 |
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."
Over at the Gender Blog, I found a very insightful and helpful editorial by Dr. Denny Burk (located in the latest edition of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
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.
I've been thinking about modesty a bit.
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.
If you're in a relationship and sin is crouching at your door, both articles are welcome sources of encouragement.
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.
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.
Nakedness is associated with disgrace and shame (Isaiah 47:3, Micah 1:11, Nahum 3:5, Revelation 3:18). When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27).
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 were divided among those 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's The 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.
No, the saddest part is all of it.
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.
Thanks to eHarmony.
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."
Then, of all people, Paris Hilton chimed in with eloquence only she could deliver: "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 an article titled "Immodest Dress in the Church: Like Frogs in Boiling Water," Jenna Murphy expresses her concern about both the lack of modesty among Christian young women and the apparent apathy about the subject altogether.
"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.
... or so many people think.
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?
Over on the Radical Womanhood blog, Carolyn McCulley has released an unedited chapter from her upcoming book, also titled Radical Womanhood. In the chapter, Carolyn reminds us that there was one thing that feminists and Christians used to agree upon--the fight against pornography.
McCulley writes about the group, Women Against Pornography, which, "coalesced in the late ‘70s out of several organizations, and was loosely led by feminist author Susan Brownmiller...and the militant feminist Andrea Dworkin, among others... Dworkin campaigned frequently on the subject, helping to draft a law in 1983 that defined pornography as a civil rights violation against women. The law was later overturned by an appeal court as unconstitutional."
McCulley writes later in her post: "Opposition to pornography was the link between two groups that typically had little else in common: the Christian Right and feminist activists. For a brief period in 1980s, they found themselves on the same page."
And what about today? For myself, I haven't heard a whole lot from either the church or the feminists about this issue.
As Steve pointed out in the latest podcast, around 60 percent of guys now feel that viewing pornography is perfectly okay (listen to find out why Lisa blames Chandler from Friends). Not only is this a problem because of the violence against women that pornography can encourage, but also, as Steve pointed out, that it makes "consumers" of men.
That phrase really struck me. God has designed and commanded men to protect women. But pornography turns God's design completely around, encouraging men to be "consumers"--to shop for, be entertained by and exploit women to serve their own purposes.
Thankfully, some in the church are taking a stand against pornography. Focus on the Family, specifically, created pureintimacy.org, to explain the biblical view of sex and also to give advice on how to overcome sexual addictions.
Though I couldn't find much about pornography at the National Organization for Women website, I did find one reference to a workshop at a 2005 conference called "Sexploitation: Trafficking, Prostitution and Pornography." The workshop description states that: "Scholars and activists pinpoint pornography and the rising acceptance by the mainstream as a major cause for demand of prostitution and trafficking—especially in wealthy destination countries like the U.S...Only by focusing on ways to reduce demand will this destructive trade come to an end."
Who knows? Maybe 30 years later, though we still can't agree on much else, Christians and feminists could agree on the danger of pornography and fight it.
eHarmony says that they "regret" having published an advice column last week titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." Truth is, saying "We apologize to anyone who read the column and found it inappropriate" is only a step above the "I'm sorry if you were offended" pseudo-apology.
I think it's actually more of a damage control editorial than a sincere mea culpa. In my opinion, eHarmony has become all about market share and money, and only tangentially about facilitating healthy marriages. They seem more concerned about affirming its less-virtuous dues-paying members than about guiding couples into forming good marriages. Consider another not-yet-deleted advice column, "How to Fan the Flames of Desire," which begins by affirming premarital sex: "You meet that special someone. You talk, you date, oh and did I mention that you two have amazing chemistry in the bedroom."
Elsewhere, eHarmony published an advice column that assumes that after a few dates with a guy you met through eHarmony, "you're probably crashing at his place." It goes on to characterize sleeping together as quaint: "spending an impromptu night at your significant other's house is a lot like camping."
As Lisa said in this past week's Boundless Show podcast, "This is not your mother's eHarmony."
It's my prayer that Boundless and Focus on the Family never put the love of money and increasing market share over the love of ministering in the name of the Lord, as eHarmony seems to have done.
It's a significant split; the conservative, evangelical community nourished Warren's nascent business, and now he appears to be leaving it behind for the secular world.
That's a line from an interview with Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder of eHarmony, on Salon.com published almost three years ago. It's about Dr. Warren's ties with, and subsequent separation from, Focus on the Family. But it has proved prophetic in ways beyond Dr. Warren's decision to promote his services to non-Christians.
A Focus on the Family colleague sent me an article published on eHarmony's advice site titled "Navigating the One Night Stand." And it's one of the most hedonistic articles I've ever read. Here's the lead: While most of us are looking for that special someone to spend our lives with, the single life dictates that sometimes the opportunity for companionship presents itself in the form of a one-night stand. While a one-time roll in the hay isn't exactly emotionally fulfilling, sex in any form can be relaxing, enjoyable, and fun.
That's right. Sex is as consequenceless as watching television. So go ahead and get your orgasm on with someone you've just met. But be warned, it's profitable only if you don't read too much into it. After all, it's only sex. It's not like you two have done something as intimate as *gasp* holding hands.
I'm not sure of Dr. Warren's oversight of eHarmony these days. But he is still very much a part of its brand. And it's clear from his Web site's content (and from his interviews) that he thinks it's possible to separate business interests from Christian principles. Or maybe this new direction is simply a reflection of what has always been his Christian principles.
God or mammon, Dr. Warren. God or mammon.
Oh, and we'll be discussing this in this week's Boundless Show podcast. Check back tomorrow afternoon for that.
We live in a society that is increasingly accepting of those living the gay lifestyle. Media portrays homosexuals as a vibrant part of social circles. Many young people today can claim multiple gay friends. And, in the name of tolerance, many in our society would eagerly say, "Gay is OK."
That's why it's surprising that Details magazine, a magazine for the hip, young adult male, published an article called "Would You Really Be Okay With a Gay Kid?" [warning: offensive language]
The article considers Jerry and Geoff, progressive, self-proclaimed liberal dads who interact with homosexuals on a daily basis but are squeamish about the idea of their kids being gay. Dr. Al Mohler comments: These are men who clearly want to say that homosexuality is okay. They live and work in a social world in which that is the only politically correct position. And yet, when it comes to their own sons -- they would definitely not be okay with them being gay.
One interesting observation reported in the article has to do with a discovery made by Ritch C. Savin-Williams, the director of Cornell University's Sex & Gender Lab. Parents who say they're open to the idea of homosexuality are often the most difficult for a child to come out to. "Perhaps they make a distinction between your kid and mine," he says. "It's nice for other people's children to be gay or to have gay friends, but one's own child is a different story. Indeed, some of the young people say religiously conservative parents respond the best, because of the value of family. But it's the progressive, holier-than-thou parents who often can't cope."
An obvious reason for that is the biblical expectation that parents love their children no matter what, but Mohler believes there is more: I hope there is another key reason that Christian parents might respond differently. Christians believe in the transforming power of the Gospel. What strikes the world as increasingly out-of-step is the biblical belief that homosexual behavior in any form is a sin. But the idea that people can change -- or even ought to change -- is increasingly out-of-step with the cultural mood as well.
The situation detailed in Details reveals tremendous confusion on the cultural left about the question of homosexuality, not in the culture, but in the lives of their own children. Is hypocrisy revealed in this picture? Of course it is. But hypocrisy is the danger inherent in any moral position -- on both sides of the debates over homosexuality.
The men interviewed in this article also reveal the power of common grace -- a lingering shadow of moral conscience. The hesitation concerning their sons and homosexuality -- almost a panic -- is a subtle sign that they possess a moral knowledge that complicates their moral reasoning. They want to be okay with their sons and homosexuality -- they just can't.
It's commendable that a magazine like Details took on a counter-cultural topic. As Dr. Mohler says: "God sometimes has a strange way of getting our attention."
If you want to understand the meaning of indoctrination, take a look at the "Ask a College Student" blog in today's New York Times.
It's a post about what's in store for high-school seniors preparing to enter the college ranks. So they ask some New York college students the real important stuff like "Do you smoke?" and "How many more people do you think you'll sleep with before you get married?"
But never mind the questions, what's interesting is the responses.
These young women being interviewed are all indignant about the health risks of tobacco but seem to have no concern whatsoever about the risks of having multiple sex partners.
Maybe it's all those benign herpes medication ads that make it seem like casual sex would be worth an incurable sexual infection. I mean, compare those to the anti-tobacco ads from The Truth. You remember the one with all the body bags and scary facts like, "Hydrogen cyanide is found in cigarette smoke. Hydrogen cyanide is also in rat poison."
Imagine if it were politically correct to do similar "truth" ads about the risks of casual sex. Maybe New York college students would be just as wary of having up to 30 sexual partners as they are about cigarettes.
HT: World Mag Blog
In her Wall Street Journal article "Sex Education," Donna Freitas warns parents of the rampant "hookup culture" found in today's colleges and universities. The emphasis on casual sex, however, does not reflect the underlying desires of students -- nor is it doing them any good. Freitas writes: After conducting a national college survey of over 2,500 students, I found that among those who reported "hooking up" -- a range of sexually intimate acts, from kissing to intercourse, that occur outside a committed relationship -- at Catholic and nonreligious private and public colleges and universities, 41% are profoundly upset about their behavior. The 22% of respondents who chose to describe a hook-up experience (the question was optional) used words like "dirty," "used," "regretful," "empty," "miserable," "disgusted," "ashamed," "duped" and "abused" in their answers.
Not only do students have negative feelings toward casual sex, they seem attracted to conservative, biblical values when it comes to sexuality. When last semester I taught Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty," in a class at Boston University called "Spirituality & Sexuality in American Youth Culture," I assumed that my mostly left-leaning students would reject her arguments about the terrible effects that the hook-up culture has on young women and the positive effects of traditional religion and morality on young women's well-being. Instead, my students ate up her critique and were fascinated by her descriptions of modesty as a virtue, especially within the context of faith. One student said that she felt empowered to stop tolerating vulgar remarks about sex made by peers in her presence.
Freitas points out that while there is a disconnect between what young people desire when it comes to romance and sexuality, and what they actually do, the church may have an avenue of opportunity here. Perhaps the various church leaders would be interested to know that their young people are longing for the kinds of guidelines and rituals for dating that religion can offer. It might make them more willing to actually explain church teachings on sex and engage the students in honest discussions about how to foster healthy, fulfilling romantic relationships.
More than one of my friends has expressed regret for innocence lost. One recently said: "I made those choices and now I'm having to work through all that comes with that." Studies like Freitas' show that sexual "freedom" really doesn't deliver on its promises. Just another reminder that God has our best interest at heart in establishing boundaries for sex.
HT: Justin Taylor
Watch any teen show (think The CW) and sex among teens is presented as commonplace. However, the consequences of sex -- unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and emotional fallout -- are not. And yet the reality of sexual activity among teens is bleak. Citizenlink reports: One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.
Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.
In light of this finding, you'd think the CDC would take the opportunity to at least mention the benefits of abstinence before marriage. It seems like the responsible thing to do. However, not only are they not mentioning abstinence-until-marriage as a valid solution, but experts at the CDS mock the idea. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said bad public policy is to blame for the STI epidemic.
"Current public health policies are clearly failing to reduce the spread of STDs among young women," she said. "Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active."
How foolish -- and very sad -- that the only surefire protection against STIs -- abstinence from sexual activity before marriage -- is overlooked and even mocked but the gatekeepers of disease control. And we all have to pay for the irresponsibility. Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, explains: "In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs."
Thanks to those of you who've written to comment on this week's Q&A, "Female Self-Pleasure." I was distressed that until a few minutes ago, all the e-mail coming in was from men saying that while I gave good tactical advice, I had missed the boat by not focusing on grace and forgiveness. Then the female perspective emerged with a comment that said, I have faced my own struggles with the issue in question, and know many other women who have. I also know that, even more than our male counterparts, it is very hard to ask for support in this area, because it is thought that females simply do not have this problem. Hopefully articles of this sort will open people's eyes and [they] "won't blush when [we] confess [o]ur sin," but instead will be "honest about sin's grip and ... willing to walk through this with [us]."
To those who think I missed the mark, I hope you know that I believe strongly in grace and forgiveness. I said as much in the Q&A that ran last month ("A Hopeless Sinner"). And the letter I answered this week came in after that one ran. So I figured the person writing had read that. Maybe I assumed too much. If so, the section that also applies to this week's column appears below. It applies to every question I answer about sin. It's just that I don't have room to restate this point every time I write. Typically I only have room to answer the specific question being asked. I will, however, work harder to include relevant links for more in-depth information on the overarching worldview of sin and forgiveness. Here's what I should have linked to: Christ came to die for sinners. Sinners like you and me. Sinners like all the readers of this column. Though we may not be in a situation that feels as hopeless as yours does, it's just a matter of degrees, not kind. Jesus said he came to heal the sick. They're the ones who need a doctor.
The good news is that no one is beyond salvation. Romans 1:16 says the gospel "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (emphasis added).
Christ's gift of salvation is good news. But it's only good news if the person hearing it recognizes that they need it. Jesus came to forgive sinners, but He called them out of their sin. You don't get a pass because you face such seemingly hard, seemingly unique temptations.
1 Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
Stop thinking it's all up to you. You can't do this alone. Thankfully, you don't have to. Jesus is the ultimate intercessor precisely because He came in the flesh and knows what's it like to be tempted — and to successfully resist that temptation. He even told us what to do: "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak" (Matthew 26:41).
Instead of agonizing over how much you've failed ... take the focus off you and put it on Christ. Seek His forgiveness, as well as a community of Bible believers who will walk alongside you and help you mature in your faith. And stop doing the things that set you up for failure. ...
It's not helpful to camp out on the idea that you're the worst of sinners. While it is essential to acknowledge your sin, it's also important to realize you're not alone. Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The danger of convincing yourself that you've blown it more than any other is that you'll start thinking you should get a pass because you're in a category by yourself. That you're somehow "the exception." You're not. Paul wrote, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:15-17)
John MacArthur's commentary on this passage says, "Paul was living proof that God could save any sinner, no matter how great a one he might be."
When you're tempted to stop fighting sin, remember it's not just you you're at war with. Peter wrote, "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). The battle raging in and around you isn't just physical. It's spiritual. And to fight it, you need both physical boundaries and spiritual protection (Ephesians 6:10-12).
...You can't continue living this way without suffering the effects of your sin. I suspect you realize that and that's why you wrote. In fact, your e-mail is evidence that your conscience is still working, trying to move to back toward right living. It's not too late to change; not too late to act on what guilt remains. I'm really glad you wrote. I think it's a sign of God's mercy, evidence that He does love you and wants you to get right with Him. It's not too late to repent; truly repent, as evidenced by sorrow for your rebellion against God and His ways and His laws. Just because you don't feel like repenting doesn't mean you can't confess even that to Him in prayer.
But don't stop there. You can do a lot to make it less likely that you'll fall again.
...If you are truly a follower of Christ, you have access to the power that brought Him back to life. But it's up to you. You have a choice to make.
Madison Avenue hates women. Can I say that without controversy? The female physique has been used to market everything from cars to power tools. In fact, this blog title derives from Big Tobacco's generous decision to allow women to share in the same ghastly death as male smokers.
But even with today's crass exploitation of the female image, it's hard to believe that we live in a relatively enlightened age when it comes to women and advertising. Have a look at some really cringe-inducing advertising from the not-so-distant past. Every stereotype is exploited. The Palmolive soap ad plays on many women's fears and reinforces the belief that beauty is, literally, only skin deep. And the ones for Chase & Sanborn Coffee and Bitney-Bowes postage meters are just mind-boggling. Imagine trying to run something remotely similar today. (More such ads have been collected in a gift book called You Mean a Woman Can Open It...?)
But as I think about it, Madison Avenue hasn't become more enlightened. It's just changed its target. In place of the Helpless Woman is the Doofus Dad. Ward Cleaver has been replaced by Homer Simpson. How advertisers expect to be successful by insulting half their intended audience is beyond me, but apparently it works; they keep doing it.
So, in the end, maybe we haven't come a long way at all. So why am I not surprised?
The gift of singleness, as it were, has subtle associations with the intricacies of both climate change and certain individuals' concern over social justice. Some might argue that there's merely a correlation, with no causation, but both global warming theorists and progressive activists would disagree. In fact, because some marry in their teens, and others marry in their mid- to late-30s, the consequences are much more dire -- especially for those who've chosen to "date" rather than "court." And especially especially among the "marriage mandate" crowd. Factoring in to the entire equation is the polemical political talk coming from both the liberal wing of the Democrat(ic) party (which some would associate with Nazism) and the far right wing of the Republic(an) party (which some would associate with Nazism). The introduction of children, whether intramarital or extramarital, further complicate the matter. As do aliens, both illegal and extraterrestrial, some of whom support the practice of capital punishment in certain instances. And puppies.
Discuss.
For the first time in 15 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. According to the report on abcnews.com, Despite millions spent on ad campaigns and abstinence-only programs, for the first time in 15 years the teen birthrate rose, according to government statistics for 2005 to 2006, the most recent numbers available. That translates to 750,000 women who have become pregnant at least once before age 20.
How can this be? 18-year-old expectant mom, Teka Steward, a Young Life member, mission-trip participant and self-described “goody two shoes,” said, "It was just kind of an image and then temptations of doing stuff.”
Steward concludes, "I'm a regular teen. I fall sometimes ... all the times."
At least she understands that sex before marriage and unwed pregnancy is "falling." Given the avalanche of sexual information teens get in school, most of it "how-to" in nature, this stat really shouldn't surprise.
But, it does. "In the last two decades, tweens and teens have been inundated with info and programs about sex and protecting themselves in a post-HIV world," says the story. "Some wonder how a generation with access to so much information and so many contraceptives, unlike previous ones, can have a higher rate of pregnancies."
Huh.
The news story links readers looking for more information and help to the teenpregnancy.org website. According to the site, "The goal of the National Campaign is to reduce the rate of teen pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy in young adults by one-third between 2006 and 2015."
It's a reminder that until the goal is to reduce the rate of pregnancy among unmarried women, whatever age they are, any "progress" will be hollow. Yes, it's better when babies have mothers who are done with high school and no longer spending their weekends cheer leading. But without the support of a stable family, including a mom and a dad, babies suffer.
And women who mess up the order of what used to be the life script for success –- first love, then marriage, then baby in the baby carriage –- are often consigned to a life of poverty and hardship.
In "Confessions of a Teenage Mom," Bethany Torode sets the record straight, Despite what you may read in the papers or hear on the nightly news, America does not have a "teen pregnancy crisis." In reality, we have a crisis of children born outside of marriage -- to parents of all ages and classes, from impoverished teenagers to fifty-year-old movie stars, who want the fun of sex without the responsibilities of marriage. We have a crisis of maturity and morality.
Yes, I am among those contributing to the teen pregnancy rate. [But I am married.] I would encourage other responsible young Christians in their late teens and early twenties to do the same. Women, these are the best years of your life to have a baby (ages 18-to-27 are when your body is at its peak for childbearing, and having your first child during these years significantly reduces your risk of breast cancer). Men, why not channel your youth and energy into something with profound eternal value?
I do hope the ranks of pregnant teens can, in the words of 18-year-old mom Ashley Chapman, "make new statistics." For their own sake and the sake of their babies. Sadly, it's not that easy. Until the "adults" who think it's a good idea to fill teens' minds with visions of sex (years out from when most of them will marry) start connecting the dots, it's likely wishful thinking.
A new study by BYU has found that today's college women are growing more permissive about pornography -- with 49 percent of the female college students surveyed finding pornography acceptable. The key question asked of students and their parents was if they agreed or disagreed that viewing pornography is an acceptable way to express one's sexuality. Lead author Jason Carroll, a BYU family life professor, offered two explanations for high acceptance among college women and men, 67 percent of whom agreed.
"One is that this is a life-course finding," Carroll said, "that we captured them at a high point in time and their acceptance will decrease and they'll be like their parents. The other argument is that because of the proliferation of pornography, this generation has a unique acceptance of pornography different from their parents, and that it will last. I think there is a compelling argument that is the case."
...
"This is a hugely important issue," he [Jeffrey Arnett, editor of the Journal of Adolescent Research, which published the study] said, "given that pornography is so massively popular on the Internet. There are questions about how will it affect people's sexuality and their views of gender roles, and how is that going to affect relationships between men and women. Maybe it will just be a form of entertainment. We just don't know yet."
My hunch is that the mainstreaming of pornography is making it easier for both men and women to cover over their hunch that something's inherently wrong with porn with the fig leaf that it's just entertainment. For every problem we'll come across in life, there will be two camps -- one camp that says we just don't know how bad the problem really is and another camp that says the problem is really not a big deal and in fact the real problem is those prudish people who think it's a problem.
It's my perspective that the "porn is not a big deal camp" is clearly beginning to win the day -- and we just don't know how bad that problem really is. No woman is going to experience meaningful sexual intimacy by expanding her tolerance of material that "educates" men to treat her like an object of their self-centered fantasies. It might seem sophisticated for some to tolerate porn as mere entertainment, but it's a lot like saying, "oh, it's just a cute little kitty" while letting a fox into your house.
I like the way Candice handles the topic of premarital kissing in her most recent Boundless Answers column, "He's a Bad Kisser." In short, she says it's not a good idea for reasons we've covered on this blog before, "Physical affection leads to more physical affection all the way to sexual fulfillment." But there's more to it.
Let's consider this portion taken from the young woman's inquiry:
"However, after kissing him, I started getting doubts. He is not a very good kisser. He is not experienced and I find myself not wanting to kiss him."
I'm going out on a limb but it seems that the boyfriend is suffering by comparison here. Meaning the girlfriend has been kissed before. And apparently her previous kiss or kisses clicked in a way that it didn't with him. Sad.
All dating couples who engage in passionate kissing and beyond run the risk of being compared to someone else. They also run the risk of arousing passions with someone not yet their spouse that may adversely affect expectations of passion with the one they end up with.
And even if you do end up with the one with whom you shared your first kisses, it can negatively affect post-marriage kisses as well.
But if you've already done so, it's not too late. Your "after the wedding" kisses can be renewed. Candice writes, Think back to what it was like before you found out what his kisses are like. Did you anticipate a good physical connection? Did the idea of being kissed by him make you swoon? That's a wonderful state of expectation to be in when you're approaching marriage. In that state, you can trust that the passion will follow — after the wedding.
Believe me. On your wedding day, you will not regret your lack of physical intimacy experience. As Candice has said before, this is the one area where inexperience is a good thing.
I've just arrived in Las Vegas for this year's GodblogCon. The last time I was here was in 2000 for an outdoor billboard convention. I feel like Forrest Gump saying this but it's funny how you remember some things, but some things you can't. I remember New York, New York; the volcano eruption at the Mirage; the opulent Forum Shops at Ceasars; and the fun pirate show at Treasure Island.
What I didn't remember was all the smut.
Maybe back then Vegas was still in the midst of their family-friendly marketing campaign and limited strip tease ads. I remember thinking it wouldn't be a bad place to bring the kids. Boy was I wrong.
As soon as I got to the airport tram, I noticed two male stripper promos. When I got to the baggage claim, it was ads for a magic show with Pamela Anderson and for some show called Fantasy. And on the cab ride to the hotel, it was a billboard revealing a portion of a woman's behind.
I called my wife as soon as I checked into the hotel and said, "I'll never bring our kids here." Then it occurred to me, is it OK for me to be here?
I wasn't surprised to read Candice's post about sexy Halloween costumes for tweens. I've been noticing the "slutification of America" for years. And the fastest growing segment has to be young girls between the ages of 12-17.
Yesterday I found this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer about Victoria's Secret's new clothing line targeting young girls. Victoria's Secret's Pink line, launched in 2004, has bloomed into a $1 billion brand. The company publicly promotes Pink to college kids, but dog prints, slumber party pj's, sweats aping soccer attire, camis and panties in ice cream-cone packaging suggest a decidedly younger demographic.
Have we mentioned that there are dress-up dolls "plush and pretty for the ultimate girly-girl?" Sure, that's what every college sophomore desires.
Pink is the Joe Camel of thongs. The line is advertised in YM and Teen Vogue magazines, which boast 12-17 aspirational demographics. The success is in the bottoms. All you need to do is count the number of teens with "Pink" plastered on their rears, the word in the VS world being more suggestive than simply being a "girly-girl." What kind of parents are paying for these clothes, which give strangers the pleasure of reading their daughters' keisters?
When I first saw a young girl with the lettering "S-E-X-Y" written across her bottom several years ago, I asked the same question, "What kind of parents...?" The answer is, there are many kinds of parents who'll let their daughters dress provocatively or immodestly. Here are a few "kinds" I've thought of:
Prideful Parents: I think some moms and dads take pride in the sexual attention their daughters attract, regardless of age. You might think that parents would want to protect their child's innocence but the sexualization of young girls has so infiltrated our culture, parents are oblivious that this has affected the way they see their daughters.
Feminized Parents: These moms and dads may be uncomfortable with the way their daughter dresses but the feminist movement has so "empowered" women (even very young "women") that parents feel powerless to exact appropriate parental authority over their daughter's bodies.
Disengaged Parents: These parents have indolently delegated the responsibility of raising their children to day-cares, public schools, other kids, other kids' parents, and organized activities and clubs (including churches) without proper oversight. These children are highly susceptible to the influence of today's youth culture which in turn is heavily influenced by today's sexualized pop culture.
These are just a few. And I can tell you that based on what I've seen young girls wear in some churches, Christian parents aren't immune.
Last week I published an article from an author who was married to a woman. The thing is, the author is a woman.
If you're interested in gaining a heart of compassion for those in the gay lifestyle, if you're wanting to grow in empathy for their struggle, if you'd like to see what our redemptive Lord can do with a broken life given over to sexual sin, check out "Out of Lesbianism."
The Lord is kind and forgiving.
Writing from one of the biggest porn producing regions in the country, L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum says that the porn age has lost its sexiness. She writes that "sexiness itself, which is rooted in mystery, has been replaced by the far less interesting -- and less titillating -- 'porniness.'"
"As the Porn Age marches onward," she writes, "it seems only logical that fake sex between fake people will become increasingly humdrum." She explains how it's already driving viewers to boredom: Mainstream entertainment outlets were once forced to treat sexual material with coyness and innuendo; today's characters -- at least those on cable -- can just rip their clothes off and get it on. This is worth watching ... once. After that, it's easy to change the channel and get sucked into a Cold War documentary on the History Channel. And no wonder -- compared to naked bodies, Sputnik seems downright fresh.
Daum writes,"it's human nature to become inured to repeated images of anything, but pornography throws a kink in that assumption because demand for the product seems to increase even as genuine enthusiasm wanes."
This observation is very similar to the one made by C.S. Lewis -- that men and women have an "ever-increasing appetite for ever-decreasing pleasure." Ultimately, images and pleasure lose their "sexiness" when they are severed from the mystery of intimacy that God weaved into marriage. Our culture's current binge on cheap and easy pornography is proving it.
Last month I wrote about your online footprint. I never thought about countries having one as well.
Based on statistics provided by Google, Inc., Reuters lists some random keywords and the countries that searched them most. Here are some of the results ,
"Sex" - 1) Egypt 2) India 3) Turkey
"Hangover" - 1) Ireland 2) U.K. 3) U.S.
"Burrito" - 1) U.S. 2) Argentina 3) Canada
"Viagra" - 1) Italy 2) U.K. 3) Germany
"Jihad" - 1) Morocco 2) Indonesia 3) Pakistan
Interestingly, these keywords seem to support certain stereotypes of some countries: Irish like to drink, Americans like to eat, and Italians ... well, you know. But I'm a little confused about the top searches for "sex." I thought the western countries were supposed to be most sex obsessed.
Are there broad cultural changes depressing marriage motivation among young men? A new book by Dr. Leonard Sax suggests a few. In Boys Adrift, Dr. Sax reviews educational, entertainment and health trends that he believes are sapping the motivation young men have for marriage among other pursuits. Here's a portion of an interview Dr. Sax did with National Review Online touching on the marriage connection: Lopez: The Matthew McConaughey character in the movie Failure to Launch is funny and smart and good-looking -- but completely unmotivated. He doesn't want to get married, either. Is he the exception or the rule?
Sax: He used to be the exception. Thirty years ago, it would have been very unusual to find an intelligent, capable man in his late 20's or early 30's, from an affluent family, who was still living with his parents, who had no interest in launching his own career, in starting his own family, in really having his own life. It's becoming more common. It's not the rule -- not yet.
One of the more odd connections Dr. Sax makes is between the explosion of plastic products over the past 50 years and a drop in testosterone among males. To be honest, the first time somebody suggested to me that drinking bottled water out of plastic bottles might be part of the reason that boys are disengaging from the real world, I thought that person sounded pretty gullible. I figured the next idea they'd try to push was the notion that little green men from Mars are controlling our thoughts.
But as I researched this idea, and as I read the scholarly papers, I came to see that there's really a huge and rapidly-growing body of evidence now linking these endocrine disruptors, these environmental estrogens, to many of the phenomena I describe in the book: boys being less motivated, young men having more problems with erectile dysfunction, boys breaking their bones more easily than boys did a generation ago, and so forth.
This unconventional potential connection made me think of a scene in the original Sabrina where Linus Larrabee (played by Humphrey Bogart) shows lots of masculine excitement over all the great potential of plastics technology. "We'll be wearing suits made out of plastic some day," he says. Could Bogie have popularized the very plastics that are making today's Bogarts harder to find?
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