Raising Purity

Miss Average Student’s View of Propriety

November 30, 2009 // No Comments »

This book originated out of my desire to arrive at a biblical, objective definition of sexual purity—a sexual purity of both body and heart. And though there is much more to purity than how we behave, our behavior is a tangible expression of our inward devotion. And what I’ve found is that many young people today lack clarity about what is appropriate regarding sexual boundaries between “dating” couples. Toward this end, I include in the book a mock (yet I think, realistic) conversation between myself and “Miss Average Student,” a conservative sixteen-year old in the local evangelical youth group.

Gerald: So I hear you have a new boyfriend.

Student: Yeah, Tom and I have been going out now for three weeks.

Gerald: Really? How’s that been going for you?

Student: It’s been going great. We have so much in common. I can already tell that we’re really going to hit it off.

Gerald: Well, I certainly hope so. Do you mind if I ask you something a little personal?

Student: Umm . . . I guess you can.

Gerald: I was just wondering what your physical relationship is like. I mean, does Tom kiss you?

Student: I . . . err . . . I don’t know.

Gerald: You don’t know, or you don’t want to say?

Student: I don’t want to say.

Gerald: Why don’t you want to say? Is there something wrong with kissing?

Student: There’s nothing wrong with kissing. I mean, there could be something wrong with kissing if two people were, like, really kissing. But if you’re just kissing, it’s not that big of a deal.

Gerald: How do you know that really kissing is bad and “just kissing” is fine?

Student: Well, you have to be careful, because if you get carried away, you can start doing things you shouldn’t.

Gerald: But how do you know what kinds of things you shouldn’t do?

Student: (pauses) I guess I’m not totally sure. I mean, I know you shouldn’t have sex . . .

Gerald: Well, I’ll mention some other things, and you tell me if you think they’re okay or not. How about holding hands?

Student: That’s fine.

Gerald: How about a good-night kiss?

Student: Fine.

Gerald: A prolonged good-night kiss, but not a French kiss.

Student: That’s fine.

Gerald: How about a lot of kissing, say fifteen minutes worth, but still no French kissing?

Student: I guess that’s okay.

Gerald: How about French kissing?

Student: Maybe, but that’s it.

Gerald: Why?

Student: I just wouldn’t feel comfortable doing anything more than that.

Gerald: So do you determine what is right based on what you feel comfortable with?

Student: Well, I guess so. Each person has to pray about it and come to his or her own standard of how far is too far. For myself, I just wouldn’t want to do any more than that.

Gerald: What if you had a friend who felt comfortable with French kissing and caressing. As long as she felt comfortable, would that be okay?

Student: Well, the guy she’s with might not feel comfortable. Maybe that would be too tempting for him and would make him want to do more than he should.

Gerald: What do you mean by “more than he should”? How do we know how far is too far for him?

Student: He needs to know that for himself, I guess.

Gerald: Okay then. Let’s say that both the guy and the girl feel comfortable with heavy French kissing and caressing. Is it okay, since they both feel comfortable with what they’re doing?

Student: (pauses) Well, I don’t think that would be right . . .

Gerald: Neither do I, but how would you convince them that they are doing something inappropriate?

Student: I guess I’m not really sure.

Miss Average Student, despite her sincerity, does not realize that the Bible restricts all sexual activity to the marriage relationship, not just sexual intercourse.  If you’re a parent or a pastor, and you couldn’t have done much better, may I recommend a book?

Categories:
From the Book, How Far is Too Far?, Sexual Purity

What Constitutes Sexual Relations? or How Far Is too Far? Part 3

November 23, 2009 // 1 Comment »

I’ve had a number of thoughtful responses on the Straight Up blog to my posts on sexual purity, a few of which question my interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:2. So I want to touch on this in a bit more detail. Ultimately, I believe my interpretation of this passage is correct, but in the end, my conclusion is not dependent on it. My interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:2 supports my conclusion, rather than serves as the basis for my conclusion. So leaving aside this contested verse, here’s another run at my basic point. See if my logic makes sense…

First, sexual relations are to be reserved for the marriage relationship. Second, there’s more to sexual relations than sexual intercourse. Third, any activity that is sexual in nature should be reserved for the marriage relationship. I think most of us agree up to this point.

But now a question looms… How do we determine if an activity is sexual, or merely physical? Identifying the sexual nature of certain activities is pretty easy. Oral sex, mutual masturbation, fondling, etc., are all clearly sexual activities. But what about kissing?

Logically, the easiest way to determine the sexual nature of an activity is to consider it against the backdrop of the family relationship. If I would refrain from doing a certain activity with a biological relative because it would be sexually inappropriate, then that activity is of a sexual nature and should be reserved for the marriage relationship.

But one reader responded, “With all due respect, in regards to the concept of ‘familial treatment,’ would you suggest I stop holding the hand of my girlfriend, or that I instead become OK with the thought of holding hands with my sister?”

An understandable question, but one that misses the point. The intent of viewing an activity against the backdrop of the biological family is not simply to ask “What activities do I avoid doing with my biological relatives?” but rather “What activities do I avoid doing with my biological relatives because those activities are sexual?” I’ve seen a father hold hands with his young daughter, and an older brother hold hands with his younger sister. This may not be common as we move into the adult world, but there is nothing sexual about holding hands. If holding hands was a sexual activity, we would not permit it between biological relatives at any stage in life. But if we saw a father giving his daughter a prolonged open-mouth kiss, we’d be calling DCFS. And we should. Some activities are physical/affectionate (holding hands, hugging, kissing on the cheek, a quick peck on the lips, etc.), while other activities are sexual and would be deemed completely inappropriate between blood relatives.

So reducing my logic to it’s simplest form, I assert the following…

1. Sexual relations should be reserved for marriage.
2. Sexual relations include more than sexual intercourse.
3. Some forms of kissing (e.g., open mouth, prolonged, French) move beyond affection and are sexual in nature.

thus I conclude,

4. Sexual forms of kissing should be reserved for marriage.

If you disagree with my conclusion (point 4) , I welcome your thoughts on where my logic breaks down in points 1-3.

Of course, it’s hard to make a such counter-culture point in a few short posts. The first chapter of my book lays out a theology of human sexuality, drawing on Christ’s relationship with the Church, which helps to provide a theological backdrop against which to understand this standard of sexual purity. And chapter two provides more extensive argumentation than I’ve provided here. If you’re interested, you can download for free the first first two chapters.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Categories:
About the Book, How Far is Too Far?, Sexual Purity

How Far is too Far? or What Constitutes Sexual Relations?: Part 2

November 16, 2009 // No Comments »

So how far is too far when it comes to sexual activity between unmarried men and women? In this post, I discussed how sexual propriety between unmarried men and women must conform to a familial standard of purity. Simply put, sexual activity (of any kind) must be reserved for the marriage relationship (1 Corinthians 7:7-9). We can know if an activity is sexual by considering that action within the context of the family relationship (see 1 Timothy 5:2). In other words, if I would not engage in a certain activity with my sister because it would be deemed sexually inappropriate to do so, then that activity is of a sexual nature and to be reserved for the marriage relationship.

In Raising Purity, I examine the above sexual ethic against the backdrop of the first-century Greco-Roman culture. As is argued below, the New Testament authors are working within, and affirming, a culturally accepted sexual ethic regarding sexual relations between unmarried men and women. Failure to consider this wider context often causes many Christians to redefine purity in a way that would have been foreign to the biblical authors. Two aspects of the ancient culture are particularly noteworthy here. Continuing from the book…

First, unlike our present day understanding of sex (which tends to be strictly limited to sexual intercourse), the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman concept of sex was more holistic. A man and woman who repeatedly initiated and then suddenly cut short their sexual relations prior to consummation (as is common in Christian dating relationships today) would have been unusual in Paul’s day. Either one abstained from sexual relations altogether, or carried them out to their full consummation. Thus in the ancient culture the sexual relationship does not appear to have been broken down into a series of distinguishable steps (e.g., kissing, caressing, intercourse), with only the final stage—intercourse—qualifying as “sex.” Intercourse was viewed as the consummation of sex, not the sum total of sex. Thus when the biblical authors warned against sexual immorality, they were understood to be warning against all extra-marital sexual activity.

Secondly, in both the ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman context, the ability of a respectable young woman to find a suitable marriage partner was, in no small part, contingent upon her father’s ability to prove her chastity. Consequently, a father took great pains to protect the moral integrity of his daughter’s reputation until the day of her marriage. Respectable young women did not leave the house unescorted, and the practice of cloistering (i.e., where a young woman was kept in the home and secluded away from any male non-relatives) was often employed. Needless to say, our contemporary dating practices were completely foreign to the first-century context. Respectable young women did not spend time alone with males who were not part of the household, nor did they engage in even light sexual activity prior to marriage. In fact, respectable, unmarried women in the ancient world were, in many respects, not easily afforded the opportunity to engage in sexual misconduct. (This explains why the commands in the Bible regarding sexual purity are almost all directed toward men, who, unlike young women, would have had more social license to visit prostitutes or take a mistress—practices that were so standard for the culture of that day that even the Christian men at Corinth routinely engaged in such behavior.)

Consequently, in Paul’s day, premarital sexual activity that intentionally stopped short of sexual intercourse was not common. Either men and respectable women abstained from it altogether, or a man engaged in it fully with a prostitute or mistress. Given this historical and cultural framework, we can understand why the biblical authors did not feel a need to spell out “how far is too far?” It was already understood, even within the wider secular culture; any sexual activity outside the marriage relationship was off limits.

We must not redefine purity in a way that would have been foreign to the biblical authors. In the first-century context, the concept of purity automatically meant treating members of the opposite sex as family. The New Testament assumes and affirms this standard of sexual purity.

Categories:
From the Book, How Far is Too Far?

How Far is Too Far? or What Constitutes Sexual Relations?

November 4, 2009 // 2 Comments »

One of the pressing questions facing parents and pastors (particularly youth pastors, college pastors and sinlges pastors) is the age old question of sexual propriety—specifically, “How far is too far?” In other words, what activities are appropriate for an unmarried man and woman to engage in? I’ve become convinced we parents and pastors have been far too vague in the direction we’ve provided in this matter. We tell sixteen-year old boys to refrain from sexual intercourse, but beyond that it’s pretty much “pray about it and set your own sexual boundaries.” Not a good plan. We give our opinions (keep it above the neck), but we don’t have any hard and fast boundaries—no “thus says the Lord.”

As a former youth pastor I had to tackle this topic for my students and came away convinced there were some things that needed to be said on this issue that were not being said. The resulting reflection formed the heart of my book Raising Purity: Helping Parents Understand the Bible’s Perspective on Sex, Dating, and Relationships. A big part of what I was trying to do in the book was to find a biblically based, objective standard of sexual conduct, binding for all unmarried people in all circumstances (a tall order, to be sure!). Below is an excerpt from the book where I tackle this question. I’m interested in your thoughts…

“Nearly all devout Christians who take the Bible seriously will agree that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage. But it is precisely at this point we often fail to think carefully about the full implications of this biblical mandate. Too often we limit our understanding of sexual relations to include only sexual intercourse. But is such a narrow understanding of sexual relations legitimate? One is reminded here of a past president who staunchly asserted, “I did not have sexual relations with that women.” Of course what he really meant was that he did not engage in sexual intercourse. But how many of us (his wife not least) were satisfied with this truncated definition of sexual relations? Clearly sexual relations extend beyond sexual intercourse. Oral sex, fondling, and mutual masturbation, for example, are all sexual activities. Once we embrace the biblical truth that sexual relations must be reserved for marriage, the age old question, “How far is too far?” is easily answered. If an activity is sexual, it is to be abstained from while in the Neighbor Relationship.

But how are we to determine if an activity is sexual? Achieving such clarity is not as difficult as one might think. In 1 Timothy 5:2 Paul clearly details what constitutes sexual activity, tying together the familial treatment of the opposite sex with absolute purity. In this often over-looked and highly relevant verse he writes, “Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”

Most helpfully, Paul here links together the familial treatment of the opposite sex with sexual purity. In the context of this passage Paul is exhorting Timothy—a young pastor—as to how he should interact with the women of his church (i.e., his neighbors). Paul’s primary concern at this point is Timothy’s sexual conduct, as is seen by his use of the phrase “absolute purity.” Notably, Paul instructs Timothy to interact with the women of his church in a way that parallels his relationship with his biological family. Of course Paul is not asking Timothy to treat the women of his church in every circumstance as though each were his literal mother or sister (think of all the Mother’s Day cards!). Nor is he asking Timothy to think or feel about every woman in exactly the same way. Rather, what Paul has in mind is Timothy’s conduct toward the women in his life. If Timothy is committed to living a life of “absolute purity,” his interaction with the women in his church must be carried out within a familial framework of purity.

This is immeasurably helpful in clearing up nearly all of the confusion surrounding the question, “How far is too far?” We need only examine a specific activity from within the framework of the nuclear family to determine its appropriateness. If a man would not feel comfortable engaging in a particular action with his sister because doing so would seem sexually inappropriate, then that action is clearly of a sexual nature and to be reserved for the Marriage Relationship.

That we often fail to identify certain activities (such as passionate kissing) as sexual is seen in how many Christians frequently use the term “physical relationship” to describe such activities. The use of the term “physical” implicitly suggests the couple’s actions are something other than sexual. But passionate kissing is not merely physical—it is sexual. Unlike a hug or holding hands, passionate kissing is certainly not an activity a brother and sister would engage in. When we understand that “physical” activity is really “sexual” activity, the question “How far is too far?” really becomes, “Which sexual activities can I engage in apart from marriage?” The answer is none of them. Sexual activity is to be reserved for marriage.

Again, simply stated, if an activity is sexual, it is to be reserved for the marriage relationship. How can I know if an activity is sexual? If I wouldn’t do it with a biological relative, then I shouldn’t be doing it with anyone other than my spouse. In sum, the standard of purity for the Neighbor relationship is identical to the standard of purity for the Family Relationship: no sexual activity of any kind is permissible.”

So what do you think? What are the ways you’ve answered this question for yourself and others? In my next post, I’ll discuss a little bit about the first century Greco-Roman context which forms the backdrop of this familial understanding of purity.

Categories:
From the Book, How Far is Too Far?, Sexual Purity