After Larry Craig: Let's Reconsider Chastity

So, Larry Craig as U.S. Senator is history. Or before today he was. Now he is not sure. I think his resignation is for the best. He needed to go for several reasons – either for soliciting sex in a public bathroom (if that happened), for engaging in the very kinds of acts he speaks so strongly against (if that happened), or for being just a dumb nut pleading guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct (if the two things above are not true, then what is the disorderly conduct about, and why would a man of integrity plead guilty to something he did not do?). As if it wouldn’t come back to haunt him. He was whisked away so quickly by the Senate establishment that it appears he had a history of such conduct, or that there was a history of suspicions of such conduct, which raises its own set of questions and concerns.

He says he isn’t gay. I don’t even know what “gay” means anymore. It does seem that many gay folk want to make gayness a central part of a person’s persona and psyche – either you are fundamentally gay or you’re fundamentally not gay. I am not sure things are so cut and dry. And my guess is that as to this either/or definition that Larry Craig is not gay. What I do think is true is that people, whether through unhealthy sexual development, the influence of pornography, or the experience of periods of life of unbridled sexuality of all kinds, allow a kind of relentless sensuality to take root, and sex with about anyone or anything will work, even if it conflicts with the conscience, one’s sense of the public good, or one’s stated and sincere public or moral views.

The idea of sexual solicitation and sexual acts in public bathrooms makes me want to puke. Ugh, do I even want to go in another public bathroom? Gross, what is that on the seat?

Behind all the well intended and high minded debate about the rights or the non rights of gay people, there is a broader and more significant issue, more moral in nature perhaps than legal, and that is the unbridled sexuality that oozes across our culture at every turn. It’s everywhere – from the Cosmo cleavages in the grocery store line, to the ubiquitous presence of porn on the internet, to the overly advertised “men’s” clubs, to the steamy scenes on TV day in and day out, to the terribly immodest clothes foisted on our young teens and pre teens, to the juvenile and inappropriate sex humor on almost all the morning radio shows, to the Victoria Secret ads and commercials, to the innumerable pages of soft porn in the Rhino Times (now there is an irony), to the incessant ED commercials, I mean – we live in a sex drenched age! It’s getting downright disgusting.

Christians historically have been ridiculed for being uptight about sex, though Christians seem to know how to make kids pretty well according to demographic data. But that’s “procreation,” a different matter, right?

Well maybe it’s time for the historic orthodox Christian teaching regarding sexual chastity to make a comeback. Chastity does not mean abstinence; it means appropriate sexual expression, and it strongly implies modesty as regards our sexuality. I know - the word “chastity” doesn’t get much respect these days. It is thought of, wrongly, as implying a low view of human sexuality, or as sexuality as somehow inherently evil, as some Gnostics understood it. Or chastity is ridiculed or dismissed as “Victorian” (as if Christian views of sexuality began in the Victorian era), or worse still perhaps, as “Catholic.” But in reality the concept of chastity promotes inner wholeness and purity as well as societal stability and order. Yes, it is true, the historic orthodox Christian view of chastity, which I would say is the Biblical view, teaches that the God-intended context or environment for sexual expression is that of heterosexual monogamous marriage. Within this definition, chastity as a moral virtue applies to all people in all situations, married, single, old, young, tending toward gay, tending toward straight. Every person, regardless of his or her situation, is tempted to engage in sexual expression beyond these boundaries one way or another, and the difference in the depth of the temptation (and difficulty) may not be so different between folks of different life situations or inner tendencies as is often thought. Chastity as a calling, and as a challenge, applies to everyone. It is hard for everyone. I realize that this notion may go over like a lead balloon in the year 2007, but seriously, it’s time that we rethink where we are. Our culture reeks, it stinks, it has become grotesque, an outhouse of sexual libertarianism. No wonder other people do not want it exported to their shores.

I am perfectly aware that the historic orthodox Christian definition of sexuality will find many opponents, not the least of whom would be gay people. There may be no neutral ground or possibility of compatibility or agreement on this matter, and of course there is no ultimate way to separate the moral issue from its legal /social ramifications. But I ask, is it not possible for both straight and gay people, even if they cannot agree in every way about the appropriate context for sexual expression, or about the definition of marriage – is it not possible that gay and straight people can agree that the hyper sexually drenched nature of our culture is terrible, and at some level at least a compromise definition of chastity that limits, chastens, and calls to task both the heterosexual and homosexual libertarianism of our day would be in order?