While conservative evangelicals sometimes band together for some common purpose, they are really a collection of warring tribes. This is in the nature of Protestantism, which prizes one’s ‘personal relationship with God’ above all else. If your minister or pastor tells you one thing about Christian doctrine, and you have a bit of a pray about it and decide that he (or sometimes she) is wrong - well, congratulations, you win! This is not much of a recipe for unanimity and helps explain why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations and sects scattered around the place. (For a very funny example of how these and related clashes can work out in practice, have a look at Ken Dempsey’s Conflict and Decline: Ministers and laymen in an Australian country town [1983], available in many libraries.)

Evangelical commentator Bill Muehlenberg, formerly of the Catholic-dominated Australian Family Association, writes a lot about sex on his CultureWatch website - . Indeed, if it wasn’t for sex, Muslims and atheists, there wouldn’t be much on Bill’s site at all. Anyway, here’s his take on ‘the purpose of sex’, courtesy of this quote from a Canadian lawyer, Gwen Landolt:

Logically and consistently, once you’ve opened the door to relationships beyond heterosexual married couples - because of companionship and other benefits - you have to grant the same rights to everybody. You’ve changed the whole dynamic and purpose of legal marriage, which is procreation. We know that lesbian and homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual married couples, because the purpose of the heterosexual union is of course procreation. That’s the only relationship the State has a basic interest in - to promote and encourage the birth of children.
(Rights and Wrongs in Relationship Recognition - Bill Muehlenberg, 17-Dec-06.)

‘Quite so’, says Bill, but in saying this he falls foul of the orthodox evangelical viewpoint in this matter, and even worse, strays into a ‘papist’ trap. It’s not entirely surprising that Bill falls into this error from time to time, as he is one of those Protestants with a strong liking for conservative Catholic social doctrine. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if he converts to Roman Catholicism one of these days.

Anyway, here is the judgment rendered by the formidable conservative evangelical Rev. Dr Ward Powers of Tyndale College, Sydney on one of Bill’s heroes, convicted Watergate conspirator Charles Colson. In the evangelical publication New Life of 25 Aug. 2005, Colson argued that ‘the purpose of our sexual powers isn’t pleasure but procreation’. Colson was reviewing a book by American J. Budziszewski who is associated with the creationist Discovery Institute, who is also a favourite of Bill Muehlenberg’s, and who, coincidentally, recently converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism.

Describing Colson’s position on the purpose of sex as ‘not merely wrong, but dangerously wrong’, Powers explained that:

…[ in] presenting the purpose of sex as being procreation (and not pleasure), Colson and [Budziszewski] are proclaiming a Roman Catholic teaching that goes back to when platonism and gnosticism misled the church away from biblical teaching in this field …

Powers then brought out the big guns, in particular a verse of Genesis quoted by Jesus. (Verses of the Old Testament quoted by Jesus - a kind of double whammy - are regarded by evangelicals with much the same degree of awe as poker players regard a straight flush).

In Gen 2:24 (quoted by Jesus in Matt 19:5), God says, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is clearly showing sex as an important constituent of marriage … There is no mention of procreation in this key verse …

Powers follows up with teachings of the apostle Paul, who:

… discusses sex in marriage in candid detail in 1 Cor 7:2-5, saying that the bodies of husband and wife belong to each other and that they are to fulfil each other’s sexual natures and describing failure to do this (verse 5) as ‘depriving’ or ‘robbing’ each other …

It is to be carefully noted that in Paul’s exposition of married sex there is no mention at all of procreation. Sex in God’s purpose is part of the love and bonding (and pleasure) of the married relationship - and these factors are valid reason in themselves for the sexual relationship.

Powers thinks that the Colson/Budziszewski/Muehlenberg line on sex is potentially disastrous from a practical standpoint:

In my ministry in several parishes and three Bible/theological colleges, I have seen repeatedly the deleterious consequences of this dangerous teaching that the purpose of sex is procreation. This teaching has led many people to conclude that sex in marriage is sinful unless you have procreation in view. This is very damaging to normal marital relationships.

Muehlenberg has expressed a very ‘Catholic’ suspicion of contraception on a number of occasions, and should take careful note of Powers’ next observation:

This [purpose of sex is procreation] teaching puts a question mark over people having sex after they are too old to have children, or when they have had as many children as they wish. This teaching has caused numerous earnest Christians to question the legitimacy of contraception and birth control when there is nothing in the Bible to suggest wrongdoing in taking steps to prevent conception.

Powers concludes that:

This is a very serious matter affecting the marital happiness of many people. Colson’s wrong teaching must be strongly rejected. (New Life, 8 Sept. 2005)

May I ask conservative evangelicals this friendly question? How long are you prepared to support independent ministries whose long-term result may be the catholicisation of Protestantism?

Filed in: Catholicism, Evangelicals, Sexuality