Book Review: Bringing Sex Into Focus by Caroline Simon

To see my used books for sale, click here.

"Bringing Sex Into Focus: The Quest for Sexual Integrity" is a new offering from Caroline J. Simon. It is an interesting read on Christian sexuality and a manageable length at less than 200 pages. Simon uses throughout the metaphor of vision -- employing a visit to the optometrist and the various diagnostic lenses they employ in order to allow us to see clearly.

Simon creates a typology of "lenses" through which we view sexuality. These include two Christian lesnses, the covenantal and procreative ones, and four "sexular" ones: expressivist, romantic, power, and plain sex. She is clear throughout that we never use just one lens when viewing sexuality, nor should we. I'm a fan of typologies, although I can understand how some may find them too subjective or ambiguous for ethical work.

Overall, I liked the book quite a bit. Simon comes from an evangelical perspective and not surprisingly ends up further on the conservative side of the spectrum than I personally do. Nonetheless, most of her arguments are cogent and well presented. While I am at times quite critical, especially in my last disagreement, this should not mean I do not recommend the book. I do.

There are three points of contention (perhaps too severe a word?) for me in her work, though. The first is simply on the name "covenantal." Simon uses this throughout as the main Christian but not Catholic lense of sexuality, yet she hardly touches on what the word "covenant" means. She briefly mentions how God made a covenant with the Israelites which was then transfered to Christians (I realize I'm being theologically imprecise right now, but the specifics aren't important). What she DOESN'T mention is that "covenant" means "contract." They are synonyms. To say we have a "contractual lens" when viewing sexuality would sound bizarre indeed. When speaking of marriage, the covenantal lens can prove extra problematic. Not once does Simon touch on the "Biblical view of marriage" (to use a phrase made famous in the Chik-Fil-A debates) as one of a property contract. As I've discussed in my thesis (for the four people who read it -- my committee and my father), marriage in the Hebrew Bible was strictly a property exchange between father-of-the-bride and groom. So to invoke a "contract lens" with marriage is certainly not in keeping with 21st century Christian ethics. Granted, I am not saying this is what Simon means when she mentions a covenantal lens, but she did not spend any ink on the topic.

My second issue with the book is her reliance on the untenable axiom "abstinence in singleness, fidelity in marriage." This may have made sense long ago when the average age of marriage for women was menarche, but with record high ages upon first marriage in the US, it has now become a false dilemma. Where in this axiom do those graduate students who have been in long-term relationships with their partners for 6 years fit? I would argue that they are neither single nor married. Yet surely they are closer to married than single! What about the couple that has been married for 20 years but is waiting until their youngest child graduates high school to divorce? This axiom also places an unneeded emphasis on genitals. Does abstinence mean no coitus? Does it mean no genital contact? What about "second base"? How about phone sex in a committed yet long distance relationship? With all of these contemporary issues that are neither coitus nor hand-holding along with the false dilemma of single vs. married, Christian sexual ethics needs a lot of conversation about these in-betweens, not simply a regurgitation of a hackneyed axiom.

Lastly and most significantly, Simon presents these six lenses almost as value-free. She certainly makes it clear that she prefers the covenantal lens, but also argues (and rightly so) that civil discourse calls for us to listen to ALL perspectives, including the secular views. This does not mean, however, that we should accept them uncritically as "valid." Yet she does just this in the chapter on homosexuality. In taking another philosopher to task on the label of "connubial bigot" for those who oppose same sex marriage, she points out that the procreative lens views all sex that cannot possibly result in conception to be sinful. That means coitus is the only ticket in town. Sorry to the homosexuals. This is simply appalling. The first and only lens that matters is the lens of justice. When considering the procreative lens through the lens of justice, it becomes obviously clear that those who view the orthodox Catholic teaching on sex to be on the opposite side of justice. Simon argues, however, that those who view homosexual activity as sinful are not bigots, but merely are consistent in their views on sexuality. I wonder if Simon would argue that the Christians that argued that slavery was theologically just or that denying the franchise to women was morally accepted would be simply "consistent" as opposed to racist and misogynist.

Gay Marriage and Abortion: Not the Same Thing

Granted, no one has said they ARE the same thing. But lately, with all the press, they often get lumped together. They do share, however, the polemic and caricatures mentioned by President Obama in his speech at Notre Dame. The main difference is that gay marriage is a legal issue, while abortion is an ethical issue. And while I am an admitted absolutist, I only fall on the side of black and white with the former.

For centuries, there have been groups of people with rights that have attempted to withhold those same rights from other groups of people. They have gone so far as to quote scripture in support of their views. Slave owners felt justified in their position by quoting the Bible. God was on their side-at least in their perspective. Luckily, they lost the battle. Later on, men attempted to withhold rights from women. Again quoting the Bible. They lost as well. In the whole of history, the group attempting to withhold rights from another group has always lost. Thank God.

This country is built on the belief that all people are created equal and have the same rights. This is built into our founding documents, reiterated on the battlefield of Gettysburg by one of our greatest Presidents, and is still true today. Everyone is created equal and has the same rights.

Gay marriage is a legal issue and only a legal issue. Some people have the right to marry. Another group doesn't. This is not in line with our belief that everyone has the same rights. Gay marriage must be allowed if we are to believe that all people are created equal and have the same rights. While allowing this, we should not force any organization to marry a couple they have a religious reservation in marrying. But the legality of gay marriage should not be denied.

Some opponents say "Oh, well if we allow gay marriage we will end up having to allow plural marriage or marriage to turtles." This is merely a deflection. And a bad one at that. NO ONE is allowed plural marriage. There is not one group that is allowed plural marriage while attempting to withhold that right from others. Therefore the analogy is moot.

The demand for gay marriage is legally sound. The demand for a woman's right to an abortion or for a ban on abortion is not so simple.

Abortion is an ethical issue. At the foundation of the debate is the answer to the question "When does life begin?" Any performance of an abortion AFTER that point would be, by definition, murder. The anti-abortion group thinks life begins at conception. The pro-choice group thinks it begins later. President Obama was right to conclude that the answer to that question is "beyond his pay-grade." The answer to that question is a personal and individual one. Personally, I believe life begins at conception. This does not, however, make me a hypocrite for wanting to preserve the legal status quo. I admit that other people are allowed a different answer to the question.

Lastly, President Obama's most salient point in his speech at Notre Dame was the call for a decrease in the number of abortions. Regardless of on what side one falls, reducing the number of abortions performed is a common goal everyone can get behind. Abortions for convenience's sake, regardless of one's answer to when life begins, are despicable. End them now. Not through law, however, but through action. Peer pressure is powerful and not always negative. Not violent pressure like screaming at women entering a clinic. "Resist not the evil-doer." But by fair minded words and love.

I will, however, say something the President didn't--if the Catholic Church is going to take such a strong stand against abortion, it is their responsibility to also reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies by removing the doctrine against birth control.