Marriage and the Bible - Part 46 - Modern Challenges: Open Marriage

Open marriage is defined as a marriage where both spouses agree that they may each engage in extramarital sexual relationships without those relationships being regarded as infidelity.  In short both sides say that cheating isn't cheating.  Looking above at a copy from a page from a book advocating open marriage you can see the general perspective as one that allows freedom of the individual and a value on honesty and truth in a relationship.  Or so it is stated and believed by those who practice and promote open marriage.  Historically, in the United States open marriage has been popular at two times: the 1970s during the sexual revolution and right now.  From a biblical point of view is this an allowable form of marriage?  Is the swinger cry of: "It ain't adultery if my spouse says its OK." true? 

There are some Biblical passages to consider here.  The most direct teaching is 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it is stated plainly that a wife does not have power over her own body, but her husband does and visa versa.  So if a man wilfully says to his wife that it is OK for her to go out and engage in extramarital sexual activity is he in a sense exercising this power?  Another thing to consider is at certain points in polygamist relationships the marriage is partially open.  If a man is married to a wife and seeking a second, some behaviours could be seen as extramarital activity until the second woman agrees to marriage.  If this is OK why would the idea of open marriage be not OK?

Firstly, I would like to say that open marriage must be classified as purely a cultural contract marriage.  Covenant marriage requires wilful sexual faithfulness and so once a couple is talking open marriage they are dickering about the terms of the marriage contract.  In particular the line that says: "Forsaking all others, keep you only unto her/him".  That stated, is such a contract allowable by the Bible?

The Bible in cultural context is trying to protect a few things with its view of marriage and one of them is children.  When a child is born, the main protection of the child knowing who its parents are is that no one else has been with mommy but daddy.  Modern proponents of open marriage however argue that with modern birth control this could be curbed.

The other thing the Biblical views of marriage try to protect is health.  If the Biblical pattern for marriage were followed worldwide, even including the various forms of polygamy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would disappear in a couple generations.  Once again Open marriage advocates argue that condoms could stop this too.

The problem with both things is that no birth control is perfect and no condom is fail safe.  Human gadgets are always prone to error and defect.  No matter what happens this is true because both also require that humans use them correctly.  Sorry, this is simply true to the point that even the manufacturers of said instruments say "99.9% effective if used correctly" to save against lawsuits.

These objections however do not deal with the biblical issue, I simply want to state for the record that this seems culturally OK, but it has its practical problems that could become huge monsters. 

The biblical problem is 1 Corinthians 7:4 does not directly say that the giving of the power of your spouses body for sexual gratification of another is wrong.  Paul in the same book; however, has a very dim view of fornication and that is where open marriage fails biblically.  Fornication would still be taking place from a biblical point of view as any sex outside any type of marriage contract is considered fornication.  Fornication is declared to be a sin so the extra martial sexual encounters become a biblical no-no.

Next: Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage
Previous: Women's Equality in Marriage  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 43 - God and the Spiritual Covenant

There are two things to consider here 1) is the elements of Spiritual Covenant and 2) God's role in those elements.

The purest way to see the elements of spiritual covenant relationship between a man and a woman is to return to the Garden of Eden and look at Adam and Eve's relationship before the Fall.  Mostly because at this time there is no need for marriage contracts or viewing marriage as a cultural act.  What we see are a man and a woman who enjoy a unique relationship status.  There are no cultural conventions to follow, nor are there any words or actions to establish to others that the two of them are husband and wife.  They simply are.

1. Element One: Both man and woman understand they are creations of God and responsible to his authority.  Each have been created for a purpose in the relationship.  Man to fulfill the wishes of God for planet earth and the woman to be man's helper. 

2. Element Two: 'One Flesh'.  Jesus himself reinforces this idea in Matthew 19 with the line - 'they are no longer two but one.'  This indicates a union of two people on all levels: spiritual, mind, heart and body.

3. Element Three: 'Naked' - It takes true trust and openness to be naked in the spiritual sense of the word above the physical.  To be naked in this sense is to have no secrets, no hidden thoughts or feelings and no hidden agendas.  It is to be comfortable being naked with each other in all senses.   For a better understanding of nakedness from a Biblical perspective my series The Bible and Nakedness was written specifically to examine this issue.

4. Element Four: 'Unashamed' - No shame indicates neither side has done anything to the other or before God so as to cause the shame of sin and regret.  There is nothing to clear the relationship between the man, woman or God.

This of course leads us to God role in a spiritual covenant marriage.  In order for a covenant marriage to exist God must be a part of it.  For a true covenant, this means God has a covenant with the man and the woman and they man and woman with each other.  Without all three of these relationships in covenant, there is no covenant marriage.  At that point what you have is a contract.  This is why Paul in 1 Corinthians7 can give a mixed faith marriage reason for divorce.  The unbeliever does not have a covenant with God; the believer does.  The man and woman have a contract.

In a spiritual covenant, love and blood seal it solid.  The man must love God and his wife.  The wife must love God and her husband.  God loves both man and the woman.  God seals his covenant with man and woman through their salvation by the blood of his Son.  Man and woman seal their covenant with each other in blood through sex.  This is why sex is more than a physical action for fun and procreation in a spiritual covenant.

In a spiritual covenant all actions together and with God, if done in love and respect will strengthen the covenant.  God to church and worshiping together, communicating with each other, being each other's friend, raising kids together, making love, etc. can all be actions both of expression and living of a couples' spiritual covenant.

Next: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

Previous: God and the Cultural Contract

First Post:          

Marriage and the Bible - Part 41 - The Bible and Divorce

While it is difficult to get an opinion from God as to his like or dislike of polygamy (see my previous post), it is not difficult to get his opinion about divorce.  He hates it.  It is this hatred of divorce by God that should set the theme for our discussion of divorce.  If I am a Christian, I should hate what God hates and God hates divorce. 

Despite the hatred by God of divorce, it is still biblically allowed.  Divorce is allowed by the law of Moses very early on and it remains a constant force in the Bible from then on.  Ultimately, this seems to be an allowance by God because of sin and the nature of marriage in its cultural contract form.  Doesn't stop Him from hating it, but it does indicate God understands the why of it.

There are basically three biblical reasons God would allow a divorce:

1. Sexual Infidelity: As much as God hates divorce, he hates unfaithfulness even more.  Jesus himself gives this as a reason for it.  This reason ultimately points to something deeper and that is that sex is not simply about fun or procreation.  Sex is the ultimate expression of the spiritual covenant of marriage and to engage in adultery in any form shows a lack of understanding of this idea.  This why not only should sex not be engaged in before marriage; it also should be kept in the confines of marriage.

2. Mixed Faith Marriage:  The Bible has nothing really positive to say about a marriage between an unbeliever and a believer and that goes throughout the entire Bible.  In one case after the exile, Israelite men are forced to divorce their wives for this reason or give up their inheritance in Israel.  When we get to the New Testament there is a change though and that is that the believer should stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wants out.  Paul in 1st Corinthians is not defying Jesus so much as he is considering a further implication of Jesus' teaching.  That of the impossibility for such a marriage to achieve covenant without both parties understanding the true nature of love and self-sacrifice, which are found only in genuine faith in God.  The believer should treat their marriage as a covenant and strive for the ideal, but if the unbeliever wants out, the believer can depart free of obligation.

3. Hardness of Heart: I simply do not see that Jesus Teaching in Matthew 19 and other places nullifies this idea.  The divorce law of Moses still stands because Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets.  The fact is God still allows for hardness of heart, because hardness of heart is still going to happen.  People are still going to fail in how they view marriage, act in selfishness to the point that even the cultural and contractual sides of their marriage are not being kept, violate their marriage vows and thus become hardened of heart.  It is still an out, but I would say God doesn't like it very much given Jesus' words.  This reason should be avoided at all costs but it still is there in case it happens.  One thing though we can say about divorce is that it never is considered a sin that is unforgivable by God.

That said, we need to be reminded that God still hates divorce.  It means then the Christian should make every effort to save their marriage and to strive to see that they view it as a spiritual covenant above the cultural contract.  Ultimately this is about shifting out understanding of marriage from the selfishness of the contract and moving it to the self-sacrifice of the covenant.  For the Christian it becomes very important to understand the difference between the two and strive for the covenant.

Next: God and the Cultural Contract.
Previous: The Bible and Polygamy
First Post in Series  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series

The Resurrection - History Not Hype

I am dedicating this post to Kerry McRoberts, my apologetics instructor at Trinity Bible College back in the day, because it was he that passed on the importance of this to me and I in turn have passed it on to others and continue to do so.

In a very real sense I am not saying anything new here, but every year there is some atheist or agnostic out there who challenges Christians about the historical reality of the resurrection and they do it for good reason; on it EVERYTHING hinges.

First off, the Biblical writers, particularly Paul were very aware that on this issue everything hinged. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul writes: "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is vain." In short, if Jesus did not physically come out of the tomb as an historical event, everything we believe and trust in is a complete waste of time. On this issue, all faith hinges. If Christ is not raised: His blood has no power to atone for sins, his sacrifice has no meaning, His broken body cannot reconcile us back to friendship with God, all of His teaching and promises are lies because it all would hinge on the promise of him rising form the dead after three days and nights in the ground. It that promise is a lie then everything else is a lie. Also, it means all of ministry - our evangelism, worship and discipleship -- ALL of it is a complete waste of time if Jesus is not raised from death.

I want to point out, there are good reasons for believing the resurrection is a historical event:

1. It was witnessed by many that Jesus was alive after the dead. Paul lays this out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 and cites all the witnesses as well as pointing out that many were still alive if people wanted to ask them what they saw. People challenge the gospels but they really have no reason to do so other than their own prejudice that somehow if something is religious it somehow could not be historical. Each of them, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, testify to one fact that they all agree -- Jesus came out of the tomb and was seen alive after he was crucified. If they all agreed perfectly on the details, the critics would say they copied each other if they differed greatly they would say the facts are in dispute. As it is, there is common agreement with each witness but enough variance to say they are telling things from their own point of view. The fact that they make religious statements should not invalidate the witnesses as many ancient writer make reference of gods and goddesses (Julius Caesar talks about Fortune's actions in his life for instance - Fortune being a goddess) but that invokes no questions when they make historical statements at times. So why then are the gospels treated any differently? Because the critics make up special rules for them because of their prejudice against the idea that someone can be raised from the dead.

2. The Jews maintained for years that Jesus had been stolen by the disciples, but that story is more unbelievable than he came back to life. You want to tell me four Roman soldiers all fell asleep at the same time when they are trained from day one that if any one of them falls asleep they are to be put to death by the others? These legionaries were not rookies. You did not send new legions to Palestine; you sent grizzled veterans. To have four trained and veteran legionaries all fall asleep at the exact same time when they knew the penalty, is far more improbable than the idea that the soldiers were instructed to lie about Jesus coming out of the tomb. I believe it would further fall apart if those same soldiers became Christians themselves and after what they saw do we doubt that some of them; if not all, would have. It must have been one of them that relayed the story to Matthew because Matthew was not actually there yet his account in Matthew chapter 28 is very detailed. Only the soldiers guarding Jesus would have had those details.

3. The one thing people always say is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. There is some truth to this but are we going to say that eyewitness testimony is COMPLETELY unreliable? Let's take an accident report at fourth and main at noon. There are four witnesses to the accident between two cars. When the police reports are compared there is disagreement about the exact color of the two cars, maybe who was driving, but they all agree about the fact that a) the accident took place, b) that it was at the corner of fourth and main street and c) it happened around noon. The question then becomes: what type of thing is the resurrection: a detail or the main focus? The four witnesses have different accounts to some degree (which I believe can be reconciled in the details), but they all agree on a) the Resurrection took place, b) it took place in the garden around the tomb and C) it was early Sunday morning. The main thing is all the same and verified.

4. How reliable are ancient documents? How reliable has the transcription process been? All I have to say is 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and it testifies that scribal copying processes are not only detailed but exacting, especially when something is considered holy or important or both. Secondly, there are more manuscripts of ancient origin for the New Testament than any other document of the same time period. If you are going to question the textual history of the New Testament, then even more questionable would be Julius Caesar's works on Gaul, Plato's work on Socrates, etc. etc. because they have even less texts of age backing them than the gospels of the New Testament. Ultimately a lot of things we believe in history are based on witnesses who wrote something down and those documents were copied and passed down. If we cannot believe the New Testament, then there are a lot of other things we should doubt as well.

5. This one is a question to ponder: How many people are willing to die for what they know to be a lie? If we are to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the we must believe that nearly all of the ones who saw him after he was crucified walking around died for a lie. It seems to be that even a lie propagated for a purpose begins to unravel under pressure. We have all known powerful men who; under investigation, will give up their lie to save their skin. Yet, here are a bunch of common men who maintain to their deaths that Jesus rose from the dead. It seem that if this was lie the story would have unravelled very early on and Christianity would have been a mere footnote in history books not the history changing movement it was through the centuries. There is something of real power and reality backing it, or it would have come to nothing.

I actually have a lot more of this, but the above are the high marks. I could tell of Josephus and Philo, of first century satirists who made fun if Christians but never challenged the existence of Jesus or his resurrection, but I would be here a long time to chronicle these, so I leave you to search them out.

He is Risen!!! That is History and not Hype.

Re-Thinking God: God is Love

No definitions on this one because the Bible has THE definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and there is a declarative statement in 1st John 4:8 "God is love". In short, if you look up the definition of love in the dictionary, what should be there is the word: 'GOD'. I think however the implications of these two passages escape people. To start with: If God is indeed love; then the definition and qualities of love as described in 1st Corinthians apply to him.

The first implication of this is that all the definitions we like to put here for 'love' do not work. This is especially true if we create a definition of 'love' that is self serving. The one thing we can say about the definition of love in 1st Corinthian 13 is that there is absolutely no self serving idea in it. That means when God defines himself as this kind of love, there is nothing about him that is self-serving, even when He adds to his own glory or protects his name, it is not from an attitude of self-service but one of love.

The second implication, or in this case a set of implications, is on the nature of God itself based on this definition:

1. Love is patient, therefore God must be patient -- what sense though does patience have for God if He is given the traditional definitions of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. To be patient means to have forbearance under strain or to not be hasty. But if traditional omnipresence is maintained then God is everywhere at all times so how does this makes sense. God being patient only makes sense if He is just as much a part of time as the rest of us, or as I have defined it because time is part of his nature. Also why be patient if your the one absolutely being everything about or you know the absolute outcome? Neither makes sense in the light of God being patient.

2. When considering verse seven of First Corinthians 13; it has much the same implications: 'Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.' For God to display all of these qualities implies a God working through love to change things, not one that exercises absolutes. A God who has hope, means he is expecting and working for better in each person, not that he sees each person's fate as an unchangeable thing, even to Him.

3. All of these qualities imply relationship with people not absolute exercise of power. It means letting the other person having the power of give and take, just as much as God does. It means God takes risks because to love is to risk hurt. God being love means his very nature is to risk relationship with each person even though each person can indeed hurt him in the context of that relationship.

Next: God is holy

Mozart, Metallica and Ministry - A Lesson in Musical Taste.

Nothing like music to cause a little controversy.

I think on some of the great ironies of life and one of the greatest may simply be if the late Cliff Burton, bassist for the heavy metal band Metallica hadn't introduced the other guys to classical styles from his upbringing, Metallica would probably faded from history as a footnote in the speed metal scene of the 1980s. Because of Cliff, who died in a bus crash in 1986 while the band was on tour, they became highly skilled in the art of blending different melodies with their guitars and the rest is history.

The connection between the two genres of music is actually closer than some realize. In my own life I started out as a classical guy, my mother introducing me to Mozart and Beethoven before I even started school. I loved strings especially concertos with four parts. Still do. I branched out as a child into gospel because I liked four part harmony with voices. Jazz entered because I liked the blending of sounds, but the icing on the cake came with my introduction to hard rock and later heavy metal. The electric guitar has to be the best invention to hit music since the trumpet. To me the switch was not a big deal, I recognized the connection between metal and classical almost immediately although others said I was nuts.

Others did come along and make that case for me though, a Christian band called Shout did a quick little number where their guitarist played Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in thirty-second notes. To any metal fan it was a perfect guitar solo. The Metallica came along in 2000 and played with the San Fransisco Symphony and proved not only were the two genres related but they could be perfectly blended. Music was never the same again.

Growing up though, my musical tastes always brought frowns in Christian circles. Bertha Better-Than-Yous live everywhere. (Ray Stevens is also awesome). One pastor confronted me and told me the beat of rock was demonic, I handed him my Bible and and asked him to prove it. He said the beat came from Africa where it was used to conjure up demons, I pointed out to him that the idea was not only not provable but racist and also not a Bible based argument. So he ran to First Corinthians where it talks about using our liberty to cause those who are weak to stumble. Being the smart butt teenager I was at the time, I told him that I had no such stumbling blocks in my life as music was just music to me, but for HIS sake, THE SAKE OF MY WEAKER BROTHER, I would abstain from listening to it in his presence. He never spoke to me again on the subject.

The theological point is that the Bible in no way defines one musical form as more holy than another or that some musical forms are holy and others sinful. It simple does not exist. Music gets defined this way by certain holiness groups but it is largely a matter of cultural convention not any reasonable argument. Christian culture says this music form is OK and the other NEW one is not. Unfortunate but true. I often wondered what would have happened to rock and roll if the preacher that offended Buddy Holly because he insulted his music form had instead asked Buddy if he would put some Christian lyrics to it instead. Maybe the youth of America would have more readily embraced the church in the following decades.

What I have learned though is not to confuse message with artistic value. I do not always like or agree with what singers and bands say in their lyrics, but that does not means I have to reject the artistic value of their music. Trust me there are some hymns that the theology of the verses makes me cringe a little but it still does not stop me from thinking that the music itself is not beautiful. Oddly enough though, there are some songs from the secular world that speak volumes of truth.

Music is largely a matter of taste and what often bugs me is that some Christians can't see that and want it to be a matter of their own righteousness -"I am a better Christian because I do not listen to that type of music." Why is it that we seem to always seek ways to divide ourselves from others. 'In the world, but not of it' is what Christians are supposed to be. Music gives us another way to bridge the gap between those in the church and outside it; if we are only willing to listen to what the artist is saying and appreciate his or her talent.

'Duty' - Not a Four Letter Word

I have been trying to shake it out of my mind but my last post and some of the responses to it have left some concern about the definition of 'duty'. The way some talk about 'duty' you might think it is a four letter word used deride or diminish. Nothing could be further from the truth as all things of value find that value in duty.

Webster - Duty: obligatory tasks, conduct, service or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or a group); a moral and legal obligation and the force of those obligations.

Duty is a term that conveys a moral commitment to someone or something. It is not passive but active, it involves a choice to place the interests of others above one's own interest. Duty then is an expression of self-denial that results from one's commitments to others.

In my post on Christians, Intimacy and Sex, I pointed out that intimacy and sex are a duty in marriage. When you are married there is the obligation to one another to engage in self-sacrifice to meet each other's needs and wants. It is part of the process of becoming one flesh to give up what I feel I should do and instead do the right thing to become more intimate and one-flesh in nature. The point of it is that it is not my duty to point out my wife's duty to me, but to fulfill my own to her. Part of that should involve communication to her and my needs and wants (in a sense this is part of my duty as well, as my wife can't fulfill her duties to me if she does not know my needs and wants) but it is on my wife and her sense of duty to fulfil them once she knows them. Duty does not involve selfishness in this case but self-sacrifice. The very essence of what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:3 and 4 is fulfilling duty in one direction but giving authority in the opposite one. The husband must fulfill the duty to his wife but gives up authority over his own body to her. The reverse is also true. Mutual surrender of self and mutual obligation are what is expected in marriage as part of a covenant relationship and it is duty that ultimately is the driving force of that covenant.

Another great illustration involves military service. Men and women when they choose to serve, give up their rights as citizens to protect citizens of a country. Duty compels them to serve something greater than themselves above their own interests and safety.

Duty then becomes a significant cornerstone of things like: devotion, honor, love and faithfulness. Feelings will come and go, but a sense of duty transcends feelings and causes a person to sacrifice self interest for the sake of something bigger or higher.

Christians, Intimacy and Sex

In an effort to clarify my own thoughts as I prepare to preach on this topic this coming Sunday, I thought I would write about some current trends on the subject of sex and intimacy.

Now there is one thing that we humans do very well - have a lot of sex. Good thing too because it keeps us at least following one command of God - 'be fruitful and multiply'. The real clash usually always comes as to in what place sex has within Christianity.

You do not have to look to far and you will find some anti-Christian or atheist blaming Christians for all the anti-sex stuff out there or that we were the ones responsible for making sex boring.

Truth be told there are and have been a lot well meaning Christians who have spoiled sex at different times. Notable among them are St. Augustine and Holiness Groups.

When we all get to heaven we need to go up to St. Augustine (if he is there) and kick him right between the legs. If he hadn't been such a dog in his life before his conversion, he probably wouldn't have had such a negative attitude about sex afterwards. The guy loved sex and connected it to HIS sin so much that after he converted he pretty much said all sex was bad except for procreation (and then you better not lust after your spouse) and that if your intention wasn't to have children then you should abstain. His exaltation of celibacy was received too well and that is why priests in the Catholic church are required to be celibate today. This despite Paul saying several times that overseers (church leaders) should be married (1st Timothy and Titus).

The Holiness Movement of our own country does not really say sex is bad but they insinuate it so much that it creates the impression that it is bad even after marriage. What I mean is when I was growing up in church, the remaining holiness influence had this message about sex: "Don't do it until you married - it's bad." Now this created some interesting tests of faith. I remember overhearing a father of a recently married woman relating a story about how his daughter had confronted him: "The way you acted about sex dad, I thought it was something I had to endure, but you know I found out it is pretty fun." The father wondered where she got the idea that sex was bad.

I can tell you - 'more is caught than taught' when it comes to the intimacy / sex question in marriage and your children. How intimate were you and your wife while they were growing up? If you never touched one another, kissed or 'sported' in front of your kids, they might have gotten the impression that that stuff was dirty for married people. Not good, because it creates the impression that when your a Christian you are not going to have any fun while your married. Is it any wonder some kids bail on Christianity, it is perceived as a drag or sexually unfulfilling. This will become particularly pronounced if also do not talk about sex beyond the: 'don't till your married' line. It is OK to tell you kids sex is fun. It is also OK to tell them that outside of marriage sex will not be as fulfilling as inside a marriage.

Notice, I did not say the Puritans. While it is true that the Puritans did put on an outward show of righteousness and piety, inside the bedroom of a married Puritan couple it could get quite steamy. We know this from several letters that were sent between husbands and wives that were recovered. Simply put, they are both erotic and at times pornographic. No, the Puritans get a lot of unnecessary grief on this. They simply felt the sex was the playground for the married.

So Biblically what is intimacy. 1) It means to be one-flesh -- the two made one. Intimacy is both the state and process of two people becoming one entity. 2) It is to be naked and possess a total openness to one another that is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical. I simply do not understand people who think they can be intimate with someone and not have intimacy on all these levels. Settling for anything else is simply second best and less than ideal. 3) It means to be unashamed. You know I find it very odd when Christian married couples blush about the fact they are intimate. Is that not the way it is holy and good (Hebrews 13:4)? If something is holy and good there is no need to blush over it. It needs to be celebrated.

So then sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy between a couple. It is as much a spiritual act as it is a physical one. It is the joining of two people to produce life. Spiritual life for themselves as a couple and it has the added possibility of creating another human life under the right conditions. The reality is that the spiritual will take place far more than the physical, because most of the time sex is simply about the pleasure of being one flesh.

Given the fact that the second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, you would think that Christians could trumpet the simple fact that intimacy and sex are the greatest defense against it. Instead we usually say: 'don't be unfaithful'. Do you ever notice how negative our message always is about this? Paul's response to infidelity and sexual sin in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 was far different: 1) Be Married, 2) Fulfil your duty to each other - in short make love and make love often even if you do not necessarily feel like it -- he uses the word 'duty' for a reason, 3) Give you body to your spouse - it belongs to them, not you. 4) Do not deprive each other from sex unless you both agree to it as a time of fasting and prayer, 5) It is better to be married and do this than burn with lust. Paul's message is ultimately positive. Married people should be engaged in intimacy and sex as often a possible as one defense against infidelity and lust.

This of course brings up the challenge of intimacy and sex. That of making love and having sex in fresh and exciting ways.

For men there needs to be a recognition of where true sexual fulfilment comes from. I have never understood the guy who thinks he has great sexual prowess because he can have sex with a bunch of women. It does not impress me. The real challenge of intimacy and sex for a man is to truly be intimate with one woman and satisfy her on all levels for life. That is far harder to achieve than to learn a few tricks that allow you to play the field. It is simply much harder to reach a woman both emotionally and physically for her whole life.

For women, the challenge is even greater in some respects. Men are driven spiritually by their need for sex and women are not always in the mood for it while the man usually always is. There is the additional problem for many Christian women I encounter; in that, they play the morally superior card when it comes to their need for emotional intimacy over a man's need for sex. Truth is neither one is better or worse than the other. A man's need for sex is no worse morally than a woman's need for emotional intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin and both need to be fulfilled. The real issue for women is to remember that as a man is denied fulfillment in the area of sex, he gets hungry and the more hungry he gets the weaker he gets about it. As a man's spouse, a wife is supposed to be his satisfaction for this hunger. The more a wife delays in this though, the more a man will be tempted to fulfil this hunger in a way outside of her. There are other factors of course but this is the basic problem men have. Their sex drive does not shut off, it is always in standby mode at the very least.

When intimacy and sex are both fulfilling in a couple, the one great thing that happens is that both are more confident and happy about their lives. Ed Young was onto something when he suggested 7 days of sex to his married couples. The results is a couple that are both healthier and happier in their marriage.

Right now, the main thing Christians need to do is to speak positively about sex in the confines of marriage. Even more importantly, they need to live a life of intimacy and sexual fulfillment as an example to others. No good talking about a good thing if your not benefiting from it yourself. That would just make you a hypocrite.

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Why Personal Religious Experience Does Not Prove Christian Faith

I wrote on this in my post on The Second Reformation but perhaps a closer look would help.

A little background on me, I grew up in a Pentecostal church, I have been a pastor of two Pentecostal churches and have had Pentecostal experiences and I still feel things like tongues, healings and miracles happen and are legit, BUT I have also witnessed things that have convinced me that part of the movement has a dark side and more than just a few bad apples. I have witnessed the charlatans on which Steve Martin based his movie Leap of Faith. The tricks are numerous and the doctrines that are used, to be blunt, are absolute crap with one design -- relieving people of their money and the accumulation of power for the preacher. I saw more and more of these as I got deeper into the leadership of the movement. I am now convinced that many will believe anything as long as it thrills their emotions and gives them a feeling of power over their circumstances.

One of the things that frustrates me is how people who have had a religious experience or a 'feeling' of God in their lives use this as absolute proof that God exists and that their faith is the real deal. It does nothing of the kind.

1) All religions and faiths have religious experiences of some kind. If personal religious experience proves faith, then every faith is proven true.
2) The manifestations of tongues, healings and various miracles are not unique to Christianity, other religions have them.
3) In just about every religion in the world there is some claim of special revelation from some divine source.
4) Feelings are not fact, they are not right or wrong -- they are just feelings and the fact is you can have a feeling of spiritual wholeness from a cup of hot chocolate on a cold day. Doesn't prove I should worship hot chocolate.
5) It is hard to prove a religious experience is genuine and given that some are easily manipulated through their emotions, some experiences may not be religious just emotional releases.

I am not saying that they have no value whatsoever but ultimately they are only valuable to the ones who have them and only as a seal of assurance, not as proof of faith.

I believe this is why you can find so many former Pentecostals out there, they start to think too much. I know I was accused of this often. Once you get past the emotional part of the experience, sometimes it was difficult to say what the experience was. What this means ultimately for someone who has based their whole faith on these experiences, is complete despair and disillusionment when they come to the realization that these experiences do not in any way prove their faith is true.

For Christianity, there is only one event at stake and if it is not a historical fact then as Paul says: 'our faith is useless' - The Resurrection. If Jesus did not, in fact, literally walk out that tomb than Christianity is a complete and absolute waste of time and we would be better off 'eating and drinking for tomorrow we die." See First Corinthians 15, if you do not believe me.

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 18 -- Other Things to Consider -- Christian Liberty

Ancient Corinth above, Paul moved in these streets that were dotted with brothels, temple prostitutes and nude images.

Contextualization is the process by which you take what you have studied (observed/interpreted/applied) and put it into large stew pot of all previous knowledge and see if their are new understandings or changes to previous understandings you already have in your beliefs and theology. It is a lifelong and constant process.

The first question: What areas of understanding would this affect? I can think of three:

1. Christian Liberty

2. The Nature of Sin and Temptation

3. External Religion vs. Living Faith

I had originally thought to handle all of this in one post but I am going to take three. Let's Start with the issue of Christian Liberty

The issue of Christian Liberty is most properly presented by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 where Paul reminds us to take care with our liberty so as not to be a stumbling block to those that are weak. Paul also address the issue of immorality in chapter 5 of the same book so it was on his mind when he talked about liberty. The church of Corinth was given over to idolatry and immorality as mentioned before so it also puts things right in our context. Despite this, Paul champions liberty for the Christian but with this condition -- don't let your liberty become a stumbling block to the faith of another. The strong in there personal liberty should make sure their liberty does not become something the weak in liberty might use as an excuse to sin. Paul was so strong in this view that he was committed to not eating meat at all to make sure the weak did not stumble.

In the issue of nudity and nakedness, we need to define who is weak and who is strong. Based on chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians, we are never to condone immorality in fact strong action may be required to discipline those who act in immorality, but there is a great deal of difference between sexual intercourse and nudity for public display. One requires relationship (no matter how brief or poorly motivated) and the other simply is there for public view by anyone who looks.

The strong would be people who understand that Biblically 'nakedness' is a spiritual state of vulnerability and shame because of sin and not an outward state of undress. Paul was one of the strong here -- he was able to minister in places where nudity was both prevalent and common and did not succumb to temptation. The weak would be those who could not do this because nudity leads them to sin -- lust in particular. Those of us who understand the true definition of 'nakedness' need to be mindful that not everyone understands this and are not at liberty to act in this freedom. We cannot use our freedom as a stumbling block for others. It may be that some could join a Christian nudist colony and be free in it, but others would be drawn back to their sin. The very fact someone may discover its existence might be a stumbling block in and of itself. Liberty used as licence in this area may be out. That said I find to many weak people not willing to become stronger in their understanding. One could spend all their time trying not to offend the weak but that also is wrong -- liberty s their to make us free.

What the strong need to do is think of ways to walk in their liberty and not offend others. To be free but understanding of others. Probably the bast way is those who are strong can use this to help them in their fight against temptation and sin.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation

Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 4 -- Friends with Fringe Benefits

I first heard the term 'friends with fringe benefits' back about ten years ago but it seems to have gained steam over the years. The term basically refers to a couple or other situation that people are not considering any long term relationship but are willing to have casual sex. In my ministry, I have encountered several couples who had this sort of relationship. 'Were just friends' but then a long passionate kiss or comment later and it is clear that the friendship is more than platonic. It is a sexual friendship with no expectation that it will be anything other than that.

Casual sex is making a comeback of sorts. The sexual revolution of the 70s was big but the AIDS issue of the 80s slowed things down a bit. Recently though it seems it is getting larger again, probably do to the fact of increasingly open sexual education, a topic of mine for an earlier post, but for now lets deal with the existence of casual sex and who it affects. Well, just about everybody. Since I have turned forty, my e-mail has had no less than three spam type e-mails inviting me to join sites that for all practical purposes are not about relationships but casual sex. Also my advertising that gets place in front of me while I am getting my e-mail has much the same thing in the sidebar from time to time. Don't think this is odd, I hear it happens to everybody because the assumption is that once you hit mid life you want to take chances and do something different and one of the areas this happens most often is sex.

Why is this dangerous? Because it assumes that sex is purely a physical act for fun with no other possible consequences other than pregnancy (which can be avoided through birth control) or a STD (avoided through condom use). These two issues aside, the fact is there is something going on here that goes larger than just the physical.

What exactly happens when a couple has sexual intercourse? The Bible describes this in a couple of ways:
1. 'Knowing' -- Adam knew his wife.... -- more than just sex it is a knowing of the other person in a way you cannot know someone without sex. From personal experience I can tell you there are things I know about my wife's spirit, emotions, mind and body that no one else knows because I have had sex with her and she with me. These things no one else will every know unless we violate our marriage covenant. Which I have no plans on doing, of course, but such a violation causes such knowledge to leak out to others who have no business knowing what we know, should it take place.
2. Becoming one flesh. The union of husband and wife is called this but Paul also uses this term do describe the actions of a man and and a harlot -- 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 (verses 15-16 in particular).

Looking at sexual intercourse theologically this means that something happens every time sexual intercourse takes place that is a knowing of the other person on all levels that binds a person to the other and makes them one flesh. When sin is committed in sex, it usually involves not respecting this union and the spiritual and mental/emotional side of it as well.

This is why the Law of Moses prescribed automatic marriage for couples caught in fornication. 'Dad I'm pregnant and Jake is the father" had automatic consequences -- the man and woman were married immediately and the man lost his option to divorce the girl. (I wonder what would happen if we enforced that one today?). The union was assumed and sex is what caused it to happen.

Paul comments directly on this in relationship to fornication (in his case fornication was the casual sex involved in pagan rites of worship) and makes the following points in 1 Corinthians 6:
1. The body is for the Lord
2. God has raised us up by His power
3. Our bodies are thus members of Christ
4. If we join in fornication with someone we are making the body of Christ joined with that person in fornication -- in his case he says by doing this a person was making the body of Christ a member with a harlot.
5. Regardless if there is a marriage covenant or not, sexual intercourse makes two people one in the spirit as well as flesh.
6. Fornication is a sin against a person's own body for we are joined to Christ
7. Our body is the temple of the holy Spirit we should treat it accordingly.
8. Because we have been bought with a price, including our bodies, we should glorify the Lord in our bodies.

Now, lets get back to this friends with fringe benefits thing. The fact is that when you and you friend have sex you are joining yourself to at all levels (spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically). This has an affect on all these areas because once you come apart from each other and go different ways you will never be the same because you know the other person in a way others do not on all levels. That is until you or they have sex with someone else. Regardless of what you think is happening this is what the Bible says is happening. Our society and culture may have changed, but the Word of God has not. This why, no matter what people may say about it, people are unhappy about their casual sexual relationships over time. Because there you are 'knowing' someone intimately but forcing yourself to deny it. It is this denial that something is wrong and our effective treating each other as objects for sexual gratification that cause this -- SIN.

Now I have no problem with the idea that sex is fun and should be fun. What I have a problem with is that you can have fun with sex without commitment in marriage without spiritual and other consequences before yourself and God and your relationship to him will suffer for it. When you first treat the person as a person by committing yourself to them for life in marriage and then explore the fun of sex, then the 'knowing' gained can be shared in complete confidence and trust.

For the Christian there can be no such thing as 'friends with fringe benefits'. The church therefore must take an active stand against such relationships in any way it can without being a bunch of moral judges that condemn people. This sin is pardonable and once true salvation enters, then and only then does the law of God really come in force. My personal stance has always been to tell such couples to forget me marrying them and just head to the justice of the peace, magistrate or whatever and get the piece of paper. You are already married just let the law know it.

IMHO

Next: Polygamy

The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 5 -- Sex

Probably up till now you have been saying -- "I have heard all this before" Your probably right as these are common topics of relationships building mentors and gurus. Sex in a Christian context a continuing conversation might be a little different.


One thing I get here is -- "Your talking after marriage right?" No I mean before marriage sex needs to be talked about. Too many times I see Christian young people acting on sex before marriage instead of talking about it. If they talk more and act less they might make it to their wedding day with their virginity still intact. My Biblical test case is the Song of Solomon.

I plan on writing on the Song of Solomon in the near future, but my view, in short, is that the book has nothing to do with Christ and His Church and the relationship between them. Sorry, this is an erotic poem about two lovers who can't wait until the night they wed to consummate their marriage. It is God's answer to the Kama Sutra.

That said, there is a discussion here of sexual activity before the two come together and the end of the book emphasizes the fact the bride was a virgin. If you talk about sex before marriage it simply makes it easier to talk about it after marriage.

What should be discussed.
1. Christian Boundaries -- Hebrews 13:4 gives a lot of liberty in sex but it must be stressed, as I once read somewhere, it also has a boundary to it -- marriage. Once there though, it should be stressed that even then there are boundaries -- no body else but the two of you -- one male. one female for life (strange I have to say that).
2. Personal Boundaries -- Lets just say that some things may be uncomfortable for you or your future or current spouse. Respect these things. Some people are never comfortable making love with strangers or certain family members in the house, certain sexual activities might be uncomfortable or, at first, embarrassing. That said, it should also be noted that it is unfair to be comfortable with something done to you but you refuse to do it back. Boundaries cut both ways.
3. What will you do about children when they come and how will that effect you love life? This was a big one for me and my wife when my kids were say 6 to 13 -- old enough to understand and act if something is out of the ordinary but not old enough to get it. It takes some careful planning and patience when you have kids. It also helps to have lock on your doors. Getting a babysitter to take them to the babysitters house while you have a romantic evening is a good idea. Be creative and take advantage of any time there is time.
4. Parents -- this one has come up for me at times, in fact right away for me and my wife because for the first two months before heading to Trinity we lived with my folks. My wife was uncomfortable at times with the thought of sex with all of us in the same house. My dad also had a way of making lite of the subject so eventually she could laugh about it -- a little. One fact should be mentioned even though your married and your parents are close -- call before going over. Parents still have sex long after the kids leave. I know that's gross to you, but don't ruin it by being rude. It may be the reason your parents are miffed at you.
5. Talk about when your tempted to sin in this area. Why? because you are supposed to be each others defence against such things. It can also lead to some interesting things in the bedroom. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.

Things change in the sexual areas as you grow closer and live together longer so keep talking. This is one where as you become more intimate you will open up more to each other. It also starts with talking about it early and keep talking.
Finis