There is a reason God’s Word speaks consistently and often about purity. It is the best way to protect children in a fallen and sinful world.
We must never fool ourselves by saying we are teaching purity in sex education. The two concepts don’t mix. Education in sex is what it says it is. Instruction in purity is quit different. God never tells parents to educate children about sex, but to raise their sons and daughters in purity. He equips parents to do this throughout all of Scripture.
You may think I’m quibbling with words. But, I’m not. Take the concepts for what they are. Trace them to their sources. Discover the original goal and intention of each. Then follow the trail of consequences.
We all need to do better in protecting our children. Many loving Christian parents, with their children’s best interests in mind, have inadvertently and most innocently placed their children in harm’s way. I don’t say that lightly. I don’t say that as a mom who did everything right by her children. But, we Christians can’t just point our fingers at non-Christians and say, “Look! They are bad! They let children do whatever they want!” We can’t just look at Planned Parenthood and say, “Shame on them! They are cruel! They wiggle their way into public classrooms to abuse our children!”
We Christian moms and dads must try to be honest. There is another kind of child abuse. It is done unintentionally by good parents. It is done without careful analysis, but for supposedly all the right reasons. Nevertheless, it is cruel. It is a form of child abuse. What would you call starting children in sex ed at an early age, adding more information with every year, putting boys and girls together for intimately graphic conversation and details on birth control, explaining that God wants the act of sex to be saved for marriage, but then telling sons and daughters to wait to marry until after getting their degree and settling into a good job?
We don’t have to unintentionally abuse children. We can intentionally protect them. And God tells us how.
He wants parents to teach His definition of love. In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, God tells what love is: “patient and kind,” and what it isn’t: “arrogant . . . rude, or insistent on its own way.”
Both fathers and mothers can teach sons and daughters to “have nothing to do with silly myths,” but instead “train for godliness.” (1 Timothy 4:7-10). We put scholars and athletes through intense training for a purpose. Similar training is also required for living in a way that pleases God; for running the “race” of life (1 Corinthians 9:24-26). Parents can contrast “sexual immorality” and “sensuality” with “patience” and “self-control” (Galatians 5:16-24).
Dads or godly mentors can take boys aside to teach them how to respect women. “Treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity” (1 Timothy 5:1-2). To practice self-control (Titus 2:6). Big brothers can guard the virginity of their younger sisters and, if she becomes promiscuous, help her stop (Song of Solomon 8:8-9).
Moms or godly mentors can take girls aside to teach them how to respect and help men. “. . . [L]et your adorning be . . . beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Peter 3:4-5). How to dress, and why… “with what is proper for women who profess godliness” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). How to “be self-controlled and pure” (Titus 2:4-5).
Then, even though the world may ridicule young people for saying “no” to sex, we can encourage them: Don’t let anyone “despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:11-12).
God also tells us how to welcome our children when they’ve tried, but failed. We are to welcome our children as He welcomes us. “Come to Me,” Jesus always says. Then, He assures us that when “we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
Tomorrow, in Christ, is brimming with hope.
Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »