Sexual Script Theory: an integrative exploration of the possibilities and limits of sexual self-definition.

Sexual Script Theory (SST) and its clinical applications are premised on the notion that the subjective understandings of individuals of their sexuality determine the persons' choices of sexual actions and the qualitative experiencing of those sexual acts. The key elements of SST and key Christian control beliefs about sexuality are described, and then related in an integrative exploration of SST. The limits of an understanding of psychological scripting grounded in an unfettered Constructivism, and the limits of a purely pragmatic understanding of script legitimacy, are each discussed. We develop the pervasive theme of the necessary connectedness of sexual scripting to the broader processes of self-definition, which for the Christian, are to be rooted in a biblically-derived set of categories that connect sexuality to the character of the whole person, to their union with a spouse in marriage, and to the human community (individually and corporately) in its relationship to God.

**********

A female client, sexually abused as a child, experiences adult sexuality as violent and base, herself as terrified, passive, and asexual, and her husband as demanding and single-minded. A male client manifests a constrained imagination for the possible range of fulfilling sexual experience, thus limiting himself and his wife to rigid, boring, and brief sexual intercourse experiences disconnected from the emotional core of their marriage. The former is clinically diagnosed with an aversion disorder, the latter with low sexual desire. What help is available for such persons?

Sexual Script Theory (SST, Gagnon & Simon, 1973) and its application in clinical practice are founded on the undeniable reality that the subjective understandings of each person about his or her sexuality (and called a sexual script) substantively determine that person's choice of sexual actions and the subsequent qualitative experiencing of those sexual acts. By working with these idiosyncratic sexual scripts, clinicians can expand the subjective experience and the range of action that flows from them; thus enhancing the quality of sexual satisfaction for the client.

How ought the Christian therapist attempting to intervene clinically to improve the client's sexual experience evaluate the utility of this approach? Are there broader issues connected to the use of this approach that ought to concern the Christian mental health professional? What guidelines and cautions should be utilized in the wise appropriation of this approach? In addressing these questions, we will first summarize biblical perspectives on sexuality, then SST itself, and close with discussion of guidelines for thoughtful appropriation of this approach.

CHRISTIAN CONTROL BELIEFS REGARDING SEXUALITY

As we have argued elsewhere (Jones, 1994, 1996; Jones & Butman, 1991), the "integration of psychology and Christian faith" involves, at its most basic level, a commitment that Christian belief is the foundational and authoritative cognitive framework from which the study and practice of psychology (and indeed all study and practice) should proceed. The complexity of this enterprise cannot be overestimated. First, we must grapple with the difficulty of determining what the corpus of Christian faith" has to say about or give relevance to our topic of interest. The sprawling intellectual landscape of the Scriptures themselves includes theological and other propositions, historical narratives, promises, prayers, moral injunctions, parables, apocalyptic, and other complex forms of divine communication (Vanhoozer, 1998). Add to this the debates about the meaning of any specific aspect of scripture, and the complexity and lack of cohesion of Christian theology over two millennia, and we are often left puzzled as to what to declare as divine wisdom bearing on our topic. Further, faith is also more than any belief system; it is a calling, a living relationship, a way of life with God and in community, and many more things.

In addition, the examination of any discrete topic area in psychology is necessarily understood as an intricate enterprise. Scientists approach the acquisition of knowledge assuming certain metaphysical control beliefs (Plantinga, 1984; Wolterstorff, 1984) that they bring to the process of knowing; it is only through the "grid" of such beliefs that scientific knowledge is possible, even as those beliefs are loosely responsive to the data generated by scientific inquiry (Mahrer, 2000; O'Donohue, 1989). The relationship between the broadest aspects of the metaphysical base and the most focal empirical observations is multifaceted and loose. Scientific inquiry, then, might be conceived visually as a pyramid, with the wide base formed by the many metaphysical control beliefs presumed in the initial approach of scientists to their subject, and the narrowing approach to the apex of the pyramid as increasingly empirically verifiable (in the loose sense of that term) predictions that flow from the base. At the middl e ranges of the pyramid, we have ever more focal theoretical statements and generalizations about empirical observations.

The examination of the compatibility of Christian belief with the fruits of psychological inquiry, and the restructuring of psychological theory and practice in a manner compatible with Christian belief, cannot be reduced simply to discussions at the base of the pyramid, to discussions about broad metaphysical presumptions. Where Christian belief makes firm claims about matters of fact that have direct bearing on psychological topics, submission to the primary authority of those beliefs is demanded. For example, in the study of human development and of psychopathology, primary Christian belief commitments will ground our vision of what constitutes normalcy or wholeness, the final desired outcome of human development and the norm of health (Browning, 1987). Rarely, however, does scripture or the Christian tradition speak with scientific precision to a matter of specific empirical focus in psychological science.

What Christian control beliefs are germane to proper evaluation of SST? For a thoughtful engagement, we must have before us the spectrum of basic commitments in theological anthropology, which orthodox faith requires, including our creation in the image of God, our physicality and yet non-reducibility to mere physicality, our rationality, our fallenness, our relational natures, and so forth (Jones & Butman, 1991).

Of more direct relevance to SST, Roberts (1997, p. 81) has described human beings as fundamentally and intrinsically "verbivorous" or word-eaters. Roberts argues that humans "become what we are by virtue of the stories, the categories, the metaphors and explanations in terms of which we construe ourselves." We ingest stories, and we become and are what we eat. This attribution to construal of a fundamental place in the construction of the human personality bears some basic similarity to the Personal Construct Theory of Kelly (1955) and to narrative approaches to psychotherapy (Androutsopoulou, 2001; Angus, Levitt, & Hardtke, 1999; Hermans, 1999; Leahy, 1991). As we will discuss later, Christian understandings of such construal processes involve a commitment to what might be called a "correspondence" approach, which posits that the best (most functional or adaptive of) such construals are those that correspond to the objective truth about ourselves (that truth being God's true knowledge of us).

The "objective truth" of the Christian tradition about human sexuality is difficult to specify. If one were to demand absolute unity among all who claim the name Christian as the benchmark for this truth, we would be unable to articulate any consensus. Even taking our current situation as a case study, almost every conceivable stance toward basic sexual ethics has been claimed as a Christian position (see, for example, Holben, 1999). We have argued, nevertheless, that something like the following constitutes a historic core of orthodox Christian teaching about sexuality (see Jones & Yarhouse, 2000).

We begin with an affirmation of being made intentionally as human beings with bodies, sexes, and sexuality. Embodiment as physical beings, explicitly sexual, male and female physical beings, is blessed as a creational good ("it is very good," Genesis 1:31). Historically, the Christian Church has affirmed marriage between one person of each sex as the creational norm for intimate sexual expression. Consummation of a heterosexual marriage in sexual intercourse has been viewed as creating a divinely blessed and intended outcome, a "one flesh" union between wife and husband (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; I Corinthians 6:16). This reality has formed the basis for the Church's high view of marriage (I Timothy 4:1-5) and negative stance toward divorce. In addition to the creation of this one-flesh union, sexual intercourse must be seen biblically as serving the purposes of biological reproduction, with the family unit established by sexual union providing the optimal context for the nurture of children (Genesis 1 and 2). It also serves to provide pleasure (Proverbs 5:15-20) and serves the legitimate gratification of a basic human drive (I Corinthians 7:1-9).

Any specification of a biblical ideal of sexuality must be qualified by the effects of the Fall which pervade our experience of sexuality (Seitz, 1995). Our corrupted state clouds and contaminates all aspects of our lives, including our sexuality, with distorted desires, pride, rebellion, cruelty, and other forms of crookedness. In light of the good realities and purposes of our sexuality, and of our brokenness, the core of the traditional sexual ethic of the Christian Church has been that God commends and commands that married people maintain the exclusivity of sexual intimacy with their spouses and that unmarried people refrain from intimate sexual relations. These general principles are embodied negatively in the Scriptures in the scattered prohibitions of adultery, incest, rape, fornication, homosexual sex, and lust.

Despite this generally accepted core, the Christian tradition has witnessed some substantial variance when the implications of these foundations are Fleshed out. Three brief examples will illustrate. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) was a celibate priest regarded historically as one of the Church fathers (we rely on Clark, 1977, for this account). He sought to give a biblical account of sexuality and gender roles, but he is regarded as dramatically influenced also by the Hellenistic tradition. A presumption of hierarchy governed all areas of his thought about sexuality. Within the individual, reason must dominate the senses and lusts of the body "just as a competent charioteer reins in his horses" (Clark, 1977, p. 5). At the social level, the family unit was conceptualized as a monarchy; a husband was a king who should rule over his subjects, including his wife, children, and slaves (the church and the social state were similarly construed). Chrysostom believed (reflecting more the view of Aristotle than of the Old Testament) that it was man, in the gender-specific rather than generic sense, who was created in the image of God. From this assumption, Chrysostom could claim that male domination and female subjection were natural, and that men were the main contributors of spiritual qualities to the marital relationship. Women were limited to contributing material services fitting to their rank (e.g., fulfilling the sexual appetite of her husband to quell the need for his frequenting prostitutes). Marriage was intended to tame concupiscence and provide children.

The exaltation of spirit and reason over body, and perhaps also the hierarchical placement of men over women, led Chrysostom to laud the state of virginity. Virginity was an option for all Christians and provided an opportunity for a life of freedom, freedom from bodily sensuality and of marital servitude. Virginity was particularly valuable for females, as "virginity, like martyrdom, gave females an opportunity to rise above what Chrysostom considered the usual limitations of their sex" (Clark, 1977, p. 16). In particular, the virgin female was believed to be raised above the curse of Genesis 3:16 as she was relieved of childbearing and of subjection to a husband.

Gregory of Nyssa (335?-394 AD) perhaps went even further than Chrysostom in negative views toward sexuality. He posited that humans are an inherently unstable composite of rational and irrational capacities. Our physicality and sexuality, while present by creational intent, were never meant to dominate human nature. The Fall resulted in the triumph of the irrational for the unregenerate and unsanctified. Gregory speculates that "if reason where to govern these motions [i.e., irrational sexuality], they would assuredly be transformed into virtues and manifest the divine image within" (Behr, 1999, p. 246). Going further than even Chrysostom in his discomfort with sexuality, Gregory actually suggested that had the Fall not occurred, some other option for reproduction than sexual intercourse might have been available to humanity (and must have been available to the first humans in the unfallen state): "if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal of equality with the ang els, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply, but whatever the mode of increase in the nature of angels ... this would have operated also in the case of human beings" (Gregory of Nyssa, in De hominis opificio, 17.2, 189a in Behr, 1999).

Augustine (354-430 AD) represents another view on how sexuality relates to creation and God's specific plan for humanity. Augustine believed that the Creator ordained all differences between genders, their means of bodily union, and their ability to reproduce from the seeds of others in to mature human bodies. His rational, voluntaristic understanding of an individual's presence in his or her body led him to believe that sexual passion was properly "under the control of rational will" (Ramsey, 1988, p. 63) and, hence, to declare that desire did not belong to the true nature of sexual intercourse. This led him to be doubtful about marriage as a valued state for spiritual purity. Still, Augustine nuanced his treatment of fallen sexuality and shame. He never discarded his analysis of sin as spiritual dissension or inner division of will, and asserted "it was not the corruptible flesh that made the soul sinful, but the sinful soul that made the flesh corruptible" (De civ. Dei 14.3 in Oates, 1948). And he did asc ribe three good aspects of marriage: (a) It is the ordained means of procreation. (b) It is a guarantee of chastity and a restraint for sin. Further, at least in its ideal form, marriage wards off pride and self-reliance, and it can in some ways serve to cultivate virtue. Paying the debt of marriage means doing what love requires, not simply what marriage or law alone requires. (c) There is virtue in the sacramental bond of union that occurs with sexual intercourse as explained in Matt. 19:6. This sacramental bond is "the imprint upon natural marriage of the living Christ's unswerving and indissoluble binding of himself to his people" (Ramsey, 1988, p. 72). The image of Christ's love for the church as His bride is reflected in the marriage of created but fallen men and women. All of this led him to the following expectations within marriage: (a) fecundity or offspring; (b) faith, fidelity, faithfulness, or chastity; and (c) the pledge of the sacramental bond between a man and a woman joined before God. Even s o, marriage always remained for Augustine a secondary good. Celibacy was the highest good: since it does not corrupt the flesh, it will produce a greater eternal reward for imitating the Creator and the heavenly beings.

This brief exploration of a small but significant slice of Christian reflection on sexuality illustrates the perplexing complexity, as well as the contentiousness, of this subject. It also illustrates how persons working from the basic biblical materials but with varying collateral assumptions from differing intellectual frameworks can come to contrasting conclusions on key issues. Ours has been a history of debate over the purpose, meaning, and necessity of sexuality, and how it contributes to the relationships between God and his people. Still, despite the controversies, the foundational commitments to an objective meaning of sexual intercourse in the creation of a one-flesh union in marriage, to a moral vision, and to a fundamental valuing of our created physicality remain. And although theologians were concerned about the moral dimensions of the physical expression of our sexuality, they were also interested in the cognitive, emotional, and spiritual aspects of sexual union. This remains a significant is sue today in psychotherapy as couples seek sexual satisfaction and deepened emotional intimacy with their spouse. The diminished sexual satisfaction of many couples may, in part, be due to their construals of their sexuality, construals reflecting some of the distorted (to our eyes) understandings of Chrysostom, Gregory, or Augustine. The job of the Christian clinician is to draw out, challenge, and inform these beliefs, while also honoring the truth of Scripture in meeting the goals of therapy.

SEXUAL SCRIPT THEORY AND ITS CLINICAL APPLICATION

According to Simon and Gagnon (1986), the concept of "scripts" is "essentially a metaphor for conceptualizing the production of behavior within social life" (p. 98). A script is a cognitive device that guides actions and makes sense of behavior. Scripts denote large, interconnected (and hence relatively consistent) units of cognitive behavior and guide the character of social life in general (Gagnon, Rosen, & Leiblum, 1982). We develop cognitive scripts for stereotyped sequences of daily or routine events and for social interactions (Alksnis, Desmarais, & Wood, 1996) whether in the present or for the future (Atwood & Dershowitz, 1992). Scripts can generate behaviors that function as self-fulfilling prophecies in support of the script itself (thus at times promoting dysfunctional consistency) and make it difficult for the person to act in ways outside of (inconsistent with) the script.

Scripts emerge in interaction within three distinct levels of human experience: the cultural scenario or social context, the unique interpersonal experience of the individual, and the unique intrapsychic experience of the person (Atwood & Dershowitz, 1992; Simon & Gagnon, 1986). Cultural scenarios are collectively developed instructional guidelines that outline the expected sequence of events for certain social interactions along with the expected behaviors to fulfill a chosen role (Alksnis et al., 1996). The actor uses the script to interpret the cultural scenario and thereby generate appropriate courses of action to meet the demands of a given situation. Interpersonal scripting involves the modification of a generic script to fit a current circumstance in the light of the personal history of the actor observing significant others (e.g., family, friends) in interaction. Intrapsychic scripts emerge as the developing person attributes unique personal meanings to the experiences to which he or she has been exp osed. Thus, the cultural script is reflected in beliefs that begin, for example, "Men are.. ." (or American men, white men, Christian men); the interpersonal script is reflected in beliefs that begin "Men like me are..." (or men in my family, my friends and I, professional men like me); and the intrapsychic script is reflected in beliefs that begin "I am..."

Sexual scripts are largely unconscious mental schemas that guide how people behave and process information during a sexual episode (Frey & Hojjat, 1998). Gagnon and Simon (1973, p. 19) conceptualized sexual scripts as being "involved in learning the meaning of internal states, organizing the sequences of specifically sexual acts, decoding novel situations, setting limits on sexual responses and linking meanings from nonsexual aspects of life to specifically sexual experience." An individual's sexual script defines the repertoire of what is appropriate and accepted in terms of behavior, status, roles, and modes of expression of one's sexual self (Reed & Weinberg, 1984).

SST highlights two aspects of sexual scripts, performance of behavior and cognitive processing, with the latter referring specifically to the emotions and meanings attached to the experience. Gagnon et al. (1982) argued that, "On one hand, our scripts function as a plan or code for directing our sexual actions and anticipating the responses of a partner; while at the same time these scripts determine our emotional responses and meanings we attribute to our sexual encounters" (p. 46). Scripts weave together an individual's seemingly separate, isolated sexual behaviors, and our responses to them, into a coherent pattern. Thinking on a more relational and collective level, cultural-level scripts coordinate the behaviors of many individuals into a comprehensive whole. When a given script is enacted or engaged, a somewhat predictable behavioral outcome will follow, made unique by the person's interpersonal and intrapsychic scripts as well as unique situational variables. Humans are continually recreating, perfect ing, and reinterpreting sexual scripts in a fluid and dynamic process.

Simon and Gagnon (1986) proposed that sexual scripts must solve two problems. The first is gaining permission or allowing the self to participate in desired forms of sexual behavior. The second involves access to the outcome experiences that the desired behavior will likely generate. Often, the actor's experience and construction of the script depend upon both what his or her partner appears to be doing and experiencing. The sexual script is derived and maintained by a complex combination of cultural scenarios, perceptions of the partner's actual experience, and the requirements or expectations placed upon the other to sustain sexual excitement.

The concept of scripts can truly take on a very literal meaning as "the creation and-staging of a drama" (Simon & Gagnon, 1986, p. 110). Scripting directs the 'actor' to take on a role that acquires meaning only in relationship and in interaction with other roles. Individually and outside of contextual cues, roles are meaningless. The actor's thoughts, feelings, and behavior are contingent upon the responses of others, including their thoughts, feelings, behavior, inhibitions, and meaning or purpose in the situation. Sexual scripts are the blueprints for behavior, specifying who one will have sex with, what one will allow him or herself to do sexually, when one will have sex, and why one will engage in sexual behavior (Atwood & Dershowitz, 1992).

Dramatic and recent alterations in patterns of sexual behavior reflect the influence of sociocultural changes on the cultural dimension of sexual scripts. The requirements and meanings associated with sexual roles for men and women in society are evolving. Simon and Gagnon (1986) suggest broader changes in family life, careers, values, and the very definition of the life cycle all profoundly influence sexual scripts. Social institutions, such as the church, educational system, or workplace, participate in defining sexual scripts. At the same time, the unique influence of the interpersonal and the intrapsychic continues unabated. Individuals internalize at least some of these cultural models and begin the process of personal script development. When uncertainty exists about what behavior is appropriate, individuals refer to the behavior of others who are physically and socially close to their own position, matching or adapting their own personal sexual scripts in interaction with the dominant cultural script (Reed & Weinberg, 1984). Gagnon et al. (1982) emphasize the continuity of script development throughout the lifespan as it begins during childhood, progresses through adolescence, and becomes more multifaceted in adulthood.

Additionally, the use of specific sexual scripts may contribute to the degree of commitment required in a relationship. Scripts appear to evolve as the intensity and level of commitment to the relationship increases. It appears that varied sexual scripts are employed at different stages of a relationship. In a study by Reed and Weinberg (1984), scripts became more advanced and established as couples moved from serial dating to going steady to being engaged. This may suggest that the marital script unfolds in a step-wise manner.

SST is increasingly seen as a standard tool in clinical application for the treatment of sexual disorders. Its use is woven, acknowledged and unacknowledged, throughout the gamut of sex therapy applications (Leiblum & Rosen, 2000). There are a myriad of factors that influence sexual behavior and satisfaction, and sexual scripting is used increasingly to uncover the motivations and understandings that shape client sexual experience. Atwood and Dershowitz (1992) offer one way of thinking about and treating sexual problems that is grounded in SST. Initially, the client (either an individual or a couple) is asked about what their sexual problem means to them within his or her sociocultural context. Sexualityis treated as a symbol that is overlaid with meaning by society. The sexual problem is conceptualized as a focus of symbolic analysis and interpretation. Thus, the problem is perceived as stemming from various forms of behavior or practice within the individual's sexual life. Underlying this framework is the notion that sexual meanings are socially constructed. Given this reality, it then is possible to deconstruct useless or damaging sexual scripts. This can involve learning about the origins of the person's scripts and exploring the extent of the sexual script's validity. The goal is to see the client's world through their eyes, to give them clinical distance on their own ways of construing their sexual behavior and experience, and then to assist them developing new, alternative perspectives. To find, name, focus on, and help couples experience alternative sexual meanings and scripts is the overarching objective. Couples are told that change in sexual scripts is a normal developmental process, and that they have the choice to engage that change process with intentionality. There are numerous sexual scripts available for examination and experimentation. Atwood and Dershowitz believe the role of the therapist is to notice competing constructions or exceptions in the couple's sexual meanings and scripts. Changes in a couple's sexual script can dramatically affect and reorganize a couple's sexual behavior and goals.

Hof and Berman (1986) use the sexual genogram as a tool for the elucidation and change of sexual scripts. This process combines the specific questioning that characterizes the traditional sex history with open-ended history and story-telling approaches akin to family therapies. Hof and Berman endorse this technique because "it locates the sexual dysfunction in a three-generation, total family context, allowing for more complete assessment and a wider range of therapeutic options in designing treatment strategies" (p. 39). Such use of the sexual genogram as an assessment instrument sets the stage for its use as a significant component of the treatment process.

AN INTEGRATIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH SEXUAL SCRIPT THEORY

SST has utility as a clinical tool for the Christian clinician, but it is a complex and ambivalent tool that should be used with caution. At first glance, the only legitimate concerns for the Christian clinician in clinical application of SST might appear to be: (a) the possibility of the application of SST toward illegitimate treatment goals, or (b) the utilization of morally questionable scripting interventions to create client movement toward desirable ends. An example of the former might be the use of SST to help a sexually abstinent and anxious single person who grew up in a "rigid and sexually constricted fundamentalist family/church" to shed his or her sexual prohibitions and emerge as an uninhibited sexually active adult. Such a person might be led to adopt, on an experimental basis, a new script as an uninhibited and assertive sexual connoisseur, a script transformation that might be seen as legitimate for the monogamous married person in relation to his or her spouse but morally troublesome for the single traditional Christian. An example of the latter might come in intervening with a faithfully married but sexually bored couple desiring to experience sexual growth (a worthy therapeutic goal). Based on the questionable but commonly asserted affirmation of the innocence and moral-neutrality of fantasy, a sex therapist might encourage the adoption of titillating (and morally objectionable) sexual scripts. Such interventions, ostensibly encouraged for the enrichment of the monogamous couple, encourage the adoption of imagined patterns of behavior that would be judged immoral and degenerate in real life. The concern of Christ and his apostles for purity of the thought life would seem to question the use of such images. Stepping back and evaluating SST from the widest perspective possible, the Christian clinician must engage the constructivist nature of SST and ponder the difficult question of how far to go in embracing the metatheoretical commitments of this approach to human autonomy in the forging of sel f-identity.

There is a relatively non-controversial aspect to construal or "scripting" in formation of individual and couple identity A vital marriage is always undergoing a process of defining itself. Two separate individuals come together with separate identities and start to build a life together as one couple. This involves a complicated, delicate balance of juggling what it means to be an individual and what it means to fully commit to a unifying relationship. Where there was once only 'me,' there now exists an us. The hard work for spouses is to continually build and validate this identity as a couple without losing a sense of congruence with who they are as individuals. Discussing early interactions and ongoing socialization, Atwood and Dershowitz (1992, p. 207) suggest that "individuals construct a reality around sexual meanings that includes a preferred way of relating to others." This becomes the foundation for how they perceive others and how they expect others to perceive them. This sets up predictable ways of interacting with each other, the very formation of a sexual script.

But what are the boundaries or limits to such selfdefinition? Let us here distinguish between "Constructivism" and "constructivism" on the basis of whether self-definition is understood to operate without constraints (or without constraints except as imposed by the limitations of human imagination, i.e., Constructivism) or to operate within the constraints of certain objectively existing boundaries that substantively condition that process of self-definition (i.e., constructivism).

As an example of Constructivism, Atwood and Dershowitz (1992) see sexuality and sexual problems as utterly sociocultural symbolic constructs. The therapy that flows from this view involves inquiry into the sources, processes of development, and consequences of the construction and organization of the sexual scripts. The dialectical relationship between culturally, interpersonally, and individually constructed sexual meanings is the recurring focus of their approach. Note, however, that there are no objective meanings of sexuality, but only subjectively constructed meanings (whether their source be the individual, the immediate social network, or the culture):

Social constructionists believe that how we know what we know is not through an exact pictorial duplication of the world. Rather, reality is seen experientially, in terms of how we subjectively interpret the constructions. In this sense, we are responsible for what we believe, feel, and see. What this means is that our story of the world and how it works is not the world, although we behave as though it is. Our experiencing of the world is limited to our description of it. Using language is action (languaging), and it is through languaging that persons define and experience reality. It is, therefore, through languaging in therapy that an environment conducive to change is created. (Atwood & Dershowitz, 1992, p. 199)

Constructivism (big "C") is problematic on many fronts. Most basically, it is one among several manifestations of what Planting a (1994) calls "creative anti-realism," the argument that "human beings, in some deep and important way, are ourselves responsible for the structure and nature of the world.... [and that] the whole world of experience ... receives its basic structure from the constituting activity of the mind" (pp. 272-273). Plantinga rightly recognizes that if "we confer its basic structure upon the world, [then human beings] really take the place of God" (p. 11), and he rightly connects such belief to a sinful drive to take God's place as creator, to achieve autonomy and independence in our relationship to God. Christian faith involves a commitment to some version of realism, with the concomitant commitment that the wise person will conform his or her beliefs to reality in some form. So Christian clinicians utilizing SST must strive to avoid communicating an acceptance of Constructivism (creative antirealism) in the conduct of therapy; to solve a sexual problem but in the process to turn a realist into an anti-realist would be a poor trade.

But not all advocates of SST are Constructivists. Many advocates of SST embrace constructivism (small "c") in that they advocate the use of SST with a presumption that the subjective restructuring of scripts goes on against the backdrop of objective givens about sexuality; that is, some version of realism. The basic argument here is that there are givens about sexuality, but also ways in which the client's scripts distort or fail to reflect those realities. SST is then applied to bring the client's scripts closer to reality, or to explore the degree of creative flexibility within the constraints of reality that will generate an improved sexual experience for the client. SST can be used in conjunction with many different conceptualizations of those sexual and human realities: Freudian meta-theory, pure sensualistic hedonism, or others. Hence, constructivist approaches are no more intrinsically compatible with Christian faith than Constructivism.

Evolutionary psychology is increasingly a presumed objective and scientifically grounded framework for understanding sexuality. Evolutionary psychology argues that the subjective experience of sexuality of all men and women, for example their scripts for sexual interaction, develop and exist within the constraints of evolutionarily determined patterns of preferred sexual interaction strategies and patterns of attraction to different prospective mate characteristics. The presumed objective grounding is the biological imperative to reproduce, and to do so maximizing reproductive potential. Crudely speaking, the fundamental reality of sexual experience (and indeed of all of life) is the drive to bequeath one's genes to future generations. In the words of Wright (1994, p. 28), the goal of life for humans is "getting their genes into the next generation." It is this fundamental functional capacity, the capacity to abet reproduction, that is the final explanation for and function of all basic characteristics of li fe (Buss, 1998; Wright, 1994). Wright argues that "essentially everything about the human mind should be intelligible in these terms. The basic ways we feel about each other, the basic kinds of things we think about each other and say to each other, are with us today by virtue of their past contribution to genetic fitness" (p. 28). Love, rationality, loyalty, ambition; it is presumed that all significant aspects of human nature are grounded in their contribution to propagation.

Evolutionary psychology then serves as one variant of a realist view that can serve as a backdrop for SST. Using as an example a common argument, Frey and Hojjat (1998) recount how women are more biologically invested in their existing or potential offspring because they produce only one egg per month, and then must gestate, give birth to, nurse, and often assume greater responsibility for the care of the child. Hence, women tend to engage in sex that emphasizes loving commitment and emotional intimacy with an exclusive partner who can share the heavy burden. Women expect (or rather hope) that their male partner will remain loyal and provide long-term care for any offspring. On the other hand, men produce a plethora of sperm and are not constrained in replicating their genes by the biological burden of childbearing and childcare. Men are evolutionarily programmed to seek sexual activity solely for pleasure, to have more sexual partners, to be more promiscuous, and to avoid emotional attachments. In summary, "males disperse their sexual investments, whereas females concentrate theirs" (Frey & Hojjat, 1998, p. 265). This set of assumptions leads to the prediction that men and women prefer and utilize different (gender-specific) sexual scripts. A primary difference in these scripts involves the number of sexual partners permitted by each individual. Married men and women may assign different meanings of love to sexual scripts or express particular types of love using specific forms of sexual activity. SST grounded in an evolutionary psychology perspective in clinical application then involves the negotiation of a functional set of overlapping scripts that will give the couple the sexual satisfaction that they desire within the reality constraints that are presumed to exist within the backdrop of evolutionary psychology theory.

We will not attempt any general critique of evolutionary psychology here. Rather, we use this illustration to suggest that clinicians need to strive to have the right version of realism as a backdrop to the clinical application of SST. SST can be clinically applied with a backdrop of Christian theological teaching about sexuality; a form of Christian constructivism if you will. Still, there are dangers even in such an approach. We live in a time when an essentialist view of sexuality is presumed by many. Clients seeking enhanced sexual satisfaction will often presume that it is their calling to autonomously forge their personal individual identities apart from the moral constraints of formal religious systems ("I must define myself, create myself, construct myself"). Sexuality and sexual expression are presumed to be part of the defining core of the person, and any objective and fixed meaning for that sexuality and sexual expression are denied. Turner (1993) notes the widespread acceptance of the claim that our sexuality "in some way defines the inner depths of the self" and is thus fundamental to the very "powers and abilities [of the self that] the self is to discover, develop, and exercise in the course of daily life." It then follows that "denial of one's 'sexuality' is akin to denial of 'oneself' and so also one's basic 'identity'" (p. 17). In other words, many today believe that they must individually forge their autonomous identities apart from moral law, believe that sexual expression is at the very core of those identities, and believe that sex means whatever they intend it to mean.

This stance contrasts with the historic views of the Church that (a) individual identities are rightly formed in the context of community (hence not autonomously), (b) individual identities are rightly formed in response to the theological and moral absolutes of the Christian faith that tell us where sexuality fits into our personhood (hence not subjectively), and (c) our sexuality has an objective set of meanings regardless of our intentions (Paul's teaching about sexual union in I Corinthians 6 suggests that regardless of the intentions of the actors, sexual intercourse has a fixed and intrinsic meaning).

And now we get to the very heart of the delicacy of the implementation of SST and here reiterate our argument from Jones and Yarhouse (2000). Turner (1993) argues that humanity in general (and, we would add, clinicians seeking to help people with sexual difficulties) will deal properly with sexuality only when we see it in the context of all of life. In the biblical understanding, this must include our ultimate and eternal context. "The ethics of sex ought to be placed within the full context of the Christian life and the churches' pastoral ministry... To place sexual relations in this full and more adequate context, Christians ought to understand them as part of the undertaking that encompasses all aspects of their lives. That undertaking is holiness of life and its end is not repression hut joy unconfined" (Turner, 1994, p. 20). As opposed to undertakings defined by the autonomous self's desire for self-actualization, and as opposed to the atomistic search for increased sexual satisfaction disconnected fro m couple intimacy and the formation of the character of the client, Christians believe that God places before us an objective pursuit defined by Him-holiness.

Holiness in this life is a calling, in part, of preparation for and partial realization now of what will eventually be ours forever in glorification...[To] the secular mind, suffering is a frustration of one's rightful pursuit of satisfaction; but to the Christian, suffering (such as the real suffering of sexual disappointment and frustration, and their deeper root, loneliness) is integral to our questing after a goal that only begins when this life ends-holiness, purity, Christ-likeness, and giving glory to God. In short, we live our sexuality properly only when we live it in light of eternity. (Jones & Yarhouse, 2000, p. 167)

SST, when used as a clinical tool by the Christian psychologist, should explicitly or at least implicitly be directed to the furtherance of the client's growth as a whole human being. In contrast to the crass pragmatism of so much of the clinical application of SST (e.g., Does it give more orgasms? Does it create sexual desire?), Christian clinicians must be consumed with care for the ultimate welfare and formation of the personhood of their clients. Barnhouse and Holmes (1976), in articulating a theology of marriage, suggest that marriage itself is informed by and sanctified for God's purposes while existing as a uniquely human enterprise. Sexual intercourse, while a bodily, physical act, involves much more on a deeper level than simply 'two bodies exchanging fluid.' This commitment of the body affects the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the participants. What we do with our bodies directly impacts, either positively or negatively, how we connect with others and with God. Sexual intercourse is n ot to be treated flippantly; it does not exist merely for gratification or fulfillment, although they do often come as the savored windfall of a loving, committed relationship. Instead, sexuality offers completeness, accomplishes some of the purposes of our embodied gender, and compels us to interact and engage in relationship. Marriage is the norm for sexuality and the paradigm case of how we should relate sexually. It represents "the fundamental human bond, the connective link between the generations, the birth of children, grandchildren, and the future" (Hynson, 1998, p. 77). When the stewardship of this power to unite in a one-flesh union is under the control of the Holy Spirit and used in the context of marriage and genuine love, then the sexual aspects of the relationship are most satisfying. Proper stewardship of the power and privilege of sexual contact is an important factor in a successful marriage. Marcum (1991, p. 132) asserts that "sexual union becomes the constant reaffirmation and celebration o f the fundamental and original act of commitment to faithfulness with which a marriage begins."

The physical union of husband and wife can be the ultimate expression of the love for one another. Sexual intercourse conjures up greater mutuality and meaning than [merely] conception and procreation (Hynson, 1998). However, human sexuality will not provide the answer to our unending search for meaning. It cannot heal our brokenness or restore us into right relationship with God. Sexuality will not bring us into a fullness of love and experience of God unless we have a thriving spiritual life and a growing relationship with the Creator (Kelsey & Kelsey, 1996). Even then, we must be careful not to equate our sexual satisfaction with the quality of our relationship with God. It appears that we will never be able to fully grasp a definitive understanding of God's work and intention for human sexuality. Our weakness is humbly admitted, and we must accept that some things will remain a mystery or exist despite our lack of comprehension. Nonetheless, our desire is still to know God more, to become whole and unified unswervingly to Him, and to live out our beliefs with utmost integrity.

REFERENCES

Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (1996). Gender differences in scripts for different types of dates. Sex Roles, 34 (5/6), 321-336.

Audroutsopoulou, A. (2001). Thc self-characterization as a narrative too]: Applications in therapy with individuals and families. Family Process, 40(1), 79-94.

Angus, L., Levitt, H., & Hardtke, K. (1999). The narrative processes coding system: Research applications and implications for psychotherapy practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 55 (10), 1255-1270.

Atwood, J. D., & Dershowitz, S. (1992). Constructing a sex and marital therapy frame: Ways to help couples deconstruct sexual problems. Journal of Sex and Martial Therapy, 18 (3), 196-218.

Barnhouse, R T., & Holmes, U. T., III. (Eds.). (1976). Male and female: Christian approaches to sexuality. New York: Seabury Press.

Behr, J. (1999, Summer). The rational animal: A rereading of Gregory of Nyssa's De hominis opificio [on sexuality). Journal of Early Christian Studies, 7,219-247.

Browning, D. (1987). Religious thought and the modern psychologies. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Buss, D. M. (1998). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Clark, E. A. (1977). Sexual politics in the writings of John Chrysostom. Anglican Theological Review, 59, 3-20.

Frey, K., & Hojjat, M. (1998). Arc love styles related to sexual styles? Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 265-271.

Gagnon, J. H., Rosen, R. C., & Leiblum, S. R. (1982). Cognitive and social aspects of sexual dysfunction: Sexual scripts in sex therapy. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 8(1), 44-56.

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.

Hermans, H.J.M. (1999). Self-narrative as meaning construction: The dynamics of self-investigation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(10), 1193-1211.

Hof, L, & Berman, E. (1986). The sexual genogram. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(1), 39-47.

Holben, L. R. (1999). What Christians think about homosexuality: Six representative viewpoints. North Richland Hills, TX BIBAL Press.

Hynson, L. O. (1998). Sexuality and Christian character. Evangelical Journal, 16(2), 76-88.

Jones, S. (1994). A constructive relationship for religion with the science and profession of psychology: Perhaps the boldest model yet. American Psychologist, 49 (3), 184-199.

Jones, S. (1996). Reflections on the nature and future of the Christian psychologies. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 15 (2), 133-142.

Jones, S., & Butman, R. (1991). Modern psychotherapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S., & Yarhouse, M. (2000). Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the Church's moral debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Kelsey, M. T., & Kelsey, B. (1996). Sacrament of sexuality: The spirituality and psychology of sex. Warwick, NY: Amity House.

Leahy, R. L. (1991). Scripts in cognitive therapy: The systemic perspective. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 5(4), 291-304.

Leiblum, S. R., & Rosen, R. C. (2000). Principles and practice of sex therapy. New York: Guilford.

Mahrer, A. R. (2000). Philosophy of science and the foundations of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 55(10), 1117-1125.

Marcum, J. P. (1991). Family, birth control, and sexuality in the Christian church (Disciples of Christ): 1880-1980. Encounter, 52 (2), 105-145.

Oates, W. J. (Ed.). (1948). Basic writings of Saint Augustine. (Vol. 2). New York: Random House.

O'Donohue, W. (1989). The (even) bolder model: The clinical psychologist as metaphysician-scientist-practitioner. American Psychologist, 44, 1460-1468.

Plantinga, A. (1984). Advice to Christian philosophers. Faith and Philosophy, 1(3), 253-271.

Plantinga, A. (1994). On Christian scholarship. In T. Hesburgh (Ed.), The challenge and promise of a Christian university (pp. 269-295). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Ramsey, P. (1988). Human sexuality in the history of redemption. The Journal of Religions Ethics, 16(1), 56-86.

Reed, D., & Weinberg, M. S. (1984). Premarital coitus: Developing and established sexual scripts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(2), 129-138.

Roberts, R. C. (1997). Parameters of a Christian psychology. In R. Roberts & M. Talbot (Eds.), Limning the psyche: Explorations in Christian psychology (pp. 74-101). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Seitz, C. R. (1995). Human sexuality: Viewed from the Bible's understanding of the human condition. Theology Today, 52, 236-246.

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97-120.

Turner, P. (1993). Sex and the single life. First Things, May, 1993, 15-21.

Vanhoozer, K.J. (1998). Is there a meaning in this text? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wolterstorff, N. (1984). Reason within the hounds of religion (2nd Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York: Pantheon Books.

AUTHORS

JONES, STANTON. Address: Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D., Provost's Office, Wheaton College, 501 College Avenue, Wheaton, IL 60187. Title: Provost and Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D., Arizona State University, Clinical Psychology. Specialization: Integration of psychology and Christian faith, sexuality.

HOSTLER, HEATHER Address: GPO 4203, Wheaton College, 501 College Avenue, Wheaton, IL 60187. Title: Doctoral student in Clinical Psychology. Degree: B.A., Psychology, Messiah College; M.A., Wheaton College, Clinical Psychology.

Correspondence concerning this article maybe sent to Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D., Provost, Wheaton College, 501 College Avenue, Wheaton, IL 60187. Electronic mail maybe sent to [e-mail]