The Bible contains no Hebrew or Greek word that can be translated as “sexuality.” In fact, the word didn’t exist (in reference to human feelings and behaviour) until the late nineteenth century when it was used in a medical textbook. So why do our pastors love to sermonize on the subject?

According to Jonathan Mills in Love, Covenant & Meaning, the understanding of sexuality as the totality of sexual desires—somehow expressed through each person’s individuality—is an entirely modern concept. It comes from Rousseau’s critique of modernity. Rousseau’s romantic revival turned conversations from rational self-interest back to love and friendship. Venery (i.e. gratification of sexual desires) became central to ideas of love and marriage.

Mills says that we interpret scripture in light of this relatively new “sexuality” concept, instead of interpreting the concept in light of scripture. He is troubled by the “line of wishful thinking that tries to come up with a Christian understanding of ‘human sexuality’ that can function as an enriching add-on to modern neurochemistry and psychotherapy.” The result of this modern idea’s infiltration into church teaching is disastrous, he says, especially for men with homosexual desires.

The constructed Christian idea of sexuality denies those with same-sex longings from entering the covenant of marriage. Mills claims that no culture before our “self-destructing” one thought that marriage was an expression of heterosexuality. Men with desires for venery between men should not be denied marrying the woman they love (note the disambiguation from purely sexual love) and finding fulfilment and belonging in a marriage partnership. Besides, as Mills points out, these men probably make as good (and bad) husbands and fathers as hetero men.

While Rousseau and the church would say that heterosexual venereal desire is good for a marriage, Mills says that marriage primarily requires the restraint rather than the expression of venereal desires. Mills does not deny that marriage involves venery and procreation, but he asserts that “heterosexualness in a man is much more likely to dissolve his marriage than to bind him to his wife.” Indeed, homo and hetero adulterous desires are problematic—but not one more than the other.

Marriage can’t be based on sexuality when it is in effect a covenant for clampdown on sexuality. Eros, the longing for completion, has been cheapened to refer to only sexual pleasure. Human eros should really be a longing for eternal, rather than temporal, desires. Mills says that marriage should be a partnership for identity and belonging. Identity should not be defined by sexuality.

Mills proposes the eradication of the terms heterosexual and homosexual. He says they are irrelevant to the traditional covenant of marriage. The church’s acceptance of a Rousseauian idea of marriage denies those with same-sex longings the opportunity of finding identity in covenant and
having a family.

As one professor has freely admitted in a discussion on this topic, “Sex gets boring—give a new marriage two years tops.” After that, there’s got to be more holding the partnership together. I’d say Nietzsche’s idea of marriage as a “long conversation” sounds pretty sexy.