Sexuality and Sex Therapy

A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal

Mark A. Yarhouse, Erica S. N. Tan

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780830864836
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Sexualité et genre dans la religion

The field of human sexuality is one of ever-increasing complexity, particularly for Christian therapists and psychologists seeking to be faithful to Scripture, informed by science and sensitive to culture. In Sexuality and Sex Therapy, Mark Yarhouse and Erica Tan offer a survey and appraisal of this field from a Christian perspective, which grounds sex therapy in the biblical affirmation of physicality and the redemptive purposes of human life. Integrating the latest research within a Christian worldview, the authors explore sexual dysfunctions as well as various clinical issues and treatments. Not only have Yarhouse and Tan written a standard resource for Christian therapists and counselors, but they also challenge the church to talk more honestly and openly about the blessing of human sexuality.Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) Books explore how Christianity relates to mental health and behavioral sciences including psychology, counseling, social work, and marriage and family therapy in order to equip Christian clinicians to support the well-being of their clients.

Part One

FOUNDATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

1

Sexuality in Theological Perspective

What is interesting about flying fish is their ability to use their pectoral fins to get sufficient speed—as much as 35 mph or more—to break the surface of the water and elevate into the air. They can fly up to four feet into the air and glide along the surface of the water for over 600 feet. They can do this multiple times, touching the surface and extending their flight for sometimes as long as 1,300 feet (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/flying-fish/?source=A-to-Z). While many fish are drawn to the light above the surface of the water, most fish do not have this level of exposure to the world above them. Fish live in the water, under the surface, breathing the water just as we breathe the air. Their blissful lack of awareness is sometimes used to illustrate something about people: we often are unaware of our beliefs, assumptions and values—our broad worldview—much like a fish (with the exception of flying fish, perhaps) is typically unaware of the water they live in.

We have seen something similar happen in training Christians in the fields of psychology and counseling broadly, as well as in sexuality and sex therapy more narrowly. That is, one of the dangers that comes with teaching in a Christian setting is that students can become so familiar with Christianity that they see it up close, sometimes taking it for granted, but often they are far less familiar with other worldviews or perspectives. Other worldviews and other religions can actually benefit from lack of familiarity because the curiosity that accompanies the lack of familiarity deepens the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. There is a risk in not taking the time to study what another worldview says about a topic the way we have become familiar with a Christian perspective on a topic.

We would like to spend some time examining what other worldviews and perspectives say about human sexuality and sexual expression. Christianity has important things to say about human sexuality; however, being overly familiar with those claims may make it difficult to appreciate them for what they are, and a lack of familiarity with worldviews that offer competing claims makes us unaware of other views of human sexuality.

We have also been impressed by how often the subtle assumptions of competing worldviews enter into the ways Christians reflect on important issues. As we will see, assumptions from naturalism may keep the Christian from reflecting on transcendent reality, let alone the connections between transcendent reality and human sexuality and its expression. The mental health fields are deeply steeped in naturalism because of their reliance on scientific methodology. While we understand and value the scientific method, it is not the beginning and end of discussions on the study of persons, including the study of human sexuality, so we are challenged to critically evaluate naturalistic assumptions when they conflict with a Christian worldview. The same can be said for humanism, a worldview that has made an indelible mark on contemporary mental health. Yet many of the assumptions in humanism are at odds with a Christian view of the person (theological anthropology), and they must be understood to advance our critical engagement and integration discussions. Finally, pluralism has entered into contemporary discussions, particularly for the next generation of Christians who are growing up in an age in which sincerity about one’s beliefs is often considered trump in comparison to the veracity of one’s claims. While we want to encourage sincerity, we need to think carefully about what is right and true—in terms of sexual ethics and morality—as well as what is felt strongly.

One of the best resources for exploring this topic of competing worldviews is the book The Meaning of Sex by Dennis Hollinger. He covers many different perspectives. For the purposes of this chapter, we are going to review what we see as the three most influential perspectives in our culture today: naturalism, humanism and pluralism.

Competing Worldviews

We begin with naturalism, a common worldview encountered within the field of contemporary psychology and the broader sciences in general. Then we discuss humanism and pluralism, both competing worldviews that are reflected in our current cultural emphasis on human potential and diversity.

Naturalism. The basic premise of naturalism is that there is no reality apart from what exists in nature, as well as what is observable in nature. There is no supernatural or transcendent reality. The preference among naturalists is to value contemporary science, the scientific method and scientific explanations for what we have confidence to believe in, to claim as constituting reality.

Naturalism can take a few different forms. Some (Goetz & Taliaferro, 2008) have distinguished between strict and broad forms of naturalism. The strict form of naturalism rejects reality apart from what exists in nature but also rejects consciousness. A broad form of naturalism recognizes consciousness but anticipates a future explanation of it. Both forms of naturalism reject the mind and the soul and any kind of true purpose to human experience.

When it comes to sexuality, sex is understood as a natural drive that has been imbued with significance within our sociocultural context. Sex is not in-and-of-itself special or inherently meaningful; rather, it is a natural, biological drive. From a naturalist perspective, for example, self-stimulation or masturbation is “just a form of biological release.” There is no emphasis on the effects of the behavior cognitively, emotionally, relationally or spiritually. When people raise questions about behaviors such as masturbation, premarital sex, use of erotica and so on, the questions are considered by the naturalist to be derived primarily from a sociocultural context of meaning imposed on the activity.

Morality and ethics derived from naturalism tend to look to the consequences of actions. So some sexual behavior might be viewed as “right” or “wrong” based on what results from the behavior rather than some other way of determining morality. For example, having multiple sex partners may not be beneficial because of an increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Living in a sociocultural context in which people who have made commitments to fidelity do not practice fidelity might be detrimental to society; so fidelity could be valued and infidelity seen as wrong, but more with reference to the consequences rather than to anything particularly substantive about the nature of faithfulness.

Hollinger critiques naturalism’s claims. For Christians, nature is from God, but it is not superior to God or even the primary reference point. It is certainly not all that there is. We can learn from nature, but nature is also fallen. It is touched by original sin and is distorted. Thus, it cannot provide a reliable basis for morality, as nature itself is groaning and eager for its redemption (Rom 8:22). Indeed, one of the challenges naturalism presents, according to Hollinger, is that it tends to keep people from identifying the abnormal, as we tend to think of the normal as that which merely exists in nature. Of course, many behaviors exist in nature; the Christian argues that the existence of behavior in nature is not a basis for the morality of or participation in that behavior.

Humanism. The fundamental assertion in humanism is that human beings are seen as of utmost significance. So humanism is concerned with the welfare of human beings, as they are deemed central to the narrative; they are the source of all purpose and morality (Hollinger, 2009). Humanists are often naturalists in their worldview. In other words, they too tend to see nature as all there is, but rather than see life as having no meaning, they are more likely to see genuine meaning and purpose in life, but they frame that purpose around the welfare and interests of humanity and what it means to be human.

The result of such an understanding of human being as the pinnacle of existence is that humanity determines what is right or wrong. Human beings do not look outside of themselves for moral guidance; they certainly do not turn to the divine or the sacred for answers to ethical or moral dilemmas or for answers on how to live one’s life.

A consequence of the high view placed on human experience can be seen in the humanists understanding of sexual ethics. Sexual ethics is based on human potential; it is based on human self-actualization (or what we have sometimes referred to as “sexual self-actualization”) and flourishing (Hollinger, 2009). Such a view rejects any ethical or moral claims by God but would look only to human beings for guidance on one’s ethical responsibilities. An example of a humanistic perspective of sexuality is that if the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate goal, it would not matter how someone becomes happy, even if the source of “happiness” was an extramarital affair.

A Christian critique of humanism is that God is the author of the human narrative. Indeed, God is the central figure in the person and work of Jesus Christ. While the humanistic worldview may uphold the perspective of human nature as fundamentally good, Christians may deem that view incomplete and distorted because the effects of the Fall and resultant sin are denied. Brokenness, including sexual brokenness, is a reflection of our fallen nature, and at the same time presents an opportunity for redemption.

In both humanism and naturalism we also see a tendency to find moral authority in the experience of the organism. This has been referred to as “organismic congruence” (APA, 2009, p. 18). This means that the organism has its own urges and drives that, when met, give a “sense of wholeness” (p. 18) to the organism that can quickly be translated as morally good behavior. A Christian alternative to organismic congruence is what has been referred to as “telic congruence” (p. 18). This refers to living in accordance with one’s values or sense of transcendent purpose or ideals. In other words, the Christian has historically looked outside of one’s own impulses to determine if those impulses are reliable moral guides for living. Telic congruence raises the question of transcendent purpose—do standards exist outside of (apart from) the organism? Do these standards provide a moral compass for one’s life? Christians have historically affirmed this position.

Pluralism. The third competing worldview we highlight is pluralism. This is the worldview that asserts that there are many diverse beliefs and values, including moral and ethical claims. None is better than the other; none has more of a claim to truth than the others. Pluralism is like going out to dinner at a buffet; there are a variety of food options at a buffet, and people gravitate to one option over another as a matter of personal preference or taste, not as a matter of which item is “better” in any meaningful sense of the word. When we apply this experience to ethical claims or moral values, the pluralist argues that the many diverse beliefs and worldviews that exist are all potentially legitimate and no one belief, value or ethic stands above the others as true or right.

Pluralism is particularly popular today in Western cultures in which there is a great regard for diversity of thought and experience; where intentions and sincerity tend to be valued above absolute truth or values. As an example, we recently heard one woman say that she would never participate in “naked hot-tubbing” with strangers; however, she felt that if someone wanted to, it was “their business” and they could do “whatever because it’s their preference.” Her own view of right and wrong was for herself and did not speak to values that transcend her personal preferences. “Each to his (or her) own” is the motto of the pluralist.

What is offensive to the pluralist about a Christian worldview is the exclusive claim to truth presented within Christianity. Christianity stands in sharp contrast to pluralism insofar as Christians make claims about God and truth and ethics that are not just one good idea among many. Rather, a Christian understanding is that God has revealed his purposes and will for human beings, for how we ought to relate to one another and to God.

When we extend the discussion to the area of sexuality, we see Christianity claims that in God’s revealed will are principles for human sexuality and sexual expression. These biblical principles are not mere opinion but reflect God’s will and character, as well as transcendent reality that we may not fully appreciate this side of eternity.

We also see today a culture that claims to value pluralism but has indeed merely the appearance of true pluralism. As Carson (2012) observes, “Genuine pluralism within the broader culture is facilitated when there is a strong Christian voice loyal to the Scriptures—as well as strong Muslim voices, skeptical voices, Buddhist voices, atheistic voices, and so forth” (p. 35).

Whereas we used to coexist with different truth claims (what Carson describes as the old kind of tolerance), we now live in a cultural setting in which there is great disdain for anyone who claims truth. As Carson points out,

the media may present popes such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI in a positive light, provided these popes are restricting themselves to ceremony or world poverty, but if they show how their beliefs impinge on social issues such as premarital and extramarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia, then they must be bigoted, out of date, slightly bizarre, even dangerous, and certainly intolerant. (p. 35)

These important cultural changes affect several discussions tied to sexuality and sexual behavior, particularly in areas with differing normative moral claims and visions for the human person, including homosexuality, sexual identity, gender identity, premarital sex, extramarital sex, abortion and so on.

In any case, we encourage students to reflect on the various worldviews that coexist with Christianity in our current cultural setting. It is important to understand different religious worldviews (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Buddhism), but it is just as important to recognize how competing worldviews found in naturalism, humanism and pluralism shape our cultural discourse, particularly in the area of sexuality and sexual behavior.

We find that many Christian students have struggled to contrast their own basic Christian commitments with other worldviews. They are familiar with Christianity but not with alternative explanations for understanding human experience, morality, ethics and sexuality. We should note too that Christianity has not always taught on sexuality with one voice or in a way that we recognize as correct today. We turn now to that discussion.

Christianity

Christianity as a world religion and as a worldview stands in contrast to competing worldviews such as naturalism, humanism and pluralism. But Christianity or the Christian tradition has its own unflattering history with sexuality and sexual ethics. There are many such instances we could highlight, but one is the medieval Christian view of sex, with its overvaluing of asceticism, which emphasized simplicity and abstinence from objects and activities that might induce feelings of pleasure. As Hollinger (2009) points out, Christian history records a time when asceticism was upheld as the preferred way to be a Christian (a “higher” way of living characterized by chastity, obedience and poverty) rather than a “lower” way of marriage and sexual behavior in that relational context.

These two contrasting ways of being a Christian (the higher path of asceticism and the lower path of marriage) fueled the notion that contrasted sharply with the “historic Hebraic affirmation of body life and sexuality,” and would be asserted in various forms by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian and other early church leaders in the West (Jones, 1999, p. 1107). Many Christians also viewed sex in marriage as tainted, a view held by Thomas Aquinas (Hollinger, 2009). This view obviously cast a shadow over a healthy and positive view of human sexuality and contrasts significantly with how Christians understanding sexuality and sexual behavior today.

In historical perspective this medieval Christian view of sex reflected a low view of the creation, the human body and our intended physical existence. It cast a vision of human sin as tied primarily to physical existence (rather than sinful self-centeredness) and suggested that the best response is asceticism (or strict obedience to a life of restraint) (Hollinger, 2009). It also fostered a rather narrow view of sexual behavior, as though it were solely for the purpose of procreation. This would have consequences, particularly much later in the twentie...