Of all the ancient virtues, this one is not only out of step with contemporary culture but positively despised by it. At the beginning of the 21st century, many have accepted the idea that we are defined by sex—and I mean the activity, not simply our gender. Any attempt to introduce limits to sexual expression is then seen as an assault upon who I am, a violation of my fundamental human rights. Whatever else human beings are, they are sexual at the core. No wonder, then, that the decision to abstain from sexual activity—for whatever reason—is regarded as, well let’s face it, unnatural.

Christians have been worn down by the radical sexualization of culture that has occurred in the past few decades. I travel to church along a road which sports a billboard sign asking me, in letters two metres high, if I want longer lasting sex. I keep praying my little girls won’t notice it, but otherwise it doesn’t really bother me. Buses carry the poster for the movie version of Sex in the City. No one flinches. The current campaign by the gay lobby to gain legal and social acceptance means my breakfast radio is dominated by the subject too. And we seem to think this is all okay. As many Christian leaders have observed of late, sex is the dominant idol of the 21st-century West.

Of course, sex is good. It is part of God’s good creation which nurtures the relationship of a man and woman in marriage, and provides an opportunity for generous other-centredness at a unique level of intimacy. Christians enjoy sex. The Bible celebrates it. The ascetic rejection of all sexual expression as inherently evil is not Christian. Here is one of those points where the Bible would lead us to part company with good old Augustine of Hippo.

But are we really defined by sexual expression? Is it really right to say that engaging in sex is as necessary for genuine human identity as breathing oxygen? Could there be profound theological problems with the redefinition of what it means to be human in this particular direction? Are we really prepared to accept that all celibate men and women are deficient in some important way? Are those who—for various reasons—cannot or may not express themselves sexually being subjected to ‘sexual starvation’? Would refraining from sex “for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer” (1 Cor 7:5) really be sub-human? What would this lead us to say about the genuine humanity of Jesus Christ? Real human existence is fundamentally gendered, to be sure, but must it be actively sexual in order to be complete?

And so we return to chastity. Chastity is not quite the same as abstinence. It is not simply deciding against sexual activity for any reason. Chastity has a particular focus on the purity and wonder of sex within marriage. It is an expression of that thoroughly Christian determination to “let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb 13:4). Far from devaluing sex, chastity honours it in the context for which God created it. Single men and women embrace chastity because the marriage between a man and a woman is the only proper place for sexual activity. Married men and women have times when they embrace chastity as well—for instance, when they are apart from one another—because God’s good gift must not be polluted or undermined.

Not that long ago some twisted mind came up with the slogan ‘greed is good’. Perhaps it’s time we came up something much more profound: ‘Chastity is good because marriage is good’.

1 Comment »