Biblical Sex

Legislation covering female reproductive health maintenance has finally passed. Even in a nation where equality is highly touted, women will have, until 2013, been treated as more expendable than men. A few years back I read Mary Roach’s Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. There I learned that even as of the publication date of her book, many aspects of the female reproductive system were still poorly understood. The reason: lack of interest by (mostly) male scientists. Of all the great equalizers of humanity, it might be expected that religions would step in to champion the cause of citizens routinely treated as objects and chattels. Instead, the opposite has been the case. Most religions, and even until the last century Christianity in the forefront of them, relegate women a secondary status to men. Religion is all about power. Now that legislation will allow women basic reproductive rights without extra fees, Catholic hospitals are concerned about the implications. “They defied the bishops to support President Obama’s health care overhaul. Now Catholic hospitals are dismayed the law may force them to cover birth control free of charge to their employees.” Thus begins an article in today’s paper by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press.

Instead of cheering equality, the church is muttering about medieval conceptions of conception. The entire idea that life begins at conception was not even possible in the biblical world where sex did not involve sperm and ova—such things were unknown in those days. The Bible has a few clues to when human life begins, and generally it is thought to be at first breath. Semen should not be wasted, however, since it was thought to be the full set of ingredients to grow new people. The uterus was simply a waiting area, a comfy place to grow with regular womb service. Men were the creators, women were the deliverers. That idea of reproduction formed the basis for all biblical and other ancient legislation on the subject. Comprehending “conception” as now scientifically understood, was only possible with the invention of the microscope. In response, a sexually underdeveloped church decided that the new data strengthened the male hold on ecclesiastical authority. Once the seed is planted, there’s no uprooting allowed. What male, after all, has ever had to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Female religious leadership was recognized in many early societies, and even in some branches of early Christianity. No legitimate rationale exists for saying half the human race is disqualified on the grounds of basic hardware. After all “male and female created he them.” Concerns of “purity” for an age when menstruation was not understood could be marshaled to the cause of male supremacy. That mystery was solved when conception became clear. An unequal result emerged nevertheless. Since women couldn’t be discounted on genetic grounds, they could on the basis of “impurity.” And here we are two thousand years after pre-scientific Christianity was conceived, still waiting while a coterie of all-male bishops castigates normal health care for females. Believers like to suppose that their leaders receive special word from the mouth of God. Those leaders tremble in the face of true equality for the very first word the Bible has to say on the subject is “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Who's superfluous here?

4 thoughts on “Biblical Sex

  1. Excellent, Steve! One of your best and of particular interest to this faithful reader.
    By the way, have you ever read “Out of the Garden: Women Writers on the Bible” edited by Celina Spiegel and Christina Buchmann? If not, you MUST get a copy. It is a gem!

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      Thank you, Norm! I’ve not read Out of the Garden yet, but I will–it looks like a very good book from the reviews I’ve seen

      Like

  2. John G.

    Steve, my wife and I are both physicians. Unfortunately, we in the medical community are no better than our religious counterparts when it comes to supporting a male-dominated system subject to antiquated religious tradition. Epidemiologists publish year after year the staggering statistics that women have more invasive and medically uneccessary medical procedures performed on them than men. In Memphis, where we live and practice, legislation supporting contraception wound be a literal God-send! Why the church can overlook despairingly obvious birth rate, poverty, and infant death rate statistics and NOT support the science to help change the paradigm is beyond my understanding. Great post! And more power to our wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters!

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      Thank you for your comments, John.

      I appreciate your insights–the problem of gender disparity seems to be deeply entrenched. It is very sad that the church hasn’t taken a more proactive and pro-humanitarian role in all of this. Thanks for weighing in!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.