What's the Source of Your Sexual Worldview?

Recent articles on Boundless about sex as well as our comments about sexual activity in our DTR assessment have resulted in more emails to the editor questioning our perspective on this volatile topic. What I often wonder is where some writers who describe themselves as Christians get their perspective on sexuality -- since their views seem so left field of what's found in the Bible.

Michael Craven, director of the Center for Christ and Culture, offers some perspective on this when he talks about sexual worldviews in his commentary today. He explains that in the competition between a man-centered secular humanist worldview and a God-centered biblical worldivew, the most apparent contrast is in their views of sex. Here's an excerpt:

The secular humanist argues that sexual morality is an artificially constructed concept that is unfairly foisted upon society by religious institutions primarily and other "unenlightened" moralists. The Humanist Manifesto II, drafted in 1973, condemned "intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures that unduly repress sexual conduct." The Manifesto went on to say that "individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire." This position appears most often under the label "liberal," but it is ultimately the secular humanistic worldview.

Of course, the assumption of secular humanists, which was inherited from the Enlightenment, is that human nature is basically good and that it is society that distorts the individual's innate innocence.

Conversely, the biblical view of reality regards sex as something more significant than merely an animalistic urge or a morally-neutral proclivity. Christians believe that sex is the consummation of a deeper relationship that binds men and women together for life in a relationship of mutual respect and satisfaction -- a relationship that ultimately serves as the foundation for the whole of society: family.

The Bible regards sexual intimacy as a complex and multi-faceted experience that integrates a man and women psychologically, emotionally, spiritually and biologically - meaning procreative. The Christian view does not discount or diminish the pleasures of sex but instead ennobles the sexual passion. Finally, Christians view human nature as possessing noble virtues, being made in the image of God but with a natural inclination to selfishness and sin.

It is for these reasons that the Bible calls for restraining sexual desires to the exclusive relationship of monogamous marriage -- this unique relationship that offers emotional, psychological and physical security in which true sexual freedom can be experienced.

I shouldn't be surprised by the emails we receive after reading one of his closing points:

Sadly, the Church still remains largely sidelined in this battle -- seemingly ill-equipped to respond with a persuasive and convincing defense of God's truth related to all of life. The absence of an adequate response only further marginalizes the Church and its message.

We don't always recognize what shapes our worldview. We can hope that our faith will protect us from the bias toward sexual humanism that infiltrates TV, movies, the classroom, etc. Is it obvious enough now, however, that the Biblical worldview of sex is losing out even among Christians? What can be done? Who do you think is doing the best work in offering a compelling Biblical worldview of sex?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Diane said the following at 10:29 AM on Feb 19:

Truly, I believe we are missing the fear of God. The one thing that shaped up my flabby worldview was the light of my sinfulness next to an altogether righteous God who pretty much whisked my body and soul from a deadly precipice. This sounds so dramatic, I am sure. It also is quite contrary to much of our Sunday morning sermons which focus primarily on felt-needs of the congregants by illuminating the loving nature of God. But, why must we live such fractured spiritual lives insisting that God is not both wrathful and loving when he is even MORE loving because of said wrath over ungodliness? I believe that a sobering look at my own mortality and inherent immorality against the backdrop of an all-consuming fire from God was just the recipe for repentance and the beginning of knowledge in more areas of life than "mere" sexuality.

John Piper does an excellent job of declaring the bigness and magesty of our Lord while discussing current events and cultural/spiritual issues and remaining solidly biblical. I listen to his archived sermons daily. My two year old even says, "Shh. Mommy is listening to John Piper." Proudly.

2. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:14 PM on Feb 19:

In the case of sexual morality, even if you do not use any Biblical "thou shalt not" arguments, there are strong Natural Law arguments for sexual morality.

First of all, most people have a sense that sex is more than just a recreational experience. Even those who have no qualms about sleeping with many other partners feel some sort of hurt when someone comes around who they do have feelings for is promiscuous. It's easy to make excuses for our own behaviors, but not for others when they hurt us.

Another aspect of sexual morality is based in the fact that raising a child (the result of sex) takes more time/effort than any other species on earth. Many simpler organisms can survive on their own just fine after they are hatched/born. But a human infant requires years of attention. Even when a child could feasibly "live on his/her own" (e.g. feed himself, etc) we continue to parent at least until he/she reaches an adolescent age. This kind of required attention does not allow for a fling & forget attitude on sex as a wholesale (unless there is widespread birth control).

Finally the very fact that marriage is a universal institution among humans since the dawn of civilization regardless of culture or religion, and the fact that sex is often the consumating factor in it reveals something about sexuality (even if a culture permits polygomy the morality still exists). It has been cynically said by some feminists that marriage was a result of a survival mechanism among prehistoric man. A woman would agree to be periodically "raped" by a man offering no resistance in exchange for protection from other men who would rape her. I find no serious basis for this theory and it assumes that men are incapable of loyalty among other misnomers.

3. Samantha said the following at 2:16 PM on Feb 19:

Let's hope this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17218376/) isn't where folks are getting their sexual worldviews....

4. DanL said the following at 3:49 PM on Feb 19:

I think Boundless often takes too strong of an either/or approach. I would submit that it is possible to disagree with some elements of “Biblical Dating” and not fall under the heading of a “man-centered secular humanist worldview.” I know that I have been somewhat critical of both the DTR assessment and Croft’s series on dating, but I really don’t think that means I have an anti-Christian worldview. That’s not to say that I might not be mistaken, or influenced by the world, but I wish we could address such disagreements without resorting to phrases like “some writers who describe themselves as Christians.” Very few of the comments that I’ve seen from those who disagree with some of Boundless’s positions really rise to a level to merit this post.

5. Lynn said the following at 4:27 PM on Feb 19:

This is a very vague post. We readers don't know what is being said in these letters to the editor. Are they people who disagree that kissing outside of marriage is a sin? Or that intercourse outside marriage is a sin? Before requesting comments it would be easier to clarify what you mean by views that "seem so left field of what's found in the Bible." Is this another (veiled) attempt at suggesting Christians shouldn't kiss outside marriage or is it a discussion of something far more serious? If it's the former it's not worth a though. If it's the latter, all the answers to why Christians fall prey to the patterns of the world are found in the bible - a book we don't read often enough. Even worse, a book we rarely meditate on even if we do bother to read it for 15 minutes in a day.

6. Adam said the following at 4:42 PM on Feb 19:

I agree with Lynn.

If we are talking about sexual intercourse outside of marriage being a sin, or something all conservative, evangelical christians believe is a sin, then I don't think there is a question about it.

However, if we are talking about people who have disagreed on things like Scott Croft's "Biblical Dating," then I would simply say that Boundless is not understanding that those that disagree are challanging whether or not this stuff does, indeed, come from the scriptures. To already assume that it does, and anyone's worldview who opposes you does not, is to assume what you are supposed to be proving.

In other words, when the argument is that you are straying from the Bible, you cannot already assume you are following the Bible. It could very well be that Boundless has had its worldview affected by unbiblical sources as well, and I could go on to list several modern cultural phenomenon. However, one must *prove* these things before one can start making out and out accusations.

7. Ted Slater said the following at 5:06 PM on Feb 19:

Lynn -- that's a valid question.

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail we received from a woman who received a "caution" from our DTR Assessment in regards to her premarital sex:

I was dissapointed. I felt attacked by your response....
I am a Christian. I've gone to bible school and am currently working on a Christian College Campus. What about loving people? Don't try to say that you do... and that's why you do this. You love order. You love terms. You do not see the people that you judge so easily. It's not your place to judge in ANY way. NO way at ALL.

There's no point in even writing back because I won't be heard. Not fully anyway. I've dealt with hundreds of situations like this and it's all the same. The only way that you would ever except fault is if it somehow disproved me and proved your point further. Example: You're too proud to say you're wrong. Response: We're not too proud...we can take correction- you're right.
No one gets anywhere because that is an apologetic wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.

Main point is: You have achieved the worst way possible to try to relate to people. Supplying people with rebuke that they did not ask for or seek out will only push people away; especially if they have answered questions in trust, and have lowered their guards. You have just re-raised them to new heights. I'm embarassed to be grouped together with people that would do this. Please re-think your tactics.

Do NOT contact me.

8. Leah said the following at 12:21 AM on Feb 20:

To the person who wrote the email that Ted quoted -- you said "Supplying people with rebuke that they did not ask for or seek out will only push people away".

Well, if you did the DTR assessment, you're obviously looking for their opinion on your relationships. So don't say you weren't asking for rebuke.

And the fact that you refuse to look at anyone else's point of view except your own indicates it is your attitude that needs revamping, not Boundless's.

"I'm embarassed to be grouped together with people that would do this." Who would do what? Boundless obviously can't half a million different categories for each and every situation. We must be grouped together with people different to us to a certain degree.

And it's not very fair to feel attacked by Boundless's response when you went looking for it.

And I don't even agree with Boundless's attitude to dating half the time.

9. Brian said the following at 9:20 AM on Feb 20:

"What can be done? Who do you think is doing the best work in offering a compelling Biblical worldview of sex?" -Steve Watters

I don't know for sure the best way to approach it, but I can relay to you my personal experience. I recently got married, and all of my past sexual sins I immediately regretted when we got married. To those of you who think that what you do now doesn't matter: It matters. The decisions you make now will stay with you. The reason why God commands sexual purity (not just abstinence) before marriage is because it is best for you and your future spouse. This is not about limiting your freedom, it's about giving you more freedom and joy in your marriage. For Boundless to withhold this truth from young people would be a tragedy, and would NOT represent love.

10. Laura said the following at 9:37 AM on Feb 22:

Why do people who call themselves Christians espouse nutty views of human sexuality that sound a heck of a lot more like "if it feels good, do it," than, "consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord Your God" (Lev 20.7)? Three words: unregenerate church membership. For decades, maybe centuries, churches have allowed people to attend, join, teach -- all without requiring any evidence of salvation (except a signature on a card), even though those same churches will be called to account for those they claimed were believers by accepting them as members (Heb 13.17).

Furthermore, even some churches that require evidence of salvation for membership have no method for discipleship or accountability -- no way of making sure that young believers continue in their faith, are saturated in the Word, are in community with other believers, are spending time in prayer, are using their gifts to serve the Lord, etc. Someone is going to wonder why I've gone off on this tangent when the question was about sex. But how can we expect people to have a biblical understanding of human sexuality when many of our churches (WE) have no way of communicating a genuinely biblical worldview to a body of genuine believers? Membership in a church is that body's way of communicating assurance of salvation -- they are saying, Yes, we agree that you are saved. If they are giving that kind of assurance to people who are not truly believers, then they are giving false comfort to people who cannot understand God's word rightly. They are also providing NO structure for accountability and teaching. In other words, in a church with regenerate members and a system of accountability (like home groups, care groups or another discipleship structure), if someone's views of human sexuality were skewed, that biblical structure of accountability (older women teaching younger women, for instance) would be a safety net -- an opportunity for that person's understanding to be corrected and brought under the lordship of Christ.

This is too long (and, I fear, a little rambling), so I apologize. But unregenerate church membership is at the heart of so many issues within the American church especially, and it leaves the door wide open to false teaching and the schemes of the enemy.

11. Jessica said the following at 12:54 PM on Feb 22:

Laura, you posted:
But how can we expect people to have a biblical understanding of human sexuality when many of our churches (WE) have no way of communicating a genuinely biblical worldview to a body of genuine believers? Membership in a church is that body's way of communicating assurance of salvation -- they are saying, Yes, we agree that you are saved. If they are giving that kind of assurance to people who are not truly believers, then they are giving false comfort to people who cannot understand God's word rightly. They are also providing NO structure for accountability and teaching. In other words, in a church with unregenerate members and a system of accountability (like home groups, care groups or another discipleship structure), if someone's views of human sexuality were skewed, that biblical structure of accountability (older women teaching younger women, for instance) would be a safety net -- an opportunity for that person's understanding to be corrected and brought under the lordship of Christ.

Laura,
as much as I agree that churches are incorporating people as members of the body of Christ without salvation occurring, I think the issue is not just a salvation issue ... it's really on both sides of the fence -- people not willing to submit themselves to accountability and discipleship, and people who don't know how to really build discipling relationships and holding people accountable, in addition to a lack of teaching and relationship building for that end result.

But once again, there are going to be lots of issues if you don't understand the purpose of things.
In my opinion, a lack of understanding regarding the purpose of our sexuality, the purpose of discipling and accountaility has created a host of divisions in the church. Unfortunately, I have experienced adults who merely wanted to have know about everyone's personal life but not really give godly, Biblical advice in love. But I have seen it in action, and it is vital to the spiritual development of a church.
I guess my big question for everyone here is the following:
from a Biblical worldview(and I'm presuming that Mr. Watters believes he has an accurate one) of sexuality, what is the purpose of sexuality?

In that Biblical worldview, how is one to view sexuality? Is sexuality only good in a marriage context? As singles, how are we to deal with our sexuality in our daily lives?

I am asking these questions because many denominations have very different views on the ways these questions can be addressed?

12. Laura said the following at 9:54 PM on Feb 22:

Jessica, that's true that personal willingness to submit to accountability is important. But I've found that people tend to rise to the level of expectation that is set. So if I get saved in an "Every head bowed, every eye closed," kind of environment, get baptized a week later after and join my church with no more than a signature card to back up my confession of faith, of course we shouldn't be surprised if I'm still sleeping with my boyfriend!

But if my friends bring me to church, explain God's requirement of holiness and Christ's provision of righteousness, while encouraging me to dig into the Scriptures and the Lord saves me, but before I get baptized I have to explain the Gospel, and before I can be a member I have to learn about how the Gospel impacts me, the church, and the world, and I am expected to be in a care group or accountability relationship -- well, if I know all this before I join, I'm going to count the cost, right? And I'm a heck of a lot less likely to fall prey to bad teaching, or to go off and make up my own ideas.

Do you see what I'm sayin'?

13. Leah said the following at 7:34 AM on Feb 23:

Laura, in reference to your comment "For decades, maybe centuries, churches have allowed people to attend, join, teach -- all without requiring any evidence of salvation (except a signature on a card)" -- basically, it comes down to, no-one can prove they are saved. In the Presbyterian Church of Australia, all ministers and elders must sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a good sign they are saved, but like you said, no proof. But really -- there is no proof at all, not unless Jesus tells you or you read the Book of Life!

14. Leah said the following at 7:36 AM on Feb 23:

Oh and about John Piper -- I know a pentecostal (AOG) person (who is also an AOG bible college student) who is also, essentially, a calvinist (or adheres to reformed theology) who says John Piper was a turning point in his life.