I teach ethics at a local community college as a side gig. At this point I teach it primarily because I enjoy it. I get to hear and potentially influence the ethical frameworks of a handful of students of various ages and backgrounds every semester. One topic that we cover every semester is Sexual Ethics. This is one of the more interesting topics to me because I grew up in the ‘90s, in church, and my default sexual ethics were pretty well shaped by that context. But since the late ‘90s when I was in youth group, the culture has made some pretty dramatic shifts in how sexual ethics are discussed and what is considered “normal” or '“acceptable” sexual behavior. Gay marriages were legalized in 2015, the #MeToo movement exposed a slew of long-standing abusers, simple homosexuality has grown into a full spectrum of LGBTQIA+ peoples, and the internet/social media have put the potential for sexually explicit material in the hands of most people in America. All of these things have changed the landscape for how we think about and discuss sexual morality, and every semester I get to hear thoughts on the topic from some in the youngest generation of adults.

To be honest, there is only the occasional student who stands out for their views on this topic. Most of them seem to be operating from the basic starting point that as long as it is consensual and everyone is of age, then there are no moral qualms to be had. I can’t blame them; this is the perspective pushed by popular culture and to expect much more from a 19 year-old is asking a lot. I do have the occasional student who reflects more of a “purity culture” perspective or students who have experienced some of the complex realities of sex that offer a more mature and reflective perspective, but the majority just root their morality in consent and nothing more.

While I think that there are good reasons to expand our sexual ethics beyond simply consent, I also think that it is a valuable starting point and one that, if we want to be concise, should tell us something about God. Or, said another way, I think that our general cultural affirmation that consent is a vital piece of our sexual ethics should also inform our understanding of God. Because God may be Omnipotent, Almighty, and All-Powerful, but God’s not a rapist.

One of my frustrations with much of the current theologizing that the church does is that it so focuses on Special Revelation, that is, what the Bible says, and so ignores General Revelation, that is, what we can learn about God from beyond the Bible. General Revelation says that since God is the Creator of the universe, there are God’s “fingerprints” throughout it, and since (all) humans are made in the image of God, then our desires and aversions can tell us something about God as well. General Revelation doesn’t ignore the brokenness and distortions that have happened due to The Fall, but it does carry the assumption that there is a goodness and wholeness to Creation that can still be discerned, even if only partially. It assumes that humans and nature are essentially good, but have been twisted and distorted away from that good.

So instead of rejecting the idea of consent in sexual morality, simply because the world is so enamored with it, I want to see what it tells us about God, and specifically what it tells us about the idea that God is Love. Certainly it offers more room for insight than the equally popular, but philosophically empty, catchphrase “Love is Love.”

If our deep conviction that consent is essential to healthy sexual relationships and that rape is an unambiguous evil, then what does this say about a God who is Love? Wouldn’t it have to say that God values consent as well? That forced “love” isn’t Love? That free will is essential to a loving relationship? (And with God of Love there is no other kind of relationship.)

We see this perhaps most clearly in the origin story of Abraham. Abraham’s story really takes off in Genesis 12, but it starts a few verses earlier at the end of Genesis 11. There we learn that Abraham grew up with his father, Terah, in Ur and at some point Terah was compelled to leave Ur and go to the land of Canaan. They only got as far as Haran where Terah settled and eventually died. This is the set up to the great call of Abraham who hears a voice tell him to pack up his stuff and take his family to Canaan. Abraham obeys and due to this obedience becomes the father to the Jewish nation from whence eventually comes the Messiah, Jesus.

I can’t help but wonder what compelled Terah to initially leave Ur and head towards Canaan. Could it be that God had called him originally, but that he did didn’t follow through completely? Was Terah originally God’s chosen one rather than Abraham? Or were there innumerable other attempts before the one that eventually sticks? How long and how widely did God look for a person who could faithfully follow through on His difficult request? How many failed starts occurred before Abraham was chosen? There is no way for us to know, but it seems to me that for a God of Love, for whom free will is essential to relationship, there must have been other attempts. We can say that it is just luck, or providence, or destiny, but all of those terms imply that Abraham didn’t really have a choice and that God forced his hand.

It is for this reason that I find ridiculous the occasional claims that the Virgin Mary didn’t really have a choice when God came to her with the invitation to bear His child. Some have even called this divine rape, as if the Christian God is nothing more than another Roman or Greek god. We know that Mary assented to God’s offer. We can assume that she had some idea of what her acceptance would entail, but also that there were many aspects of it that she could not have been prepared for, such as the eventual rejection and murder of her divine son. We also have no idea of how many other young maidens God approached with the same invitation. Maybe none, maybe a plethora. Both Mary’s invitation and Abraham’s invitation were preceded by long times of silence where God had apparently gone quiet. What if it simply took that long for God to find a person to freely accept His invitation?

Further proof that God doesn’t abuse His power can be seen throughout the life of Jesus, who consistently refused to align himself with the politicians and power structures of his day. The early Christian hymn to Jesus in Philippians 2 demonstrates that power was not a characteristic of Jesus, and therefore not of God. Throughout the ages the church has failed to demonstrate this same refusal of power, but Jesus is our most perfect image of God’s character, not the church.

This idea also informs our understanding of Salvation. If God is not a rapist, and will not force His love on anyone, it would seem to me that this is a strong case against Universalism. You’ll notice in the Gospels that Jesus almost exclusively heals those who ask for help. The story told in John 5 is the exception that proves the rule, as Jesus approaches the man at the pool and asks “Do you want to get well?” It isn’t a rhetorical question and the man’s immediate response is an excuse. God values the freedom and autonomy of his creatures to the extent that He would rather allow them to freely choose self-destructive behaviors and attitudes than force them to become automatons who follow Him by force. I can’t imagine that this basic approach would change when it comes to our ultimate destiny. Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if it wasn’t freely entered. I would like to think that in the end the full revelation of who God is will be so good, so compelling, so real, and so true that everyone will choose to be a part of what He offers, but I know that heaven would be infinitely diminished if even one person was there by force.

It is common to hear preachers and church-people bemoan the current state of the world, the “lost morality” of the younger generations, and the loosening of sexual ethics more broadly. The lament is understandable, but my experience teaching ethics suggests that the situation is not nearly so dire. The younger generations are navigating a bewildering world of contradictory values and inconsistent belief systems. (Churches can be sources of these things too.) But we would be fools to think that God has given up on them just because we have. God is still active in this world, and not just through the church. We would be wise to be open to seeing truths about God that are revealed through the younger generations. They may have something to offer us.