality, deep down people recognize that something is missing - and the Bible points humanity back to its Creator, and His good plans for us.
Some may argue that it's impossible for society to "return" to the Biblical standard, because no society has ever fully adopted it. That misses the point. To the degree that a society encouraged its people to follow the Biblical standard, the incidence of those negative results would be lowered: fewer pregnancies outside a loving, committed marriage, less pain and devastation from adultery, fewer absent fathers, etc. And the fact that no society has ever perfectly adopted God's way is not an indictment of God's wisdom or His goodness; it is an indictment of humanity. Since the Fall, people have tried to "be like God" (Genesis 3:5). Every attempt has failed, and the pain and dysfunction of our world have resulted from that failure.
In the video, McDowell reminds his audience that Moses told the people that God's commands were for their good (see Deuteronomy 10:12-13). God's commands are still for our good. The Bible's teaching on sex is still relevant – and society would be far better served to follow God's way.
