Do Abstinence Programs Make The Gospel Clear?
March 26th, 2008 by Michael Spencer
Have you ever had an abstinence program in your school or community? This is a rarity at our ministry, as our curriculum and regular preaching/teaching ministries cover the subject thoroughly. We all need to be reminded of how different the New Testament message should be from what we commonly hear from many well-meaning abstinence-preaching evangelicals.
Sexual abstinence is an important topic for anyone who works with young people and cares about their world. Sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy and the psychological problems associated with early and irresponsible sexual activities are all legitimate concerns of those who love teenagers. The pragmatic value of abstinence is obvious, and one need not be a Christian to see that value.
One of my concerns in any program promoting abstinence is the tendency to disconnect the concerns of those advocating abstinence from the overall Christian message of Jesus and the Kingdom of God. (I am not implying the speaker at our ministry did this.) When “purity” becomes a value that exists on its own, important aspects of the Gospel can be obscured. It is very easy to see Jesus simply as an advocate and example of the behaviors we want from young people. In fact, Jesus is far more radical than these kinds of programs ever present. Jesus will completely change every aspect of a person’s worldview when his Kingdom and Lordship are recognized.
For example, in I Corinthians 5-6, Paul deals with a problem of sexual immorality in the Corinthian church. We should note two things, especially as we read I Corinthians 5:9-12 and I Corinthians 6:9-11.
1) Paul makes it clear that the sexual behavior of those outside of the church is not a primary concern of the Christian community.
This doesn’t mean that Paul isn’t aware of the potential repercussions of sexual behavior in the larger society. Sexual behavior has social ramifications and all members of society have a stake in responsible sexual behavior.
What Paul does stress is that it isn’t the calling of the Christian community to focus on the sins of pagans. It is no surprise that pagans behave like pagans, and Paul doesn’t command the Corinthians to go into the streets to protest sexual sin in Corinth, but to live as those whose bodies are the temples of the God who redeems us in Jesus Christ.
Some persons are often puzzled at the strong emphasis on the particular issue of homosexuality in some of these types of program. I’ve come to believe that a lot of the unhelpful and unconstructive things said by evangelicals are simply “scripts” they follow, with little consideration for how this makes Jesus party to their own prejudices. They get into a topic or a passage, and they are almost automatically go into certain subjects, use certain rhetoric as if there are no homosexuals present. Are these comments constructive, or are they stereotypical, insensitive and shallow? Being politically correct or incorrect isn’t the point. Being like Jesus in his treatment of all persons is an important point.
I’ve written about evangelical beliefs about homosexuality several times on this blog. I believe evangelicals have made a major tactical blunder in isolating this area of human behavior, demonizing homosexuals and politicizing their response. I do not know if most evangelicals will ever be able to get out from under the shadow of their own bigotry in regard to this issue. It’s hard to recognize the Jesus who ate with the marginalized and the excluded when you hear evangelicals go after homosexuals as the worst of sinners.
Until evangelicals can see that their distorted concept of being “a good witness” by obsessing on homosexuality is wrong, more and more people will refuse to hear anything else Christians are saying, and I don’t blame them at all. The acceptance of bigoted, hurtful rhetoric against homosexuals is a major blind spot for many evangelicals of every kind.
2) Paul is careful to put sexual sin in the context of all kinds of human sinfulness.
A famous evangelical pastor has a teaching series called “Why Sexual Sins Are Worse Than Other Sins.” I’m sure there is much that’s true in that teaching series, but in I Corinthians, Paul is careful to list other sins whenever he talks about sexual sins. There is no doubt that he wants to show that, in the Christian community, all kinds of sinners receive the same redemption and stand accepted in the same Gospel.
This doesn’t erase the distinctions between sins and their effects, but it does keep us from saying “Among Christians, homosexuality should be focused on more than greed.” Homosexuality was commonly accepted as a sexual behavior on a broad scale among certain groups in Greek culture.
In other words, there is no particular distinction in the Gospel between kinds of sinners as viewed in the Gospel of the Kingdom. Obviously, some sins have more addictive potential, some have more real-world consequences and some are illegal as well as immoral. The Gospel takes these various sins and applies them all to the righteousness and perfect work of Jesus, making possible the forgiveness and inclusion of all kinds of people. The consequences are not unimportant, but the Gospel sees sin in a way that puts all kinds of persons on level ground around the cross.
Paul obviously sees a connection between the Corinthian’s experience of the Gospel and their view of those who are not part of the Christian community. He walks the balance between truthfulness regarding sin and truthfulness regarding the Gospel.
The abstinence movement does a good work in promoting sexual purity. I frequently counsel students to live by Hebrews 13:4: Honor marriage when you are single by abstaining from all sexual sin. But the Gospel does not isolate abstinence from all the demands of Jesus. Paul speaks to the Corinthians about greed, stealing, substance abuse, relationships and idolatry. All of these sins rebel against the ethics of the Kingdom of God as well, but seldom are most of them challenged in the same way. (Note how many Christians who are anti-homosexual have no problems engaging in petty thievery or unquestioned manifestations of greed.)
In fact, as an evangelist and apologist with students, I find this approach often has the potential to confuse some students- especially internationals- with the idea that Christianity is some kind of abstinence program with a primary emphasis on external behavior. Sexual purity, of course, comes from a transformed sense of what ought to be “glorified.” Instead of sexuality glorified as an activity by itself, sexuality glorifies God by the proper use of the body. The body is a sanctuary where life becomes worship and God’s purposes and mercies are magnified.
Here is Paul in I Thessalonians 4:
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
This is the same reasoning that applies to the entire Christian life; a concept of redemption, slavery to a new master, a new vocation/calling, a new way of life in a new community and a sense of the fear of the Lord mediated through the Lordship of Christ. As citizen of a new Kingdom, all of the Christian’s moral experience comes through this same grid. Sexuality is not a special case. What Paul is describing is a spiritual work of the Holy Spirit, not a work of the will.
I support the teaching of abstinence, but I believe the Christian approach to the subject differs considerably from a “pragmatic” emphasis. I do not believe we can talk about abstinence without talking about the entire Gospel. To fail to do so is to continue the perversion of Christianity into a message of moral reform that is far from the Good News of Jesus.
Internet Monk is the web space of 
“Why Sexual Sins Are Worse Than Other Sins.”
I bet greed has killed more people.
I was a little surprised your students were the ones who recognized the gay jokes were inappropriate. I frequently had to tell my students to stop it. But in general your students sound very mature.
I went to public school myself, and sat through a few abstinence speakers in my Health class. Because they couldn’t quote the scriptures—even though they were quite obviously Christian-based pro-life ministries—they appealed to pragmatic reasons in favor of abstinence, namely STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and immaturity (which isn’t easy to convince kids they suffer from). They also discouraged the boys from using girls for sex, and the girls from allowing themselves to be used.
I’m sure these topics came up with your speakers, but how much of it was pragmatism and how much was “Premarital sex makes Baby Jesus cry”? A practical Christian speaker has to allow for the possibility that not every Christian is going to be as committed to the truth of the scriptures as they should be. They’ll believe Paul’s writings when it’s convenient, but give in to temptation when it’s enjoyable. They need to see why God’s idea is better. Hopefully that’s what your students saw.
In either case, it takes a very strong impression to fight against the nigh-uncontrollable hormones one regularly finds in a teenager. If they were too distracted—or offended—by the gay jokes, I fear the point wasn’t made enough to be effective.
Do you believe in teaching abstinence only? What about people who are not Christian. Is it our right to force our morality on them? I agree with you that promiscuity is wrong and creates problems .I myself will wait till marriage. As a 19 year old college kid I understand how strong the temptation is however. What is the Christian response to people who are going to have sex always? Should we stop people from giving them advice so they don’t have kids that they can’t take care of or have an abortion? I’m curious what the Internet Monk and other people think about this one.
Having gone to a Christian high school, what disturbed and still disturbs me is the emphasis on possible side effects of having sex like STDs and unwanted pregnancy. These are bad things, true enough; however, they make it a pragmatic issue instead of an issue of overall holiness (as you have mentioned in your article). There is less emphasis on personal discipleship, for example, to help grow in maturity and obedience towards Christ than there is not having sex, often for its own end of appearing pure. I think that putting the argument in the overal context of holiness would actually make it stronger in that it relies less on pragmatic results than on the commands of God.
“I’ve come to believe that a lot of the unhelpful and unconstructive things said by evangelicals are simply ’scripts’ they follow, with little consideration for how this makes Jesus party to their own prejudices.”
To utilise another familiar saying, “Amen and amen!”
Though I’m a strong advocate for traditional sexual morés, it has bothered me considerably how much Evangelicals have fixated on sexual ethics. What are the banner issues in the church? Abortion, homosexuality, porn on TV, abstinence… all of them seem to arise from an almost juvenile fascination with who we should do it with, when, under what circumstances, and what we should do in the wake of it.
I’ve seen what this fixation can do to believers. Men who struggle with lust find themselves giving into it as they figure “Well, according to my preacher, X is no worse than Y.” I’ve seen people who have fallen into it feel as though they could never be forgiven or accepted into the church again. I don’t think I need to go over the kind of impact it’s had on the gay community. It’s an important issue, granted, but it’s one that Evangelicals have been so obstinate and heavy-handed about that one might be led to believe by our behaviour that our salvation rested on sexual ethics. Nothing in the words of Jesus, Paul or even the Old Testament speaks towards such a conclusion.
I have theories as to “why”, but the ultimate truth is that this is a part of the Christian life, and not the whole of it. We would do well to de-emphasise sexual issues in deference to the Gospel message and the mission of mercy and charity Christ commissioned us to.
It’s so refreshing to hear the general Christian response to homosexuality called bigotry.
Preach it Mr. Internet Monk.
Michael you make some good points. I can never see Jesus, holding up anti-gay signs at war heros’ funerals. Of course He was highly critical of the religious, those claiming to be on the “inside” not judging those on the outside.
In my reading of scripture, I see the law as two-fold.
1. Driving us to Christ (Gal 3:24 “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”)
2. God’s gift to man/woman for quality living. This can apply to all men/ women.
Evangelicals seem (but not stated) to believe that the law was given as a mechanism of winning God’s pleasure (as if Christ was not enough).
Evangelicals also seem to use it as leverage (comparison) for a pumping up their own self-esteem. This line of reasoning (although almost on a subconscious level) is; “If I can roll my eyes at the non-Christian’s behavior, and rank that behavior as sexual sin as the worse, . . . then I can feel better about myself.” This is the real reason why I think so many Christians are quick to judge those on the outside.
In God’s common grace the non-Christian can experience better living (sorry but it won’t help with salvation) if they follow the law. So I see the teaching of abstinence as a gift for them, in itself.
Despite what Hollywood says, I can’t imagine any man or woman, deeply in their heart of hearts, that would not dream of going to their wedding bed, with the love of their lives, being committed forever . . . and both being virgins.
It is my opinion (and I am a medical provider) that avoiding the sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy etc. is pale in comparison to this enormous emotional benefit of abstinence for both the Christian and non Christian. Those who have had sex with others will be haunted by that (maybe faint) memory for the rest of their lives. Will the husband (who’s wife has previously been intimate with other men) ever feel completely safe during intercourse? Maybe. Or Maybe he will always feel the subliminal comparisons of his lover’s past. The same is true for the wives.
So the good news for the non-Christian, is that you can live better in chastity. But, living by the law can never score points in winning God’s pleasure . . . that only comes in Christ.
That’s my take.
Michael # 3 or 4
Amen on the message from Paul and the Gospels. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw awhile back that said “I am for separation of Church and Hate”.
I used to do abstinence and sex ed programs for church kids and for public schools. In the public school programs, I couldn’t talk about the Gospel. In the church setting, I tried to put purity in the perspective of the Christian life. But, I agree that our Christian culture has made something of an idol of sexual purity. As long as some one toes the line of sexual purity, anything else can be overlooked. And, of course, no one who struggles with homosexuality could possibly be a Christian. Pornography is a huge issue among Christians, but most won’t admit it. Our human tendency to “rate” our sins has gotten us into tons of trouble.
I’m coming to the conclusion that “abstinence programs” are not terribly useful. What is helpful for young people (and for older people as well) is real, deep relationships with other people who will hold us accountable for our behavior - this goes for overeating, sexual sin, coveting, etc.
Blessings,
Catherine
Home run, sir (or would you prefer the compliment of “a shut out, sir”?); what makes many of us hold our noses about the less savory aspects of many county abstinence programs is the passion (ahem) brought to getting them expelled from the schools by the Planned Parenthood, “let the young people express themselves with integrity in their relationships” advocates. Their eagerness to affirm healthy youthful sexuality is much more disturbing than the most over-the-top abstinence program i’ve squirmed through in the back of the room . . . but i very much appreciate your careful Gospel-centered analysis of where they are not an end in themselves.
I’ll be forwarding this about briskly.
Oh, and Christ is Risen!
I’m a lesbian. I’ve been away from God for many years and am just being drawn back again. I’m also discovering that based on Scripture, homosexuality is almost certainly wrong.
One of my first Sundays back in a church, I heard a gay joke told by someone in a leadership position. I was floored and hurt. In all the years, I’d worked with nonChristians, I’d never heard an unkind comment about gays. I had to go to church for that!
One of my nonChristian co-workers and I recently had a discussion about what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. It was a great talk, even though we disagreed. On the other hand, I’m scared to let anyone at church know I’m wrestling with this issue. Based on comments I’ve heard, I’m afraid that I would be treated as utterly contemptible, and I would be ostracized.
Jesus loves gays. He died for them. He welcomes them when they turn to Him. He doesn’t say, “you must stop being gay before I’ll accept you.” He accepts us just as we are — sinners just like everyone else. But somehow that message gets lost in all of the anti-gay and anti-gay-rights talk that gets said by Christians. In terms of gay-abstinence, the Gospel message is definitely being lost.
Excellent job, Michael. Thank you for your considerate and compassionate post. Much needed and appreciated.
I find this topic very interesting. What I find interesting is that in our society we encourage young adults to abstain from sex until they are married. I believe this is good and biblical advice. The problem with the advice is that we are also telling young adults to control their natural urges. Not for a short period of time…but for a long time. Most of us start having sexual desires in our mid teens, and Christian parents, wanting to be biblical, encourage children to fight these urges until their early twenties, when they are finished with college. My question is, is it reasonable to expect an everyday person to be able to supress sexual urges for 6 to 7 years?
Dear Anonymous,
My heart goes out to you, for the hurt that you are feeling, because of what Christians say. One time, after talking to a pastor about a sermon, I felt physically battered, because he never seemed to have heard me. Funny thing is, for myself, his sermon (blaming Bathsheba for David’s sin) wasn’t a problem for me, but I was concerned about other women who might have heard it, and been hurt.
You are aware that at least some churches make a distinction between the inclination toward same sex attraction and acting upon it. The first is Not a sin, but the second is.
Terry,
You wonder if young people can suppress their sexual desires for 6 or 7 years. I cannot speak for everyone, but I do know that when I rechanneled the energy toward loving and serving, I was much more effective. I think that perhaps that is what needs to be done, not repress, but channel into other areas.
‘My question is, is it reasonable to expect an everyday person to be able to supress sexual urges for 6 to 7 years?’
We’re all everyday people. As in, we want sex, every day.
‘Suppressing’ is a metaphor, and not always a helpful one. You can be chaste without suppressing your desires. As for ‘expecting’ people to go without sex for a decade or more after puberty because that’s how long it takes to be prepared for marriage these days, I think if you’re still living according to the ‘expectations’ of others at that stage you’re in a bit of trouble. The Church should always counsel people to pursue the way of holiness. To compromise that is to deny the gospel. After that it’s up to the individual and those who support them. Either you are committed to chastity because of your discipleship, or you accommodate your sexual desire to your way of life. You can’t get out of that dilemma by asking the Church to adjust its expectations.
Anonymous, you are in my prayers. I wish more heterosexual Christians showed the same contrition over their sins (whether sexual or otherwise) as you do.
Anonymous,
I wasn’t there but on behalf of the larger Church (with a big C) I just wanted to say I’m sorry and I ask for your forgiveness for our stupidity.
Anonymous - I loved your post. I don’t like that so many Christians seem to believe you have to become heterosexual to be a Christian. I don’t believe that is true at all!
Like you said, I too believe homosexual behavior is wrong according to the bible - but having homosexual feelings/attractions is the same as when I have heterosexual feelings/attractions to someone who I am not married to - what I do with those feelings is what matters. You don’t have to change who you feel attracted to in order to be a follower of Christ IMO.
I hope and pray you’re able to find a fellowship of Christians who will accept and love you for who you are and will honor the work God is doing in your life.
j. Michael Jones wrote:
In a talk to the students in our church, a speaker asked how many guys wanted to marry a virgin and then asked the same of the girls. It was a rather surreal moment for me that drove home to me again just how different my background and formation actually was. I was reflecting later with our student minister about the experience.
You see, I couldn’t think of a time when I ever expected or thought any woman I might be with would be a virgin. Nor can I think of anyone among my friends, male or female, who even considered it, much less desired or yearned for it.
I’m 42 years old and it’s in moments like those that I realize just how different the evangelical culture really is from the one right here in the southern US which formed and shaped me.
To anonymous - please check out some of Philip Yancey’s stuff, especially his book “What’s So Amazing About Grace.” God’s people may indeed fail you at times, but God will not. Press on, and keep coming back!
Michael,
As an evangelist, I believe the ‘abstinence talks’ mostly begin in the wrong place. Much of our preaching against sin (of any kind) does the same. So often preaching is ‘against sin’ focuses on the symptoms with a bit of ‘how to overcome’ at the end and maybe a summary of the gospel to introduce someone to Jesus. I believe in the introduction, but I can tell you that becoming a Christian did not eliminate my urges.
Those of us with heterosexual tendencies and those with homosexual tendencies all must face the same basic issue and I believe it is this: What is God’s creative intent for humanity? It is out of this question and the Genesis narrative that we discover the root of what the Bible calls sin and that sin has negatively affected everything - our choices, our earth, ourselves, our bodies, etc., etc. The wages of sin truly is death. Sin destroys.
But the good news is that God has acted redemptively toward his creation. His fullest revelation is in Christ, and Christ’s death and resurrection is the ultimate in the result of sin - the death of the absolute innocent One for all of the guilty. Of course there is more, but you have proclaimed this as well.
Purity? Absolutely. I want to be pure. I want my children to be pure. But I can’t begin with the symptom. I have to begin with the story. It is the connection with Christ that empowers one to overcome the most basic of God-given urges that sin has twisted - the sexual urge. We simply must begin at the beginning.
Excellent approach to the “REAL” issue (and some great responses). Sin is the issue not Sex. Sin is disobedience to God. That includes the insensitivity that Anonymous endured as well as others mentioned here.
I lurk much more than I post but I resonate deeply with this. Having received Christ’s Salvation at 26 I was in the promiscuous camp far too deeply since I was 11. We raised are children on the “purity is obedience” platform.
Our 26 year old “virgin by choice” son is the Praise Team leader at church and exemplifies Godliness for many. Our 30 year old virgin daughter has high standards; Never been intimately kissed by any man and is waiting on the virgin husband the Lord will bring to her to do so.
No, it is not about suppressing urges. It is about living according to the promises of God and urging others to do likewise. It is not without peril and temptation but it is without condemnation when you walk after the Spirit - Rom 8:1.
Oh and J.Michael left off Duet 6:24 in point 2.
Final word: Pragmatic abstinence based programs are a good thing but will never trump God’s plan or present the Gospel of faith well.
Michael’s summation paragraph says it best:
“the Christian approach to the subject differs considerably from a “pragmatic” emphasis. I do not believe we can talk about abstinence without talking about the entire Gospel. To fail to do so is to continue the perversion of Christianity into a message of moral reform that is far from the Good News of Jesus. “
Ted has touched upon something vital in this discussion (as in so many others) - the role of those in the body of Christ is to seek to convey the ’sweet savor’ of redemption to our world of all things creational, and that includes our sexuality.
For far too long, the church has expressed an essentially gnostic/dualistic approach towards issues that are body-related, and this has to be jettisoned if we are to unpack a meaningful, ‘pro’ (redemptive) understanding of these wonderful gifts.
My general evangelical upbringing on these matters was entirely negative, as it expressed all the prohibitions and taboos, but did very little to affirm the right and the good - even to the point of actually preventing marriage!
We have a long way to go on this one…
Wow — thanks! I never expected to receive support back. I’m sitting here feeling overwhelmed, accepted, and encouraged. Thank you for doing what the Christians I’ve met locally haven’t done (or perhaps haven’t been able to do).
I have a collage of comments on several of the above postings.
Scott M. I came from a quasi-Christian background (meaning a very superficial Bible-belt Baptist where young men expected their wives to be good virgins . . . but for the man, if he came to the wedding bed as a virgin then he was a wimp.) I know, strange.
Of course I’ve heard the secular/Hollywood/non-Christian verbiage that they want a mate with “experience.” You even hear jokes, funny movies or sitcoms about the poor, dumb, inexperience person entering the marriage. I imagine, and I may be wrong, that even within that culture (and you can correct me) . . . that on a more honest level—really peeling back the onion—that everyone would prefer to have a virgin spouse.
I suspect that the reasoning, regarding the surface expression of “wanting experience in a mate” is the fact that romantic relationship for the nonChristian is so superficial that it becomes technical. When I get my car fixed, the only thing that matters is that the mechanic knows what he is doing from experience. It seems that the theme (maybe the Seinfeld or Sex in the City paradigm) of this generation is that in the dating scene, you evaluate potential partner as to whether not they are “good in bed.”
But within the Christian context the marriage relationship has so many deeper dimensions that the “technology” of intercourse is only a small blip on the radar, thus the need for experience is muted and greatly superseded by the benefits of obeying God’s intent.
Regarding Deut. 24:6 (The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.) You can take this verse in two ways.
1) God gave us the gift of His rules, He, as the designer knows best how we work and live quality lives. So following his law allows us to prosper in the same way that if you follow the manufacture’s recomendations for anything, you prosper. Or,
2) God set up arbitrary rules for you to obey to prove yourself to Him and for Him to base his acceptance of you on. If you obey Him, he will like you more and then, in return, reward you with prosperity.
I honestly think that much of colloquial Evangelical Christianity believes #2 (but would deny it in their theological statements). I believe that our acceptance by God, and being God-pleasing is Jesus + nothing, yet #1 is also true.
So, when non Christians follow God’s rules about chastity (or any of them) they have the opportunity to live better. So teaching abstinence to non-believers has some, real value . . . in living a quality life . . . but no value in winning God’s pleasure. That only comes in the Gospel.
anonymous.
There was I time when I would have been one of those people cracking wise about gays. It was especially easy, because the homosexuals I knew where, at that time, in the closet. As far as I knew, I didn’t know anybody who was gay, so it was an easy laugh. For what it’s worth, I look back on those days with shame.
Church world can turn in to a strange little place where people exercise certain perceived freedoms. Moreover, judgmental attitudes and fears come to the surface in jokes and cracks — the way lawyer jokes always get a laugh.
Sadly, a cavalier distain for gays is often an unspoken free zone in many church circles, owing to the fact that scripture has been used in concert with tried and true prejudice — anger, malice, evil desires, and greed often get a pass though.
As one drawn back to the church, you’ll have a lot to process. Some church communities will not be a safe place to do this. Some will be. Test the waters and let any church earn your trust. Not all churches are bastions of grace and mercy. Even a great church has idiots, clods, and garden variety sinners.
Whatever church you find, in my book, you already have an understanding of the Gospel that many have missed.
Grace and Peace
Sorry . . . my dexlysia Deut 6:24 not 24:6 :>)
Howard . . . we must share a mother or father or something cause you’re speaking my language.
Michael - just had a peek at your website…yep, we’re talking from the same page!
We must get together for a session with Irenaeus sometime!
Regards,
Howard.
j. Michael Jones, you seem to have misunderstood my point. First, I specifically included all my friends, male and female. On this particular point, I don’t recall any significant difference between the two. Second, there is no onion to peel back. The question is simply not one which ever entered my sphere of conscious awareness. I had no expectation that any woman I met would be a virgin nor would it have ever entered my mind that someone might expect that of me. It wasn’t a macho vs. wimp sort of thing. It was simply a thoroughly sexualized cultural formation.
When I think about it, there was one woman in my closer circles of friends who was a virgin. But it wasn’t about saving herself for her wedding night or the perfect guy. She was very focused on her education and establishing her career. And I think she hadn’t quite settled on whether she wanted a man or a woman for a partner and wasn’t inclined to rush the matter.
I’ve seen many of these same influences and culture affecting my children, though the younger ones who are still at home have also been raised their whole lives in a blend of that evangelical culture I don’t quite understand on a gut level and our broader cultural context which I do. Even though they carry something of the trappings of the former, I’m not sure that the latter doesn’t run deeper.
I’m not speaking in terms of good, bad, or indifferent here. I simply don’t think that those shaped to one extent or another within the evangelical culture grasp what it means to be more or less wholly shaped within the second and later generations of the ’sexual revolution’. It’s not a ‘revolution’ anymore and hasn’t been in a very long time. It’s the cultural norm.
So no, I don’t agree that it’s common for people today to yearn for a virgin spouse. Heck, it’s the idea of getting married without having had sex that’s odd today. While I’m sure there are some who have done that in my current church (even though we never really talk about sex there in any meaningful way), I don’t really know. Outside that context and with the people whom I know more about (because in other places we see the hidden faces you don’t find in our corporate church gatherings) I can’t think of anyone who didn’t at least more or less live together before marriage even if two residences were technically maintained. That’s the norm now.
You can’t yearn for something that never entered your mind. Lauren Winner’s book, “Real Sex”, was the first “Christian” book about sexuality that actually made sense to me. It’s not that I couldn’t intellectually understand the others. Rather, they felt like reading something written for a Japanese audience describing and discussing Japanese tea ceremonies.
I’m the patient sort who holds things loosely and is willing to wait for things to better fall into place for me. But then, I was already married to my present wife when I found myself in the middle of evangelical Christianity. I have difficulty imagining an encounter with Christianity and the Christian sexual ethic as an unmarried person. Of course, looking at the statistics today and then considering the Church that once lived and thrived in the midst of ancient paganism, I’m not entirely sure someone would truly experience the sort of sexual ethic those churches exhibited in present-day evangelicalism.
When you imagine that everyone secretly yearns for a virgin spouse on their wedding day, it’s really just that — your imagination. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. We all project our cultural formation to one extent or another onto those around us. But it may help illustrate the depth of the divide.
There’s this one book by L.W. Countryman called “Dirt Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today” and I found it helped me alot. To sum the book up, Countryman argues that according to the Gospel there is no “sexual purity”, but instead a “purity of the heart” which affects how we are to conduct ourselves sexually as well as in the other areas of our lives. The book provides a well-detailed look into the socio-cultural world the Bible and also sheds light on the purity-laws of the OT as well.
Scott, I am very confused here and I think that is the downfall in trying to communicate in these types of postings. I think we have misunderstood each other and I wish I could sit down with you over a cup of coffee to make each other clear.
I went back and read what I wrote and I am scratching my head. I wasn’t making any inferences about something you said or believe when I was talking about male vs female etc. I was simply talking about MY, personal, unhealthy upbringing (males being wimps if they were not virgins etc.) This had nothing to do with what you were trying to say and I’m sorry if it came across that way. Also the peeling back the layers of the onion wasn’t about you, personally, either. I was wondering about how most non-Christians really believe in the deepest places of their hearts rather than what they say they believe.
My question for you (and it is an honest question as I really don’t know the answer)do you think, even in this secular world that most non-Christians really do prefer a mate with a lot of prior of sexual experiences? I really respect your opinion on this. I know in my (maybe insecure) makeup that if I, as a man, was to create a perfect world that neither my wife or I would have had any prior contacts but all our experiences would have been unique to ourselves. Maybe I’m alone in this attitude. Does that make any better sense?
J. Michael,
I know you specifically asked Scott, and it is for him to answer for himself, but what strikes me about your side of your discussion with him is that it seems from reading your posts that you have it set up as an either / or, which doesn’t match my observations of people around me.
You seem to be asking the either/or of whether people prefer to marry a virgin or prefer someone with experience. But those are both sides of the same coin which requires someone to particularly care about whether their potential spouse is or isn’t a virgin. As I read Scott’s answer, it resonates more with me — you can’t prefer a particular answer to a question it never occurred to you to ask.
Do you think people prefer to marry a spouse with fillings or with naturally perfect teeth? I think most people don’t even consider it. There certainly is an issue whether they have good hygiene, and how well they care for themselves, but the actual reality of whether they have fillings? Huh?
If virginity or lack thereof constitutes purity for you, and if it is important or critical to you, then so be it, But I think you miss the boat when you try to extend that to others - particularly these nebulous non-Christians of yours, who you define as incapable of having anything but shallow relationships.
I suspect that you’d find that it isn’t so much that “in their secret hearts, everyone prefers to marry a virgin, no matter what they actually say” as much as that people who, for whatever reason, don’t consider virginity important as such, use other standards for evaluating a spouse.
I know that for you, virginity is an important issue, and a special thing, and it isn’t my intention to try to change your mind on it.
But if you are looking for someone to form an intimate relationship with, would you have a standard that says “Since I want this person to have their very best and most special relationship with me, I want someone who has never had a friend in their life, and I refuse to make friends with anyone until I decide to marry?” No, instead, you would probably look for someone who has a history of successful and happy (and appropriate) friendships, and then expect that, having made the commitment to each other, you will commit to making your own mutual relationship the center from then on.
Obviously, it’s a flawed metaphor in many respects. But I think at its heart you’ll find a window into what many secular (and more than a few religious) people are thinking.
Michael,
While I agree with a lot of your reasoning, you have left a large question unanswered. If, as a committed Christian, I am invited to a public school to talk to students about life-style choices, what should I say? Should I decline, knowing that I won’t be able to share the gospel? If I’m going to avoid an abstinence only message because I believe that it is useless without Jesus, what am I left with? Is “No thank you, as a Christian I have nothing to offer since you won’t let me share the gospel.” the best I can say?
I’m not sure how much abstinence education works, although I prefer it to the alternative! When my children were in high school, which was just a few years ago, we discussed with them the rampant sex/teen pregnancies that went on in their high school. They both said it wasn’t that kids didn’t know how it all “worked”, or that they slipped up, or didn’t understand birth control. They said that most kids just don’t care. Sex means nothing to them, it’s just something you do, like showering, homework, sports practice, etc. The attitude is that if a pregnancy happens, or an STD, oh, well! Life goes on.
Peter, thanks for your response. Again, I think what I am trying to ask, and the spirit of that question is being very mis-understood. If more than one person misunderstands what I am saying then obviously the error is in the way I am saying it and I take responsibility for that. I will try again, but often where many words have failed, more words don’t help.
First of all, trying not to make this too personal, I am an old-married guy, celebrating 26 years of wonderful marriage. When I was looking for a spouse 26 years ago, being a virgin wasn’t even on my radar for requirements. Neither my wife nor I came into our relationship pure and we both regret that. What is strange about my attitude back then was that, at that time, I was a very, very legalistic Evangelical. Now I am on the polar opposite. I am about as far as being legalistic as anyone can be.
My concept of church is a bunch of salty men and women sitting in a bar, over beers, sharing their hearts, art, philosophy and discussing a little scripture. I enjoy being with my non-Christians far more than most Christians. I was not (never in a million years) passing judgment on non-Christians as being “superficial.” I believe we are ALL superficial and I sincerely believe that Christians are far, far more superficial and dishonest than many non-Christians. I mean, much of Evangelicalism is a farce . . . if you don’t believe it, watch a little bit of Christian-TV, like DayStar. I’ve found my homosexual friends to be some of the most honest people I’ve ever known. They often speak such a brutal truth that my jaw drops. Do you understand where I’m coming from?
I was not trying to create some kind of law or “standard” or crap like that for choosing mates. Good heavens that had nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I think people are so use to Christians doing this, veiled attacks, judgmental attitudes toward non Christians etc. that is how I came across.
I have five children and we have talked endlessly about marriage (one is now married) and picking a virgin was never even brought up because it is not on our radar as we do live in a real world in 2008. Who the person is now is far more important than what’s happened in their past.
Michael Spencer raised the question about whether there is value in teaching abstinence apart from the gospel. The point I was trying to make, and it was only my opinion in dealing with countless of young non-Christian couples in my practice, that I think abstinence does have some value, psychological value, sociological value and that’s all I was trying to say. But abstinence has no value, apart from the gospel, of winning God’s pleasure.
My question was, what do others think that non-Christians, if they had their wishes, would prefer a virgin . . . not as some kind of rule, requirement or legalism. It is a philosophical question talking about ideals and we live in a world that is far from ideal.
You did answer me and I respect your opinion that you say non-Christians (even in the private places of their heart . . . and this is not inferring that non-Christians are more superficial than others at all) couldn’t care less about that. Thanks for your answer. I respect it but I’m still not sure I agree (from my experiences).
I will drop it now before I put my foot deeper into my mouth.
I’m sure there is much that’s true in that teaching series, but in I Corinthians, Paul is careful to list other sins whenever he talks about sexual sins. — IMonk
Could this be that both in St Paul’s day and ours there is a generic human tendency to tunnel-vision on sex and St Paul was trying to head it off?