…times have indeed changed: in a former time, social pressure and shame would have pushed most people in the direction of pre-marital abstinence. People would have lived out a Christianised ethic in their sex lives, but on the basis of conformity to social norms. And the dangers, especially for girls, of misbehaviour were very severe. Without reliable contraception or easy access to abortion, self-control was a necessary weapon against the terrible stigma of teen pregnancy or worse. Religious teaching of course played a part, but in a negative sense: reminding people of the terrible eternal consequences of misbehaviour rather than the possibility for grace and forgiveness.
Now social pressure runs the other way. 75% of people think pre-marital sex is fine. Religious groups are in decline. The public square is saturated with sexual images. It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don’t hurt anyone. It is ”˜part of a life’ – felt to be part of really living. Girls and boys are taught that to be a full person you need to express your sexual self, not exercise restraint.
This is where a theological account of human nature needs to come in. Whereas before, conformity to social norms made celibacy humanly possible, the new context makes it (for many people) humanly impossible. And this is where just telling people to try harder, or getting them to make pledges, or take cold showers, is bound to fail. Or it gives them false hope in their ability to master themselves. It trusts too much in the flesh over which we have in the end so little power – without the Spirit of God. If you are a youth leader wondering how on earth you can tell your young people to keep their hands off each other, well let us acknowledge the reality of the situation: it is impossible. It is impossible because of social convention, because consequentialist arguments don’t convince, and because human flesh is weak.
Sam Schulman’s [i]Same Sex Marriage isn’t Going to Work[/i] and [i]Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality[/i] by Dennis Prager, both originally cited here on TitusOneNine, speak to this problem. Where there is no cultural pressure to preserve one-man-one-woman-marriage, there is no reason to maintain celibacy (except, of course, if you believe God in the Scriptures!)
JPII’s Theology of the Body was an attempt to put the argument on an integrated (natural law) basis rather than a consequentialist one. In my judgment, it’s the only approach that work in linking “sexuality” with human dignity. It’d be nice if an evangelical youth ministry type has some awareness of it instead of resorting to the inarticulate, “I can’t explain how”.
There’s a good book out there, which is based on JPII’s treatise:
“God’s Plan for You: Life, Love, Marriage, and Sex (The Theology of the Body for Young People)” by David Hajduk
We had started reading and discussing that at the dinner table with our children. Something got us off course, we’ll have to pull it back out and finish. Not sure if they have “youth group resources” available, but it would make the foundation of a great youth group discussion series.
Just checked on Amazon, and while I don’t see “resources” for the Hajduk book, I did notice a similar title that does have a Leader’s Guide companion: “Theology of Body Teens” by Brian Butler; Jason and Crystalina Evert
Would I be off base if I said that a Christian understanding of our sexuality should be at least partly rooted in our teachings on the Incarnation? That before that sexual prohibitions were mostly based on the idea of keeping the Jewish people uncorrupted by other cultures’s sexual practices. A way to preserve their unique union with God and with each other? And to honor God’s gift in a way that celebrated life not denied it?
But after the Incarnation something else was added into these very valid reasons for sexual monogamy between husband and wife being the only legitimate expression of sexual relations. And that is that suddenly our bodies matter more than we ever before supposed.
That by taking on flesh, God elevated the workings of our body not only above the status of animal but above the status of man unredeemed and set apart from God. The rituals might have been sacred but man himself was still profane. The Incarnation set the workings of our body to the sacred. It restored what was intended from the beginning in our Creation. In sexuality this meant a reflection of God’s Trinitarian nature and our connection to Him through who we are not just by what we do. The Incarnation means that every abuse of our flesh is an insult to the Creator and sends a message of despair and hatred and indifference. In contrast to the hope, love and faith of Christianity.
[blockquote]It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don’t hurt anyone.[/blockquote]
I don’t know if the nihilists promoting this view have any valid statistics to show that it’s possible to avoid hurting people if one behaves this way.
Paula Loughlin’s comment is pertinent and I’m sympathetic to her position, but I wonder how it would translate to non-Christians. There are so very many people whose world view is other…