2 posts tagged “sexuality”

This is an excellent article on a father's perspective regarding the right of his son, who has autism, to sexuality and to sex. 

Because this is not a Christian article, it made me think, what would a Christian perspective be on the subject of sex for people with developmental disabilities?

Legally and ethically, an adult with a developmental disability has the same rights and responsibilities to sexual activity as does anyone else.  The only way this right can be interfered with is through proper legal channels due to concern that the person may not be able to consent to sex or because the person's sexual behavior may be predatory toward others. 

Please understand.  A man or woman with a development's disability is not a child.  He or she has passed puberty and is a sexual being.  As do the rest of us, a man or woman with a developmental disability has the right to choose what he or she does with his or her sexuality.  To choose his or her own morals and to act on them.  Our responsibility as caregivers and loved ones is to educate and protect- but we cannot, nor should not, forbid sexual activity, unless someone is immediately being harmed.

What about the Christian man or woman with a developmental disability?  How do we, who have been given permission by this person, mentor his or her sexuality?

I haven't had the opportunity to do this yet.  My experience in the sexuality of those with developmental disabilities has been in a secular setting, where all I had to offer the person were his or her legal rights, counsel on choosing his or her own morals, and counsel on the physical and emotional consequences of sexual activity.  (The nurse was supposed to explain the, um, 'mechanics'.)

I look forward to walking this out with someone one day, not just from a 'Christian perspective', but from a relational perspective, based on the personal relationship between God and the woman I would mentor.  I look forward to affirming her personhood by affirming and protecting her sexuality and inviting her to surrender her sexuality to God.  And I look forward to the good things God will do through her sexuality. 

I look forward the woman making her own decisions about sexual activity as much as she is able, based on what God has taught her through His Word.  I look forward to her deciding for herself to choose God and His laws and deny her flesh unless married, as all of us single women must do, through the power of the Holy Spirit, through which is our only ability to do such a difficult thing.

I look foward to offering her grace and assuring her of God's grace and forgiveness should she fall.

One day soon, I hope...

I was skimming Rob Bell's book Sex God at the library one day, when I came across this paragraph on page 46.

You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are.  If you're still upset that God gave you this body or this life or this family or these circumstances, you will never be able to connect with God in a healthy, thriving, sustainable sort of way.  You'll be at odds with your maker.  And if you can't come to terms with who you are and  the life you've been given, you'll never be able to accept others and how they were made and the lives they've been given.  And until you're at peace with God and those around you, you will continue to struggle with your role on the planet, your part to play in the ongoing creation of the universe.  You will continue to struggle and resist and fail to connect.

Notice he starts the paragraph, a paragraph which may or may not hold some truth, with "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are." 

"No!  No!  No! No! No!", I screamed in my head at the time.  My thoughts were, "The opposite is true.  You can't be at peace with yourself until you are connected with God.  You cannot really know who you are until you know Who God is and who you are in Him."  If I'm created in the image of God, to know myself, I must know Him first.  If I am to become at peace with who I am before connecting with God, I would have to create this God in my image.  For, if I am at peace with who I think I am in my flesh, then the only way to connect with God is to make Him agree with who I want to be or feel I am.

Furthermore, connecting with God, in that first connection, is contingent upon God's law of grace and His act of atonement.  Connection with God is His action, not mine, an action of Him reaching down to me, drawing me to Christ, kindly leading me to repentance and acceptance and faith in His work of the Cross.  That is how I connect to God.

To really connect with God, in our first connection, I must not be at peace with myself.  I must be frustrated with my sin and in recognition of my complete inability to save myself.

So, I've begun reading the whole book to understand what he was saying in context, because reading anything in the correct context is crucial to actual understanding.  And it's only fair to the author.  I need to know what led up to Bell's conclusion that one must be at peace with himself first to connect with God.  However, I've got to tell ya, reading this book- I have a lot of questions.  His writing is at the same time seems very deep and very vague to me.

As one who has struggled with her sexuality and discovered that indeed sexuality is about relationships and identity, not just sex, I agree with Bell's premise of the book, Sex God, that sexuality and spirituality are connected.  Bell contends that sexuality is actually about connecting with God, others, and the earth.  (He had me until 'the earth'.)  I can see there is some truth in what Bell says.  He talks about how empty and unsexual sex is when there's no connection.  Deep stuff.

But I am bothered that in the first chapter, he appears to change the meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:27-30, which reads,

27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

That's pretty straightforward to me.  Looking at a woman with lust is the same thing as committing adultery.  It's better to lose your eye if lusting through it continues to be a problem, because it's better to lose an eye than to go to hell.  In simpler form, sinning in your heart is sin as much as sinning in your actions.  Don't sin.  Hell is a consequence of sin.

However, in the context of men and women being created in the image of God, Bell twists this Bible passage to mean that when we do not treat one with respect to their image bearing selves (by lusting after a woman), "[Jesus's] point is that something serious- something hellish- happens when people are treated as objects, and we should resist it at all costs." (pg 22)

Bell makes this teaching after he redefines Heaven to mean, "where things are as God wants them, under the rule and reign of God" and Hell to mean, "a realm where things are not as God wants them to be.  Where things aren't according to God's will.  Where people aren't treated as fully human." (pg 21)

Redefining Biblical terms and Biblical meanings.  I sense trouble. 

Bell goes on to write that, based on the fact that the early Christian have all been united through the resurrected Jesus Christ, "this new commonality is simply bigger than all of the things" (like race) "that had previously kept them apart."   He says the first Christians called this the "new humanity", but gives no reference for this term. (pg 24)  Bell says, "The new humanity is about seeing people as God sees them." (pg 25)

I like this idea very much, "seeing others as God sees them" being a new humanity, the new standard by which we treat each other.  But Bell seems to miss a couple of crucial steps here.  Salvation and regeneration.  How are we going to become a part of this new humanity that treats others well without becoming a new human being, one changed out of our selfish fleshly state?  More thought on that idea, here.

In chapter two, on the subject of connection, remembering that sexuality is about connection, Bell writes about our connection the earth.  He writes that from the fall, in addition to disconnection from God and each other, we are also disconnected from the earth. (pg 40)  He talks about nature and how the words we use to describe moments like an experience he had with his sons swimming with dolphins "are about nearness and connection, sometimes even intimacy." (pg 41)

Until this point, I was understanding Bell's use of the word 'connection' to be about relationship.  But relationship with the earth?  Is that what he means? 

I understand that we are to be good stewards of our planet.  But connected to it?  I don't understand what he means by this. 

When I went to Colorado a couple of years ago with my mom, there came a point where the beauty of the mountains became so overwhelming that I had to close my eyes.  I don't think that was me connecting to the mountains, though.  I think it was being overwhelmed by beauty.  And, perhaps, by the glory that is revealed in of our Creator in His creation.

Seeing Him revealed in His creation, I understand.  Connection to nature itself, though... what does that mean?

At the end of this chapter, chapter 2, Bell makes the statement, "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are."  That is as far as I've gotten so far.  I hope in the next chapters Bell explains this statement and all the other ones that have left me confused and asking questions.   I'm really not connecting with this book.