In the next edition of the pastoral journal Leaven an article of mine will appear entitled Regarding Sex: Beyond Hedonic Ambivalence. This particular edition of Leaven will focus on sexuality and my contribution is an attempt to help frame some of the theological and psychological dilemmas churches face as they approach sexuality.

I make three moves in the paper. The first move is to suggest that because churches so rarely discuss sex the conversational and theological void is filled with a hodge-podge of (often implicit) assumptions, many of which create problems. As an example, here is a part of the paper:

Implicitly, many people believe that sexuality exists on an erotic continuum (e.g., from kissing to sexual intercourse). Many people also implicitly assume that “sin” is a binary category (an act or mental state is a sin, or it isn’t). Obviously, these two implicit theological assumptions create a disjoint when the binary category is applied to the continuum. Thus, the ubiquitous youth group conversations about where “the line” is to be drawn in sexual activity. Church leaders and parents are often frustrated by these questions, but they can also be at a loss about to how to proceed in a coherent fashion...

The second move I make in the paper is to suggest that the most influential and problematic implicit assumption regarding sexuality has to do with what I call hedonic ambivalence, spiritual worries over the uniquely pleasurable aspects of sex. I argue that many of the religious recommendations regarding sex are parsimoniously understood by their attempt to marginalize the hedonic aspects of sex , replacing pleasure with a more "spiritual" terminal goal (e.g., procreation). Implicitly, the assumption seems to be that holy sex should seek to marginalize pleasure. I go on to use this analytic perspective to examine religious opinion (Protestant and Catholic) across a variety of sexual behaviors. Here's a bit showing how the argument is applied to autoeroticism:

Hedonic ambivalence is also observed in mixed feelings regarding autoeroticism, or masturbation. Some Christian traditions prohibit the behavior. Other traditions don’t know what to do with the behavior, and thus pass over the topic in silence. This silence is troublesome in that autoeroticism is the most frequent sexual activity we humans engage in. My point here is not to render a moral verdict on autoerotic activity, but to examine the assumptions behind the warrants for prohibiting the activity. A common warrant is to cite the “pointlessness” of autoeroticism. The assumption here is that we wish to see sexual climax as having a “point,” a goal. Masturbation clearly has a goal—the achievement of pleasure—but this is deemed unsatisfactory and spiritually problematic.

Finally, in my third move, I suggest that more fruitful theological conversations regarding sex can be had if we intentionally move the focus from hedonics to harm. A taste of that argument:

...two of the Ten Commandments are explicitly focused on managing sexual relationships: “Do not commit adultery” and “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife.” If we reflect on God’s goals in the Ten Commandments we grasp that God is calling out and creating a new kind of community. This suggests that God’s main concerns regarding human sexuality are more sociological than hedonic. That is, God’s concerns over sexual activity appear to be less concerned with the fact that sex is pleasurable, and more to do with issues involving the violation of social contracts (Do not commit adultery) and the reduction of sexual rivalry (Do not covet your neighbor’s wife).

Look forward to this edition of Leaven, not just for my piece but for the other contributions as well. I'll let you know when this issue of Leaven is out, after which I'd be happy to forward a copy of the article to any interested readers.