Christian Sex

I realize that this will make me very vulnerable, but this is my view of so-called Christian sex. I would love to hear people's opinions about Rob Asghar and mine own views, because I admit that I'm relatively young and have a lot to learn. However, in my young state, this is my view on Christian sex.

I recently came across an article from Huffington Post about "The trouble with Christian Sex." I found it quite amusing for sure, and I just had to write my commentary on it. I can't preface this fully, but you should know (as most of you do) that I grew up in a conservative, Christian home and despite the ignorantly-sounding post by this particular author (read for yourself), I don't choose my lifestyle because I think God will strike me with a bolt of lightning the first sin I commit.

Forget the fallacies authors such as Asghar commits such as attacking Christians opposed to arguing the points, but even the preface of the article was odd to me:

"Forget the tired notion that Christians are "against" sex. They're as wildly for it as anyone; that's what got Bristol into trouble. Christians simply have an idealized notion of sex and relationships, one that's increasingly divorced from the reality and the direction of the larger society."

Even at the end of this paragraph, he blames Christians for having an "idealized notion of sex and relationships" which is "increasingly divorced from the reality and direction of larger society," which is like the 3rd grader saying, "You should run across the interstate - everyone else is doing it." He does proceed to admit that he's speaking "of mainstream and conservative Christians, who struggle more nervously than others," which is all Christians but liberal Christians (a minority relatively).

1. Its rules weren't intended for modern society.

This particular argument presents a philosophical interjection that is for another time as to whether or not the Bible is contextual to today's society, but he unwraps more on-topic discussion that I will leave that particular argument for a later date.

"God or Mother Nature installed sexual plumbing that slips noisily into gear around age 13 and keeps churning noisily for decades. Yet human society has developed in ways that increasingly delay marriage till 30-something. The body and mind are hardly silly to rebel."

Thanks for telling everyone that can read that puberty occurs in all of us - I forget that there could be unknowing 9-year olds reading this. However, to his point, it's true. We have been given sexual desires - whether we're sex-wild teenagers or homemade-clothes-wearing Christians, we all desire sex. However, what Rob does not realize is that God did give us the desire for sex, but used outside of God's plan, it is not utilized the best.

Christianity is so fearful of experimentation on the part of singles that it encourages passivity instead.

This is one of the most humorous parts of his excerpt in my opinion. Not only does Christianity not encourage passivity, but rather it encourages rejecting passivity. How many times has a preacher said, "If you're feel like you're wasting your time, keep wasting your time, don't do a thing about it." Also, Christianity is not fearful of experimentation; rather, it knows the repercussions of the alternatives in experimentation. It's like telling your child don't run across the street without looking both ways and your child responding "Dad, you're so fearful of experimentation." Not to sound naive here, I do realize that not all sex outside of marriage will result in a "car-hitting" relationship, but I think it's important to realize the more sexual partners (whether it's premarital or infidelity) leads to greater risk of detriment to the person: I'll unwrap this more later.

"Given that marriage is being delayed more than ever, it's little wonder that many quality people that I knew in church have moved into middle age solo, against their will and better judgment and deepest longings. And it's little wonder that some of those who married did so with people outside the church."

This presents yet another argument that many people fail to realize (or point out). Although the morals of Christianity present abstinence as the higher moral judgement, many people (even - maybe especially within Christianity) see that as a goal one must attain to gain favor with God. We can never do 100% what we think God wants us to do which burns people out and makes them worse off than where they were intially. Abstinence is not something that, in my opinion, is a rule that God commands as an order for Christians to not have fun. Again, sex is great. Sex is even great for Christians. However, sex out of the confinement of marriage will impose emotional and physical detachments towards future partners which dilutes the plans that God has for our lives (to be elaborated upon a later point).

2. It promises more than it can deliver.

It criticizes all premarital liaisons as dangerous or at least misguided, and it pooh-poohs any possibility of even some redeeming or meaningful engagement with another human being. And it sets the marital bed up as a far greater good. This leads to the common complaint of various married Christian friends, which is that married sex isn't what it was cracked up to be. Distress over the mundaneness of it all, anger at the lack of interest on the part of a spouse, and curiosity about what else may have been out there prior to marriage may not be terribly different from what anyone else feels. But Christians' sense of disappointment is more real and palpable.

Married sex, whether in Christian or secular circles can only be as good or interesting as the couple allows. What I mean is this: if there is hesitation, lack of interest, "mundaneness" of sex, can it necessarily be pointed to the abstinence of sex and the expectations that imposes? No. Humans crave love, a feeling for being needed, emotional stability, etc. So often, we humans run to the bars or to the guy giving you attention or the girl flirting with you to find that. If we're lucky, it leads to sex; however, when we find out that that person is not who we thought but rather only a temporary fix to our craving, we become unhappy and dejected. Lack of interest is not rooted in abstinence. Lack of interest is rooted in factors such as not the right person, selfishness on either end, unnecessary expectations and lack of commitment.

3. It encourages bad faith, not integrity or maturity.

In this section, he goes on to talk about Christians who claim to have this moral compass but does everything short of sex (however defined) out of a pledge of abstinence. I couldn't agree more with him. One thing that secularism has over Christianity is an ability to easily cast off hypocrisy. Although hypocrisy is in secularism, that is one argument that I cannot stand to defend, because frankly I cannot. We Christians are hypocritical to some degree and cannot claim otherwise. We can, however, know what we believe, live out those beliefs, and admit that we fail at times. To this point: I've gone to a private school my whole life ranging from sheltered elementary to legalistically-thinking to more-open-albeit-still-far-right schools. I have had so many friends that justify going 99 yards on a 100 yard field of sexual exploitations with the justification that crossing the line is the only thing that matters. We are missing the point! We are not to abstain from sex as a conduct of not crossing the line. Sex is not a tennis ball of physical attraction only but an onion with layers. Everything leading up to sex, sex itself, and any other classification of physical attachment is fun. There's no question about it. In fact, that's the argument that Rob can bring to the table. We can't deny that, but fun is not always the best in life (even though it is the most fun).

There is also the issue of premature marriage. Go back to the huge gap between puberty and marriage that arises due to social changes that extend adolescence longer than ever before. Combine this with Paul's admonitions that "it is better to marry than to burn," and far too many devout Christian singles end up getting married before they are emotionally mature. They want the sex now, and marriage is the only way they can get it in a way that they think God can bless. So they marry just after graduation from their Christian college, well before they know what they want in a relationship or can bring to it. This is bad faith, and it is thus small wonder that the divorce rate for Christians is roughly the same as for those who don't live by the Bible's demanding standards.

This is right on! I have met many healthy marriages right out of high school or college (in both Christian and secular camps) that are in fact healthy; however, many people just want to get beyond that stage of waiting and they want to have sex. If we can't have sex now because we're not supposed to, we'll get married and have sex. I'm not advocating sex before marriage, but I would say that there are many marriages in this world that include premarital sex that are far healthier than many that have waited until marriage to have sex. Sex is not the fulcrum of relationships! Wait, what? There's more to marriage than sex? You mean my wife won't have sex with me all the time, and she'll actually make me do some stuff around the house to help her? If I do it, then can we have sex? Sorry dudes, but that's how we think, and it leads to a lot of messy relationships. One thing that people cannot wrap their minds around is that healthy relationships breed great sex, not the opposite. Sex is a foundation of marriage, but it shouldn't be the preface to the marriage.

So how should we who abstain from sex view those who don't? Well, I'll give my own opinion for what it's worth. I don't look at people who have sexual relationships as necessarily bad people. No, they are just giving into the desires/temptations that they have inside them. Am I to say that I'm not tempted and don't give into temptations ever? That would be the most asinine thing I've said in awhile. So why should I point my finger at them? I do think that it is somewhat selfish for people to give a piece of themselves to people and not save themselves for their spouse. Again, I am a very selfish person, so I cannot point fingers as to being a better person. Should I only marry a girl who's never had sex or even more doesn't have kids because that's baggage? Although I see my abstinence, virginity or whatever you want to call it as a gift to my future wife, I'm not going to expect the same thing from her. I bring so many things to the table - good and bad - that I cannot complain about anything. Given, I'm not going to run out the door and marry the first girl I see. The only way I can put it with the girl I will marry no matter what her past is, if I know she's the girl for me:

I'd rather marry a girl with a pure heart and a crappy past than a girl with a crappy heart and a pure past.