Is the Bible’s Use of Sexuality R-rated?
In my post, I dealt with the excuse that the
Bible itself is R-rated. Due to some constructive criticism, I realized my line
of reasoning was both incomplete and possibly misleading. I want to be clear
and accurate, so let’s revisit the issue.
I didn’t mean to imply that all films with R
ratings are inherently evil. I most certainly don’t believe that. The Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating
system is so flawed as to be practically meaningless. Some R rated films are
cleaner than some PG rated films. Scripture itself—not the opinions of others—is
the best lens through which to view our entertainment choices.
For the record, the rest of this post will focus
solely on the Bible’s handling of sexual themes. We’ll leave violence alone for
now. It is, after all, quite a different animal. (Wayne A. Wilson brilliantly
explains the difference between public sex and public violence in chapter eight
of his book Worldly Amusements.)
If we really want to use the Bible as our
standard—which is a good thing—then we need to look at more than just what it
will allow us to get away with. Using Scripture simply as an excuse to do
something questionable isn’t the best hermeneutic.
Does the Bible revel in explicit sexual imagery?
The short answer is no. Sexual themes abound in Scripture, but the acts themselves
are constantly explained discreetly and succinctly. Whether it’s lawful sexual
intercourse (Gen. 4:25; 29:23), incest (Gen. 19:30-38), adultery (2 Sam. 11:4),
or rape (2 Sam. 13:14; Jud. 19:25), the descriptions are miniscule, just shy of
nonexistent.
Of course, there is one book of the Bible that is
more descriptive in sexual imagery: the Song of Solomon. We also could add Proverbs 5, which encourages married men to be satisfied with their wife’s
breasts and to be enraptured with her love. What is it about these passages
that allow for greater leeway in their content? There are at least three
answers.
First, the sexual acts and desires described in
Song of Solomon take place in the context of covenantal love.
This is where immodesty, nudity, and sexual intimacy are to be enjoyed. Sex as
God created it is pure and pleasurable, not dirty and shameful. Solomon’s Song (along with Proverbs 5) is an unashamed celebration of the
goodness and rightness of sex.
The second reason Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5
are legitimately more detailed is that they direct the reader toward his own
wife—not specifically anyone else. Yes, Solomon’s “Shulamite” is a real person,
but her identity is shrouded in mystery. Commentators disagree on who this she
is. For the reader, the functional focus point of these passages is not
voyeuristic—it is one’s own beloved.
The third reason these passages are legitimate is that they still aren’t incredibly graphic. Most of Song of Solomon
relies on symbolism, not explicitness. Sure, this book may cause some readers
to blush, but that’s due to a wrong view of sex more than anything else. Besides,
compare the Song of Solomon in its entirety to one sex scene in the latest
bestselling novel and you will quickly notice a stark difference. Scripture still
uses a large amount of tasteful restraint.
How do movies fare in these same three areas?
First, a typical scene of simulated copulation involves people who are unmarried. Generally
speaking, conjugal love is not celebrated in Tinseltown. In portraying the sex
act, Hollywood favors fornication, adultery, and the like. Even if it could be
proven that a sex act between married couples was legitimate fodder for the
eyes, such an allowance would still eliminate 99% of what Hollywood has to
offer.
Second, Hollywood sex scenes draw audiences’
attention to specific people—i.e., people other than one’s spouse. It’s one
thing to read about how you can—and should—enjoy your wife’s body; it’s quite
another to watch an actor kiss, undress, fondle, and/or simulate coitus with what Proverbs calls a “strange
woman” (KJV). The result is not the glorification of pure and holy sex, but the
objectification of women (and increasingly men), and the glorification of
restraint-free sexuality.
Third, a Hollywood sex scene is tantalizing at
best and explicit at worst. Sexual restraint isn’t something the film industry
is known for. As The Wolf of Wall Street
testifies, practically nothing is off-limits—except perhaps showing actual
penetration. (Yes, filmmakers “piously” leave such base and unrefined displays
of sexuality to hardcore porn.)
As we come to the end of this blog post, I know
I haven’t thoroughly and decisively debunked the “Scripture is R-rated”
argument. You may believe there are still gaping holes in my logic and/or
Biblical interpretation. In fact, if that is the case, please share your thoughts with me.
Nevertheless, I think there is enough Biblical
evidence to at least question our Christian subculture’s drop-of-a-hat willingness
to watch and financially support professionally produced sex acts. If this
really is a huge blind spot for the modern church, it would behoove us to cry
out to for eyes to see. After all, if we’re willing to look at sexualized bodies for
entertainment, we should be just as willing to inspect the naked truth of
Scripture to ensure that we are honoring our Lord. Let our prayer be the same
as that of the Psalmist: “Turn away my eyes from
looking at worthless things, and revive me in Your way” (Ps. 119:37).
Update: since its original publication, this blog post’s title and content have been edited to eliminate some needlessly controversial verbiage and to enhance its rhetorical efficacy.
photo credit: Studio Sarah Lou via flickr cc (cropped)