Whenever something explicit or vulgar shows up in public, and some people object, you can always count on other people to come back with one line: "If you don't like to see it, just don't look at it."
But, of course, it's not that simple. Because it's everywhere now. So much so that even jaded media types are taking note. And they're not loving what they're seeing.
Take today's Washington Post story on "second-hand porn" -- AKA "drive-by porn" -- which is getting worse now that everyone carries video screens in public. Reporter Monica Hesse can't contain her revulsion. A sample passage:
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
That, and the general haze of gross that seemed to descend on the public space, the filmy yuckiness that made them wish the sprinkler system would spontaneously activate.
That, and the feeling that came with knowing exactly what was on their neighbor's mind.
"At some point," Hesse quotes an English professor/mother as saying, "we've completely lost the ability to tell when it's socially appropriate and when it's not."
How did we get here? Go back to that earlier line: "Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment...."
Well, they should oppose it. (And without using euphemisms like "adult entertainment.") Because that's where the problem started -- with a collective refusal to be "judgmental" toward "private" behavior. Once a society abandons the very idea of binding moral standards, the rampant pollution of "private" vice inevitably gets into the public air, and it keeps building till we're all choking on it.
So let's start a clean-up operation. Yes, I know: It seems hopeless. So what? Do it anyway. There are a countless everyday ways to make a start. I once saw an obscene T-shirt in the window of a Spencer Gifts. I urged the clerk to get it out of the window. He did. This hardly took a herculean effort: It took two minutes.
Not too long ago, I read on the front cover of a Christian college newspaper about a couple who had made their own marriage commitment, spur of the moment, by themselves, on a beach. They told friends and relatives about it later, after they'd secured a marriage license. The couple's justification for their seeming indiscretion was that they were "married in the eyes of the Lord."
Something about this article really troubled me. I suppose you could make a case that the couple had physically made a covenant before God by consummating their relationship. But, to me (and I'm guessing to their family and friends), it appeared to be a lack of self-control. In his article, "Is Living Together Really a Big Deal?" author Ed Gungor makes a similar observation:
Most of us know people who are in love, plan to marry and currently live together. It’s sort of the new premarital counseling program. I visited a church out West that had a “pre-marriage” ceremony for a couple living together. No license. No wedding dress. Just a prayer of blessing to hold them over until the couple walked down the aisle—a kind of marital “appetizer,” I guess. I asked the pastor why they did it. He said, “The couple believes they are married in the eyes of the Lord, and we just wanted them to feel affirmation in our community.”
What did I think about it? I was bummed about it. I actually believe that marriage needs to be public and people need to vow into it in front of those who matter to them—it’s not just a private matter in front of the Lord. Truth is, those who declare they are married “in God’s eyes” seem to reframe their claim when they break up with their live-in partner. Then they claim they were never “really married.” This makes me very dubious about the “married in the eyes of the Lord” doctrine.
Gungor gives one of the best explanations I've ever heard of the emotional and psychological reasons sex should be saved for marriage. Beyond that, he reaffirms the value of a public demonstration of marriage:
If a Christian couple loves each other enough to jump in the hay, I think they should get married in the eyes of God and the rest of us. Marriage is not a private sacrament; it impacts the whole community of faith. It’s the right thing to do, and disciples do the right thing. They don’t just live on love—emotions, feelings and hormones—they live on principles, beliefs and disciplines that develop character. Pagans (and children) only live for themselves—they live for the “now” and feelings alone.
There were moments during our engagement when my now-husband and I had to remind ourselves of the importance of self-control and living above reproach in the courtship process. And it came down to what Gungor expresses here: "Disciples do the right thing." We may be tempted to find loopholes, but in the end it is gratifying and beneficial ... and just plain right ... to follow God's way.
Say that you sign a petition to put a controversial issue on an election ballot -- the sort that inflames passions and provokes reactions from the rage-filled fringe. How would you like it if your name had to be splashed onto the Internet for anyone and everyone to see?
The case in question comes in Washington State, where opponents of "domestic partner" laws gathered 138,000 signatures to put such laws on the ballot for Tuesday's elections. Some gay groups want courts to order all those names to be published online. And some of them semi-candidly say that the purpose is to force signers into "uncomfortable" conversations, to "shame" them.
I say "semi-candidly" because if they were really candid, they'd use the word that fits best: intimidation.
Lots of Californians who supported last year's Proposition 8, which affirmed marriage as a union between one man and one woman, can tell you all about intimidation. Widespread harassment has been amply documented. Now just imagine what would happen if anyone who so much as signed a petition could be a target of any angry person with a search engine. How many people would risk signing then?
Right.
It's tragically ironic that gays -- who so long have complained (often with good reason) of being victims of intimidation, living in fear, feeling forced into the closet -- should now seek to use it as a weapon themselves against those who hold to dissenting viewpoints on the issue of homosexuality in our culture. If anyone should understand how wrong these tactics are, it's gay activists and their allies. And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care.
It's not clear whether petition signers will be thrown to the wolves. That's in the courts right now and no doubt will be for a while. But something else should be crystal clear. Christians and others who warn that gay activists threaten their freedom are far from paranoid. And this is just the latest example. People who try to label the moral consensus of most human history as "hate" aren't just trying to expand their own freedom. They're also trying to shove their critics into the closet.
Good Pleasure by Candice Watters on 10/28/2009 at 9:00 AM
Getting married and making babies are such earthy activities, they sometimes make pious people uncomfortable. I love the earthiness of God's creation. Maybe it's the influence of my Jewish grandmother.
Whatever the reason, I'm excited about Gary Thomas's new book, Pure Pleasure. In it, he talks about God's gift of pleasure and the way godly pleasures protect us from sin. In Tuesday's featured Boundless article based on this book, "Enjoying the Earth without Loving the World," Gary writes,
... many Christian teachers persist in setting God's earth up against God's Kingdom — as if the two always oppose one another. We celebrate redemptive activities like prayer and worship, but then pit them against other human realities like marriage, exercise, traveling, reading for pleasure, and laughter.
God isn't just our redeemer, however; he is also our creator. He made us and He made this world. So when we participate in this world as He made it, we celebrate him every bit as much as we honor Him when we do things that reflect His redeeming work.
Redeemed by Jesus, I am finally set free to truly enjoy and participate in the things of this earth without becoming sinfully entangled by them.
How many times are singles told that they have to stop really "wanting" to get married before God will bring them a spouse? This stupidity not only depicts a taunting, teasing God (finally giving us something only after we've stopped wanting it), but it also undercuts the beauty of true marital intimacy, designed by God and generously given to us by God.
Keep in mind, Adam walked with God, enjoyed God, worshiped God, and talked with God far more intensely and directly than we do today. And yet it was God who said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18).
Catch this: God is literally telling Adam, "It is my opinion that the way you are living — just me and you — is not enough, at least not for now. It isn't good for you to be here with just me and no companion, so I'm creating someone else, a woman, with whom you can share your life and relate to me together."
Brothers and sisters, God told Adam, in one sense, "I'm not enough." Those aren't my words; they're His.
Our friend Tim Challies announced today that he'll be writing a series of articles to help young men detoxify from pornography's effects. Here, Tim explains some of his motivation for writing this series:
My great concern with young men today (which is really more a concern for their young wives) is that they may perhaps inadvertently or perhaps intentionally pornify the marriage bed. They may bring impurity to the pure, selfishness to the selfless. Having given themselves over to pornography, they have had their whole perception of sexuality altered, shaped by professional pornographers. They may be imposing on their young brides the impossible expectation of a porn star. With the vast majority of young men having been exposed to pornography (at least 90% according to recent studies), with a large percentage of them having been addicted to it and with many enjoying it still as they enter into marriage, they need to have their understanding and their expectations reset according to the One who created sex.
I think this series may also prove helpful for men and women who're bringing a sexual history with one or more partners into marriage. Because sin corrupts all the sexual pleasure you experience outside of God's intended purposes. Sexual baggage in all its forms bring with them their own "impossible expectations."
There's a lot of talk on the Boundless Line, both in the posts and the comments, about just how many people -- including Christians -- have been exposed to pornography in the age of the Internet. While coming up with an exact percentage is next to impossible, it's probably safe to say that modern men who haven't been exposed to porn are definitely in the minority. Women, too, are acknowledging that keeping their eyes pure is harder than ever these days.
In the responses to Ted's recent post on the topic, many commenters had a sobering message for single readers of both sexes: If you are looking for a potential mate who has never, ever looked at pornography, you will likely have a very small pool of candidates to choose from.
Discouraging as that sounds, there is another aspect of porn's ubiquity that is equally disturbing: Let's call it the Porn-Star-Sex Syndrome.
Not only are young (and not-so-young) people viewing more pornography than ever, what they are seeing has warped their perceptions about "normal" or even typical sexual activity. According to one article, which I will not link to, there is now an entire generation that thinks sex routinely consists of multiple postion changes, degrading behavior and a host of physical acts so explicit and un-typical that I dare not repeat them. Just as troubling as the thought that many young men now expect such acts is the apparent related surge in number of young women willing to go along.
While Christian singles hopefully do better when it comes to abstaining from sex before marriage, have they, too, unwittingly set themselves up for disappointment when their wedding night doesn't play out like the X-rated scenes they've witnessed online?
He's been viewing pornography since his freshman year in high school. It's gotten to the point where it's become mundane. And yet, he can't seem to break the habit.
I can't help you if you're seeking solutions to sin that are quick, easy, convenient and not costly. Repentance and rooting out the spiritual strongholds of sin rips up the ground of our heart and hurts. Healing and growing your spirit takes time. That's just the simple truth.
But the rewards of experiencing an appetite change from sin to holiness are beyond anything we can imagine. And if you're serious about it -- about Christ-likeness -- then your future is bright indeed, because God is serious about it too.
* * *
A week ago I received an e-mail from a Boundless reader who has escaped pornography's clutches. He's wondering, though, how transparent he should be with his girlfriend about it.
I have a question that has been eating at me for a while (ironically I have had you guys to ask for quite some time and I never thought of asking): I had a porn problem in the past. Through Celebrate Recovery I've been freed from this addiction and I am proud to say I'm an overcomer of this strong addiction that plagues the church.
I believe in full disclosure in a dating relationship and since I would be aiming for marriage I'd want to get anything out of the way that could be a deal stopper or something we need to look at and deal with. So in the light of full disclosure I have this question...
In a dating relationship how does someone who has sexual sin in their past bring this problem up with the girl they are seeing?
* * *
So I leave you with two questions:
What additional counsel would you give to the first young man wrestling with the sexual sin of pornography?
What counsel would you give to the second young man who has overcome the sexual sin of pornography?
On this week's Boundless podcast, I answered a question from a guy in a relationship who's troubled that he's still attracted to other women. I assured him it was normal to feel attraction to members of the opposite sex whether in a dating relationship or even in marriage. The real issue is what you do about it. Meaning, are you acting on that attraction by being flirtatious in any way?
One listener felt I didn't go far enough. Here's her e-mail in response to the segment:
I am writing in response to Motte's answer to the question in this week's Boundless Show (Episode 91). Although I agree that attraction to members of the opposite sex can continue while in a serious relationship (I am married), I believe that letting that instantaneous feeling of attraction last long enough to give it a second thought is flat out wrong.
In my mind it is just like any other form of temptation -- while the temptation itself is not a sin, dwelling on it is sinful. The proper response to the feeling of attraction (whether physical or emotional) is to take that thought captive and submit it to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).
The issue boils down to one of self-control. Although in practice it is not easy to exhibit such self-control, that does not change the truth of the matter. It seemed like Motte was hitting at the right thing in his reply to the question but I felt that he never came out and said that, ultimately, it is wrong to let yourself continue to feel attraction to someone outside of the relationship God has placed you in.
If it is something that one is struggling with then, by all means, seek out help, as was suggested, but letting your thoughts run away with you to the point of needing someone to hold you accountable for them is a serious thing.
I agree I could have said more. One thought I had after the recording is that if you find you're constantly battling feelings of attraction, it could mean you have a problem objectifying members of the opposite sex. And that is a serious thing.
What I mean is this. If you're in a relationship, another person's beauty or personality outside of your significant other isn't for you to enjoy; it's for their spouse (or future spouse) to enjoy. The pleasure you're getting by admiring someone's physique is pure selfishness.
I've written previously that there are probably many women I could allow myself to become attracted to. But I've already made my choice. And I need to be fully satisfied in her beauty and companionship alone.
When you were a kid, maybe you declared some day to be Opposite Day. If you were feeling bratty, it gave you a chance to play gags like this.
These days, I often think, every day is Opposite Day. Take Saturday, when President Obama spoke to a well-heeled homosexual group, pledging support for various items on their wish list and reassuring them that he'd fulfill their goals in due course. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading," he promised, "and the destination we will reach." (I, for one, don't doubt it one bit.)
Yep, it's Opposite Day in America, all right. We're seeing a moral inversion. We've always understood heterosexuality as the social, cultural and (most important) divinely created norm, and homosexuality as a distortion — a corruption, in the proper sense of the word — of that norm. Now presidents pay homage to groups that celebrate that distortion and define anyone who upholds the old norm as a bigot. We're way past "tolerance" here. (That word inescapably implies disapproval.) We're into official endorsement.
This isn't the only area where we've seen moral understandings not just weakened, but stood on their head. Abortion — a vast evil enshrined as a "constitutional right" — is the classic example. As essayist Joseph Sobran puts it, "What could be more barbarous than the killing of an unborn child, by the choice of its mother, through the agency of a doctor, and with the blessing of the state?" Count the victims: the sanctity of life, the preciousness of the maternal bond, the heart and soul of the medical profession, the protective purpose of the government. If anyone really wonders why Christians pay so much attention to this issue, here's the answer.
I bring all this up because Christians are so often tempted to negotiate a peace treaty with the world — saying, in effect, "You do what you want; just allow us to hide out in our churches and wring our hands among ourselves." We'd like to imagine we can still be faithful in public life by stressing the parts of our faith the world doesn't mind (feed the hungry, no problem) while downplaying the parts that the world minds very much.
That approach, by any biblical standard, is a betrayal of our Lord. If we're faithful, we have to expect we'll find ourselves opposite the world — not just in our private life, but in our public proclamation.
I really appreciate this bit of wisdom from Jon Bloom from Desiring God blog about fighting for purity:
It's very important that we count the cost of sexual immorality before temptation hits. That's the time for clear thinking. Temptation clouds our judgment. That's why we pray "keep us from temptation." Avoiding the fog by steering around it is much better than trying to navigate through it.
Bloom goes on to reference a list Randy Alcorn made 25 years ago as a young pastor detailing for himself the consequences of adultery. It's his way of "steering around" sexual temptations before they happen. Alcorn writes that he reads the list when traveling or feeling vulnerable.
Here's a portion of the list with relevant consequences for singles:
Grieving my Lord; displeasing the One whose opinion most matters.
Loss of reward and commendation from God.
Having to one day look Jesus in the face at the judgment seat and give an account of why I did it. Forcing God to discipline me in various ways.
Suffering of innocent people around me who would get hit by my shrapnel (a la Achan).
Guilt awfully hard to shake—even though God would forgive me, would I forgive myself?
Plaguing memories and flashbacks that could taint future intimacy with my wife.
Bringing great pleasure to Satan, the Enemy of God.
Heaping judgment and endless problems on the person I would have committed [sexual immorality] with.
Possible diseases that could affect your health and the health of your spouse.
Possible pregnancy, with its personal and financial implications.
Loss of self-respect, discrediting my own name, and invoking shame and lifelong embarrassment upon myself.
It's also helpful to remember the positive practical effects from this list such as guiltless ministry impact and uninhibited intimacy with your wife (or future wife). Obeying God is better for you in real ways.
If you've been around Boundless any length of time, you know that we try to take seriously the difficulties of those who experience same-sex attraction.
Something Gary Thomas wrote in today's featured Boundless article, "Sexual Compassion," gave me fresh insight into this painful struggle the first time I read it. Gary was talking with one of his friends, a guy named Mark who, though he was a Christian, still wrestled with his sexual orientation.
As we shared our individual struggles, one reality became painfully clear. My desire for sexual purity would soon be aided by God's best remedy: I was about a year away from marrying my wife. Mark knew he might never be able to marry; his struggle for sexual purity could mean abstinence for his entire adult life.
That's heavy, isn't it? Gary goes on, reiterating that while we must speak the truth about sexual purity, we must do so in love:
We feel for the young man who is drawn sexually to other men, but that doesn't mean we serve him by pretending God accepts same-sex expression. We will pray for his healing, we will walk with him as he allows God to heal his sexual nature, we will try to create a community of healthy, God-honoring relationships, but we must not, we cannot, endorse same-sex activity.
He continues:
Yet through it all we must avoid proclaiming the prohibitions as if we don't care. It is wrong not to care. It is less than Christian to be hard-hearted toward a brother or sister in a difficult state of sexual frustration.
How cold we must seem sometimes when we act as if sexual purity is not that big of a deal. The sexual drive is a major deal, and as one who has been sexually active in marriage for over two decades, I have no right to dismiss the very painful struggle behind God's command for those in frustrating circumstances who can't at the moment express or enjoy themselves sexually.
It can be difficult to balance an empathy toward those in sexually difficult situations with the knowledge that I should encourage faithful obedience to the Lord's will. It'd be easy, and be less confrontative, to merely affirm an unbiblical sexual desire. But I can't: I must speak the truth ... from a heart of love.
If you're interested in building an informed compassion for those who deal with same-sex attraction, check out the following Boundless articles:
Everywhere, without exception, I have been told that when it comes to love, men are interested in sex and women are interested in romance. That men are visual and women relational. That is the more balanced view found in various books.
The view that I hear from the people all around me is that men are lust-driven beasts interested only in women's bodies, and women are pure-minded and are interested in forging interpersonal connections and building intimate attachments.
Whew. I read on.
Girls will continually have to be wary around you because "they know what you're thinking." As such, they also have to be so very careful to keep you from stumbling. Oh, and as a side note, God has taken pity on you and said you are allowed to let a little steam off in marriage....
If my attitude sounds bad here, it's because this hurts. A lot. On many occasions, I have had it said to my face, "Yeah, well you're a guy and everyone knows that guys are perverts" or variations on that thought.
This young man's frustrations with these ridiculous cliches, I thought, are legitimate. Then came the questions:
I want a wife. I want a wife who also wants me. Is this wrong? Weird? Naive? ...
AM I just a lust driven beast? If so, I don't want to inflict myself upon some girl. Am I right, and these stereotypes wrong? I'm hoping so. If they ARE true ... should I despair? Should I stop praying that God would give me a wife, and start praying for the gift of celibacy?
I forwarded the e-mail, which a young man had sent to us at editor@boundless.org, along to John Thomas. This past Monday, we published his reply.
One good thing about the debates over who should control our decisions about health care and insurance is that abortion is back in the news, creating fresh opportunities to revisit our national conscience. Dinesh D'Souza does just that in Wednesday's Christianity Today. He asks in "Sex, Lies and Abortion,"
Why then, in the face of its bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically?
He answers his own question:
I think it's because abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century. Today a widespread social understanding persists that if there is going to be sex outside marriage, there will be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution to this social reality.
And offers this insight:
In order to have a sexual revolution, women must have the same sexual autonomy as men. But the laws of biology contradict this ideology, so feminists who have championed the sexual revolution—Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, among others—have found it necessary to denounce pregnancy as an invasion of the female body. The fetus becomes, in Firestone's phrase, an "uninvited guest." As long as the fetus occupies the mother's womb, these activists argue, the mother should be able to keep it or get rid of it at her discretion.
What, then, is the solution. D'Souza urges a change of tactic. One that likely won't go over well in our current climate of hyper-sexualized individualism adrift from any moral ought:
... pro-life arguments are not likely to succeed by simply continuing to stress the humanity of the fetus. The opposition already knows this, as probably do most women who have an abortion. Rather, the pro-life movement must take into account the larger cultural context of the sexual revolution that invisibly but surely sustains the triumphant advocates of abortion.
It won't be easy, but somehow the case against abortion must include a case against sexual libertinism. It is time to return to the drawing board.
As believers, when it comes to sexual purity, if only for the sake of our fellow unborn brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be leading the way.
University of Louisville head coach Rick Pitino had sex with a woman named Karen Sypher in a Louisville restaurant six years ago and later paid her $3,000 to have an abortion.
There are many angles you could take with the Pitino story. You could talk about the poor example he is to impressionable student athletes in need of good role models (and to college students in general); or you could discuss why the University of Louisville chose to keep Pitino rather than exercising their "acts of moral depravity" clause in the contract.
But the angle I'd like to take relates to the abortion. Because it illustrates well the subject of a recent Dr. Mohler article about how the availability of abortion really empowers men, not women. In "The Hidden Reality of Abortion -- Empowering Men" Dr. Mohler writes:
The Culture of Death often presents itself in terms of liberation. Yet, at every turn, this liberation is actually an enslavement. The availability of legalized abortion has led to the deaths of over 40 million unborn children in the United States alone. Beyond this, it has produced a social catastrophe evident in patterns of female poverty and the abandonment of both women and children by irresponsible males. Furthermore, it has severely weakened the moral protections and obligations that bound men to women and children, effectively allowing men to demand abortion as a means of escaping their responsibility to marry and to take responsibility for their children.
And for married men, the natural consequences that help keep us faithful have been negated by 35 years of the Culture of Death. As long as we have legalized abortion and a fistful of money, giving in to our lust-filled desires seems a little less risky. It also helps to have an abortion-minded mistress, which was the case here.
The real difference, however, between men and women when it comes to being "liberated" by abortion is that the woman is the one who has to go through the procedure. She's the one who has to come to terms with ending the life of her child as it's vacuumed right out of her. She's the one who has to deal with the physical and emotional consequences in a way the man will never know.
I'm not saying that abortion is consequence-less for men. But who is more liberated in a scenario like this? Rick Pitino or Karen Sypher?
Lots of people saw the story when the American Psychological Association (APA) declared last week that gays can't change their orientation.
OK, no surprise there. The APA has been moving for years against "reparative therapists" and others who help people wanting to come out of homosexuality. The task force that pushed this declaration is dominated by gay activists, and adopted the premise that homosexual "orientations" per se are "normal and positive variants of human sexuality."
If anything, the APA's actions could have been worse. They stopped short of labeling reparative therapists unethical, as some gay activists in their ranks wanted. And they conceded that religious clients are free to steward their sexuality in alignment with their religious values and ethics.
But the pity is that few people will have noticed the story buried deep within the Associated Press's long report: There's evidence to contradict the APA. Gays can change, researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse found. At least many of them can.
The people Jones and Yarhouse studied worked with programs connected to Exodus International, which combines Christianity with a knowledgeable approach to therapy. The results can't be summed up simply, partly because the measures of success varied: moving into heterosexuality, diminishing homosexual attractions, living in chastity.
The upshot, though, is that just over half of the long-term participants made major progress away from homosexuality.
Jones and Yarhouse state their findings with proper scholarly caution. They make no claim that everyone can change -- or, for that matter, that not everyone can. They simply go with the evidence that they've got, from a very thorough study.
And they certainly do present enough evidence to challenge APA's broad claim that efforts to change homosexual identity don't work and shouldn't be tried.
It's just too bad many media consumers won't look far beyond the headlines. They'll imagine that people who come out of homosexuality are mythological creatures whose existence has been disproven by modern science. The truth is, their existence has really been found inconvenient to modern culture.
Today I came across this powerful video of Josh Harris talking about not wasting your sexuality. In it, Josh observes:
Trying to be godly and holy when it comes to sex can feel like such a burden, like does God have a bad sense of humor? He gives me all these desires and then He says "Don't do anything with it."
He does call you to restrain yourself and preserve yourself for marriage, and yet you are supposed to do something with it. And what you're supposed to do with it is to allow that desire to drive you. To say, "I'm going to get my life in gear; I need to get a job, I need to start working hard to be a man of maturity and spiritual insight and discernment so that I can lead a family, a wife."
I'm reminded of an article published earlier this year called "When Pigs Fly." In it, author Mike Ensley considers how an improper view of the male sex drive has done damage in the Christian community. Like Ensley, Harris suggests focusing on what God does intend for sex rather than its opposite (which is plentiful in our culture). He says:
God uses this gift to fulfill His purposes and direct us and guide us. When we engage our sexuality for Him it becomes a beautiful thing. It has purpose. And it's not just about trying to seek some greater and greater thrill.
I had a frank conversation with a friend recently who told me that he thinks Christians place too much emphasis on what we can't do instead of focusing on what we should do. What do you think?
Feel pretty confident about turning the other way in times of temptation? You're probably weaker than you think. According to LiveScience:
If you think you're generally good at resisting temptation, you're probably wrong, scientists now say.
"People are not good at anticipating the power of their urges, and those who are the most confident about their self-control are the most likely to give into temptation," said Loran Nordgren, senior lecturer of management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, in Illinois.
Nordgren reached this conclusion through a series of small experiments conducted with college students.
In one experiment, more than twice as many smokers who thought they could resist temptation lit up a cigarette in a no-smoking test as those who realized they didn't have so much control.
Recently a friend said this about maintaining a pure relationship with her boyfriend: "I always thought I'd be stronger." As I mentioned in my article "Leaving the Edge," the best strategy is to keep yourself away from compromising situations and recognize your potential to go there. Nordgren agrees.
The bottom line, Nordgren says: Avoid situations where such weaknesses thrive, and remember you're not that invincible.
Temptations are common. And the ways in which we will react when we hang around them are predictable. That's why Scripture warns us to flee temptation. And, it seems, the research confirms it.
If you pay even a little attention to sports, you know who Tim Tebow is: University of Florida quarterback, Heisman Trophy winner, led his team to two straight national championships. You may also know that Tebow's very open about his Christian faith: He does missionary work (including prison ministry), and has been known to wear Scripture verses on his face. Which led a reporter at a recent press conference to ask him the sort of question people didn't used to ask. Here's one account of what happened:
You no longer need to wonder if the devoutly spiritual Tim Tebow is a virgin.
Now you know.
Responding to a question from radio reporters at SEC Media Days Thursday about whether he is saving himself for marriage, Tebow laughed initially and then said seriously, "Yes, I am."
When another reporter stumbled through and couldn't finish a follow-up question, the 21-year-old University of Florida quarterback laughed and said, "I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question.... I was ready for that question, but I don't think y'all were."
Kinda makes you wish you were there, doesn't it? (You can, at least, listen to the tape.)
It's debatable whether a press conference was the place for that question. But the reporter who asked it insists that he wasn't trying to play "gotcha." On the contrary, he expected Tebow would answer that way:
Why did I believe this? Because Tebow lives his faith. And I believe that living his faith is not artificial, he's not pretending to be something he's not. Further, I don't believe that saving yourself for marriage is something to hide from. Not in the evangelical Christian faith that Tim Tebow practices in a Southern church and not in the evangelistic Southern church where I was raised.
At my Southern Baptist church, proclaiming that you were saving yourself for marriage was considered an asset, something to be proud of. Mothers bragged about their daughters or their sons public proclamation of chastity until marriage. Saving yourself for marriage wasn't something that people hid. They talked about it openly. In fact, people even wore tangible objects to reflect their purity, bracelets or rings that served as vivid evidence of their chastity pledges.
The reporter goes on to note that Tebow's response is more than just a personal choice: It's the sort of thing that can -- and maybe even (*gasp*) should -- influence other people's choices too.
I guarantee you come Sunday across the South ministers will approach their pulpits and use Tebow's virginity as an example to the flock. After all, if Tebow can resist countless girls throwing themselves at him on a regular basis, is it really valid for you or I or countless others to argue that preserving our virginity was just too difficult? Maybe. But I think it's much tougher. Like many things in life, it all comes down to a choice. And Tebow controls his own choices better than most.
That's the real story here: Tebow's willingness to be an individual in a time when it's easy to get lost in the crowd by making the popular decision. Good for him for standing up for his faith publicly, as he's done countless times before.
The only thing I can think to add is: Let's not make those Southern ministers do all the work. Let's all pitch in to spread this story -- and this message -- around.
Last week the Episcopal Church USA accelerated its drive to embrace homosexuality (gay bishops, gay weddings, etc.). It's been coming for a while in this church body, which has had a very public controversy over the issue since they ordained openly gay bishop Eugene Robinson. And not surprisingly, the church has been losing members even more rapidly than the other old liberal "mainline" churches.
As U.S. News & World Report religion writer Dan Gilgoff notes, "the churches most open to homosexuality are shrinking fastest." Gilgoff quotes a defender of the Episcopal trend, one Mark Silk:
In a word, the Episcopalians are moving with all deliberate speed to fully normalize the status of gays and lesbians within their church. More conservative religious bodies will of course regard this as surrendering to the culture, but the truth is that all religious bodies must slow march to the beat of the culture if they expect to remain relevant to the lives of their members — that is, unless they want to relegate themselves to sectarian status. The Episcopalians are more willing to own up to this than most; indeed, they are doing so precisely by citing the changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage.
What revealing comments. The church must "slow march to the beat of the culture" — and take its moral authority from "changes in civil law respecting same-sex marriage." Thanks for the candor, Mr. Silk. You've just adopted a position diametrically opposed to the proper role of the church — to stand for eternal truth against the world, and to stand strongest precisely when the world most loudly demands the truth be abandoned.
I can hardly think of a better illustration of what this conflict is really about: Not only sexuality, not only marriage — important as those issues are — but whether the church will be the church at all.
I know we've covered the whole kissing-before-marriage topic before but I like how this "radical U.S. preacher" frames the argument. Is kissing, whether pre- or post-marital, foreplay?
A radical U.S. preacher, who is set to visit Adelaide, says young Christians should not kiss or cuddle before marriage because they will get carried away and end up having sex.
Evangelist Sy Rogers, who says he is a former prostitute, transsexual and gay man, says "kisses and cuddles" and the "good old pash" are foreplay that people should not engage in before marriage. ...
"So when is it time to stir up sexual desire?" he asked. "When you can afford to: in marriage.
According to Capitol Hill Baptist Pastor Michael Lawrence, there's no question about it. Here's an exchange we had with him about kissing before marriage during a 2006 interview:
Boundless: So kissing, how does that fit into [a dating relationship]?
ML: Well I would say it doesn't fit. When you kiss a woman, particularly if you are kissing her on the mouth, if you are kissing her for any extended period of time, things ... can I be really direct here?
Boundless: Absolutely.
ML: Things start happening in her body to prepare her to receive you sexually. There it is. That comes from kissing. That happens because God made it that way. And so we just know. You don't need a pastor to tell you what's sexual and what's not sexual activity. You know. Your body tells you.
It helps that Michael clearly defines what type of kissing we're talking about -- on the mouth for an extended period of time. So is this type of kissing foreplay? As Michael said, your body tells you it is.
I just got back from an amusement park. I went upside down 15 times at 3.6 Gs. I had the ultimate theme park goodie. I learned that the former does not mix well with the latter. And I also did a whole lot of people watching.
People watching at a theme park is always interesting. I think I saw just about every age, color, shape, size and variety of person that exists on this earth. But out of the hundreds (maybe thousands?) that I saw, there is one young lady that I remember.
I saw her while waiting on the family to complete the obligatory bathroom/water bottle fill up time. I remember that she was lovely though, to be honest, I don't remember a lot about what she looked like. What I do remember was her t-shirt. It was hot pink and showed her frame off to, umm, advantage. Blazen across her chest were the words "Virginity Rocks."
I had two opposite reactions to this t-shirt. One was encouragement. I was encouraged that this young lady seemed to be making a stand for God's amazing plan for sexuality. But I was also discouraged.
You see, since being married I've learned a lot about the differences between the male and female mind. I've learned how something that may seem innocuous to me may be viewed as sexual by a male. I've learned that a young man reading "Virginity Rocks" on a tight, hot pink t-shirt is probably not going to immediately start contemplating purity. And it was discouraging that this young lady didn't seem to be aware that her message was not matching her medium.
I would have loved to talk with this girl and encourage her to ask some hard questions about clothing and beliefs and whether the two match up. But modesty is complicated -- it's a both profoundly public and intensely personal topic. One best not approached by a stranger at a theme park but by parents, sisters in Christ, pastors and Titus 2 teachers in a trusted community of faith.
So, instead, I looked at myself. I remembered how easy it is to slip into the world's definition of pretty, stylish and sexy. I realized that it's important to take the time periodically to reevaluate what I wear and ask myself the tough questions. What was my clothing saying that day? Was there anything about what I was wearing that disconnected with what I want my life to say? Was God gettting glory from my appearance?
Because, ultimately, modesty is not about me (although I know I benefit from following the command in God's Word to dress modestly). And it's not about men (though I know that I can serve my brothers in Christ through modest dress). It's about God. 1 Timothy 2 tells me why I should be modest -- because modesty is "appropriate for women who profess to worship God."
As C.J. Mahaney writes (in a really thought-provoking chapter on modesty in his book Worldliness):
"Make this your aim: that there be no contradiction between your gospel message and the clothes you wear. May your modest dress be a humble witness to the One who gave himself as a ransom for all."
hello i read your article about enslaved by sex and i am youth leader in the church and i have a girlfriend i have been with for 2 years and we entered the church together and we had sex before and then we stopped and then we continued and then we stopped for a while a long while and then we stopped and after i while i was so deep into sin that i was scared to tell anyone because my pastor started trusting me and i would feel like i failed him.
So begins the question that John Thomas addresses in today's Boundless Answers column, "Tormented by Sexual Sin."
I decided against editing the question too much, beyond adding paragraph breaks and cleaning up some of the more egregious punctuation. I left much of it as we received it, though, so that you might get a better sense of this young man's desperation.
In his shout-out to Little Rock, John characterized his reply as "a rant." Hm. Is it a rant? You decide -- here are a few paragraphs:
I'll be honest, most young Christian men in your situation are too selfish and cowardly to make the changes necessary to move forward. They keep talking about change, but never actually do anything about it — until something happens that forces it. They talk big of wanting to be used by God but continue to waddle around in sexual sin and pornography, sapped of all their strength, powerless in the kingdom of God.
Why won't they get violent with their sin? Why won't they rip the computer out of the wall? Why won't they burn the magazines? Why won't they break off the relationships? Why won't they repent in dust and ashes? Why won't they change?
Well, because it makes them feel so good.
Warriors on the sidelines, watching the adventure go by, while they eat their stew.
Strong words. The truth is, though, that sometimes we need strong words to motivate us to honor the Lord rather than seek selfish satisfaction for our desires.
I've been in a similar place: being in a sinful relationship while serving in church leadership. And I've benefited from such strong counsel as John's, and benefited from experiencing the painful consequences of my sin.
I pray this young man, and maybe even you, find John's words to be redemptive, and not dismiss them too quickly as "a rant."
In it, Dr. Burk outlines what he believes are the main points of contention between a biblical and secular worldview on gender and sex. First, Dr. Burk addresses the three main secular views:
Gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. "In other words, the idea of male and female comprises a set of stereotypes that we absorb from our culture. Male and female does not designate a universal, innate distinction among humans. Thus gender is merely a social construct."
Sex is for pleasure, not for God. "We might call this the Sheryl-Crow-philosophy-on-sexuality. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. This perspective affirms any and all attempts to get sexual pleasure so long as such attempts do not harm others. If it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, then how could it possibly be wrong?"
Marriage is cultural, not universal. "In other words, marriage is something that came from human culture, not from God. It has a human origin, not a divine one. With God out of the picture, humans are free to make marriage into whatever they want."
Dr. Burk contrasts those secular beliefs with three biblical truths:
Gender is something you are before you learn anything. "In other words, the distinctions between male and female find their origin in God's good creation, not in what we learn from culture. That is not to say that people do not absorb ideas about gender from the culture, some of which are quite unhelpful. But that fact should not be used to suppress the truth that in the beginning God differentiated humankind as male and female as a part of His original creation-work."
Sex is for God before there is any lasting pleasure. "When people treat pleasure as the goal of sex, not only do they inevitably end up in immorality but they also end up with less pleasure. God is not a cosmic killjoy when it comes to sex. He intends for His creatures to enjoy this great gift for His sake, and that can only happen when God's people realize that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor 6:13)."
Marriage is universal, not cultural. "From the Garden of Eden forward, God intended marriage to be an enacted parable of another marriage: Christ's marriage to His church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, marriage is not defined by the culture, but by the gospel itself."
Good stuff. Reading Burk's article helped me to articulate some of the underlying assumptions in the debates over sexuality and gender in our society. But, my favorite part of the article was when Burk recommended that Christians emphasize a two-pronged approach to gender and sex in our culture -- both a countercultural message from the church and countercultural living among individuals and families in the church. By doing both, we both proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and show its power in our lives.
Partly, it's the season. With summer arriving here in America, so arrive the summer clothes and summer questions. What is modest? Does a tank top qualify? How short makes shorts too short? What about swimsuits? Although I'm eternally grateful for whoever figured out that swim shorts weren't just for men, are my swim shorts and tankini top really modest?
Sometimes I get frustrated on the lack of agreement among believers about what is modest and what is not. Can't we just develop the "Seven Simple Rules of Modest Dressing" so that I can shop and be done with it? Instead, it feels like the Christian attitude towards modesty often mirrors Justice Potter Stewart's Supreme Court argument about pornography: "I know it when I see it." In our case, we can't tell you what's necessarily modest, but we know immodest when we see it.
But I found some clarity on this issue when I read a recent article titled "The Single Woman and the Modesty of Personal Restraint" by Lydia Brownback. In the article, Brownback encourages us to examine the modesty of our actions:
"... [I]mmodesty deals with a lot more than revealing too much skin. We are just as prone-if not more so-to overexpose what's under our skin. Revealing too much about ourselves is immodest too.
Sharing confidences and personal experiences with someone forms a bond... If we share a little bit with someone and all goes well, it seems safe to share more, and before we know it, a bond has formed. This can be a great blessing, but when we allow it to happen in the wrong context, it is unwise, and great hurt can result."
Brownback goes on to offer some practical advice on how single women can relate to single men, to married men and "modesty of speech."
My real take-away from the article, though, came from this section:
"There is a time and place to open up and share our sin struggles and personal concerns, and if we are careful to apply Peter's words about the modesty of personal restraint, we will be wise not only about the time and the place, but also about the people we choose to share our hearts with."
A time and place. That's really, I thought, what modesty is about. It's about a time and a place.
Rather than rules and regulations, that phrase sums up an attitude. An attitude of waiting until appropriate. There is a time and a place for intimate conversation between a woman and a man. There is a time and a place to share the intimacy of our bodies. For both, it's marriage.
Modesty, then, isn't about prudishness or hang-ups or an aversion to sex. It's not about, though I'd still love to have them, rules.
Modesty is an attitude that acknowledges and affirms that intimacy and sex are wonderful in their God-given context. It's women and men who are willing to wait for that time and that place and who refuse to "hint" and "flirt" with that intimacy prematurely.
We received a comment on the 'Not Telling Dad' Daughter Responds discussion that well-illustrates the difficulty in determining how much of one's dark past should be discussed within a relationship.
A sinful past is a wound. Even if the Lord has forgiven it, the scars remain. So, in what detail should such scars be uncovered, prodded by both the scarred and their partner? When does keeping the bandage on cause more hurt, and at what point does peeling back the covering cause more hurt?
Perhaps the healthy balance lies somewhere between total transparency and total obscurity.
I've received the author's permission to copy-paste her comment below:
* * *
I commented before about coming into marriage as a virgin and marrying someone with sexual sin in their past. As a springboard off from this topic about this young lady's possible similar future scenario, do you think someone could address this relevant issue in an article?
As a devoted wife to a wonderful, godly man, I still struggle so with getting over his past. At this point I know that this is a failure on my part, not his.
We never properly dealt with it before marriage; I suggested counseling during engagement and he was horrified that I'd consider making him that vulnerable in front of people who respected him. He felt it would be a betrayal of his confidence, since he was repentant. I don't think he could understand my need to work through it — he'd already worked through it in his heart.
He had no explanation to give me other than that "it happened." Secretly I fear that if he can't assess the wrong steps he took to fall into sin before, then how can I silence those niggling doubts that it could possibly happen again? Now he doesn't want to revisit the subject, which would probably make things worse anyway.
So I struggle in silence because I've never felt that my hurt was acknowledged; and I've felt somewhat that my own gift of virginity to him was undervalued. I just wanted him to celebrate what I had saved for him; and it fell flat. Maybe I was prideful in wanting this.
Anyway, a post or article on working through this on my own would be so helpful, since it seems I can't talk to him or anyone else about it. Thanks everyone for their perspectives shared on this article — it's been very interesting.
* * *
This is a tough one. On one hand, this woman has some legitimate feelings: She feels that her husband is downplaying his former sins, which makes her feel that maybe her virginity — something she valued — went underappreciated. And if his former sins weren't that big a deal, what's to say they won't be revisited?
On the other hand, her husband has been forgiven by the Lord. In the words of the hymn, "It Is Well With My Soul":
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more
And if the sins are no more, why bring them back into the light of scrutiny, something that has the potential to inflict further pain?
Perhaps the following two thoughts can provide direction here:
"... where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20) and Jesus' saying that those who are forgiven much love much (Luke 7:47). Perhaps by together reviewing the depth of sin, and how much has been forgiven, both husband and wife will have a greater appreciation of grace.
John Thomas wrote a column called "Ineffective Forgiveness?" in which he challenges a young man to really forgive his girlfriend for her past sexual sins, though doing so is very difficult, seemingly impossible.
I'd be interested in hearing how you struggle with this issue.
Dr. Al Mohler is writing and talking about a trend among dating believers to reserve all sexual intimacy -- including kissing -- for marriage. He says,
Over the past thirty years Western civilization has undergone a near total transformation in sexual morality. Sex education programs assume that teenagers (and increasingly pre-teens as well) simply will be involved in sexual activity. Sexual purity, abstinence, and sexual denial are written off as unrealistic, unfair, and repressive. Even so, the Virgin Lips Movement will come as a shock to some older evangelicals. For older Christians, the expectation was, as the Bible makes clear, for sex to wait until marriage. As for kissing, that was considered to be another matter altogether. To some of these older Christians, the Virgin Lips Movement sounds like overkill and over-reaction.
I used to think this sort of thing was over-the-top. But after reading Suzanne's (excellent) article yesterday on Boundless, I no longer do. She writes,
Our culture is full of "empty words" that tell us that sexual gratification is most important. But Paul warns that choosing anything—whether sexual impurity or greed—over God is idolatry. So our choices regarding "how far is too far" aren't about the behaviors themselves but about our esteem of God and His commands.
These choices are so serious that we can potentially separate ourselves from our spiritual inheritance—not only the prize awaiting us in heaven but the power in Christ we can have now. One friend described it this way: "Getting too physical just dulls you spiritually. Pretty soon stuff that felt wrong doesn't feel wrong anymore."
And as a pastor, Dr. Mohler concurs. He says,
As any minister who works with youth and young adults knows, the "how far is too far question" is a constant. The Virgin Lips Movement represents a determination to stop that train before it leaves the station, so to speak. Consider this: In the space of little more than a single generation, we have seen the breaking down of virtually every social and cultural support for sexual abstinence. ...Now, most young couples face the temptation of romantic contexts in which intimacy -- and this means sexual intimacy -- is a likely outcome. The Virgin Lips Movement represents a serious effort to push back against this expectation and to create boundaries that will protect virtue and honor marriage.
Not too long ago, I was having a conversation with a friend and she mentioned how maintaining physical boundaries with her boyfriend was a lot more difficult than she expected. "I mean, we're not teenagers anymore!" she said. Basically, maintaining physical purity—even in a relationship consisting of two committed Christians—was more difficult than anticipated. Anyone relate?
My brother is a youth pastor, so I've thought a great deal about the messages Christian teens receive about sex from the church. Most of it is of the "true love waits" variety. If you ask, "Why does true love wait?" the party line answer is that sex will be more fulfilling if you do. Plus, you'll avoid those nasty consequences that label you with a social stigma—such as getting pregnant out of wedlock.
But the meaning of sex and God's call for purity goes so much further than that simplistic presentation. I recently read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. The book really transformed my thinking on sex and chastity. Maintaining purity as a believer is not just about controlling inappropriate sexual behaviors and managing consequences, it is about allowing God to transform your heart and whole way of thinking. I wrote the following in today's featured article "Leaving the Edge:"
If you are in a relationship—even a godly one—a whole universe of purity choices presents itself. Is kissing OK? What about making out? What touch is appropriate and what touch is sinful? On the ladder of physical expressions that ends with sexual intercourse, at what level does one begin sinning?
The flaw in these questions is that the emphasis is on the wrong thing: the behaviors. Purity is a heart issue. Luke 6:45 says: "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."
This is a heart issue. Even self-control, as needed as it is, only manages sexuality. In response to my article, Daniel Weiss Senior Analyst for Media and Sexuality for Focus on the Family Action wrote the following:
One thing I would have added in this article is the idea of sacrificing a lesser love for a greater one. We sacrifice what we want now, for what we are promised in the future. I sacrifice sexual touch with my girlfriend now to enjoy uninhibited, chaste, complete intimacy with her later. Or, I sacrifice sexual activity in this life in order to experience the full communion of the saints in the next. These aren’t theoretical; but very real choices with eternal payoffs.
The main truth we need to grasp as believers is that God has a radically different—and infinitely better—design for sex than the world delivers. And keeping in step with the Spirit by embracing purity at every stage allows sex to be what God intended—a sacrificial covenant seal that reflects Him. Since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been trying to convince us to take something less than God's full deal for us. Pushing physical boundaries in relationships does exactly that. When we leave the edge, God has so much more for us.
According to this article from Stanford University's Hoover Institution, attitudes about pornography and tobacco have switched places in the last 50 years. Meaning, most people in our grandparent's generation thought that smoking was simply a personal preference and that pornography was morally wrong. Today, most people find smoking "disgusting" and think pornography is a matter of individual taste.
From Mary Eberstadt's "Is Pornography the New Tobacco?":
Today's prevailing social consensus about pornography is practically identical to the social consensus about tobacco in 1963: i.e., it is characterized by widespread tolerance, tinged with resignation about the notion that things could ever be otherwise. After all, many people reason, pornography's not going to go away any time soon. Serious people, including experts, either endorse its use or deny its harms or both. Also, it is widely seen as cool, especially among younger people, and this coveted social status further reduces the already low incentive for making a public issue of it. In addition, many people also say that consumers have a "right" to pornography -- possibly even a constitutional right. No wonder so many are laissez-fair about this substance. Given the social and political circumstances arrayed in its favor, what would be the point of objecting?
But for all the similarities between the two "substances," there's no getting around the differences in harm -- smoking causes cancer, porn doesn't. Not that porn is harmless. Aside from the debate about porn's correlation to sexual violence (and there is, btw), the havoc wreaked on the workplace and home should be enough to give anyone pause about their own "laissez-fair" attitude.
More from Eberstadt:
According to a 2007 survey by the American Management Association and the ePolicy Journal, 65 percent of corporations now use pornography-detecting software, up from 40 percent in 2001. According to the same study, fully 84 percent of the 30 percent of bosses who said they fired someone for internet misuse cited pornography as the reason why.
And,
According to a meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, ... 62 percent of the 350 attendees said that [Internet pornography] had been a significant factor in cases handled that year ... Numerous pastors and priests and ministers and therapists have reported that pornography use is now the leading cause of marital trouble and breakup they encounter as counselors.
Not to mention it's effect on the delay of marriage.
And like second hand smoke, these factors are what Eberstadt believes may ultimately re-stigmatize porn consumption.
Just as secondhand smoke finally shattered the "so-what?" social consensus about tobacco, so might the potential harms to others -- marriages, jobs, and relationships disrupted; loved ones and children inadvertently exposed -- ultimately threaten to deep-six the current "so-what?" consensus about pornography.
Ultimately, what she's envisioning is a more chaste society in 50 years. And I pray that God brings about revival. But it seems that for now, we're headed in the exact opposite direction on matters of sex and cigarettes.
Nudity in Art by Ted Slater on 03/12/2009 at 1:11 PM
Comments on several blog posts tell me that this is a hot topic: When and how is it appropriate to include nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in various forms of art, specifically film?
In regards to viewing nudity, it's clear that there's a spectrum of appropriateness. On one hand, it may be appropriate for a man to view his wife's or baby's unclothed body; at certain times a male physician may be within his right to view a woman's unclothed body. On the other hand, it's never appropriate for a man to view a woman other than his wife with lustful desire in his heart, whether she is clothed or unclothed.
Perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms has to do with vocation: a husband's vocation to please his wife, for example, or a physician's vocation to care for his patients.
And perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms also has to do with the heart: viewing a woman lustfully is clearly wrong.
Perhaps Scripture can provide some clarity, some insights into this issue.
Job made a covenant with his eyes not to "gaze at a virgin." Habakkuk associates "gazing" at someone's unclothed body as shameful. There's something about "gazing" at someone you're not married to that Scripture considers wrong.
To directly challenge a comment on another blog post: Scripture does indicate that a woman's breasts are sexual for men, and not merely for men in "civilized cultures." Consider Proverbs 5:19 and Song of Solomon 7:6-12 and Ezekiel 23:3,21, for example. To further illustrate, let me ask our female readers a couple of questions: If a man not your husband touched your shoulder, that'd probably be all right, right? But if he touched you elsewhere, it would not be all right. If he looks you in the eye, that's probably all right, right? But if he gazes elsewhere, would you not feel uncomfortable? Of course, because you would feel sexually violated.
God modeled this by clothing Adam and Eve. God did this because He deemed such a gift to be good; not giving such a gift would not be good; therefore it would be bad not to give such a gift; because this gift's purpose was to cover their unclothed bodies, it follows that it was bad for Adam and Eve to go around with unclothed bodies.
God again covers nakedness in Ezekiel 16:8. Jesus affirms clothing the unclothed in Matthew 25.
I need to make it clear that the human body is not shameful. It is glorious. But in most cases, uncovering it before others is condemned. Just as, perhaps, interacting inappropriately with the sacred Ark of the Covenant was condemned.
Scripture is clear that it is wrong to "lie sexually" with someone to whom you're not married (Leviticus 18:20). The marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Actors who portray sexual intercourse with someone to whom they're not married are rejecting both of these principles. By paying money to view these actors, we are facilitating and affirming their ungodly behavior.
I see plenty of instances in Scripture where viewing unclothed bodies is wrong. Does Scripture ever portray unclothed bodies as right? Hm. Well, maybe. Isaiah "walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign ... against Egypt and Cush." The Lord Himself directly commanded Isaiah to do so in order to indicate the shame these peoples would experience.
Should passers-by have averted their gaze, like the men of Coventry who refused to look at the Lady Godiva as she rode horseback through their town, naked and humbled, sacrificing her honor for their sake? Yeah, probably.
It's also likely that Jesus was without clothing as he was hanging on the cross. His garments weredividedamongthose who carried out the crucifixion. This nakedness may have contributed to the shame He experienced on the cross.
As with Isaiah, Jesus' humiliation was a display of God's holy judgment against sin. Like Lady Godiva, He sacrificed His honor for our sake. It had no entertainment value.
(Note, of course, that the nakedness of neither Isaiah nor Jesus was in any way sexual, but was heartbreakingly shameful and humiliating.)
So is it good for storytellers to use unclothed bodies in their art? Does the vocation of "artist" grant someone the same authority that husbands or physicians may have to view an unclothed woman? Does their vocation permit them to instruct unmarried couples to engage in sexual behavior? Even if so, when is it good for the rest of us to view the nakedness and sexual activity they present to us?
We appreciate the passionate discussion that followed this post, for your heart-felt comments. The conversation, though, has become more polarizing than we feel comfortable with, and so we need to close down the comments. Thank you for understanding, and for wrestling with what Heather has written.
* * *
Over at the Octomom post, the comments took a decided turn around this concept found in 1 Corinthians 7:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
What I cherish about all of Scripture, and this one in particular, is the worth it gives to women. Other religions or cultures may see women as property, but not our God. He calls us heirs. When we marry, we are not the property of our husband, but we are one with our husband. We give ourselves to our husbands just as they give to us. It's just beautiful.
But this section of Scripture can also concern some. You can read the comments for yourself, but the post's discussion led one frustrated young woman to e-mail us and ask:
"I want to weep. We really are going to say to women who have been raped by their husbands that it was their fault [because their bodies are their husbands' and they sinned by not fulfilling their husbands' sexual needs]?"
So, the answer to this young reader is, quite simply and quite emphatically, no. Marital rape cannot in any way be justified.
The believing husband is commanded to love his wife just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. He is commanded to love his wife as his own body because "no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 tells us--patient, kind, not self-seeking and always protecting. The very act of forcing a wife to have sex violates all of these commands: it takes instead of gives; it hates and hurts his own body; and it is the height of self-seeking, impatient harm.
Bob Lepine puts it this way in The Christian Husband:
"A husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church will be selfless, not selfish...A selfless husband is always considering his wife's needs .. If he's in the mood for romance, he considers the kind of day she has had and does not insist that she be intimate with him. Rather than dwelling on his own needs, he considers her needs too."
What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin "cause" his sin?
Emerson Eggerichs writes in Love and Respect:
"First, you must get to the place where you can say, 'My response to my spouse is my responsibility.' In my own marriage, Sarah doesn't cause me to be the way I am; she reveals the way I am."
Reminds me of Mark 7:20-23.The closest example I can think of is my children. If they are disobedient, or disrespectful, or steal or get drunk, are they sinning? Absolutely. Does that mean that if I beat them unconscious that I can say, "Yes, I sinned and my sin might have even been worse, but they need to look at their own sin." God forbid that I would have the arrogance! To assign blame for my sin to those I am commanded to protect and lead spiritually? The root of this sin is my selfishness and rage, not their sin.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs.
We are commanded to give ourselves up for one another, for the benefit of one another. The command is not license to demand for ourselves.
Sexual intercourse is a beautiful and important part of a marital relationship. When it's approached selfishly, it's absolute acid to the relationship. When, however, it's approached with a giving, 1 Corinthians 13 attitude, it's a wonderful, enjoyable bonding of two souls.
That's our standard. That's our hope. Dear reader, I hope I answered your question.
I'm straight. Sure, I've gone with some friends to gay bars and have been on a "date" with another guy that ended with an awkward kiss goodnight, but the truth is that I've never had sexual feelings for another man. I'm an ever-straight.
And so when I interact with guys whose affections are toward other guys, I can get uncomfortable. What can I say? How can I even relate?
Well, you know what, I absolutely can relate. Though I've never had a homosexual thought in my life, like those who feel the draw of same-sex attraction (SSA), I have experienced my heart drawn toward things that Scripture says are unacceptable.
And recognizing that, says author Mike Ensley in today's featured Boundless article, "When They're Gay," is the right place to start in our relationships with those whose lifestyles might seem so foreign to us: Instead of explaining your gay friend's experience to them,
... lay yours out in the open. Let them see how God is transforming your heart and mind to be more like His. Have the courage to share the struggle you face in submitting to Christ in the midst of your naturally tempted self -- your orientation, if you will.
Hm. Maybe my life isn't as "ever-straight" as I'd like others to think it is.
Mike covers a lot of ground in his article. He talks, for example, about the "peace" that some gay-identified men and women experience when they finally come to embrace their SSA:
... there's a natural relief a person experiences when any internal conflict has been settled.... Split devotions lead to instability. Resolve -- whether it's to do wrong or right -- brings relief. That relief can easily be mistaken for holy peace -- especially by someone who desperately wants it to be just that.
This heartbreaking article reminds me of one that Mike wrote late last year, "Ray Boltz's Hunger for Community." After exploring the issues that contributed to Ray's succumbing to the pressures of SSA, Mike challenged us to see how we may be facilitating the alienation that so many gay-identified men and women feel.
His conclusion in that article remains relevant in this article.... No, let me start that again. His conclusion in that article remains relevant in all of life: Let's pray for repentance -- for ourselves first.
I pray for repentance: First for myself, the worst sinner I know.
On Monday, a friend and I were talking about the birds and the bees.
Obviously, both being mothers of two kids, we weren't in need of a whole lot of knowledge. Rather, we were talking about our girls and wondering aloud how to have an ongoing purity discussion with them and at what age certain information is appropriate.
"You know what I want to do?" I mused. "I want to emphasize sexual purity, but also give her some real strategies to make it happen."
My friend nodded her head. "Yeah, like what to do in certain situations and what situations just to stay clear of all together."
I thought about that conversation today when reading about Bristol Palin. Bristol first came under media scrutiny for her out of wedlock pregnancy. She is in the headlines again for an interview she gave with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News in which Bristol declared that abstinence was "not realistic at all." (You can read the context of her comment here).
Some are disappointed with Palin's comment. Others see it as further justification that abstinence cannot be expected.
But, as Dr. Albert Mohler writes today, Christians need to be less concerned about whether abstinence is realistic and more concerned about making abstinence realistic in our lives:
The real issue for Christian teenagers and their parents is not to debate whether sexual abstinence before marriage is realistic or not. The larger and more important issue is that sexual abstinence until marriage is the biblical expectation and command. Once this is realized, the responsibility for everyone concerned is to ensure that expectations and structures are in place so that abstinence is realistic.
The debate over whether abstinence is realistic or not misses the more important issue -- abstinence must be made realistic.
But what strategies are effective? What should a single person do to be intentional about their purity? One resource I've enjoyed is Randy Alcorn'sThe Purity Principle. In a chapter titled "Guidelines for Singles," Alcorn acknowledges that while Scripture warns against man-made rules, the Word does call us to live wisely, "exercising God-honoring common sense." He then goes on to share a list of guidelines he used with his own family.
But, more than the guidelines, I especially appreciate the beautiful and accurate picture Alcorn gives of why obedience to God's sexual standards is not just required, but glorious:
"Sex wasn't invented by Hollywood, Madonna, or some pervert in an Internet chat room. Sex was created by an infinitely holy God, wreathed in blinding light and glory, surrounded by radiant, holy angels. The goodness of sex stands or falls with the goodness of its Creator.
...Sex is the means by which children are conceived and marital intimacy is expressed. Both are very important to God. When sexual union takes place in its proper context, in a spirit of giving, the Creator smiles."
But we must also remember...
"Sex is incredibly powerful; it's able to do immense good ... or immense harm...The most magnificent gifts of God, taken outside their God-intended boundaries, become utterly ruinous. So it is with sex. Its potential for great good has a flip side -- potential for great evil.
As long as fire is contained in the fireplace, it keeps you warm. But if the fire is "set free," the house burns down.
I've walked through the smoldering ruins of people's lives devastated by immorality...I cannot forget such scenes imprinted on my soul.
In contrast, to embrace purity is to lay claim to a magnificent gift. Purity is incomparably beautiful...like the frangrance of a rose after a summer shower."
The saddest part isn't that Natalie Dylan (not her real name) is auctioning off her virginity to the highest bidder.
The saddest part isn't that the San Diego student is using the auction to help raise money to pay for her graduate studies.
The saddest part isn't that the 22-year-old got the idea from her sister, who spent three weeks working as a prostitute at a Nevada brothel to fund her own college education.
The saddest part isn't that some 10,000 men have already bid on the young woman's chastity.
The saddest part isn't that, four months after Howard Stern helped her launch the auction, Dylan has now reportedly received an offer of $3.7 million.
The saddest part isn't even that the money she hopes to raise will fund an advanced degree in marriage and family therapy.
What's so bad about the pill? According to Carl Djerassi, plenty.
Djerassi, the Austrian chemist who helped create the earliest contraceptive pill, is on a mission to help Austrians who "[want] to enjoy their schnitzels while leaving the rest of the world to get on with it" to "wake up" to the looming disaster.
According to one LifeSiteNews.com, "Djerassi explained that Austria, which is now home to more seniors over 65 than children under 15, would soon enter 'an impossible situation' as the lopsided population would result in a working class too small to support the needs of elderly pensioners."
For all the predictions of population explosions, the pill has nearly ensured the opposite: a population implosion; something Djerassi never imagined. "'Not in our wildest dreams' had [we] expected the chemical to be used for contraception," said Djerassi in the December issue of Austria's Der Standard. "Lamenting that there is now 'no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction,' Djerassi said, 'This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete. Most Austrians enjoy sexual intercourse without thereby wanting or begetting a child.'"
At least they have their schnitzels.
Consider the contrast with Rachel Starr Thompson's experience of growing up as one of 12 children. (Thanks to families like hers, the dire predictions of too-few people may not come true after all.) She writes in today's Boundless article, More and Merrier,
In recent years, more and more parents have started to open their lives to more and more children, conceived or adopted — to seek a full quiver, as many term it. These parents may not know it yet, but they are giving their children invaluable gifts of training, community, and lifelong ministry — and though they may not see their actions in such grand terms, they are giving a future to us all.
I have to believe Djerassi would agree. With the benefit of hindsight, hopefully he'd applaud.
The last couple of "Boundless Answers" columns have got me thinking. More accurately, they've got me remembering.
For those of you who haven't read them yet, Candice yesterday responded to a single woman who plans on asking her "future husband to get tested" for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). And last week, John Thomas offered some advice to a young man who is dealing with feelings of insecurity as he anticipates a future discussion with his girlfriend regarding their past sexual experiences.
In the first case, the woman acknowledges that she is not a virgin, but has concerns about the sexual health of her future husband. In the second instance, the man discloses that he is a virgin, but has "much reason to believe" that his girlfriend -- whom he loves deeply -- is not. Needless to say, this thought troubles him very much.
Reading these columns took me back to the time when my now-wife and I were dating. (This was the early 1990s; we didn't call it courtship way back then.) And while I largely agree with the advice Candice and John offer, I would like to add some of my own. More accurately, I would like to supplement their answers with the counsel we received at the time from our pastor and his wife:
When couples moving toward marriage decide to have "the talk" about their sexual pasts', they should be very cautious when it comes to discussing details. It's certainly reasonable to ask if a potential mate is a virgin, in which case the STI question reasonably follows, but what more is gained by taking an inventory of past relationships and the corresponding activities -- particularly if such activities took place before one or both parties was a devoted follower of Christ?
In other words, this is one case where "the whole truth" can be a destructive thing. Does it really help to know whether the woman you want to marry slept with two or five others before you met and fell in love? If that part of her life is truly in the past, does an exact number make you feel better or worse? More or less secure? And likewise, will the man you want to spend your life with love you any less if you learn the names of his past sexual partners, particularly if that area of his past now seems like a lifetime ago?
Now, I realize that "openness" and "transparency" are extremely popular concepts; I, for one, was convinced that I wanted to ask (and likewise answer) any and all questions to/from the woman I wanted to marry. There would be no secrets in our relationship, we vowed, even if the truth was a bit painful. But when we began to be open and honest, we quickly learned that our pastor and his wife were very wise indeed.
Though neither of us had what you might call a sordid sexual past, it's also true that I did not save my first kiss for the altar, and neither did my wife. And as we began to "transparently" answer each other's questions, what resulted was not a sense of greater closeness and security, but rather resentment and insecurity. What good did it serve to hear about her other boyfriends? My previous girlfriends? To be completely open and honest with you, it didn't do much good at all.
When we saw what was happening, we realized that our pastor was right -- the details weren't very important after all. (Incidentally, I have now heard this same advice from a number of pastors/counselors.) As a result, my wife and I have lived in blissfully ignorant matrimony for more than 15 years now.
Now please don't twist my words to suggest that I'm in favor of keeping secrets from a potential spouse. I am not. If you are sexually experienced and he's not, be honest about it. And don't wait until you're married to reveal the truth. But sharing every intimate detail of that experience will do little to strengthen the bond you are trying to forge.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Along with the already noted exception of health-related issues, it would also help to know if a potential mate comes from a history of abusive relationships or moral failures -- a past abortion, for example -- but even those can be worked through with the help of a qualified counselor. So, if you are convinced via prayer, hours of conversation and the counsel of other Christians that the person you intend to marry is today a solid, committed, regenerated believer in Christ, then what hold do past experiences have on him/her?
Let the details stay in the past, where they belong.
A Chicago couple got married recently and shared their first Christmas together as husband and wife. Few weddings of ordinary couples get news coverage beyond the wedding announcements feature that some papers still have, but this couple made the news because they not only planned to save sex for after their wedding, but also planned to save their first kiss.
In a follow-up to this story, the Chicago Tribune wrote:
When the Tribune reported last month that Chicago couple Melody LaLuz and Claudaniel Fabien were about to wed without ever having kissed, much less slept together, hundreds of readers responded passionately.
Some were incredulous: "Huuuuge mistake. ... To go in with that as an unknown is too big of a risk factor."
Reading this last line reminded me just how upside down conventional wisdom is about physical intimacy and marriage. For the past four decades Americans have developed an unhealthy fear of marrying someone without giving them a sexual audition. In that same time, Americans have lost just about all the healthy fear they once had about what premarital sex might do to undermine their future marriage. As a result, we have a culture of people who go around sampling the sexual potential of future partners with little concern for the wear and tear they are putting on those people (or themselves).
I realize there are some unfortunate examples of couples who discovered serious sexual problems after they got married. But how many more examples are out there of couples who have compromised their sexual satisfaction in marriage by trying to eliminate all sexual surprises before marriage? As Michael Lawrence (an occassional Boundless contributor) says, "I've never met a couple in all my marriage work who say they wish they had been more physical before they got married."
In today's Boundless Answers, John Thomas answers a question from a guy who's worried his girlfriend's sexual past will mean problems down the road. Here's the crux of the questioner's concerns:
The issues that affect me the most are just sadness of us possibly not being completely as close as we could be, insecurity of being compared to these other guys, and just having trouble dealing with the thought of this girl I love having been so close and intimate with another (or others).
In his answer, John gives hope for restoration and offers practical advice on how to humbly approach his girlfriend when working through the issue. It begins with the example of Jesus Christ.
Jesus showed us perfect response to people's personal sin. He exhibited the perfect balance of righteousness and compassion; justice and mercy. He called it the way He saw it without compromise, then He brought healing and hope and restoration.
I want to encourage you with two thoughts as you prepare for your conversation with her. First, you must have as your ultimate goal the glory of God. What I mean is that you can't see this as ultimately being about you, and you can't see this as ultimately being about her. This is about God. All of life is from Him, through Him and for Him. So as you think about this, you think as Christ would think. How could you do that, you ask?
That is thought number two. As a believer, you have been given the "mind of Christ." The very Spirit of Christ dwells in you. You have access to all of the discernment and wisdom of God. Additionally, you have the power of God to help you love, forgive, restore and celebrate the gift of grace: Christ taking your sin and her sin upon Himself, and paying our death sentence.
John rightly focuses on the need for grace in this circumstance. If this young man approaches his girlfriend with the "mind of Christ," then there is hope for love, forgiveness, and restoration. But that doesn't mean that her past sexual sins (and possibly his if he's ever viewed pornography) won't have consequences in the marriage bed.
The questioner's fear of comparison and loss of intimacy is legitimate. And I don't say that to discourage. I say that so the person reading this will have the proper perspective going in. Sober expectations can be a blessing here.
Being other-centered will also help. If you're willing to lay down your sexual expectations for the sake of your spouse, there's very little room for sadness and insecurity.
Oh, the wonder that is the Internets. Trying to track down an old friend? Give Yahoo! People Search a try. Don't know the name of America's 14th president? Check Wikipedia. The name of your favorite artist's first hit? Just a Google search away.
And while we're at it, do you want someone to explain why your girlfriend won't sleep with you -- despite the evidence that you're "clicking, compatible, and all signs are pointing to the fact that yes, this girl is really into you"? You can find that answer online, too.
Apparently, there are five main reasons why she "has yet to give you the green light," ranging from she's still undecided how she feels about you to the likelihood that she's seeing other people. Sandwiched in between is the notion that she doesn't believe in sex before marriage, but since that reason doesn't show up until fourth on the list, it must not be too likely.
(While you're at it, you might want to browse eHarmony's thoughtful list of "Pickup Lines that Actually Work." And no, I'm not providing a link.)
We received the e-mail on Saturday. Her boyfriend was pushing her for more sexual intimacy, but she didn't feel quite right about giving in:
My boyfriend and I have been dating for a year. We both are ready to marry each other. He hasn’t proposed yet, but I think it is coming soon. We have discussed the topic generally and want to be married next spring.
There is just one thing we don’t agree on. He thinks it is okay to pursue physical intimacy up to but not including intercourse prior to marriage. I, however, think that playing that close to the line is not safe nor biblical. He says it borders on legalism to be okay doing some things such as holding hands and kissing but hindering yourself from others. His interpretation of ‘do not arouse or awake love until it so desires’ strickly means intercourse.
We’ve had many discussions over this and though I know what I think and feel is true, I am struggling convincing him and struggling to find biblical text to back up my beliefs. Can you please help me or am I in the wrong? What are the boundaries when you are almost engaged? I do want to show physical affection but as soon as I do, this huge stream of gray lines pops up and where do you stop? He is willing to respect my beliefs but wants me to back up my thoughts. I then get tongue tied as I try to explain and end up feeling like maybe I am being legalistic if I can’t find the specific scriptures to prove why I think and feel how I do.
Providentially, perhaps, today's Q&A on Boundless Webzine addresses a very similar issue. Here's an excerpt from the Q part of the Q&A:
I recently met a Christian guy at my church and we've been out many times. We seem to agree on many issues except the issue of sexual intimacy before marriage. I believe that God wants us to enjoy sex with the person we are married to; however, he believes that God created sex to be enjoyed as a part of the dating relationship because we have such a basic need for it.
I have this vision of predatory men wanting to use and discard naive women for their own selfish purposes. Men who call themselves Christians, but unChristianly twist Scripture to satisfy their desires for sexual intimacy. Sickening.
Well, it's a good thing John Thomas provided the response in today's Boundless Answers column. He's much more gracious than I would have been.
We've covered this before on Boundless. But for those of you who've been in a spider hole the last few years, here's Mark Driscoll's answer to the age-old question "How far is too far?" Which is akin to asking, "How much guilt-free, unmarried sex can I enjoy as long as it's not intercourse?"
The repeated refrain of the Song of Songs is to not awaken love before its time. Therefore, the issue is not where is the line, but when is the time. The Bible knows nothing of sexual contact of any sort or kind before marriage, as sexual pleasure is reserved for the right person, at the right time, in the right way-which is all in the context of heterosexual covenantal marriage. The NIV translation of Ephesians 5:3 says, But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.
In 1 Corinthians 7:1 Paul tells single men that they should not touch any woman in any sexual manner. Also, in 1 Timothy 5:1-2, men are encouraged to treat young women as sisters. Thus, since brothers and sisters can and do talk, serve together, enjoy one another’s company, etc., there are acceptable non-sexual ways for single Christians to build their relationship in pursuit of marriage. Lastly, in asking how far one can go, there is sin in the heart because the motive is to get as close to sin as possible rather than getting as close to Jesus as possible. The issue is not where is the line, but rather where is your heart and when is the time. That time is marriage.
Like I said, we've covered this before. But it's always good to put this issue in front of our dating or primed-for-dating readers, right?
"Fearing the male sex drive has damaged a lot of lives."
The subtitle of today's Boundless article "When Pigs Fly" caught my attention (the title wasn't bad either). Really? I thought. It's damaged a lot of lives?
But author Mike Ensley should know. After 10 years of being involved with ministry to the sexually broken, he's met hundreds of men living with deep shame about their sexuality — even fear of it.
Now I know that it may be odd that a woman is writing this post, but Ensley points out that women are part of this equation as much as the men. Women have swallowed the societal message that "men are pigs" because of their sex drive. This is portrayed in the media, passed on by fathers to their daughters ("He only wants one thing") and even taught in churches.
Would it be controversial to say men are supposed to be the way we are? That, despite the sin we struggle with, there is something good and God-like lying dormant in our sexual wiring? To believe that my sexuality is a gift and not a curse, most of the time I feel like I'm hoping against hope.
As I'm growing, though, I am becoming more and more convinced that there's something glorious locked away in the misused and misunderstood sexuality of men.
While there are many ways men (and women, for that matter) can go wrong with their sexuality, Ensley reminds us that sin is a perversion. And for something to be perverted, "there must first be something pure to pervert." After all, God created the sexes to complement and help each other:
I think we all get — to some degree — that a woman inspires a man to venture into deeper realms of relationship. I imagine, though, that a wife is served by her husband's passion that, directed in godliness, burns with an immediacy that pulls her out of her inner world and into the moment.
Wow. It reminds me that God knows what He's doing. Learning not to fear sexuality doesn't mean we let it run wild, outside submission to Christ. Instead, when we recognize sex and the drive behind it for what it is — something profound, engineered by Creator God with specific purposes — we will be even more protective of it.
Viewing men as pigs may be socially acceptable, but as Christians we must view life, including male sexuality, from God's perspective. Men are not inherently flawed because of their sex drives. Rather, they are created to proclaim God's glory. And when we realize this, pigs — who are not actually pigs after all — will fly.
In Ted's post "Slow Descent into Fornication," one commenter, who is in a serious relationship, asked whether she should bring up the issue of pornography with her boyfriend. The answer is a resounding yes. A wise and wonderful married friend of mine compiled a list of the "hard questions" to ask a potential spouse. She created the list based on heartbreaking circumstances she witnessed in her friends' marriages. She emphasizes asking your intended very specific questions. Not just, "Have you viewed pornography?" but "When and for how long?"
This is not meant to say that if your guy doesn't measure up in one of these areas, you must dump him, my friend points out. It is meant to help you honestly consider what life will be like with this person in the long run, and figure out how to prevent future trouble.
These questions would be appropriate to ask someone you are engaged to or courting for the purpose of marriage; many of them apply to both sexes, though I'm phrasing them in the masculine here.
Is he a virgin? How do you know?
Does he have a sex addiction? How do you know?
Has he ever looked at pornography? How do you know? What is he looking at, how often, for how long, and what exactly he was doing to deal with the problem?
Has he ever used alcohol or drugs?
If he has had sex before or has taken intravenous drugs, does he have HIV or any other STD? How do you know?
Does he have the same opinions about birth control that you do? (Do you share the same convictions about appropriate methods?)
This list of questions may come across as a downer, but it shouldn't. Many of the comments on Ted's post made a good point that struggles with sexual sin are prevalent in our culture. I appreciated the stories that demonstrated how open communication between the man and woman uncovered sin and allowed the couple to address it, before marriage—many with successful results.
Don't think of this as a "good enough" checklist; it is a tool to address sin and strategize about purity before you enter a lifelong covenant.
Our intern, Ashley Harris, is featured in the "Students Take a Stand" segment of this week's Boundless Show podcast. We've asked her to say a few words about her experience dialoging with other college students about abortion here.
Last week I volunteered at the Justice for All exhibit at Colorado State University. Justice for All is a pro-life non-profit organization that travels to college campuses throughout the nation with a 20-foot-tall display of the graphic realities of abortion.
I heard many pro-choice arguments in the two days I talked to CSU students around the towering exhibit. The angry argument I heard louder than any other was, "How can you force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want."
The presuppositions behind that question are heartbreaking and baffling. But the thing that struck me most was the belief that pregnancy is being "forced" on women. The majority of people who asked me this question went on to ask, "What about when you take all the proper precautions but still get pregnant?"
I was stunned. Do we think that just because we use contraceptives — contraceptives that are known to be less than 100 percent effective — that we should be exempt from pregnancy?
A while back an older friend of mine said that many in my generation no longer weigh the cost of their actions. I wasn't quite sure what she meant at the time, but as I talked to students at CSU understanding began to dawn. I'm concerned about living in a world where tomorrow's leaders no longer connect their choices with their consequences.
For more on the Justice For All exhibit check out this week's Boundless Show.
We received an e-mail from a young man who's let his sinful imagination get the best of him. His eight-year fantasy life with Internet porn has resulted in his acting it out for real with an "escort."
Now he's asking for help. While we are responding to this young man in a more personal way, he did ask that I share his letter on the blog in order to get your thoughts as well.
I don't think this young man is looking for "expert" advice. But I think he would benefit from the strong counsel of a mentor, of a friend. Here's his tragic story:
I've been addicted to porn since I was 13; I'm now 21. Since then, the devil has slowly crept into my heart and has taken hold of my thoughts and actions ... especially in the last nine months. I've felt so distant from God....
I always drive past a massage place. For a long time now I've been curious about it, and slowly my addiction has become worse. Satan has started to rule my life in this area. I feel so ashamed and embarrassed.
Last night I let my guard down, and decided to "just go check the massage place out." For so long I've kept myself pure, but now I've found myself sleeping with an escort. I feel so disgusted and embarrassed. I don't know how I got here, or what I've done to let Satan rule my life in this area so dramatically.
Now I can't even tell my future wife that I waited for her. I feel so much regret and I feel so ashamed by what I've done. I feel so far away from God. I have for along time. This addiction to porn, masturbating and lust has taken over me. I feel like there's a gap between me and God, and I want to be close to Him so badly. I want to overcome this problem that I have, but I just feel so weak.
Please help me -- that would be much appreciated.
I would love to see this on the blog.
There are some good signs here. This young man is feeling some conviction for his behavior, and turning to the Lord for a solution. He's not waiting until he's "caught" to say he's sorry for it. And that's a good thing, a hopeful sign.
But not all is right here.
I notice that he doesn't seem to be taking full responsibility for his -- dare I say it? -- sin. He says, "I've found myself ...," for example, rather than "I chose to...." He's also primarily blaming Satan, rather than himself, for his sinful behaviors. I also noticed that he expresses regret because of the consequences to his "future wife," but not what he's done to the Lord. Or to the young woman with whom he is "sleeping."
Finally, I noticed that though he confesses to an eight-year addiction to pornography, he feels that up until his "sleeping with an escort" he had been keeping himself "pure."
My advice would be that he stop blame-shifting and stop minimizing the significance of his sin. His sin is great. And that's bad news. Once the fullness of that sinks in, and once he owns up to the gravity of his sin, it's time to ponder the good news: The Savior is greater than all our sin.
I'd also encourage him to wrestle with the following Boundless articles, in order:
I need to add that this young man's story serves as a warning to those of you who are fostering secret sexual sins. You've seen where porn took this guy. You are not the exception: It wants to take you there as well.
Please feel free to share your heart with this young man.
By now you've probably heard the kerfuffle about comic Russell Brand making fun of the Jonas Brothers for their purity rings when he hosted the MTV Video Music Awards. People didn't like it, including singer Jordin Sparks. According to the New York Times:
At one point, Jordin Sparks, a former winner of American Idol, admonished Brand, snapping: "I just wanna say, it's not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?" The comic was then forced to apologize, before adding: "It's just, a bit of sex occasionally never hurt anybody."
"I don't pick on them," Hilton told Usmagazine.com after Brand's remarks. "That's something cool for a kid to keep, so don't pick on them for that."
"I think that they're all really good kids and that they're definitely our next generation of kids and they're all really good so I think that's awesome," Hilton added.
With that glowing endorsement, who could question the brothers' accessory choices? And that's just the thing. As I've watched this story unfold, the media has made the ring a joke—a strange, little purity fad. In fact, the US article (not that US is the most quality periodical) includes Britney Spears and a Victoria's Secret model among its "celebrity virgins."
Don't get me wrong. I admire the Jonas Brothers for their stand for purity. However, I'm disappointed to see the issue treated with such flippancy. Instead of talking about why Nick Jonas wears the ring, they quote him saying: "I got mine made at Disney World; it's pretty awesome." Any intelligent discussion criticizes abstinence. This MSN article all but calls Sparks' statement irresponsible:
Kemper, a vice president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, agreed that attacking anyone for their beliefs is wrong. But, she said, "In the same way, though, I think we have to be really careful not to say, 'If you don't wear a purity ring, you're a slut.' We can't make that either-or, either you have morals or you don't. I think we have to be careful to respect everybody's decisions."
How can you respect someone's decisions if you don't know the reasons behind them? The way media is downplaying these teens' decision to save sex for marriage is irresponsible, in my opinion. There are plenty of reasons abstinence is a wise choice for teens and the unmarried. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to be taking place.
"In recent years what with acceptable fashion standards taking a major plunge (literally) into the realm of 'anything goes', young women are left to face conscious decisions in how they dress themselves, not realizing the weight that such decisions carry," Murphy writes.
What weight do our decisions carry? Murphy's answer: power. All women need to begin recognizing, Murphy writes, "the power inherent to the human body and respecting this great gift (through dressing modestly) instead of harvesting its power for selfish reasons."
The power inherent to the human body. A good point, but let's be specific: it's the power inherent in the female body. The female form holds an influence over men that the male form simply does not hold over women.
Most women, of course, know that. But to be honest, we don't necessarily get it. After all, seeing a writhing half-naked man on the hood of a Honda Accord is going to make us less likely, not more, to buy it. I know I've watched many a beer commercial (I'm a sports gal) and thought: Are they serious? Do guys really believe that a less-than-average Joe suddenly gets the buxom blond because he drinks this brand of beer?
Then, it's all too easy to fall into mild contempt. Why in the world, a woman may ask, should I have to guard how I dress just because some man can't keep his mind out of the gutter?
To be sure, it's a Christian man's responsibility to fight lust and "keep his mind out of the gutter." But I wonder if that question isn't the mirror logic of a man who would ask: Why do I need to guard what I say simply because she reads more commitment into my words than I mean?
The fact is that a woman is attracted relationally. It makes no sense for a man to say she shouldn't be that way. She is. God designed her that way. And the fact is that men are attracted (in part, at least) visually. God designed them that way.
Of course, what God intended to be a pathway to bond us to our spouses, can also be an area of vulnerability to sin. Just as a woman can be tempted through her heart, a man can be tempted through his eyes. I remember how in the movie Clueless, the main character, Cher, tries to get a boy's attention by sending herself chocolates and flowers and then she makes an observation: "Sometimes you have to show a little skin. That reminds guys of being naked and then they think of sex."
Of course, I disagree with her statement, but she's absolutely right about the result. And, so, if I'm going to help to keep my Christian brothers from stumbling, I need to be careful how much skin and how much, ahem, form I am revealing.
In other ways, my brother will be my keeper. But in this way, I can be his. I can help him by making sure I'm one less skirmish in the battle against lust.
With the success of quirky Indie film Juno and the recent cover story on teen mom Jamie Lynn Spears in OK! magazine, teenage pregnancy has become "a hot plot device" in Hollywood, according to Newsweek. Unfortunately, it's a woefully one-sided perspective.
Many teen moms and the adults who deal with them are glad to see a conversation about teen pregnancy out in the open. But they say that big parts of the story are being glossed over: how that baby bump came to be in the first place, and just how hard it'll be for a teen to raise a child.
"It's the missing three C's: there's little commitment, no mention of contraception and rarely do we see negative consequences," says Jane Brown, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina who runs the Teen Media Project. "What's missing in the media's sexual script is what happens before and after. Why are these kids getting pregnant and what happens afterward?"
Al Mohler points out the danger of such an unrealistic view of teen motherhood:
The OK! magazine cover makes teen motherhood look positively glamorous. But, as one young woman responded to the OK! coverage, "I had a baby at 16, it was NOT easy, I did NOT look radiant and beautiful."
Then again, that kind of honesty probably wouldn't sell many magazines. Hollywood and the entertainment industry are selling their version of normal teenage expectation.
And their version is horribly flawed. It sells teens short by telling them that raising a child on their own will be easy and bring them happiness. If they happen to secure a committed relationship (forget about marriage), all the better, but that part is optional. Unfortunately, the glossy, touched-up photo of a smiling Jamie Lynn is not the true picture of a single, teenage mom. The reality is, single moms are more likely to experience poverty and less likely to marry or gain an education than their childless counterparts.
I'm glad that media is looking at the issue of teen pregnancy. And I appreciate the pro-life message of keeping the baby. But ultimately ignoring God's design for sex and the family is setting teens up for failure. Where are the movies about that?
If you were watching Oprah or reading People any this past April, chances are you might have heard of Thomas Beatie -- "the pregnant man."
According to Oprah's website, Thomas has the media buzzing, people talking and is making headlines around the world. Not surprising, considering there hasn't been a pregnant man since, well, creation.
But there's a catch, of course. Thomas is not a man.
Thomas was born Tracy. In 2002, Tracy opted to have her breasts surgically removed, her chest reconstructed and began testosterone therapy. Then Tracy moved to have her gender legally changed to male and became Thomas -- all the while keeping her female reproductive organs.
After marrying, Thomas and wife Nancy decided to have children. "Wanting to have a child is neither a male or female desire," Thomas wrote, "but a human desire." It may be a human desire, but it still takes a female body to carry a child. So Thomas stopped the testosterone, returned to a female ovulation cycle and conceived via sperm donation. The baby -- a daughter -- is to be delivered by cesarean section today.
Thomas seems to believe that a pregnancy changes nothing. "I am transgender, legally male and legally married to Nancy," she wrote. "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man I am."
Stable and confident, Thomas may be. She may even be "legally male." But the plain, and tragic, truth is that Thomas is not a man. She is a woman who has done many, many things to try to look like a man, but who is still a woman down to every piece of DNA. A "bearded lady," but a lady just the same.
Oprah stated that Thomas' situation brings a "new definition of what diversity means for everybody." But not really. God designed women to bear children -- as they have since Eve -- and Thomas hasn't changed that.
When I was a kid, I remember playing in a hay barn, making tunnels through the stacks of hay bales. Once, a few of us thought it would be cool to crawl into our little hideaway and read books. We didn't have flashlights to light the way, so we used candles. Yeah, in retrospect, that was pretty dumb.
If any adults were around, they would be kind to warn us against such behavior. After all, lighting candles in a hay barn could lead to our getting burned.
Yes, we at Boundless (a ministry of Focus on the Family) have said that homosexual behavior is dangerous. More dangerous than lighting candles in a hay barn. The lifestyle can lead to further confusion about the beauty of marital sex, can give one deadly diseases, can lead to heartbreak, confuses the metaphor we've been given for the relationship between Christ and His Church: a husband and wife. And more importantly, it disappoints God, who has clearly condemned such behavior.
"Abomination" is a difficult, antiquated word, but it is one that Scripture uses to describe homosexual behavior. It is an abomination.
But again, here's the twist that too many folks misunderstand: While we rightly denounce homosexual behavior, and denounce the promotion of such behavior and lifestyles, we do not condemn homosexuals themselves. Note in the previous paragraph that I wrote, "It is an abomination." I did not write, "Homosexuals are an abomination." There's a significant difference.
My heart personally breaks for those who suffer the torment of same-sex attraction (SSA). My heart even breaks for those who don't "suffer," but who act without remorse on their SSA. In the same way I have compassion for the person with a cleft palate, for the person who loses a leg to cancer, for the person wrestling with emotional or mental illness ... I have compassion for the person whose sexual identity has become skewed.
I've personally sought out articles that express the compassionate heart we at Boundless and Focus on the Family have for those who experience same sex attraction. I want to see our readers develop more of a heart for those with SSA. If you're wanting to see your heart grow toward those with SSA, or if you're skeptical that we really do care at all, let me challenge you to read the following articles I've published over the past year and a half:
If we speak poorly of an activity, and the promotion of that activity, an activity that is destructive and confusing and which God condemns, we are not doing so out of hatred. Please try to understand that it is out of compassion that we reach out to the sexual sinner, compassion for their bodies and minds as well as for their spirits.
I'd hope that you'd reach out to me should I once again begin lighting candles in a hay barn....
Harrison Scott Key posted earlier this week over at World Magazine's blog about the difference between values and virtues:
The minister made a distinction between values and virtues. Values, he said, were subjective things, the kinds of things even Christians have been duped into embracing. We talk about values, your values, my values. It means nothing, except "that which I deem important."
Virtues, he said, were objective and timeless -- and terribly out of fashion. ...The seven virtues, written about by Prudentius in the 5th century A.D., are these: Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Kindness, Patience, Humility. Those aren't values, and they aren't subjective. They are timeless qualities that are appreciated and needed in every age and every culture.
His inclusion of chastity reminded me of a comment I heard last week that Christians who have heard much about abstinence don't always know as much about the larger concept of chastity that it's derived from. That comment came from Christopher West, a friend of Focus on the Family who briefed us recently on some of the rich insights on human sexuality from the Catholic tradition.
Christopher told us that he often hears people say, "You should be chaste until marriage." But that demonstrates a misunderstanding about chastity he explained. Chastity is bigger than abstinence. "When you understand what chastity actually is you know that you can't stop being chaste once you're married," he emphasized.
"In the western world, the term has become closely associated (and is often used interchangeably) with sexual abstinence, especially before marriage, due to the restriction of sexual relations to marriage deriving from the Ten Commandments," reads the Wikipedia entry on chastity. "However," it continues, "the term remains applicable to persons in all states, single or married, clerical or lay, and has implications beyond sexual temperance."
"Chastity," Christopher West explains, "is first and foremost a great yes to the true meaning of sex, to the goodness of being created as male and female in the image of God. Chastity isn't repressive. It's totally liberating. It frees us from the tendency to use others for selfish gratification and enables us to love others as Christ loves us."
Am I the only Evangelical who heard more growing up about abstinence than about the overarching (and amplifying) virtue of chastity?
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
Recent Comments