Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘sexual behavior’

The question was asked, “What is the difference between ‘modern sex education’ and ‘comprehensive sex education?'”  The answer: Both are education in sex.  Education in sex is quite different from God’s Word to instruct in purity and guard modesty.  So, perhaps, when we know a particular class is called “sex education” or “sexuality for boys and girls,” or a set of books is labeled “a sex education series,” or even “Christian Sex Education,” we ought to ask: What are the desired outcomes?

One of the desired outcomes of modern sex education is to help boys and girls become more comfortable with their bodies.  With their “sexuality.”  A well-known Christian author/teacher in the field of sex education once confronted me.  He said: I understand that you’re displeased with our church’s sex education.  In that particular time and place, I could only respond quickly with my concern about modesty.  “Yes, I am concerned.  Couldn’t we, at the very least, teach boys and girls separately so as not to break down their natural inhibitions and destroy protective boundaries?  Doesn’t God desire that we protect the innocence of children?”  His response?  He said he was pleased that his son, at age ten, knew more about sex than he did at that age.  I wondered aloud: “Is that a good thing?”

Modern sex education has, indeed, achieved a desired outcome.  Everywhere I look, I see young women who are comfortable with their bodies.  Their “sexuality.”  They are comfortably exposed at the Lord’s Table much to the discomfort of pastors offering the sacrament.  They are comfortably exposed at the mall, on the beach or at the pool, on dates, playing sports, at church youth events, or in Bible study.

Girls are, indeed, comfortable with their “sexuality.”  Christian girls shop at Victoria’s Secret or Abercrombie & Fitch just like non-Christian girls.  They purchase sensual dresses for prom or other social events, often to the delight of moms who gush pride in their “sexy” daughters.  Girls are not embarrassed by sexually-suggestive remarks.  They speak, text, and post sensual messages.  They are so “comfortable” with their bodies — their “sexuality” — that very little is left to the male imagination.

It’s difficult to mentor, guard, or practice modesty when sex education’s goal is to make classrooms of boys and girls together more comfortable with themselves.  When God speaks of modesty, isn’t He calling us to be “holy” as opposed to “sexy”?  Isn’t He calling us to dress and act in ways that call attention not to our glory, but His?  And, as with all things godly, isn’t there a reason for this?

Those who promote Christianized-sex education insist that their emphasis is on chastity.  They claim this is a far cry from secular instruction on how to use a condom or where to go for an abortion.  But, the innocence of children is stolen away by even the most passionate Christian who wants to come out of the Victorian closet of prudish inhibition.  There are many well-meaning Christians who, with the sincere hope of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and unwed pregnancy, support some form of sex education.  But, Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis explained to me that he views “modern sex education as child abuse because it is ill-planned and poorly thought out, thus adding to the very problem it is trying to address and eroding the structure of a healthy family.”

What does he mean?  Perhaps this.  So-called “sex education” before Alfred Kinsey was generally a discussion of human biology and procreation, hygiene, and marriage.  It was a discussion to be had in the home with the parent in the role of teacher.  Who would better guard the virtue of children?  Who would better explain “sex” (defined by a pre-sexual revolution dictionary as ones “maleness” or “femaleness”)?  Who would better assist a son or daughter in being patient until marriage and, thus, help build a structure for a healthy family?  But, after Alfred Kinsey, this life-shaping responsibility was transferred to school teachers and so-called “experts.”  Prior to the release of Kinsey’s research, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, no child development experts suggested that children were sexual from birth or that they benefited from childhood sexual activity (or, I’d like to add, from childhood sexual discussions between boys and girls in classrooms).  (Note: For documentation on this and more, I recommend you read Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, 2000)

In 1986 Planned Parenthood (PP) commissioned a poll to determine how “comprehensive” sex education affected behavior.  “Comprehensive” means placing emphasis on the practice of “safe sex.”  Much to the PP’s dismay, the study showed that children exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all.  (Planned Parenthood Poll, “American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control.”  Lou Harris and Associates, December 1986, p. 59, table 6-1.)

So, I wonder:

  • Do Christian children exposed to modern sex education (post-1960, teacher/expert, boy/girl classroom-style) have a higher rate of sexual awareness, sensual dress, and sexual inhibition than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Has sexual activity increased more among Christian young people who’ve been sexually-educated in the last three decades than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Do Christian young people who’ve been made more comfortable with their “sexuality” suffer from more sexually-transmitted diseases, depression following multiple bonding, unwed pregnancy, and post-abortion grief than those who’ve had no sex education at all?

I’m thinking that it just might not be a good thing — no, not a good thing at all — if my nine-year-old grandson knows more about sex than I did at his age.

Read Full Post »

Early in June, the White House spent two days addressing LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) topics.  The first-ever federal LGBT youth summit is one of Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jenning’s last acts before he leaves his position next month.

“How interesting,” notes Candi Cushman (CitizenLink, 6-7-11), “that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) chose this particular moment to release an important study that tells us a lot about what’s really safe for youth — that is, if one looks at the objective facts, rather than view them through a political filter.”

The CDC reports that gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth are at a greater risk for unhealthy and unsafe behaviors.  Students who identify themselves this way are significantly more likely than heterosexual students to engage in high-risk behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, actions that lead to violence, suicidal behavior, and sexual experimentation that can expose them to diseases.  [1]

Focus on the Family, CitizenLink, and others have been pointing to such well-documented facts for some time.  [2]

Why does the Obama administration seem to be ignoring those facts and, instead, recommending more homosexual advocacy for children in public schools?  Does this have anything to do with the influence of Kevin Jennings?  (Remember, he’s the one who founded GLSEN, one of the nation’s largest homosexual activist groups.)  The CDC, for example, wants to help establish more gay straight alliance clubs in schools.  Such alliances were founded by GLSEN.   GLSEN encourages students to lobby for gender-diversity materials in schools and events such as a “queer-friendly prom.”  [3]

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promoted GLSEN as a national model for schools, reports Cushman in CitizenLink.  Sebelius said that “we know” the risky behaviors warned about in the study actually “are a result of the discrimination.”  A CDC review of its own study cited “stigma, discrimination, family disapproval and social rejection.”  Cushman notes a problem.  “It’s a mystery how they [the CDC] reached those conclusions — because the study itself does not address or measure the causes of risky behavior.”

Children should be protected from harm.  Parents are the ones entrusted by God to do that.  Cushman also notes that “fact-based studies should not be allowed to be twisted into furthering a political agenda at the expense of our  nation’s children.”

Parents need to be aware.  They need to work closely with teachers who really want to teach students not one-sided messages from sexual advocacy groups, but math, science, English, and history.  Parents who present factual medical and health information to teachers and administrators need to be heard and respected.

Parents need to be heard because they — not the school and not the government — are ultimately responsible for their sons and daughters.

[1] news release
[2] truetolerance.org
[3] to reduce health risks

Read Full Post »

Years ago, legal scholar Phillip Johnson said that the entire cultural war is being fought over the issue of sex.  Chuck Colson puts it this way: “Sexual liberty has become the ultimate virtue in American life.”

Here we are, approaching “Silent Night,” and a lame-duck Congress recklessly repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  President Obama calls the repeal a matter of “basic equality”.  I grow weary of the “equality” mantra.  This repeal is the re-defining of morality.  It is a social experiment that will carry a high price for the U.S. military and the nation it defends.  Colson writes, “It is the ultimate victory of political correctness over the protection of human life.”

Human life is always at risk when we fall to idolatry — people rejecting God’s order and worshiping what is created rather than the Creator.

The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is, as Colson notes, “[A]nother tragic case in which ignoring the Biblical worldview leads to irrational, unsustainable decisions.”

God created humans to be male or female.  In marriage, God works through the union of man and woman to bring new life into the world.  A sexual union between two men, two women, or a man and a woman not married to each other is wrong.  Don’t agree?  Take it up with God.

What concerns me most about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

  1. “Outdated” policy. One senator noted a “generational transition” taking place on the issue of openly gay and lesbian people serving in the military.  Really?  Has the human body somehow transitioned to naturally support homosexual behavior?  Have the enlightened ones “progressed” beyond the facts of biology and anatomy?  I wonder: what other things are “outdated”?  Lessons from history?  Words of the Founding Fathers?  Wisdom from parents and grandparents?  The Word of God?
  2. A battlefield without Gospel. LCMS President Rev. Matthew Harrison writes, “We are all sinners in need of repentance and forgiveness.  For 2000 years, the church has welcomed sinners, but refused to affirm sin.  The saving grace of Jesus Christ and His Gospel are for all people (2 Cor. 5:19), and the only thing that separates us from this forgiveness is a lack of repentance or sorrow over our sin . . . [Will] military chaplains striving to carry out their responsibilities for preaching, counseling, and consoling find themselves under the strain of having to question whether to obey God or man (Acts 5:29)?

“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.’  He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision” (Psalm 2:1-4).

In heaven, God mocks those who have the audacity to circumvent His laws and plans as Creator.  On earth, we will have to live with the consequences of human arrogance.

This hasty repeal creates a mess.  How will commanders discipline cohabitation issues?  How will combat troops be educated to change attitudes and opinons on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) issues?  What punishment will be set up for soldiers or chaplains who, for moral and religious reasons, resist new policy?  The list goes on.

In the midst of a mess, wrong seems to prevail.  But, tonight I sleep because God’s Word is not outdated.   His morality cannot be re-defined.  I will sing “Silent night, holy night” and know that Jesus is Lord.

Read Full Post »

When did God say, “Educate children in sex”?  I challenge you to find this passage in Scripture.  While you’re looking, you will find an opposing thought.  Parents are to train their children in purity.  The theme of purity is woven throughout Old Testament and New.

When our sons were in elementary school, I purchased a series of “sex education” books from a Christian publisher.  Something about them troubled me, so I put them on the shelf.  I found a better substitute — chivalry and more about biology than “sexuality”.  Of course, there was no substitute for the Bible.  I was amazed to see how much God had to say about training in purity.  I began to contrast God’s Word with “sex ed” textbooks and resources.  The teachings were world’s apart.

The question for me was this: Which worldview was best for children?  Some years later, speaking nationwide to teens and their parents, I realized why I had been uncomfortable with Christian-wrapped “sex ed” material.   Jesus does not wrap Himself around worldly ideas.

“Sex education” is not a Biblical teaching.  It is the idea of Alfred Kinsey who coined the phrase “children are sexual from birth.”  Too late, his criminal and fradulous research was exposed.  Opinions had been shaped — in education, media, and even courts of law.  If we define ourselves as “sexual” (with “needs” to be met), or “sexy” (“it’s our right”), then that’s how we’ll live.  Our Creator God defines us differently (Genesis 1:27):

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The first man and woman were made in God’s perfect image.  God defines Himself as “Holy.”  Therefore, God called the bearers of His image not to a “sexy” life, but to a holy life.  We all fell from perfection when sin corrupted God’s perfect image-bearers, but His original design for male and female did not change.  We are called and equipped by God to be holy (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).  Unlike animals, we are not captive to our sexual desires.  Our bodies (knitted together by God) and our lives (held in His arms) are not our own.  They were “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).  That price is the blood of Jesus Christ.  In Jesus, we are forgiven and set free to pursue what is good, right, and holy.

God created male and female, not to bring glory to themselves, but to Him.  We do this best when we realize that God does not define us as “sexy” or instruct us to call attention to ourselves; rather, He defines us as “holy” people who help our neighbors see God.

God’s Word says,

Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.  Rather, train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.  The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.  To this end we toil and strive . . .

This passage from 1 Timothy 4: 7-10a tells me that Jesus can’t be wrapped around unholy and “silly myths.”  It is impossible for Truth to wrap Himself around foolish and destructive philosophy and practice.  Certainly, as the passage above notes, we have to “toil and strive” because disconnecting ourselves from worldly influence is extremely difficult.  It threatens to sap the energy right out of the most persistent Christian.  Still, every father, mother, grandparent, pastor, teacher, and mentor is obligated by God’s Word to train children in purity.  To do otherwise is to remove the protective boundaries of modesty and send vulnerable children to wolves — big and bold or dressed in sheep’s clothing.

Jesus doesn’t wrap around modern sex education.  He can’t.  He is the Word of purity, modesty and humility.  For this reason, His Word tells elder brothers that they have the responsibility to guard the purity of their younger sisters (Song of Solomon 8:8-9).  If the little sister is a wall (virtuous), they are to help protect her chastity.  If she has fallen into sin and is like a door (swaying open to promiscuity and harmful choices), then they are to do what they can to rescue her, call her to repentance, and put a stop to her sinful behavior.

Jesus contrasts the world.  He is Light; the world is dark.  He is Truth; the world is myth and changing opinion.  Jesus, the Word, tells us: Do “not stir up or awaken love until it pleases” (Song of Solomon 3:5b).  We must not disregard the order that pleases God.  It is His design — for the good of all — that love be stirred, awakened, and fulfilled only in marriage between one man and one woman.

So, I challenge you to answer one question: Which practice is compatible with Jesus?

  1. Boys and girls brought together in a classroom, not to study anatomy, but to “ease inhibitions” and “comfortably” discuss all manner of “sexuality” (with timid caution to wait until marriage… following graduation, college, and establishment of career); or,
  2. Boys and girls taught separately to honor God’s created order and equal, but different sexes (two genders); mentored in Biblical manhood and womanhood; equipped for the battle with temptation; and age-appropriately helped to understand God’s design for procreation between one man and one woman in marriage.

Jesus is Truth.  Truth cannot wrap Himself around unholy and “silly myths.”  To protect children from wolves (big and bold or dressed as sheep), Jesus guards walls of virtue.  He rescues the hurt and repentant after doors have swung open.  He tells me to do the same.

This is the love of Him who holds young ones in such high esteem.

(Looking for a resource?  You may order “The Failure of Sex Education,” a little book I wrote for Christian parents, from www.lutheransforlife.org )

Read Full Post »