The fashion and the music of the 1960s are certainly still in vogue on campus, but its revolutionary spirit is not. Deeply tucked away within the student handbook, one will find a jarringly backwards and strikingly offensive statement on sex at Pepperdine. The section, simply titled “sexual relationships,” would be quite laughable in 21st century America if it weren’t for the puritanical severity with which this university seems to limit sexuality among students. While living at Pepperdine, one could almost forget that the Sexual Revolution and all of its accompanying societal reforms even happened … almost.
Events like the Pepperdine Dating Initiative, while handily dismissed as ridiculous and irrelevant by much of the student body and faculty, only serve to underscore the retrograde way literal interpretations of Scripture have impacted sexuality on campus. (Incidentally, as of press time the initiative was also considered “sexist and creepy” by the majority of respondents on last week’s Graphic online poll.)
The student handbook explicitly assumes its literal interpretation as the only truth, and comes on strong with a statement that is somehow at once pithy and bombastic: “Pepperdine University affirms that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife.”
Oh, Pepperdine— wake up! If sex could really be placed in such a narrow theological framework, the poets and artists of the world (particularly the past 40 years) may as well trash many of their creative works. One example is The Beatles’ song “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road,” written by Paul McCartney after witnessing two monkeys copulating on an Indian road.
For some, like my grandparents who have been happily married for more than 60 years and have stuck together even amid catastrophic personal tragedies, the traditional model of relationships obviously works and works well. I have great respect for love made manifest in the context of lasting marriage, as it is often indisputably genuine and full of life.
However, the Pepperdine community should not use marriage as a limiting tool to restrict how love can or cannot be physically expressed. It’s like trying to lock every exploding star in the universe within a pristine, neat little box. Let’s be real – boxing in love is simply unnatural and impossible.
As if that’s not enough, however, the handbook’s statement on sexual relationships continues by dogmatically proclaiming the following: “This view of sexuality and marriage is rooted in the Genesis account of creation and is maintained consistently throughout Scripture.”
First of all, the idea that sexual relationships are consistently defined throughout the Bible is questionable at best. One blatant contradiction is how homosexual relationships are not even mentioned by Christ (rather ironic considering he is the essence of Christianity), whereas the priestly code of the Old Testament makes them punishable by death in Leviticus 20:13 (NIV): “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death ... ” If Scripture had a “consistent view” on sexuality as the handbook states, it seems that Christ himself may have wanted to address this. In fact, he barely mentions sexuality at all, but does strongly preach against the very pharisaical legalism that the student handbook implicitly professes. Additionally, where does the Genesis account of creation fit within the framework of evolutionary biology and historical anthropology – critical disciplines for any university? And what about metaphorical interpretations of Scripture? Why does the Episcopal Church (claiming more than 2 million Christian members) allow the consecration of openly gay bishops?
Despite what the handbook would have you believe, I urge the student body to open your eyes to the illusionary narrative constructed by the authors of “sexual relationships.” I am not advocating carnal promiscuity, but an understanding that sexuality has the power to breathe life and beauty into the community and should be expressed at the intuitive discretion of each individual. Even Christ seems to agree.
38 comments Log in to Comment
At best, Jesus meant the parable to mean that secular Israelites would suffer eternal punishment. At worst, he literally meant it that apostates should be murdered. I'm not sure how you can rationally accept either one of those interpretations.Again, I have no doubts that you know the bible very well. And, I actually think that most of your interpretations of scripture (with the exception of slavery) are absolutely correct. The bible does advocate misogyny, homophobia, sexual repression, faith over reason, and the use of fear to strengthen faith. You're right, the text itself is actually that wicked. I know that. Trust me, you will find much better moral frameworks in the study of philosophy.
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
*****
As you can see, Jesus was telling a parable in Luke 19. The words you quoted, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me," were dialogue from a story about using the gifts and talents God has given you. If that is truly the justification the Spanish Inquisition used for their crimes, then it looks like you're just as off-base with regards to that passage as they were.There are plenty other verses you could have taken out of context to support your claim that Jesus was intolerant and a bigot, but the fact that you chose Luke 19 shows me you aren't as researched on the Bible as you'd like us to believe.
I don't want to get off the topic of discussion, but I have done significant work advocating that the university should drop its affiliation with the Churches of Christ (see the Facebook group: Secularize Pepperdine). The university is not Church-controlled. Pepperdine does have a legal right to adopt CoC doctrine. But, it also has a legal right to abandon the Churches of Christ and its immoral influences. I actually think that that you and other fundamentalists (like Falwell) are 100% right about the bible. The bible is every bit as intolerant, ignorant, misogynistic, and sexually repressive as you say it is. I refuse to dignify the claim that the bible is a communication that is fundamentally different from any other book. The Illiad, Koran, Book of Mormon and the Bible are all merely human fabricated literature with fictitious claims about moral truth dictated from the supernatural. These are not even the best books we have on philosophy and moral truth anymore. According to your bible, the creator of the universe really does condemn homosexuals. In Luke 19, Jesus says "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." The torturers in the Spanish Inquisition and the murderous mobs of the Jewish pogroms were acting perfectly reasonable given what they believed. So, I reject your claim that the bible contains universal moral truth. Your belief in an inerrant bible disqualifies you from the exercise of reason, reasonableness, and openness to new evidence. So, you are right. I can't and won't argue against the student handbook from scripture. Keith made an attempt at doing that, but I would prefer not to dignify the exercise.
Once again, you only want to latch onto part of the story. Yes, premarital sex has been universal (~95%) since at least the 1960's, but the trend toward delayed marriage is new and unprecedented in human history. Men are waiting on average until they are ~29 years-old to get married. This is a game changer and there is evidence that there is now a generational divide in Christian moral principals. The Barna Group's study, "A New Generation of Adults Bends Moral and Sexual Rules to Their Liking" in 2006 found that "most young adults contended that engaging in sex outside of marriage and viewing pornography are not morally problematic, while only one-third of pre-Busters agreed. Almost half of Busters believed that sexual relationships between people of the same sex are acceptable, compared with one-quarter of older adults." So, the Christian moral principals of Baby Boomers and Baby Busters are world's apart. Of course, I concede that there is a difference between "bandwagon appeal" and the "official doctrine" of various Christian churches. But, I think you can look to the Episcopal Church as evidence that "official doctrine" tends to follow the bandwagon over time. When the Evangelical Lutheran Church voted in August 2009 to allow "sexually active" gays to join the clergy, is that not permitting premarital sex of a kind?
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now