Reading: Models of Teaching on Masturbation in Christianity

Models of Teaching on Masturbation in Christianity

Because Scripture does not explicitly address masturbation, Christians have developed different models for teaching and pastoral guidance. This lack of direct biblical reference has left the church with the task of interpreting the practice through broader theological categories: creation, covenant, holiness, embodiment, lust, and grace. As a result, diverse models have emerged, each reflecting different priorities and pastoral concerns.

These models can be grouped into three primary approaches:

1. The Abstinence Model — emphasizes holiness and covenantal fidelity, interpreting masturbation as inherently sinful and unholy. It prioritizes clarity, chastity, and marriage as the exclusive context for sexual expression.
2. The Pastoral Model — emphasizes compassion and discernment, treating masturbation as less than God’s ideal but responding with pastoral sensitivity. This model recognizes developmental realities, acknowledges Scripture’s silence, and seeks to reduce toxic shame while still calling believers toward holiness.
3. The Sexual Self Care Model — reframes masturbation as potentially acceptable when practiced with prayer, gratitude, and a sense of stewardship over one’s body. It highlights embodiment, rejects toxic shame, and views sexuality as God’s gift, though it remains controversial and in tension with historic Christian and Catholic teaching on chastity.

The Abstinence Model: A Traditional Christian Perspective on Masturbation

Introduction

Among the most sensitive issues in Christian sexual ethics is the question of masturbation. Because Scripture does not explicitly address this practice, theologians and church leaders have historically inferred their positions from broader biblical principles regarding sexuality, lust, and covenantal fidelity. One of the most prevalent frameworks within both Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism is the Abstinence Model, which interprets masturbation as inherently sinful and unholy. This paper examines the theological reasoning behind this model, highlights its strengths, identifies its challenges, and situates it within broader Christian tradition.

Theological Reasoning

The Abstinence Model proceeds from three core convictions:

1. Sexual desire is designed for marriage alone.
   Sexual intimacy is framed in Scripture as belonging within a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6). By this reasoning, masturbation, as a solitary act, fails to participate in the unitive and procreative purposes of marriage. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body emphasizes that human sexuality is essentially ordered toward self-giving love, which is absent in self-stimulation (John Paul II, 2006).
2. Masturbation is a misuse of God’s gift.
   Because masturbation is generally accompanied by lustful fantasy, it is viewed as inseparable from Jesus’ condemnation of lust in the heart (Matthew 5:27–28). Evangelical ethicist John Piper has argued that masturbation “detracts from the self-control and purity that God calls us to cultivate” (Piper, 2005). In this model, sexuality is not merely biological but theological: it must mirror covenantal fidelity and other-centeredness.
3. Abstinence is the only faithful option.
   As with other extra-marital sexual expressions—such as fornication or adultery—masturbation is categorized as a distortion of God’s design. The fruit of the Spirit includes self-control (Galatians 5:22–23), which is interpreted as the believer’s Spirit-enabled capacity to resist this temptation (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1993, §2352).

Strengths of the Abstinence Model

The Abstinence Model offers two notable strengths:

• A clear, covenantal vision of sexuality.
  By restricting sexual expression to the marriage covenant, this model underscores the sacredness of marital intimacy as a sign of Christ’s faithfulness to the church (Ephesians 5:31–32). It maintains the unity of sexual desire, covenant, and holiness.
• A high view of marriage.
  In affirming marriage as the exclusive sphere for sexual fulfillment, this model promotes chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage. It reflects the long-standing Christian teaching that marriage is the normative context for sexual flourishing (Chrysostom, Homilies on Marriage).

Challenges of the Abstinence Model

Despite its clarity, the Abstinence Model presents several challenges in pastoral practice:

• Potential for shame and guilt.
  By labeling masturbation as intrinsically sinful, the model has sometimes burdened believers, especially adolescents, with overwhelming guilt. Lewis Smedes (1976) notes that many Christians have carried “unnecessary and toxic shame” because masturbation was treated as a uniquely shameful act rather than understood within a broader framework of sexual development.
• Lack of practical guidance.
  Abstinence teaching may not adequately address the realities of prolonged singleness or adolescent development, where sexual desire is strong and covenantal marriage may not yet be an option. Without pastoral tools for managing sexual energy, believers may struggle with secrecy, hypocrisy, or despair (Grenz, 1997).

Historical and Contemporary Voices

• Roman Catholic teaching has consistently followed the Abstinence Model. The Catechism of the Catholic Churchdescribes masturbation as “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” (§2352).
• Evangelical Protestantism, especially in 20th-century purity movements, also emphasized abstinence, often warning youth of its dangers without nuance.
• Eastern Orthodoxy likewise tends to frame masturbation as sin, though often within a therapeutic model that stresses confession and healing rather than juridical guilt (Clément, 2000).

Conclusion

The Abstinence Model provides a consistent and theologically clear vision of sexuality that situates all sexual expression within marriage. Its strengths lie in affirming covenantal fidelity and upholding a high view of marriage. However, it also faces pastoral challenges in its potential to foster shame and its failure to equip believers—especially singles and youth—with constructive guidance for navigating sexual desire. As Christian communities continue to wrestle with sexual ethics, the Abstinence Model remains a vital but contested voice in the broader conversation on human sexuality.

References

Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1993). Vatican Publishing House.

Chrysostom, J. Homilies on Marriage.

Clément, O. (2000). The Roots of Christian Mysticism. New City Press.

Grenz, S. J. (1997). Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective. Westminster John Knox.

John Paul II. (2006). Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Pauline Books & Media.

Piper, J. (2005). Desiring God [Sermons and writings]. Crossway.

Smedes, L. B. (1976). Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living. Eerdmans.

The Pastoral Model: A Compassionate Christian Approach to Masturbation

Introduction

Christian sexual ethics has historically wrestled with the question of masturbation, with many traditions defaulting to outright prohibition. Yet, some ethicists have sought a more nuanced framework that acknowledges both biblical silence on the issue and the pastoral realities faced by believers. The Pastoral Model interprets masturbation as less than God’s ideal for sexuality but treats it with discernment and compassion. This model is closely associated with pastoral theologians such as Lewis Smedes, who emphasized honesty, grace, and the importance of distinguishing between sin that destroys covenant faithfulness and struggles that require patient guidance (Smedes, 1976).

Theological Reasoning

The Pastoral Model’s reasoning rests on several key points:

1. Scripture is silent on masturbation itself.
   While the Bible addresses sexual immorality, lust, adultery, and fornication (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:18; Matthew 5:27–28), it does not mention masturbation directly. Therefore, moral conclusions must be drawn from broader biblical principles rather than explicit prohibition (Grenz, 1997).
2. Masturbation may be a developmental reality.
   Especially in adolescence, masturbation is often part of sexual growth and curiosity. Smedes (1976) recognized that condemning it outright could burden young believers with disproportionate shame and guilt.
3. Potential harm arises from context.
   Masturbation becomes spiritually and psychologically problematic when it is linked to pornography, compulsive behavior, or as an escape from healthy relational intimacy. In such cases, the practice may foster self-centeredness rather than self-giving love (Balswick & Balswick, 2008).

Pastoral Guidance

The model provides specific pastoral guidance for dealing with masturbation in Christian communities:

• Exploring conscience and motives. Believers are encouraged to ask what drives the behavior—loneliness, lust, anxiety, or simple physical release—and to evaluate those motives in light of Scripture and prayer.
• Encouraging self-control without excessive guilt. Sexual holiness involves discipline, but leaders are warned against fostering toxic shame for something Scripture does not explicitly condemn.
• Recognizing grace. Pastoral care emphasizes that Christ’s grace covers all aspects of human weakness. Instead of despair, believers are invited to grow in maturity through honesty, accountability, and reliance on the Spirit (Romans 8:1–2).

Strengths of the Pastoral Model

1. Reduces shame and encourages honesty.
   This model creates space for open discussion, helping Christians move beyond secrecy and fear of condemnation.
2. Holds truth and compassion together.
   It acknowledges that masturbation falls short of God’s covenantal design for sex, while at the same time offering compassionate support and hope for those who struggle.

Challenges of the Pastoral Model

1. Risk of ambiguity.
   Because the model does not label masturbation strictly as sin in all circumstances, some may perceive it as permissive or unclear, especially in traditions that value firm rules.
2. Pastoral inconsistency.
   Application can vary widely depending on the leader’s discretion, potentially creating uneven teaching across communities.

Historical and Contemporary Voices

• Lewis Smedes was a leading advocate of this model. In Sex for Christians, he argued that masturbation is not ideal but should be understood with pastoral realism, not excessive condemnation (Smedes, 1976).
• Stanley Grenz likewise adopted a pastoral stance, recognizing both the developmental realities of masturbation and the need for sexual holiness (Grenz, 1997).
• Christian counselors such as Balswick and Balswick (2008) have encouraged pastoral leaders to address masturbation in the context of broader sexual ethics, especially its links to pornography and relational dynamics.

Conclusion

The Pastoral Model does not dismiss masturbation as irrelevant, nor does it condemn it as the gravest of sins. Instead, it occupies a middle ground of discernment, recognizing both the silence of Scripture and the complexities of human development. By reducing shame, encouraging honesty, and holding grace together with truth, this model provides a compassionate way forward for Christian communities. Its challenge lies in potential ambiguity, yet its strength is in its pastoral realism. As such, the Pastoral Model represents a vital corrective to both harsh prohibition and uncritical acceptance, offering believers guidance that is both biblically responsible and pastorally sensitive.

References

Balswick, J. O., & Balswick, J. K. (2008). A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment, and Intimacy. IVP Academic.

Grenz, S. J. (1997). Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective. Westminster John Knox.

Smedes, L. B. (1976). Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living. Eerdmans.

The Sexual Self Care Model: A Responsible Reframing of Christian Sexual Ethics

Introduction

While historic Christian teaching has generally discouraged masturbation, some contemporary voices have sought to reframe the discussion in more constructive terms. The Sexual Self Care Model does not simply celebrate the practice but situates it within the broader biblical concept of stewardship: caring for one’s body and desires responsibly before God. Advocates argue that when practiced with gratitude, self-control, and discernment, sexual self care can sometimes function as a morally acceptable way of managing sexual energy.

Theological Reasoning

The Sexual Self Care Model rests on three key claims:

1. Sexuality as God’s good gift.
   Human sexuality, including desire and pleasure, is part of God’s good creation (Genesis 1:31). Because the body is not evil but created for God’s glory (1 Corinthians 6:19–20), sexual self-care can be viewed as part of faithful stewardship.
2. A safe and moderate outlet.
   Compared with destructive alternatives—such as promiscuity, adultery, or pornography—sexual self care may provide a way of expressing sexuality that avoids greater sin or harm. Some ethicists frame it as a temporary discipline that manages desire while safeguarding covenant fidelity (Farley, 2006).
3. Potentially framed by gratitude and self-control.
   Sexual self care is not license for indulgence but must be guided by prayerful discernment, avoidance of lustful fantasy, and gratitude to God for one’s embodied life. In this way, the practice can be understood not as rebellion but as a form of self-care offered under God’s Lordship.

Strengths of the Sexual Self Care Model

• Reduces toxic shame.
  Many Christians carry heavy guilt about masturbation due to harsh prohibitions. This model encourages honesty and pastoral care, reminding believers that God’s grace covers sexual struggle.
• Affirms the goodness of the body.
  It resists Gnostic tendencies to view the body as dirty or inferior, affirming instead that sexuality is part of God’s design and can be stewarded faithfully.

Challenges of the Sexual Self Care Model

• Theological controversy.
  Because Scripture never explicitly affirms masturbation, the theological justification for this model remains contested and controversial.
• Risk of normalizing solo sexuality.
  Emphasizing sexual self care could unintentionally reduce the pursuit of covenant intimacy in marriage by making solo sexuality an accepted norm.
• Conflict with chastity traditions.
  Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical traditions have long upheld chastity outside marriage and fidelity within marriage as the Christian ideal. This model risks departing from that consensus.

Historical and Contemporary Voices

• James B. Nelson (Embodiment, 1978) argued that sexuality is central to spirituality and should not be dismissed with shame, paving the way for more affirmative discussions.
• Margaret A. Farley (Just Love, 2006) proposed a relational and justice framework that allows for positive moral evaluation of masturbation when practiced responsibly.
• Pastoral counseling literature increasingly treats sexual self care as a matter of personal conscience, encouraging believers to evaluate their practices through stewardship rather than guilt.

Conclusion

The Sexual Self Care Model represents an effort to move the discussion of masturbation in Christian ethics from condemnation or silence to discernment and responsibility. Its strength lies in affirming the goodness of embodiment and reducing toxic shame. Its weakness lies in its theological ambiguity, its potential to diminish the primacy of covenant intimacy, and its distance from historic chastity traditions. Nonetheless, as a pastoral tool, it offers Christians a way to think about sexual self-care as part of their broader call to steward their bodies faithfully before God.

References

• Farley, M. A. (2006). Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics. Continuum.
• Nelson, J. B. (1978). Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. Augsburg Fortress.
• Smedes, L. B. (1976). Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living. Eerdmans.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1993). Vatican Publishing House.

Teaching with These Models

Because masturbation is not explicitly addressed in Scripture, and because Christian traditions have reached different conclusions, it is important that teachers approach the topic with clarity, honesty, and pastoral sensitivity. The Abstinence, Pastoral, and Sexual Self Care Models each offer distinct reasoning, strengths, and challenges. Leaders who teach on this subject should resist simplistic answers and instead create space for discernment and growth in Christ.

1. Lay Out the Models Clearly
2. Acknowledge Diversity
3. Encourage Discernment
4. Always Return to Grace

Comparative Models of Teaching on Masturbation in Christianity